David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for tabling these amendments and for their initial contributions on the first three amendments. I am afraid I cannot accept any of these amendments and I wish to give reasons.

Amendment No. 4 proposes to insert a new subsection (2B) into section 67 of the Valuation Act 2001. The proposal appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of that Act and the function of section 67. The 2001 Act revised the law relating to the valuation of property for rating purposes. It contains detailed provisions for the rating system, including appeals to the Valuation Tribunal. Some properties are designated as non-rateable under Schedule 4 to the Act, including domestic premises. However, section 67 allows the Commissioner of Valuation to issue a certificate of rateable valuation in respect of non-rateable property in certain cases in which it is necessary to demonstrate the rateable valuation of a property to benefit from a statutory entitlement or right.

For example, one of the grounds on which eligibility to purchase the ground rent of a domestic premises can be established is where that rent is lower than the ratable valuation. For this purpose, a section 67 certificate can be obtained from the Commissioner of Valuation. It would be entirely inappropriate, therefore, to insert text along the lines of that contained in amendment No. 4, which deals with court repossession proceedings, into section 67 of the Valuation Act 2001. In any event, the content of the amendment cuts across provisions in the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013, which was specifically targeted at repossession proceedings involving principal private residences. Section 2 of the 2013 Act already provides that in any repossession proceedings in respect of a borrower's principle private residence, the Circuit Court may adjourn proceedings so that a proposal for a personal insolvency arrangement, PIA, under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, may be fully explored as an alternative to repossession. The Act also provides for an initial adjournment period not exceeding two months with the possibility of further adjournments where the court considers that progress has been made on preparing a PIA. This is without prejudice to the court's discretionary powers in this regard.

The 2013 Act already establishes an important link between repossession proceedings and the insolvency provisions of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. In effect, this means that lending institutions cannot now proceed to the repossession stage without engaging with the borrower in good faith under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. The 2013 Act also already provides the courts with a very broad margin of flexibility and allows them to take full account of the circumstances of each individual borrower when considering an application for repossession. In short and as Deputy O'Callaghan also pointed out, inserting the proposed provision in the Valuation Act would be entirely inappropriate. Moreover, to the extent that it seeks to restrict the independence and marginal discretion of the courts, it is likely that it would be challenged on constitutional grounds.

While I appreciate Deputy Healy's genuine concerns, I cannot accept amendment No 5. We are all aware of the difficulties being faced by some of our citizens in respect of housing and homelessness. It is a priority concern of this Government and we are acting with urgency and determination. Some support measures are already in place while others are in the pipeline. In particular, I draw Deputies' attention to the new innovative mortgage arrears resolution service, Abhaile, which the Ministers for Justice and Equality and Social Protection launched recently. This new nationwide service marks a new departure by providing free, independent, expert advice and support on financial and legal issues. Deputy Mattie McGrath made reference to the service earlier.

See this speech in context