Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me the opportunity to raise this important issue. It relates to a friend of a constituent who, along with the partner and family, borrowed money during the boom times. It was not wise borrowing. The Ceann Comhairle or I would not have approved or authorised it but many things happened during the boom that we would not have authorised. In any event, the family suffered a number of bereavements, which substantially altered the ability to repay and serious issues were arising. A partial solution was found in 2018 where part of the properties were sold to liquidate some of the debt and, as the Ceann Comhairle and I know, the worst possible solution is a partial solution; it has to be all or nothing. We now have a situation whereby the current lender proposes to secure the rest of the property and make the person homeless.

I intervened some weeks ago explaining the reason I wanted a delay in the process until some dialogue could be entered into and an arrangement agreed within the capabilities of the borrower to meet and for the bank to accept. Very little followed from that until, in the past week or so, the remaining borrower received notice to the effect that it looked as if the intention was to seek liquidation or receivership. I corresponded once again on 18 November to the effect that I was anxious to obtain an urgent response in order to engage with some entity which could speak with authority. I did not receive a reply until I sent a further letter and email in the past 24 hours to state that I proposed to raise the case in the House at the earliest opportunity, that I had already raised it in the finance committee and had invoked the Central Bank to respond and get involved in dealing with that kind of situation in a way that gives some recognition to the plight of the borrower when she is doing her best or cannot do any better than she is doing. To be fair, I then received a response from the solicitor acting for the companies who said there was no longer any need to raise it in the House because they recognised there was a possibility of some discussion taking place but that they would not defer further action because they only received my letter on the day after they had authorised the legal action. That is immaterial because the client can always instruct her legal representatives to go ahead or stop as the case may be.

I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in the House. I believe that it is possible to make a meaningful contribution provided that the lending institution involved is prepared to recognise that it has a role to play also and that there are human issues in this type of case that should be recognised. I hope that as and from today we will have a situation whereby I can enter into dialogue on behalf of the borrower, which hopefully will be of benefit to that borrower.

See this speech in context