Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Jonathan O'Brien, Jim O'Callaghan and Clare Daly for their contributions. I also thank Deputy Wallace for his putting forward of today's Private Members' Bill, aimed at changing several aspects of the limitation of actions regime in this jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Government is opposing the Bill for the various reasons of policy stated, the Bill has, in its discussion, facilitated a greater consideration and reflection of the interaction between the Statute of Limitations and our policy responses to debt and insolvency. There is a shared ambition with Deputy Wallace to mitigate and reduce the pressures under which many people and families find themselves in addressing home mortgage debt and in personal debt resolution. There is undoubtedly a shadow of threatened enforcement proceedings which needs to be lifted from many people's lives. It should be of some reassurance, however, that Deputy Wallace's Bill has come up for discussion at a time when the extensive series of reforms and initiatives which have recently been put into operation by way of addressing personal debt issues have started to bear fruit. These are areas in which current Government policy, as expressed through our recently modernised insolvency and bankruptcy legislation, the Abhaile mortgage arrears resolutions service, the code of conduct for mortgage arrears, the Consumer Protections (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015, enhancement of the mortgage-to-rent scheme and other related Government initiatives, are already operating. In combination, we must press on with them by way of achieving the necessary critical mass for them to have the desired lasting impact. The underlying intention of the Government in the position it has taken today is solely to safeguard that progress, including by avoiding any unintended consequences in relation to limitation periods, while giving balanced protections to debtors as has been set out in my opening statement.

While it may be for another time, it has to be recognised that the overall operation of the law in relation to the Statute of Limitations is a matter for reform. I accept the points made in this regard by Deputies Clare Daly and Jim O'Callaghan. The Law Reform Commission has recognised this. I agree that we need to engage in a co-ordinated process of taking account of the findings and recommendations of the relevant Law Reform Commission report of 2011 if we are to subject our limitations framework to coherent modernisation and structural reform. As it stands, for example, the Statute of Limitations contains seven different limitation periods, the justification for some of which goes back to 17th century legislation. The Law Reform Commission recommendations would greatly simplify this around a smaller number of core limitation periods with an overall expiry date. We have got a real sense from our exchanges this evening of the fact that limitation periods can, in their application to real cases, cut both ways - in this case between debtors and creditors - and therefore need to be balanced in their relationship with other aspects of Government policy.

We should, therefore, continue to be guided by the objectives of the Law Reform Commission as set out in its 2011 report, namely, that "a balance is struck between the competing rights of the plaintiff and the defendant, as well as having regard to the public interest; in particular the right of the plaintiff of access to the courts and the right to litigate, the right of the defendant to a speedy trail and to fair procedures, as well as the public interest in the avoidance of delayed claims and the timely administration of justice."

See this speech in context