Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Right, they are about emphasis and the opening paragraph, which states the court can consider anything it deems appropriate covers everything. Therefore, I presume the reason that paragraphs (a) to (e) have been included is for emphasis to back it up. Consequently, this is all a question of legal emphasis. I am not a lawyer but I presume that is the reason these provisions were included, even if everything is covered. I appreciate the Minister will not accept amendment No. 4 but I ask him to think again about where he wishes to place the emphasis. The Minister has chosen to place the emphasis in areas outlined in paragraphs (a) to (e). The reason I specifically highlighted the issue outlined in amendment No. 4, as opposed to a wide variety of other matters one could emphasise, was because of the scale of the problem. For example, one in three buy-to-let mortgages is now either in arrears or has been restructured, so-called, but actually has simply been put on the never-never. This figure is growing exponentially and is a huge problem. This is not a marginal issue as it now affects one in three such mortgages and at the current rate, it will affect one in two soon enough, probably by the end of the year. I can forward details on this exponential growth to the Minister if he wishes, as it is absolutely terrifying. Therefore, the reason I have emphasised this issue is that I believe it affects many people who, apart from this one thing they deeply regret, namely, buying a house, apartment or whatever it was, otherwise are solvent and are fine. I believe the banks will take the house from such people because the banks will act rationally and it is rational for them to make good on their security. I ask the Minister to consider this issue, as the reason I have included it is because it is a huge problem. Were the banks to act entirely according to their own self-interest, which it is rational for them to do, one could see many people in a very tricky position. Consequently, before Report Stage, I ask the Minister to consider including a provision that emphasised this point for the courts as well. This is the reason it was put forward.

On amendment No. 5, I am satisfied the points I raised in proposing paragraphs (f) and (h) on adherence to the code of conduct and on whether an appeal was initiated and the bank ran a reasonable appeal process, respectively, are provided for as per the Minister's answer.

A lawyer could point those two aspects to a judge. The one I would also like emphasis on is the proposed paragraph (g). It refers to "evidence that the mortgagee has refused to accept a reasonable proposal to restructure the debt, such that the family home would not be repossessed". That is something everyone in the committee room has debated at length, which is the banks have veto on the PIA and therefore they are well within their legal rights to repossess homes where it is in neither the interest of the family nor the State but it is in the bank’s short-term interest. It is my belief rightly or wrongly – I hope wrongly – that some of the banks are going to take houses off people they should not, and they are going to turn down restructuring proposals from PIPs that they should not, that are not in the interest of the State nor families. Therefore, while the proposed paragraphs (f) and (h) are fine, what is important is to have that emphasis for the lawyers to point out to the judge that before the bank sought repossession it went through a PIA and the PIP tried to put a reasonable proposal together but the bank is being unreasonable in not accepting it, while the bank’s position is that it does not care because it has a veto and there is equity in the property and it is taking it. I urge the Minister to consider that point very carefully. I believe it should also receive emphasis in the subsections in section 3(2).