Claims by Finance Minister Michael Noonan that a Fianna Fáil bill caused a 10% drop in bank share prices were described as “nonsense” at an Oireachtas committee this morning, writes Daniel McConnell of the Irish Examiner.
Mr Noonan made his comments after the bill, which seeks to help people with their mortgage repayments, was published.
However, Opposition TDs rounded on Mr Noonan, but he insisted that he stood over his comments.
Fianna Fáil’s Michael McGrath said a Permanent TSB report at the time made no mention of the bill in its risk assessment and he said Mr Noonan’s comments make no sense and are nonsense.
The minister also locked horns with Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy.
At the committee, Mr Noonan raised serious concerns over the Fianna Fáil bill.
For the first time ever, the Oireachtas finance committee engaged in scrutiny of an Opposition bill in a hearing which heard from Mr Noonan.
Mr McGrath’s bill has already passed second stage in the Dáil, but Mr Noonan insisted the Government has a number of strong concerns with the bill.
Mr McGrath said banks in Ireland are being allowed by the Central Bank to charge up to 5% to customers to borrow money when they themselves are accessing the money at close to 0% rates.
Primarily, Mr Noonan argued the bill gives powers to Central Bank that it doesn’t want and he also suggested parts of the bill may be unconstitutional.
The minister said that he understood that the intention behind this Bill is to help people with their mortgage repayments.
However, in the second stage debate, the Government outlined a number of significant concerns it had with the Bill as proposed, he added.
These concerns remain and it is considered that it would be of benefit to the legislative process if the Committee would consider these, the minister added.
“Real constitutional issues will need to be considered as this Bill is further progressed by the Oireachtas. As it is drafted, the Bill will clearly impact on the existing property rights of some creditors,” Mr Noonan said.
Likewise, there are concerns about the process and decision-making procedures set out in the Bill and whether they provide for “fair procedures” and a “fair appeals” process to any affected parties, he added.
“One of the points I raised was the requirement, under the EU framework, to consult the European Central Bank on the content of the Bill. However, it is unfortunate that neither this Committee nor the House has yet had the benefit of that ECB opinion before it further considers this Bill,” he told Committee members.
Such an opinion, when it is to hand, will obviously be a very important contribution to the “pre-legislative scrutiny” work that members of this Committee are now undertaking.
Also, depending on the content of the ECB opinion, the Bill’s proposer may wish to consider if amendments are required to the Bill as it currently stands.
Despite the concerns, Mr Noonan said he and his department are happy to work with the committee further to progress the Bill.
