Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I broadly welcome the measures in this Bill. I will deal in detail with the Personal Insolvency Bill and what I believe to be a missed opportunity to address its major shortcomings. I will also comment briefly on the other elements of the Bill, most of which I support in principle, although a few comments on them would be worthwhile.

On the proposed changes to the in camera rule, it is a sensitive balance that we have to get right between, on the one hand, the need for privacy in family matters and the protection of the identities of children, and, on the other hand, the need for public oversight of the workings of the courts system and the need to deal with any perceptions that might exist among the public or particular groups about a lack of transparency in the workings of the family courts or in the area of child care. From my own relatively limited experience I know that these are sensitive, difficult issues. A strong case can be made for public oversight, for the public to be able to see how the system works and to ensure there is consistency and fairness in the workings of the courts with regard to sensitive, difficult and complicated family matters or matters to do with the protection of children. Equally, there is a need to ensure privacy, and the protection of children must be upmost.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn made some valid points about journalists. Because it is a difficult balance, the Minister and all of us need to keep a watching brief on how this will work in practice to ensure there are not unwanted or unintended consequences. We cannot say in advance that it will work perfectly. We need to be careful because we know how the press works, which may be unhelpful at times in cases dealing with sensitive matters.

I broadly agree with these provisions on monetary limits and the extension of the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts. The provision for additional Supreme Court judges seems like a sensible move. Any measure to deal with delays and backlogs in that area or in the Court of Criminal Appeal is to be welcomed. I will include the caveat that I think there is a problem with the political appointment of Supreme Court judges. I do not quite know what is the answer to that problem.

Broadly, I would favour the election of judges to the Supreme Court. While I acknowledge there are problems with that, I believe, given all the various options for selecting Supreme Court judges, the public are the most trustworthy in these matters. That may be a question for another day and another discussion but we need to think about it. The provision for extra jurors on lengthy trials seems very sensible, as does providing legal advice for people involved in coroners’ inquests.

Having examined the amendments to the insolvency legislation, I believe they are mainly technical and concern errors in the initial drafting and the transfer of the official assignee in bankruptcy cases to the insolvency service to make the insolvency legislation compatible with the workings of the courts. If the Minister can make amendments to this most important Bill, the fact that he is not making more substantial ones will be regarded as a major missed opportunity, because this is one of the main unresolved crises facing considerable numbers of people. There are 140,000 people in mortgage distress, and more if one counts those in restructuring arrangements. In many cases, the restructuring arrangements are not tenable or sustainable in the longer term and people are already running into trouble with the arrangements because they are too onerous. If they are not, they will become unsustainable for many as their incomes are further attacked owing to the impact of austerity and cuts. It is imperative for the wider economy, and not just those directly affected, that this be addressed because of the undoubted damaging and dampening effect austerity is having on our ability to recover economically.

The Government is not facing up to this crisis. The measures included in the insolvency legislation are not sufficient because the banks still have the whip hand. A key problem with that legislation is that the banks have the right to say "No". In the last analysis, they can just say "No, we are not doing it." Since there is no hard legal protection for people's homes, the roofs over their heads, or the principal private residence, it is urged that people's homes be protected and that only as a last resort should they be repossessed. The Minister defended the legislation on that basis when we discussed it. How does he square this with letting the dogs of the banks off the leash when it comes to what is now their right to harass distressed mortgage holders at an unlimited level? I refer also to the major problems associated with the powers of the personal insolvency practitioners, when making restructuring arrangements, to look into people's personal finances in a very invasive and humiliating way. The Minister could have and should have specified what would constitute a reasonable proportion of income that one could contribute towards paying off one’s debts, and nothing more. That would prevent all the humiliation and invasiveness.

See this speech in context