Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

The issue of the review period of the operation of the Bill, of ten years, was raised. It was reasonable for Deputies to make the points they made in this regard. In the context of the complexity of the legislation, the new non-judicial debt relief arrangements proposed and the novelty of the personal insolvency arrangement, which does not apply in other jurisdictions, it is reasonable to review this legislation within a period of less than ten years. Within three to four years of the legislation being in place, it will be necessary to review it.

I specifically refer to points made by some Members that I have not addressed in my general comments. I made reference to Deputy Stephen Donnelly's speech, where he detailed his support for the Bill but raised a number of issues he hoped we will address. I responded to that in the general comments made. Deputy Michael McGrath read out a letter sent by a financial institution to a constituent. I share his concerns about the nature of the correspondence. During the course of the debate, other Members referred to correspondence sent by banks. In circumstances in which individuals are in two or three months of mortgage repayment arrears, it is not appropriate that the first communication from a bank is a letter that threatens to repossess the house. The current bank guidelines do not anticipate banks conducting themselves in this way and there must be more constructive engagement than that initially. Individuals in difficulty with repayments of the loans should not wait for the bank to contact them; they should contact the bank to see if difficulties can be addressed. There are substantial numbers of individuals not making capital and interest repayments on mortgages where they are in genuine financial difficulties and banks have entered into temporary arrangements. The worst case is where the payments cease and the customer does not engage directly with the financial institution. It is important that the initial engagement by the bank is more constructive than an immediate threat to repossess.

See this speech in context