Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak. To follow on from the previous speaker, whatever about the actions of the past, including those of Fianna Fáil or any other political party, the actions of the present are far more worrying. The previous speaker is correct that there is serious distress for mortgage holders. All of us have a duty of care and a responsibility to put politics aside and not to take advantage of the distress, fear, emotion, the highly charged atmosphere and the hatred towards the banks, and not to ride on that bandwagon. We have to be more responsible in what we do and say. Whatever about the legacy of its past, and let the judgments of history be formed later, I appeal to Fianna Fáil to be more responsible. I charge Fianna Fáil with being irresponsible in many of the statements it has issued that take advantage of that fear factor. It might help it in the polls but, by God, going on the basis of what the previous speaker has said, it will certainly harm an awful lot of people.

I want to take the opportunity to reassure people, in the first instance, that no bank can repossess their home. That is a myth. No bank, no financial institution or no Government has the power to take a person's home. Only the courts can take a person's home. While the banks can take a home with the consent of the homeowner, they cannot do it without the authority of the courts. It is a matter of regret to see the scaremongering tactics being employed by Fianna Fáil on this worrying issue. It is important that people realise that only the courts can repossess a home, not a bank.

Fianna Fáil is constantly making the argument that the Government is not doing enough for mortgage holders. It fails to recognise the measures that the Government has put in place or acknowledge the steps that have been taken to assist people affected by this crisis, such as the Personal Insolvency Act, the Insolvency Service of Ireland, the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill, the Central Bank targets required by lenders to create sustainable solutions, the revised code of conduct, the mortgage to rent scheme and the mortgage advisory service, which had 110,000 hits on its website in the past 12 months.

Some commentators, ably supported by opportunistic politicians, are trying to lead people down the fear route into believing the revised code of conduct somehow allows lenders to start legal proceedings after three months - in fact, this was a glaring headline in one of the newspapers. This is not the case. The earliest a bank can begin legal proceeding is three months after negotiations fail between the bank and the borrower, and a minimum of eight months has to have passed after the account went into arrears. These are the facts people need to be aware of. There are no provisions in the revised code that will enable banks to fast-track repossessions.

Fianna Fáil has further tried to imply that the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill will lead to mass repossessions across the land. This, of course, is not the case. In fact, the purpose of this Bill is to correct a legal uncertainty that arose as a result of a High Court ruling on legislation brought in by Fianna Fáil in 2009.

It certainly was not the party's intention when publishing that Bill that this particular legal glitch would prevent repossessions in the future.

There are a certain number of properties that should be repossessed, including some of the 30,000 buy-to-let properties where the mortgage holder has been in arrears for more than 90 days. These are the unsustainable loans that the banks will move to repossess, not family homes. Claims to the contrary are nothing but opportunistic populism by Fianna Fáil. That party has been calling for some time for an independent mortgage resolution office to deal with the arrears problem. This is yet another example of opportunistic populism and a totally unrealistic, unviable and potentially toxic notion. Members opposite are not living in the real world and are instead spouting fanciful and fantastical economic theories. It simply is not realistic to propose that an independent body should decide whether a bank gets paid all, some or none of its outstanding loans to distressed borrowers. The notion that a financial institution would be expected to lend money to potential borrowers in a situation where that institution is denied any say in how the money is recovered should the loan become impaired is absolutely farcical and would undermine the entire financial system.

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, and his colleagues in government have gone to great effort to put in place the new personal insolvency regime which will ensure, for the most part, that homeowners can remain in their homes. A range of measures were put in place to absolve people from household debts of up to €20,000 and investment choices of up to €3 million. It is a fact that the agreement of 65% of creditors will be required to approve a debt resolution plan. I ask Members opposite, however, to put themselves in the shoes of a bank manager who is owed, say, €100,000 by a client. Would they consider it fair and reasonable that a third party, independent of the process, should decide how much, if any, they would be repaid? If this proposal were to be implemented, would any bank ever again be interested in lending to anyone in this country?

See this speech in context