Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, to delete lines 6 to 17 and substitute the following:

“(2) In any proceedings brought by a mortgagee seeking an order for possession of land to which the mortgage relates in a case to which this section applies, and where no previous engagement with a personal insolvency practitioner has taken place the court, shall:
(a) adjourn proceedings for a period of at least six months;
(b) instruct the mortgagor to consult with a personal insolvency practitioner with a view to the making of a proposal for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement;
(c) instruct the personal insolvency practitioner to make a proposal for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement under the Act of 2012; and
(d) instruct the mortgagee to cover the initial costs of the personal insolvency practitioner from its own resources, including any costs arising from consulting with the personal insolvency practitioner with a view to making an application for a personal insolvency agreement and any costs resulting for the mortgagee rejecting a proposal from the personal insolvency practitioner.”.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are in my name.

The purpose of the amendments is to replace the current wording and extend the adjournment period from two months to six months. The amendment would oblige the borrower or holder of the mortgage to engage the services of a personal insolvency practitioner to develop a proposal to be put to the lender. The section, as it stands, imposes a burden of financial responsibility on the borrower who will already be in financial distress. The amendment provides that the lender must take responsibility for trying to solve the difficulty.

The concern that arises in this regard is that while the Minister has given leave to the courts to suggest an adjournment, the onus would be on the borrower who is in financial distress to produce a proposal within two months. This timeframe would result in borrowers acting under duress and in a panicked manner and possibly agreeing to arrangements that are not in their interests. For this reason, the timeframe should be extended to six months and the onus of responsibility placed on the lender rather than borrower.