Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)

——but I am not moving house. I urge the Minister to deal with the issue as it links back into repossessions, one's ability to pay debt, helping families and the pressure on mortgage interest supplement. We should consider what people can afford to pay on their mortgage. One should not have to pay more than 35% of one's net income on a mortgage. The Government will have to take the lead and force the banks to do that. We are familiar with the term, postponing the inevitable. We must consider the alternative to that which is bringing forward the inevitable. That is what we need to do in many of these cases so as to prevent some of the problems that are arising in terms of the overloading of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, mortgage interest supplement payments and the courts.

I made another suggestion on repossessions to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which was to take all family home repossession cases out of the High Court. The Minister told me he does not think that is possible, but it should be possible to introduce legislation to restrict all repossession of family homes to the Circuit Court. As a solicitor I have dealt with business repossessions in the Circuit Court and it does not strike me as very nice if Start Mortgages is able to bring repossession cases for average homes into the High Court when people do not have the resources. The attendant costs of High Court cases are much higher and that adds to the ultimate debt. I congratulate the High Court and the Courts Service, which is much more efficient than most Circuit Courts. There would be an in-built delay in the process if such cases are taken in the Circuit Court.

On the issue of civil debt and prison sentences, I have been involved in a case where I tried to get someone sent to prison for not paying a civil debt. It was a family law situation where the father of a child refused to pay maintenance. He was sent to prison as a last resort. We did not want that but the man was working and he was completely failing in his obligations. There is room in some limited circumstances, where people can afford it, for them to go to prison for non-payment of debts. I cannot see how anyone would be sent to prison if they are genuinely making an effort to pay back debt. I have not come across it. Imprisonment was more than justified in the case to which I referred. In the same court I have seen a person let off their entire debt because the judge felt they should never have been given a loan in the first place. Judges can be flexible in their own courts but perhaps legislation is required to give them more flexibility.

I referred a constituent to MABS early last summer and he is back to me again having obtained a car loan for €15,000. There is something wrong with the system as some people have far too easy access to credit. In spite of all the difficulties and the lack of credit people are still getting credit they should never have got it. Perhaps that is not the case in 2009 but it was certainly happening as late as summer 2008. Judges will have to take into account whether some people should ever have got loans from banks. If the banks were found to be at fault then in some cases they should not be able to get the money back.

See this speech in context