John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The legislation obviously stems from the Start Mortgages High Court judgment a number of months ago. While that case is still under appeal, it identified a gap in the law that was adopted by the previous Dáil on land and conveyancing. That was major legislation, which attempted to codify and update several Acts dealing with property and the conveyancing of property. When debating it in the other House, I remember the then Minister speaking about the area of repossessions that this Bill seeks to rectify. It was the intention of the previous Government that the law as it stood in the area of repossessions would continue to remain on the Statute Book, which is why it is ironic to listen now to some from that same quarter say that they are opposed to what they introduced four or five years ago.

Along with filling that gap in the law, the Bill allows for certain measures to be taken in compliance with the Personal Insolvency Act, which we passed a few months ago. This would allow an intervention between the borrower and lender to try to ensure that the parties could enter some sort of arrangement under the personal insolvency arrangement if both are agreeable. That is a necessary provision given that the law on insolvency has changed since the original legislation in 2009.

I take this opportunity to raise a number of reasonable suggestions made by the Free Legal Advice Centres. I suspect I was not the only Deputy to receive their e-mail because any e-mail that starts with "Dear Deputy" - of which I have received many hundreds in recent days - tends to be one that might have gone to other people as well. In this context they suggested that the Government consider including certain provisions in the legislation.

The Bill as published proposes a two-month adjournment to allow people to explore the personal insolvency arrangement and they suggest it is too short and should be from four to six months. I believe that two months, or eight weeks, is too brief. The Minister should consider extending that eight-week period to at least double that length. This should certainly apply in the case of people in jeopardy of losing their family home, of whom Members on all sides will have met many in recent years. The same should also apply to people with investment properties who may be in a position to enter an arrangement with their bank. That two-month period should be extended further, perhaps later in the legislation.

They also, rather reasonably, suggest an amendment in the case of repossessing a family home to ensure the lender has fully complied with all steps of the Central Bank's code of conduct in that area. Perhaps the Minister might be able to include such an amendment on Committee Stage.

They also suggest that the level of legal and financial support offered to borrowers in distress is not sufficient. I am sure many Members of this House have provided information to borrowers who are in trouble. The Free Legal Advice Centres have suggested that more support for MABS and the legal aid board is required in order to deal with the glut of people in difficulty at present. I do not believe that is particularly cumbersome and perhaps the Minister could include it on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context