Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of section 2 is to provide that the court may adjourn proceedings to allow personal insolvency arrangements to be considered where none had been attempted. It is not intended to deal with the outcomes of repossession hearings, which is an entirely different issue. Amendment No. 11 refers to situations where there are tenancy agreements in place and seeks to invest the court with the power to require mortgagees to abide by the terms of the tenancy agreement. Where rents are being paid, the mortgagee may opt to appoint a receiver of rents rather than seek repossession. This may be viable in certain cases. Where, however, the mortgagee wishes to sell the property, the mortgagee is under an obligation to obtain the best price reasonably attainable, which would normally require vacant possession of the property.

Amendment No. 11 would therefore work to the disadvantage of the borrower and impede operation of the terms of the mortgage contract between the borrower and the mortgagee. For that reason I cannot accept amendment No. 11.

Amendment No. 12 seeks to instruct the court in relation to the orders it may make in reaching its judgement on a repossession action. I think it is important to point out that the court has a general power to stay proceedings, and on a regular basis the courts stay orders for possession for a period of time to enable people to reorder their lives, obtain alternative accommodation or, as happens on occasion, allow children to sit examinations. I do not think it necessary to legislate on this issue as proposed in the amendment and therefore I will not be accepting it.

With regard to amendment No. 13, I believe if we were to go this route, we would encourage strategic default and compound our current difficulties. This would create even more serious difficulties for both financial institutions and the State. I cannot accept the amendment for that reason.

Amendment No. 14 seems to indicate that the Oireachtas should legislate to provide that the cost of the repossession should be paid by the mortgagee. Again I cannot agree that such a provision should be enshrined in primary legislation and cannot accept the amendment.