Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Deputy Michael McGrath and thank him for his work on this legislation.

It is obviously an enormous social issue. There are in excess of 70,000 cases affected by it, more than 30,000 of which for more than two years. Deputy Michael McGrath has identified well that, as well as repossessions, there is a significant issue of borrowers voluntarily surrendering their home with all the heartbreak, stress and hardship that causes. There have been examples in the constituency we share and I am sure the Deputy will be as aware of them as am I.

It is clear from all three submissions, not only from the Deputy but from the Irish Mortgage Holders Association and the Insolvency Service of Ireland, that the key issue here is the bank veto. Indeed, the Insolvency Service clearly states, significantly, for a statutory organisation, that it is very dissatisfied with the co-operation of creditors as well. That is the key issue. It is something that Sinn Féin has been saying for some time. We introduced legislation on it in 2013 and it is positive to see it dealt with here as well. My questions come not only from an area of broad support for the Bill but perhaps a desire to strengthen it as well. I have a number of quick questions and observations.

The first is in on section 4, which provides that the Minister would have the ability to make regulations on the prescribed level of disposable income etc. The Insolvency Service has already prescribed levels on such matters as disposable income. In allowing proposed new different ones to be set by the Minister, is it possible that the Minister of the day could use that power to reduce the scope of this legislation to offer flexibility and assistance to borrowers? Is there something Deputy McGrath might see wrong with the Insolvency Service's income levels that needs to be addressed? Is that an area that perhaps could be strengthened?

Deputy Jack Chambers raised the issue of ideas put forward by the Insolvency Service. As far as I can gather, that comes from the service's belief that establishing a new office would take some time and perhaps it might be better to look at two particular areas to try to resolve this. The first is that it would become compulsory for the creditor to provide clarity on the manner in which it wishes its debts to be dealt with. The second is that, in terms of the court review process, creditors would be restricted to only those arguments they raised during the protective certificate period. If it is possible, Deputy Michael McGrath might comment on that.

Section 12 is all about the process that allows the bank to object to the continuing participation of a family in an order but it seems potentially open-ended. It seems as though a bank could use this process to draw it out if it did not want to co-operate with the mortgage resolution order. Is that something on which a deadline should be put? Should that be tightened up to ensure that banks could not use it vexatiously?

Finally, a category of borrower that has not diminished much in recent years is that of those who are in arrears over 720 days. Does this Bill deal adequately with them? Is there enough scope in it to assist those who perhaps are in the greatest need of assistance?

As I stated, my party supported the Bill through Second Stage and looks forward to supporting it through Committee Stage, but if it is possible, I ask Deputy Michael McGrath to comment on those issues with the Bill.