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

The Minister's response to the amendments is the fundamental difficulty in that he is putting forward legislation that closes a loophole and thus facilitates the repossession of homes. The environment for families who find themselves in that position is extremely difficult. On the issue of the two month period, the Minister said that under section 2, subsection (4) that period can be extended but people are working within a defined process. From the get-go they are told there is a likelihood that the court will adjourn for two months if this Bill goes through as it is. They are being told that they have two months to go to a personal insolvency practitioner to try to put together a proposition that the bank can accept. Of course, the bank has a veto on these matters and that is a failing in the personal insolvency legislation.

The framework, in my view and my party's view, favours the bank, that is, the lender. The responsibility and onus is put almost entirely on the borrower to put together a proposal within a defined timeframe of two months. I cannot understand why the Minister cannot extend that and indeed, Deputy Donnelly has explained better than I have why the timeframe should be extended. The borrower will have to go back to court to get that timeframe extended. Why is the Minister putting that additional stress on the borrower unnecessarily, when he could just agree to extend the period to six months? The Minister should extend the period to six months and put the onus of responsibility onto the bank to secure the services of the personal insolvency practitioner. Why? The simple answer is the cost. This is the difficulty with the personal insolvency legislation as it is framed and the environment at the moment. The financial burden will be on the person who is already in financial distress and we have no definite clarification on whether, when it comes to a final settlement - assuming there is an agreement - the lender will have to share the burden of the costs.

The Minister is closing down a loophole. None of us likes loopholes but the difficulty is that when the Minister closes down the loophole and opens up the potential for banks to seek repossessions, the environment for those who are in financial distress is not solid. The onus of responsibility is more heavily placed on the person in financial distress than on the banks that are chasing him or her down. The bigger issue, of course, is the banks themselves. Where is the overall sharing of responsibility? We know how this crisis came about. It was caused by the recklessness of the banking sector and the failure of economists and politicians who facilitated an environment in which money was lent recklessly to people whose debts became unsustainable. Where is the sharing of responsibility between the financial institutions, along with the so-called experts who allowed that to happen, and the regular five eighths who now find themselves in financial distress? That is the fundamental difficulty and everything the Minister has said in response to our amendments points to the difficulties and the concerns we have more than anything else.