This is a massive body of work. It is complex and it is hard to know where to start.

It will be significant. If it works out well for the people and the State, no doubt it will be a considerable boost for Ireland. A few years ago we could not have imagined that the problem with debt in the country could be so bad. There probably has not been anything like it in the history of the State. Central Bank Governor, Patrick Honohan stated: "

As always in debates like this, there will be much repetition and, obviously, I will make points others have made too. People have asked me, because of my business over the years, whether it is a good time to buy an apartment or a house. I have always been of the view that we probably will not hit the bottom of the market until we deal with the significant problem of negative equity and the considerable personal debt problem that is so prevalent.

Starting with the debt relief notices, I note that MABS, which definitely has its finger on the pulse and knows what is going on in this country, states that it would only facilitate a maximum of 15% of its present clients. Seemingly, MABS deals with 30,000 cases a year. It seems that the majority of those looking at it are of the view that it would be a positive move to increase the threshold to €30,000 from €20,000.

The debt settlement arrangements and the personal insolvency arrangements are a significant improvement on what there was because what there was has really not been of any service. This is a step in the right direction. I would be wary that it looks a little bureaucratic and i

Like most Members, I am worried about the veto given to the banking system. I have looked at what the Europeans have done in this regard and I do not see any other country where the lender has quite as much power as we are giving to our banking institutions. I have had too much experience of dealing with banks in the past five years to even start talking about it here. However, I am not the only one who is afraid they might not behave in as ethical and fair a manner as we might like. To be fair, I would not say every bank or every bank branch behaves poorly because they do not all behave the same. I have been treated fairly by some banks and I feel I have been treated unfairly by others. However, I would prefer if they did not have this veto over the debt settlement and personal insolvency arrangements.

The reduction of the bankruptcy term from 12 years to three years is a positive development, although Members might say "He would think that, wouldn't he?", given that I might be declared bankrupt one of these days. The term is one year in America and Britain and some have advocated that the same would apply here also. I do not agree and I believe the Government has got it right with the three-year term. The creditor needs to be protected too. If I had €10,000 in my pocket and someone wanted a loan of that, I would like to get that money back, so there must be protection for the creditor. The period of three years is about right and to set it at one year would have been to go too far.

The change in the term of bankruptcy from 12 years to three will also be a boost to entrepreneurship, which is very important if we want to create employment. People have to be able to take risks. Of course, they get shot when the risk does not work out very well, but it is very difficult for people to create employment in this country without taking some risks. It is great when it works out, and it does work out much of the time, although not always. If a banking crisis arrives and cuts the value of sites tenfold and the value of property by at least 50%, it can be challenging.

On a personal level, I have had people from the Socialist Party and the People Before Profit Alliance lecturing me on business of late, telling me how I should be doing it and what I should have done or should not have done. It is difficult to take lectures from people who never employed anyone in their lives. Many of them never did a day's manual work. It has been a bit nauseating. I am too well aware of how challenging it is in business, although I am not going to start looking for sympathy. In any case, the period of three years is about right for bankruptcy and the change is a positive move for the State.

Speaking of bankruptcy, a very interesting statistic is that the average millionaire in America today has gone broke three times but, of the millionaires who have gone broke in a recession, only one in ten has ever gone broke again. Recessions are very educational, and people in business learn a lot from them.

Having read up on this issue before the Bill was published, I thought there might have been some change to the regulation of debt collection. I have had some negative experiences with sheriffs coming to look for their piece of meat. The present arrangement is not very good. For some strange reason, those we have encountered seem to be of a bullying nature, very aggressive and not afraid to kick the door in. They do not seem to behave in a very regulated fashion. Their biggest priority is getting their €470 call-out fee, and the person does not even get a receipt for that. The sheriff is prepared to negotiate on everything else, however, and it is a matter of trying to stop him from taking the equipment. A friend of mine was cutting a fellow's hair while the sheriff was looking for the seat he was sitting in, and he threatened to bring it out the door, only it would not fit. It is not right. I know of cases in which they have gone into farms in the middle of the night and taken stuff-----

I hope it was not Deputy Wallace's hair they took.

It was not. People should not be allowed to enter a farmer's property in the middle of the night and take machinery or anything else. That should not happen in a civilised society. Some serious thought should be put into the regulation of debt because things can be done in a much better fashion.

While I will not get to address all of the issues, I would like to draw attention to the case of Norway, which I found very interesting. Norway faced a debt crisis among private households in the early 1990s, mainly caused by rising unemployment and a fall in housing prices. Norway was and is a land of homeowners, with more than 80% of dwellings owner-occupied. In the most exposed areas, houses and apartments lost 50% to 80% of their value. This happened very quickly, particularly in the larger cities. At the beginning of the 1990s, it was roughly estimated that up to 100,000 households were having problems fulfilling their obligations and many of them feared losing their homes. Selling was not a way out because the prices that were attainable were far below the money lent to buy the houses and, of course, there were very few buyers. Many individuals and families lost their life savings almost overnight and many found themselves severely indebted as well. All of this arose from the fact that, in the late 1970s, the Norwegian Government had strict regulations on credit interest rates but the creditor regulations became less effective due to the availability of credit from foreign sources and the growing so-called grey market. In 1994, the Norwegian Government deregulated the credit markets, which caused a significant increase in bank lending. There were certain restrictions on financing but credit was requested by more and more consumers. The Norwegian Government also eased the regulations on owners of co-operative dwellings, the price of which increased along with the co-operative owners' buying power. This also led to a higher demand for owner-occupied dwellings. The Norwegian Government then lowered capital reserve requirements and decreased bank supervision. This was the beginning of the Norwegian house price bubble. It sounds so familiar due to the similarity to our own situation, and it is a pity we did not find out about it earlier. I should have studied the history of banking and the history of money, which goes back over 500 years and which I have been reading about over the past three years. I am sorry I did not understand it better before then. In Norway, if a house was bought for, say, €300,000, they valued it at current prices and if that was €150,000, they decided on a figure of €150,000 plus 10%, which is another €15,000, making a total of €165,000. For the next five years the person would have to pay the interest on it at whatever the rate at the time. If the person did not break his or her commitment to pay the interest on a monthly basis for the five years, that €165,000 minus what the person had paid in interest over that five years, became their new mortgage.

Hear, hear.

It was a great system.

Before we get out of the hole we are in we will have to engage in some form of debt write-down. I know it is difficult. The main argument put forward on many occasions is the moral hazard argument but as many others have stated, far be it for the banks to talk about moral hazard given the way they have behaved.

In general, if the structure the Minister is putting in place could be a little more flexible and more attractive for people it will be a positive move and will produce greater results. This is a huge item of work, and I acknowledge it is far from easy for the Minister. The Bill is a start. Obviously, the bank veto is very worrying but at least it is a start and I hope we can improve on it in time.