Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Six years ago, Deputy Michael McGrath introduced the Debt Settlement and Mortgage Resolution Office Bill 2011 because a significant number of people had found themselves in very serious mortgage arrears. Unfortunately, six years later, this problem has not gone away. As Deputy McGrath pointed out, 76,000 holders of mortgages on family homes are in significant mortgage arrears. It is apparent that the problem has not been solved in the past six years because the Government has not attempted, let alone introduced, a radical solution.

In 2011, the then Government did not oppose Deputy Michael McGrath's Bill. On the contrary, it commended him on the legislation and allowed it to pass Second Stage. The body of the Bill included a proposal similar to the proposal in the Fianna Fáil Bill before us. It featured a section dealing with the establishment of a mortgage resolution office and a further section dealing with the conditions for a mortgage resolution order. Unfortunately, the substance of the Bill introduced six years ago must be reintroduced because there has not been a solution in the meantime.

The reason I raise this issue is that I understand one argument the Government will make is that the Bill before us is unconstitutional. If, as the Government claims, the Bill is unconstitutional, why was that point not made six years ago when the former Minister for Justice and Equality, Mr. Shatter, commended Deputy McGrath on his legislation and allowed it to proceed beyond Second Stage.

The Constitution does not preclude the State from interfering in the property rights of individuals. I have no doubt the Government will make an argument that this Bill could constitute an interference in the property rights of banks. What that argument fails to recognise, however, is that the Constitution recognises that actions can be taken by the State to interfere with private property in circumstances where the common good requires it. If ever there was an example of the common good requiring radical intervention, this is it. When one considers the number of families who are stuck in mortgages and that Personal Insolvency Act introduced by the previous Government has had no real impact on the lives and problems of these individuals and families, one must note that radical surgery is required.

I will give an example of how the State previously intervened and interfered in the property rights of individuals. Subordinated bondholders were burned by the State because of legislation introduced in 2010. There is, therefore, nothing to preclude the State from seeking to interfere in and diminish the property rights of individuals and corporations, provided this is done proportionately. The Bill drafted by Deputy McGrath and introduced by my party provides this balance.

It must be recognised that we are nearly eight years into this crisis and the Governments in power for the past six or seven years have not yet provided a solution to the problem. Radical surgery is required and this Bill contains a radical proposal, which I urge all Members to support.

See this speech in context