Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)

I welcome the Bill, which represents a constructive effort by the Fianna Fáil Party to attack a problem that is very current and immediate. On this matter it is fair to say it is ahead of the curve and a long way ahead of the interdepartmental group on mortgage arrears which has been fiddling around with this problem while people have got into a great deal of difficulty in recent months and has only now come up with an À la carte list of solutions.

The principle that there should be no debt forgiveness is fairly laudable, but it is only laudable when one thinks about who should be forgiven. The phrase "debt forgiveness" is pejorative of the borrower but not of the lender. The balance in the Bill, which I welcome, has been shifted - perhaps not far enough - away from the prejudice that exists in the Department, the Government and the establishment towards the lender. It is a worldwide prejudice that the lender must always be paid back the full amount. That is the starting point and anything after that is a forgiveness of the borrower. In the particular case of mortgages, which are addressed in the Bill, there is on the one hand, a reckless borrower who made a mistake and, on the other hand, a bank or a building society which made several mistakes and which made reckless lending for a living. To redress that imbalance, establishing an office as provided for in the Bill is a welcome development and one that should have been done many years ago.

The Bill proposes to set up an office and if it is possible to get the agreement of creditors representing 60% of the value, the agreement will be imposed, which is certainly an advance. However, it still gives too much weight to the interest of the banker. In any case where bankers have lent recklessly why should creditors representing 60% of the net value of the cumulative loan be able to decide whether the lender is paid back? In other words 41% of them could decide to veto an arrangement. Despite the good ideas it contains, the Bill can be improved. In the case of personal debt where a verdict is handed down on a case-by-case basis, it should be mandatory for the banks and borrowers to adhere to that verdict.

It is imperative that the Bill should include a definition of independence. It should include an arrangement whereby there is proven independence for this body so it is not, as the interdepartmental group was, infiltrated by the bankers.

See this speech in context