Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in support of this Bill and I recognise how many Deputies have spoken in support of this amending legislation today. It is a necessary fix for what was a genuine wrong. The scenes we saw in Dublin and elsewhere were deeply wrong, difficult to watch and should not have happened. The enforcement of court orders generally, whether in relation to property, maintenance, access, family law or domestic violence, is a continual problem. I note that as a House we spend more time dealing with the enforcement of court orders relating to property than those relating to domestic violence, for example. Perhaps I can come back to that later.

We have to recognise that where a court order is given to recover property, it must be carried out with dignity. The court process is difficult enough in itself. I know from experience the efforts courts make to facilitate and help lay litigants but it is a difficult process for anybody going to the courts for anything. It is a stressful and difficult process and that is particularly true when it comes to the family home. If an eviction or enforcement of a court order takes place, it must be done with dignity. There must be dignity for the person involved, the property owner, the court and the State. The sheriff system has largely been able to achieve that. We as a State have allowed, regulated and legislated for, not a third force, but another system to work in parallel with that and we are clearing up and clarifying some of that today. That is important.

I have been listening to the debate very carefully. Many speakers have referred to the fact that we have to enforce these orders when people will not pay. However, I have not heard any follow-up on that. If we accept the premise that there are people who refuse to engage and refuse to pay, and that those orders must be paid, then we need to talk about how that is done. That is a pretty reasonable response. There are people up and down this country who are paying their mortgages every month and have been doing so for many years. They are privileged to do so, to own their homes, pay their mortgages and have their family homes. While they want to do that, what is the point of them continuing to do so if there is not a read-across for people who refuse to do it? I am not talking about those who are in difficulty and cannot pay. Again, I will come back to that issue. We have to accept that it is necessary to pay debts. If people cannot do it, the State already has structures in place to help. If they will not do it, then we have to talk about how that is enforced.

Deputy Michael Collins spoke about the amendments his group is proposing, such as to only allow evictions between 12 p.m. and 5 p.m. I would be interested in hearing the rationale behind those hours on Committee Stage. Why not suggest business hours? If the concern is about children, why not allow evictions between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.?

The provisions around notices for eviction are also important.

I am interested in hearing the rationale for some of those provisions and their practical effect.

The Central Bank published a report today which shows that the State has the highest mortgage rates in Europe. Part of the reason for that is a lack of competition, which exists in part because of the difficulty with enforcing court orders in the past decade. That is partly because people cannot pay - we did not have the structures to help them previously but we do now - and partly because people will not pay. The new macroprudential rules make it difficult to get a mortgage because they require a deposit of 10% and a limit of three and a half times income. Comparatively high interest rates make it even more difficult for people to get a mortgage and more difficult to continue to pay a mortgage. The lack of competition is bad for every homeowner, bank account holder and large or small business and everyone who wants a functional banking system in this State. A lack of competition is a problem.

Deputies spoke about having a public banking system. There is something in that idea, which Deputies in my party have discussed and are interested in. There is also the issue of expanding the credit unions. There are many different ways of achieving competition, but we must recognise the impact on the banking system of not being able to recover assets, whether that concerns the non-payment of a car loan or a mortgage. We need to have a banking system that we can all access and use.

On my point regarding the enforcement of court orders generally, we do not have a similar structure for domestic violence orders. We have an ad hocsystem, in which the Garda is dependent on having a court order and having access to it. It does not work in the same way. I flag this issue because of the amount of time we spend on this issue. We have the capacity to enforce civil debt and fines but not necessarily maintenance payments in family law cases. I flag this as a sort of contrast with how we treat orders from the courts generally. There is no difference in seriousness between the enforcement of a family maintenance order and the enforcement of a property order, except that one is a tangible asset which can be recovered via the system, which is fine.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae made a point about having systems for people who cannot pay. I am conscious of the mortgage-to-rent scheme which has been in place for some years. A couple of my constituents who are trying to transition to the scheme are having a difficult experience dealing with the fund that bought their loan from a bank, which was leaving the market. It has been difficult for them to access the fund and get a number or a call-back. If they do not answer a call from the fund immediately, they are told they did not answer and are not engaging, which is not true. The problem is that it is very difficult. The issue arose with the bank that originally owned the loan. Since it has left the market, it is impossible to go back through the records to identify where the real problems and charges were and to have a real measure of accountability.

The mortgage-to-rent process has been working reasonably well and offers security. However, it is a painful option for people to have to take where they have had difficulty over time and felt that difficulty has not been recognised. I am thinking of one lady in particular who had cancer treatment at an early point in her mortgage, within the last ten years, which had a material effect on her ability to pay. That is when the issue needed to be sorted out, not six or seven years later when it was too late. At least we have the mortgage-to-rent system now.

See this speech in context