Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 159:

In page 94, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:"(5) Before making an order providing for the possession and/or repossession of a principal private residence, the court shall consider the nature and value of assets available to the debtor, the extent of his liabilities, and whether the debtor’s inability to meet his engagements could, having regard to those matters in the contents of the debtor’s statement of affairs filed with the court, the number and ages of the debtor’s dependants occupying the principle private residence, and any other matter the court considers appropriate to take into account, be more appropriately dealt with by means of a personal insolvency arrangement and where the court forms an opinion the court may adjourn the hearing of any application for repossession to allow the debtor an opportunity to enter into such of those arrangements as is specified by the court in adjourning the hearing.".

The intent is to stop the banks gaming the legislation by refusing to engage substantively in a PIA and then moving for repossession of a house. The Bill gives discretion to the judge in the case of a debtor applying for bankruptcy. The two amendments simply seek to allow to judge the same discretion when the bank moves to repossess. I am concerned and am hearing whispers that, in certain cases, the banks will refuse to engage with the debtors, apply their veto and seek to repossess their houses. An obvious case in which it is financially rational for the banks to do so is if there is positive equity in the house. This should be compared with an agreement whereby, instead of writing down the total mortgage to a serviceable amount, the banks would just say they are not interested in doing so and take the house. While a judge may be able to adjourn temporarily as the legislation stands, he cannot really apply discretion and tell the bank it is clearly gaming the system, that a very reasonable offer, backed up by the PIP, has been made, that it is not getting the house and that it should re-enter the arrangement.

Mine is a simple concept but it is genuinely very important, not because of what happens in the courts, I hope, but because of the negotiations around the table, such that a bank's representatives could not nod appropriately at negotiations and then exercise a veto to repossess a house. It is in this spirit that I ask the Minister to consider accepting my amendment.

See this speech in context