Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will pick up on a point the previous speaker, Deputy O'Callaghan, made about the number of people on whom this legislation, if passed, will have an impact. As he indicated, it will be a very small number. It is those with investment properties who are renting who will be affected. While nobody wants to see increased costs in cases of home repossessions - whether it is a family home, an investment property or a rent-to-buy property - the one element missing from the debate, perhaps not so much tonight but in general, is what happens to the individuals within those properties. We must be aware of that when looking at any legislation that, realistically, will facilitate the introduction of a process which will be cheaper for the person who is bringing a case - under the Bill, that will be somebody who owns an investment or a rent-to-buy property - but which will also make much quicker in the context of the repossession of the home in question. The latter could mean that a family which is renting the property from the landlord could also face a much quicker eviction. The burden will be greater, therefore, on that family, particularly if there are children involved.

While this legislation deals with one aspect of the matter on the basis of a Court of Appeal case, Permanent TSB v. Langan, we need to have a broader debate on how we are dealing with family home mortgages in arrears. Obviously, the place to do so, as the Minister of State - a former justice committee Chairman - will be aware, would be in the Committee on Justice and Equality.

As we consider this matter, it is clear that there are, at a minimum, three different Departments to which it relates. There is the Department of Justice and Equality, from a legal point of view, the Department of Finance, due to the financial aspects, and the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, for which the Minister, Deputy Coveney, is responsible. I do not know what kind of co-operation or discussions are taking place at Cabinet between the Ministers responsible for those three Departments in order to rectify the position. It has been made a priority in the programme for Government. One of the commitments in the programme for Government is that the issue of home repossessions will be dealt with. To date, however, concrete proposals in that regard have not been forthcoming.

Deputy O'Callaghan highlighted at least two items of legislation that would have afforded home owners protection. Both were brought forward by his party but neither secured the support of the previous Government. My colleague, Deputy Pearse Doherty brought forward the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform (Amendment) Bill in 2013, which would also have addressed some of the concerns that have arisen. If it had been passed, it would have levelled the playing field between banks and home owners by making the repossession of family homes a less attractive option for banks. It would have increased, from two months to six, the length of time the court can adjourn a case to allow for a personal insolvency process take place. It would also have empowered the courts to perform a reasonableness test on whether the banks had really exhausted every possible option or whether they had declined any proposal from a personal insolvency practitioner and complied with the code of conduct on mortgage arrears. Further, it would have ensured that before any repossession was ordered by a court, all of the grounds I have outlined were satisfied. There were, therefore, three items of legislation by means of which my party and Fianna Fáil tried to address this issue. In my opinion, these brought forward concrete proposals to try to examine at the entire area of home repossession in a holistic and constructive manner. Not one of the three Bills proceeded past Second Stage. I understand that is politics. It is in the nature of Government to rarely support Opposition Bills. If that is the case, the Government should at least bring forward its own proposals. We have not seen them yet.

The Government has tabled this Bill out of concern, as the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, said, that the Court of Appeal ruling has the potential to seriously disrupt the operation of the courts by requiring a range of property-related court proceedings to be taken in the High Court rather than the Circuit Court, thereby increasing court-related costs for the parties and delays in the determination of cases.

As the previous speaker and I have said, a much wider debate must happen here. If the Government is serious about implementing some of its proposals in the programme for Government, it could have taken the opportunity to address some of those concerns in this legislation. I realise that this Bill focuses on a particular court ruling. In the absence of any commitment on the part of the Government to address the other issues, however, it is difficult for us to support it. There will be an opportunity on Committee Stage to take on board some of the proposals contained in the Bills brought forward previously by Fianna Fáil and Deputy Pearse Doherty. The Minister should examine some aspects of those and consider whether they can be incorporated into this Bill. In my opinion and that of my party, there cannot be a situation where costs are reduced for those taking cases in respect of repossessions but where this has the knock-on effect of accelerating the process. If this legislation is passed, families in rent-to-buy properties could find themselves being forced to vacate the property quicker than they had anticipated had this legislation not been in place.

I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of widening the scope of the Bill on Committee Stage. It might not be the correct legislative measure in which to do it but, failing that, before Committee Stage the Minister must announce some concrete proposals for families who are struggling with mortgage payments, to show that the Government will address more than this court ruling. Many families see the slowness of the Government to address their concerns, yet a legislative measure can be drafted, introduced and passed in a short period in order to address some of the concerns of those who have invested in buy-to-let properties. Families see very little support and few options for them as owners of principal residences. We must send the correct message. When the Minister replies to the debate he should state that those concerns will be acknowledged, at least, by the Government. There should be a commitment that they will be addressed, if not in this legislation, then as quickly as possible.

See this speech in context