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

Yes, I was trying to decide where to intervene. Section 2(3)(d) refers to ”the conduct of the parties to the mortgage in any attempt to find a solution to the issue of dealing with arrears of payments due on foot of the mortgage”. Is that not very broad or vague? I presume from the Minister’s first contribution that he will not consider or accept any of the amendments. Why does he not accept amendments that add extra emphasis and specificity, to paraphrase Deputy Donnelly, to what the court should consider before reaching such a serious decision that would have a profound impact on a family?

The Minister argued that we misinterpreted the intent of the personal insolvency in section 2(3)(c). One could argue back and forth that the borrower under existing arrangements and legislation and working with a personal insolvency practitioner has to make a case to the bank and the bank has a veto. The question is whether people had a chance and if when the bank rejected the proposal if they went back to the drawing board to try again. That is the intent. One could formalise it by referring to appeals in law but a logical point is being made as to whether every reasonable effort has been made to examine the proposal from the personal insolvency practitioner and the borrower before one would make such a major decision. I would like to know why the Minister thinks 2(3)(d) is adequate and that there should not be more specific guidelines for a judge before he or she would make the decision.