Máire Devine (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

At the outset, we welcome this Bill. Ensuring the right to be forgotten is essential for people who have overcome cancer. For people who face a diagnosis of that kind, purchasing a home might not be the first thing on their mind but shelter and owning a home are so important that many will quickly realise they are facing not only a battle with cancer but, even when they are on the far side of cancer, a battle to simply be treated like everyone else by the banks and insurance companies that are the modern gatekeepers of home ownership.

We welcome the Bill and the Government can be assured of our support. In many ways, this is long overdue. We saw France introduce legislation almost a decade ago. In Ireland, we saw a voluntary code recently adopted by the insurance industry. Insurance companies can choose whether they adhere to the code in each individual case. The long-standing default to self-regulation has not served us well. That voluntary code only applies to mortgage protection insurance, not other types of insurance. That said, the fact that we are looking at this policy area raises many more questions. Are five years cancer free a fair threshold to set for the right to be forgotten? We have to add the difficult years of battling cancer. Only when people are finally cancer free does the clock start, and then they have to wait five years to apply for mortgages. That does not seem right to me. We need to look hard at it.

I hope the Government will be sincerely open to looking at how we can go further than what is set out in the Bill. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have a long track record of siding with the banks, including allowing them to sell upwards of 100,000 mortgages to vulture funds, many for no reason and without consent. The families deserve justice there. The banks are allowed to enjoy corporation tax relief while boasting a combined profit of €5 billion last year alone and despite never fully repaying the Irish people for bailing them out. This is an opportunity for the Government to show it is on the side of the ordinary people and not the banks. Ordinary people deserve so much more.

Make no mistake, bank and insurance companies do not want this even if they will not say that publicly. If it is to pass, they want it as narrow as possible, with the wait time for a fresh start as long as possible. A year after the first all-clear from a doctor should be more than enough. People need to be able to move on with their lives, especially with lives they felt had been threatened.

We have to think about why we are only talking about cancer. There are many serious medical conditions that mean people cannot access mortgages, either because the banks will not lend or insurance companies will not provide the insurance banks require to issue a mortgage. My colleague Deputy Conway-Walsh was dealing with a case a couple of years ago where a woman who previously suffered from eating disorders had been denied insurance. She was denied precisely because she was continuing therapy to ensure she did not relapse. She was effectively being punished for doing the right thing, seeking help and staying healthy. I believe that, eventually, due to that woman bravely speaking out and political pressure, she was offered coverage, but nobody should have to go down that route.

This leads me to another area. It is not often that lending is the greatest barrier. As in the story I mentioned, the issue is often in accessing the mortgage protection insurance. This is where we need to be careful to ensure the legislation has the intended effect. Not only must people not be denied coverage, but we also need to ensure they are offered fair and affordable premiums. If someone gets an offer but the monthly cost is extortionate, then the barrier to accessing mortgages will remain. This issue is sometimes kicked around between the banks and the insurance company. The approach is hands-off and that it is somebody else's problem. The insurance companies will say that, where they will not insure, there are exemptions under section 126 of the Consumer Credit Act while banks will say that insurance companies should be providing insurance. It is a Mexican stand-off, and people are denied mortgages for not having mortgage protection insurance and are quoted extortionate premiums. Many people do know that they can argue the case with the bank.

I welcome this legislation and we will be supporting it, but I ask the Minister of State to take those issues on board.

See this speech in context