I do not believe the Minister is serious in that, or believes it. We have the Internet, global communications and the information superhighway so the building societies can afford a few extra stamps. They could communicate with their joint shareholders and mortgagees as effectively as they would with the first named on the account. Let us put them to the test and see if they would be so brave as to take it on as an act of solidarity and equality. As he spoke those words, the Minister must have had his tongue in his cheek because I do not believe he believes that type of convoluted logic and patronising throw back to a bygone time holds any water.
Deputy Enright called for an Ombudsman for the building societies. In the instances he quoted, he made a convincing case. It is clear that more families deal with the building societies and a significant proportion of family income is expended on paying the mortgage and protecting the roof over the family household. In those circumstances, we have to monitor carefully all the building societies do. There have been instances which have been carefully selected and presented to us tonight by Deputy Enright concerning the practices of individual building societies in individual cases about which everyone in this House would raise an eyebrow. A good case was made by the Deputy.
That remit must go beyond the building societies because the greatest rip-off, if such a phrase may be used in the House, concerns those paying HFA mortgages to local authorities. There is a huge and significant disparity between the rate of interest charged to mortgagees of the local authority Housing Finance Agency accounts and those available in the commercial sector. Many people do not know that and could be paying 8.5 per cent or more.
I saw a case this week with interest rates of 8.5 per cent while under 6 per cent is available in the commercial sector. Because of the structure of the Housing Finance Agency loans, money was borrowed expensively and repaid expensively and is being carried by the poorest sector. By definition, to get the Housing Finance Agency loan, one had to be rejected by the commercial sector. For the privilege of being too poor to get a commercial loan, one is expected to repay a greater rate than those who are wealthier and in receipt of a commercial loan.
It is possible to remortgage, pay off the Housing Finance Agency loan and obtain a commercial loan instead. Most local authorities are very facilitating in this regard and I encouraged it during my time as Minister. Many people are unaware of this, and perhaps the Minister should respond to the point by issuing a circular requiring each local authority which grants loans to advise its mortgagees that a lower commercial rate is probably available to them and to advise them how to go about obtaining it. I hope it can be done without great cost. It should be examined.
If competition in the mortgage business is important to the Minister, a start should be made in the area for which he has direct responsibility. The Housing Finance Agency and local authorities are directly under his remit and they charge the highest rate of interest with no significant competition. It is something to which I would dearly love the Minister to respond, and perhaps he may do that through another Government speaker saying such a circular will be issued.
The Minister said the Bill was unamendable. No Bill is such if the principle of amendment is accepted. For example, an amendment could be tabled to delete all words after "Building Society (Amendment) Bill, 1998" and to insert new sections. The last Bill with which I dealt which was deemed unamendable was the Electoral Act. When I introduced it to the House, the spokes-person for the Progressive Democrats, lamentably no longer a Member of the House, described it as being so bad as to be unamendable. His Fianna Fáil counterpart said most of it would be repealed as soon as Fianna Fáil came into office. While they did so sooner than I expected, the Bill was enacted in full and not one line was deleted, repealed or amended by the new Government, which ironically comprised the two parties, one of which said it would repeal much of it and the other which found it unamendable. Therefore, I am not impressed by such language.
The Minister should re-examine the issue and he has some time to do so. It is an extremely important issue although the argument could be made that it does not impact on a significant number of people. I do not know if Deputy Browne has had the chance to conduct an audit, but he would be surprised to hear of the number of people disadvantaged by the current legislation. I am sure it is a considerable number, many of whom are probably unaware they are disadvantaged. It is our job to identify that and to do right by them. I invite the Minister to think again.
The Bill deals with one aspect of building societies but I also want to draw to the Minister's attention a document which I know is in his Department and which was discussed by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. It is entitled "Affordable Accommodation — A Trade Union Issue and a Human Right" which was published jointly by the trade unions, CPSU and SIPTU. It contains an analysis of affordable accommodation and is an extraordinarily good document which is not only worth reading but largely worthy of implementation. In terms of building societies, there are two specific recommendations which might be taken on board if this Bill were enacted. They could be examined as amendments to the Bill.
The action plan of recommendations, contained at the conclusion of the report, can be adopted to address one of the gravest social problems facing people in this tiger economy concerned about having a roof over their heads. The figures are stark and bleak. We can talk of booming societies but any society which tolerates a local authority waiting list of 45,800 and which, according to Threshold, has up to 6,000 homeless people living on its streets is not a healthy one. The recommendations for tackling this need to be taken seriously and to be acted upon. It is not good enough to examine one aspect, as the Bacon report did, and to then say enough has been done. Clearly that is not the case. Houses and their purchase are now beyond the ability of a huge number of people in society who always expected to be in a position to buy them because they earned good wages, but who cannot now enter the market due to the cost of a basic home, especially in cities. The Minister should examine the recommendations as they pertain to building societies, specifically two.
Recommendation No. 19 examines the role of building societies and other financial institutions in the provision of soft loans to housing trusts, co-ops or voluntary agencies. Recommendation No. 22, which is extremely important, calls for a code of practice to be drawn up to protect people who have purchased houses at current inflated prices and who subsequently experience difficulties in making repayments. In such situations, the option of lengthening the duration of the mortgage should be an alternative to repossession. That is something which must be examined. If the financial circumstances of people who are put to the pin of their collar to pay a large mortgage change and they can no longer carry that extraordinarily demanding burden, there must be another option available to them than repossession. It is the norm in other societies. I recommend this document highly to the Minister and I know it is in his Department. I do not seek to trespass the issue of affordable accommodation into the debate but it is the most critical social issue we face. The Government has not faced up to it and I expect it to be mindful of the need of so many in society.
The Bill requires equality in the conduct of building societies in the issues of shares, voting rights and communication to shareholders. I listened carefully to every word spoken by the Minister in his presentation and have reread his speech since. There is no justification for not accepting this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. I plead with the Minister to accept the case put forward. It is an unanswerable case for equality and any difficulties in the text can be dealt with on Committee Stage. I urge the Minister to change his view and ensure the next Government speaker reverses the outdated, outmoded and anti-equality line taken by the Minister.