Dáil debates

Wednesday, 18 July 2012

Personal Insolvency Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

12:00 pm

Photo of Shane RossShane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One must consider where the weight of this Bill lies. I realise that the intention of all elements of the Government in respect of this Bill is to sort out a problem not of its making. Naturally, the instinct of every Member is to support a Bill of this sort because of the terrible situation in which many people find themselves, especially in respect of their mortgages. However, ultimately one must consider where the balance lies in the Bill, whether it is in favour of the lender or the borrower, or whether it represents a middle road. I contend that upon examination the weight and power of the Bill are installed on the side of the lender. One should not put a parasite in poll position when one has a problem of this sort to resolve.

The problem with the Bill is not the intent, it is not the solutions suggested, it is not the proposed insolvency body and it is not the intermediaries. It is the fact that ultimately the power lies in one place, the place where it has always been in Ireland. Even recently we have learned no lessons in this regard. The banks will hold the final say and they will hold a veto on people who are stuck with mortgages they cannot pay off.

This Bill was an ideal opportunity for the Government to break the power of the banks. The banks are as responsible as those who have borrowed for the situation in which we find ourselves and are as responsible for the necessity of this Bill. Why is it that, having started off with such great intentions, the final result from the Government is that the banks decide on the package for the person who has borrowed? There is an option, however.

Photo of Alan ShatterAlan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy does not make any credible alternative. He is talking nonsense.

Photo of Shane RossShane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The borrower could opt for insolvency. In other words the borrowers could opt to take a suicide bomb, a grenade and the pin. It is suggested that they have the options to go ahead if they do not like what the bank has decided. They could take the intermediaries out of the picture and blow themselves up.

Photo of Alan ShatterAlan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is populist poppycock of Deputy Ross's normal standards.

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Those in the Government are playing to the banks and doing what the banks are telling them to do.

Photo of Shane RossShane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They could opt not to accept this. At this stage, the borrower will take the option which the Government has handed him or her, which is to destroy himself or herself in the process. That is the ultimate weapon the borrower has. The Bill is disappointing.

I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the intent behind the Bill. They genuinely would like to sort out the problem. The difficulty is that the Government, like every other Government, has been captured by the bank lobby and the bankers got the result they wanted.

Photo of Alan ShatterAlan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate Deputy Ross on his single transferable speech.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The next speaking slot is shared between Deputies O'Mahony and John Paul Phelan.

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The banks control the Government. The Government does not control the banks.

Photo of Alan ShatterAlan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That single transferable speech is repetitively produced on every issue but it is good for a headline. It is populist poppycock.

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The majority agree with what we are saying.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could we have order for Deputy O'Mahony?

Photo of John O'MahonyJohn O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Personal Insolvency Bill 2012. Much of the debate since the financial crash in 2008 has revolved around sovereign debt, bondholders, reckless bankers, bank guarantees, etc., but the impact of all that is what we are discussing in this Bill, that is, the thousands of families that have been affected by personal debt.

The recession in the 1980s and early 1990s consisted mainly of sovereign debt. In that period, banks were more responsible and people were more cautious, but at the height of the Celtic tiger era, when there was probably a letter a week coming from the financial institutions dropping through the letterboxes of the public offering massive sums of money with little security, and in some cases even suggesting the properties that should be invested in, 100% mortgages were the order of the day. Not only was the price of the house given, but so too was that of the landscaping, the 4X4s and the furniture. A culture grew up in which ordinary people felt that they were not cool or were not part of modern society if they did not have a property portfolio. Unfortunately, many innocent people bought into bad advice and now must live with the consequences, and this Bill is about living with those consequences.

I very much welcome the Bill and the Minister's attempts to address what is an urgent and complex issue. No Bill will solve the problems overnight. There is no silver bullet. The clock cannot be turned back on this issue and the problem must be met head on, and that is what this Bill does.

There has been criticism - Deputy Ross continued it - that the bank or lender still holds a veto and the balance of power. I was surprised last week when I went to a briefing by FLAC and other non-governmental organisations where some of them were suggesting this Bill is unworkable, something with which I would not agree on studying it. I was taken aback by some of the suggestions being made. The Government has faced up to what is a mammoth and complex task and is putting a structure in place that will not solve everybody's problem but at least will give a chance to thousands of people to have a normal life again and to have a secure home to live in.

I would have a number of concerns and I want to highlight them briefly in my contribution. One, which was highlighted last week by Deputy Durkan, is the imposition of penalties and compound interest which, if extracted to the full, will completely bury thousands of people. I strongly suggest these should not be the tipping point to put people over the cliff. Thousands of people are struggling valiantly and keeping up their interest payments, and they should not be pushed over the limit with these extra penalties.

I want also to raise the plight of those who have an adverse credit rating with the Irish Credit Bureau as they cannot now borrow for their daily needs, get a credit card or even open a bank account. Typically, these are self-employed business persons or employees of companies or of the State who bought investment properties in the past ten years. They invested much of their savings as deposits and borrowed the balance from the bank, or offered their own home as security and borrowed the full property cost from their banks. They were encouraged to do so by the property sellers and by the readily available credit from the banks. They may have purchased houses, apartments or holidays, but these were effectively a pension for the future of these people. Their intention in buying them was to generate some wealth for their old age or for their children. There were thousands of them. They were not speculators, developers or gamblers, but they now find themselves in arrears with their loan commitments to their banks because their business incomes or salaries have fallen and their rental incomes have fallen or reduced substantially. They fully intend to repay all their debts, even if it will take a longer period, but they are now much less well off and have a much reduced standard of living, and they are coming to grips with that. If they have other assets, they will sell them, often at a reduced value as that is the only way to offload them at present, merely to generate funds to reduce their banking liabilities. They are now left unhappy that their noble intentions are not recognised or reciprocated by the financial institutions. They cannot continue to live their lives as before because of their adverse credit ratings. With the loans being in arrears, their credit rating is affected. They cannot borrow from the bank to replace the family car, send their children to college, or fund weddings or funerals. Even if they clear their debt entirely, their adverse credit rating will remain with them for a further five years.

There is nothing in this Bill to help these people and I suggest an amendment should be made to it to address the adverse rating of these ordinary and genuine people who find themselves in this position for the first time in their lives. Their ability to use the borrowing facilities of the banks also affects the level of spending in the economy and frustrates the small and medium-sized business sector's efforts to grow again. The authorised debt adviser or personal insolvency practitioner roles, as outlined in the Bill, do not address their situation because they continue to work and generate income which they are using to repay their debt. They are the ignored victims of this banking crisis who deserve some recognition and support in their efforts to regulate their affairs.

1:00 pm

Photo of John Paul PhelanJohn Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am also glad to have the opportunity to raise a few points on the Personal Insolvency Bill. I welcome the legislation and the efforts of the Minister and his officials in drafting it.

I heard much of the debate heretofore. There has been criticism that the Bill was slow in arriving. The nature of this legislation is such that it was bound to be difficult to draft. On the areas it reforms, some of the laws governing the areas of bankruptcy and insolvency predate the State and are certainly complex to resolve.

As a public representative, I am sure I am only one of 166 in this Chamber who have met constituents who find themselves in difficult financial situations arising out of the country's recent economic difficulties. In fact, in the year and a bit since I have become a Member, I have found it difficult to deal with the stressful situations in which these individuals and families find themselves. It is one of the aspects of being a public representative that one finds oneself from time to time having to act in the role of a counsellor who gives advice.

I have been struck by the number of couples and individuals who have come to my office and clinics moved to the point of tears and very frightened for their futures because of an inability to pay mortgage repayments, in particular, but also other debts. This is why I welcome the Bill, which completely transforms the systems that are currently in place with regard to resolving financial difficulties that families and individuals face. Much of the legislation is completely new. It contains proposals to reform the existing structures on bankruptcy, which is certainly long overdue and welcome, but it also sets out a whole new process of debt reconciliation which, if it is passed, will become the normal practice.

I want to ask the Minister about certain aspects of the Bill but I also want to acknowledge the difficult balancing act which he is trying to achieve. I have heard several Opposition speakers, both in the past and during this debate, suggest there is no bailout for individuals and families whereas there is a bailout for banks. In fact, the difficult balancing act in this legislation is between those people who are in financial distress and cannot legitimately meet their debts and those who might choose not to meet their debts. The fact is that in a situation where the State is a creditor and is now the major shareholder in many of our financial institutions, the writing off of debt has a direct impact on everyone. There can be no situation where there is an open chequebook for people who are in a position to meet their debt repayments in order to escape the legitimate charges they face. This legislation manges to strike that balance between those people who genuinely cannot pay and those who are opportunistically trying to avoid payment. In that regard, I welcome it.

I heard Deputy Ross's contributions to the debate a few days ago and again today. I point out that a significant number of creditors are not banks. It is equally important to state that not all mortgages entered into were bad arrangements and many were legitimately entered into by people at the time, although their circumstances may have changed. None the less, this does not mean people who entered into a mortgage can expect in the future to abrogate their responsibilities and they have a responsibility to live up to their mortgages. I myself am a mortgage holder and I know the difficulties that are attached to that.

It is interesting that some of the heaviest criticism of this Bill was from the Irish Banking Federation, which was not happy with the Minister's upper limit on personal insolvency arrangements, which I understand is €3 million.

I agree with Deputy O'Mahony in regard to some of the bad practices that crept into our banks in the past ten years in particular, an issue I raised as a Member of the other House. There was a period from, say, 2004 to 2008, where every four to six months I would personally receive a letter from my financial institution offering me €10,000 or €20,000 in an unsecured personal loan. I am sure many thousands of other customers of that institution used to get similar letters and I am sure many took up these opportunities for loans at the time. It is fair to say the financial institutions carry a large responsibility for those types of personal loan arrangements that people took on despite this money being unsolicited by the consumer. The banks cannot walk away from their responsibility in offering such facilities to their customers. I also agree with Deputy O'Mahony in regard to the point made by Deputy Durkan last week on penalties, compound interest and the possibility of putting people in even more difficult situations into the future.

One of the aspects of this legislation that is long overdue is the reform of the terms of bankruptcy. The attitude to bankruptcy is an issue that is particular to Ireland and perhaps the neighbouring island. Like many other Members, I have a significant number of family members, cousins and other relatives who live across the Atlantic in the United States. I was speaking recently to a second cousin who is in his second incarnation as a restaurateur in Florida, where he has a series of restaurants, although he went bankrupt in his previous existence as a restaurateur some ten years ago. There is a completely different attitude to bankruptcy in the United States which means that, if people fail and make an honest effort to repay and meet their debts, they are allowed to recover, get back into business and continue to have a life and prospects into the future. In this country, the old system of keeping people out of business for 12 years acted as a disincentive for people to get involved in business and was outdated, to say the least. This is why I welcome the fact this new three year provision is included in the legislation.

With regard to the new personal insolvency practitioners who are designated under the Bill, what type of individual does the Minister foresee filling these particularly important functions? These are the people who will be charged with drafting the settlement arrangements that are referred to in the legislation, which is a very important role as these people will bring forward the arrangements which will be voted on by creditors. I point out to Senator Ross that a veto is not just available to creditors but also to debtors, who will have the opportunity not to accept what is proposed by the personal insolvency practitioner.

I would like to ensure the fees that are charged by such practitioners are not exorbitant. Obviously, the people who are seeking to avail of the services of such practitioners are not in a position to pay huge fees for the service provided, and it would be important the provision of this service is not hugely costly in itself.

Those are the issues I wished to raise apart from those raised by other speakers. I welcome the introduction of the legislation and congratulate the Minister, who is by far the busiest member of the Government in terms of legislation within this area. This substantial legislation promises to overhaul completely the insolvency laws in this country and I welcome it wholeheartedly.

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Any measure which can bring relief to people who have found themselves in an impossible position because of mounting debts and reduced capacity to pay is progressive. However, there are a number of elements in the Bill which must be amended if we are to put in place measures effective enough to move away from our punitive way of dealing with debt and give people the opportunity of a fresh start in life.

The latest figures indicate that 79,712 mortgages are subject to restructuring plans while 961 homes were in the process of repossession in the first quarter of this year alone. The Irish League of Credit Unions has estimated that 1.8 million people are left with less than €100 a month to live on after paying essential bills. These realities must be made clear to banks and mortgage providers. It is the duty of the Government, and all of us as legislators, to force the State-owned banks to pass on any cuts in interest rates to help struggling mortgage holders.

The fact that this legislation affords banks or other lenders a potential veto on any debt settlement arrangement or personal insolvency arrangement will make the Bill meaningless to many people. A submission on the Bill by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul confirmed that many of the households due to access the arrangements as proposed in the draft legislation already live on inadequate incomes and face considerable household budgeting pressure. It is its view, and mine, that corrupt bankers destroyed this country and now they are being allowed to decide whether people can go bankrupt. That is exactly what it means. People feel utterly betrayed because the Government let the unsecured Irish bondholders write their own rules and now the banks are practically writing their own rules. Nothing has changed, therefore, in the minds of hundreds of thousands of people who are dealing with banks and credit institutions across the country. It would be morally wrong to allow this veto while the banks' collection officers are going around the country shaming, harassing and intimidating unfortunate families out of their last few euro because their own underwriters recklessly dished out unsustainable and non-stress-tested, commission-driven loans. My concern is that the new legislation will lead to more aggressive pursuit of householders in mortgage arrears by lending institutions.

The Minister should be aware that this is happening. I refer him to comments made last week by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, who rightly stated that we cannot trust or believe the banks. I am dealing with instances in which the banks are hounding people. Is the Minister aware that they are ringing people after 9 p.m.? Does he know that they are threatening and hounding people out of their homes? The Minister should not let them tell him otherwise. I outlined an instance in the House recently, which I will repeat. A young girl finished her shift in a factory in Waterford at 8.30 a.m., following which she came into my office with her father. As she was in arrears for two months - she had already taken a 30% cut in her income - the bank was threatening to repossess her house. That did not happen four or five years ago; it happened last week. People had better cop on that the banks and lending institutions are not listening to what the Minister is saying. I know what I am talking about from the many bankers I know and my other connections. They are making their representatives and the workers in the banks engage in such practices.

Ultimately, this veto could result in lenders' rejecting viable alternative arrangements in favour of more costly, court-based bankruptcy proceedings. I am open to being proven wrong in that regard but in the next few years we will see what the banks intend to do about people in debt who are making honest efforts to repay their debts. We will see if the banks continue to harass and threaten people and if the credit institutions continue to take people to court.

There are a number of other flaws in the Bill, on which I wish to focus. The one clear-cut benefit of the Bill is that people will be able to declare themselves insolvent after three years and the negative equity remaining after the repossession and disposal of their home will no longer hang over them. I welcome that. However, while the bankruptcy term will now be three years, the insolvency service or a creditor can then ask for a five-year income payment order to be implemented. My interpretation, and that of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other groups, is that this will mean eight years of further austerity for someone already going bankrupt. Somebody who bought a house for a huge sum of money in 2003 when he or she had a stable, well-paying job but then lost the job and now has no other prospect of covering the mortgage is already living in severe hardship. Such people have seen the value of their houses cut almost in half, yet they are stuck with huge mortgages that are well out of whack, so to speak, with the real value, and this legislation will lock them into poverty for possibly another eight years. That is my interpretation of it, and it is the interpretation of many groups outside the Dáil.

All of this is stacked in favour of the credit institutions and the banks, and that is fundamentally wrong. An income payment order should run concurrently with the bankruptcy term at the very least. Furthermore, there is no disincentive for a debtor to travel to the United Kingdom to declare bankruptcy. The period for automatic discharge in the UK is up to 12 months, with a maximum three-year income payment order which runs concurrently from the date the bankruptcy is declared.

To comprehensively protect mortgage debtors who may need to use the terms of this new legislation, the Government must outline clearly defined yet flexible social housing responses which can be offered at the same point as the insolvency provisions are enacted. We should carefully consider that. I urge the Minister to commit to putting aside a budget for an awareness campaign on the details of this Bill to make people who are desperately seeking a solution aware of their rights.

I understand that the Government believes this Personal Insolvency Bill will help, and parts of it will help, but I make an appeal to the Minister based on the history of the banks up to last week and incidents involving people I am dealing with whose lives are in turmoil because of harassment by credit institutions and banks. It does not matter what the Minister thinks or what the banks and credit institutions say to him. I repeat what the Minister, Deputy Noonan, stated last week or the week before: we cannot trust the banks.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Eoghan Murphy, who I understand is sharing time with Deputies Pat Breen and Anthony Lawlor.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill to the House before the summer recess. It is an important Bill, and it is important that we get it right. I often receive complaints about the length of time it takes to bring legislation before the House and see it through, and I have made such complaints, but when it comes to this legislation it is incredibly important that we take the required time to examine every detail of it because once we are finished with it, it is the law of the land. We must be certain that the intended consequences of the Bill and what we want to achieve with it are realised in the real world, so to speak, when it is put into practice. It is necessary, therefore, to have the many days of debate we have had to bring it to Committee Stage, where we will scrutinise every aspect of it, because once it leaves this House there is nothing more we can do with it. It is then the law of the land.

This is the fourth day of debate on the Bill but I regret that because of events this week and last week I have not been able to listen to all contributions. As the Bill is so important I would like to have been present for all of the contributions, and I apologise if I go over ground that has been covered by previous speakers. I would like to take up Deputy Phelan's point about the personal element of this for elected representatives. It is not something I imagined I would be involved with when I was elected to Dublin City Council in 2009, but I would call to people's front doors and they would break down in tears in front of me. People come into my office in Ranelagh to talk through their problems and are not able to finish because they are overwhelmed by emotion and the difficulties they are facing. They then write to me because they are embarrassed that this has happened and apologise to me. I then feel terrible embarrassment that they feel that way. We are not trained to deal with these situations. As Deputy John Paul Phelan said, we are elected as councillors and Deputies, but we are not trained as counsellors to deal with such difficult problems. However, we are at the coalface because we are public representatives and because we were elected by the people, they come to us with a plethora of issues and problems. While it is difficult for us, we can only imagine how difficult it must be for those facing a terrible debt burden and the effect it has on their lives and ability to be happy.

I was lucky in that regard in that I was not in the country for the worst of the boom years between 2004 and 2008. I did not take out a mortgage and while I have debt, I am just about managing it, unlike many of my friends and peers who are in difficult situations because they bought at the height of the boom and subsequently they or their partner lost their job. All of a sudden their mortgage repayments began to look impossible and perhaps they were borrowing against the house for other things. It might not have been wise, but they did it and are now are in difficult situations. Young people of my age are looking ahead and finding it very difficult to see a future or their way out. That is the type of situation we are trying to address. The Bill is aimed at those who need help, have taken responsibility for their situation and now want to find a way out of it. We must ensure we can provide a way out of their difficulties.

The Bill concerns personal debt and insolvency, but the context in which we debate it is important because when we look at the national economic picture, the country is insolvent and currently in a deficit management arrangement. In anticipation of the debate on the Bill I asked the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, for information last week. As part of an experiment, I asked him to divide the deficit and the general Government debt among the population. He informed me of the following figures which are worth repeating in this context. At the end of June the national debt stood at €131.9 billion. Given an estimated population of just under 4.6 million, an individual's share of the national debt outstanding at the end of June was just under €28,750. That is the figure for every single person in the State, as recorded in the census last year, not just those earning a wage. If we look at the deficit for this year alone, it was estimated at €18.655 billion. Again, if we take the population to be 4.6 million, an individual's share of this year's Exchequer deficit is approximately €4,065. Again, that is the figure for every single person in the State, not just those earning a wage, and it is wholly separate from the banking debt and legacy debt; it is the figure for day-to-day borrowings for this year just to keep the show on the road. Let us look at the issue in household terms. If a person is working and he or she has a stay-at-home spouse and three dependants, it represents approximately €20,000 in borrowings by that person for this year alone before he or she even begins to consider his or her own personal circumstances and the debts the family might have in terms of household bills, a failed business or difficult mortgage. That is the situation facing the State and the context in which we are having the debate on the Bill.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has spoken for approximately six minutes. I understand Deputie Pat Breen and Anthony Lawlor will also have six minutes. Is that correct?

Photo of Pat BreenPat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will take five minutes.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Eoghan Murphy might wish to speak for another few minutes.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought I had ten minutes, but if you want me to conclude, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a matter for the Deputies concerned.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a national debt and a deficit and the State must deal with it. As individuals, we are responsible for it and will pay it off through taxes in the course of our lives, but it is not as immediately relevant as personal debt and what people face every day. The Government will deal with the national finances, but people are struggling with their finances. We know a significant amount is involved. We must introduce legislation to allow some resolution because, as Deputy John Paul Phelan stated, the current system is outdated. We know it is insufficient to deal with the problem. People need to find a way out of the prison that debt can become.

The Bill will not be palatable to many, but it is necessary. Those who were more prudent, are not as unlucky or just getting by may well have difficulty with the legislation or some of its consequences for people they know or in wider society, but we must accept the principle that individuals can make mistakes, that it is okay to fail and that everyone - no matter the cause - can have an opportunity to start again. It should also be recognised that the resolution measures contained in the Bill are not easy, but they seek to be just. Responsibility is at the core of the legislation.

I was going to continue as I have a number of questions to put to the Minister, but in the interests of fairness to Deputy Pat Breen and other speakers, I will formally submit my questions separately to the Minister whom I thank for introducing the legislation before the recess. It is important that when we talk about debt forgiveness, the issue is resolved. This is a small country. We have small social, economic and business spheres and people remember things, but in so far as credit ratings are concerned, we must provide an opportunity for someone to start again once he or she comes through these procedures.

Photo of Pat BreenPat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill. Like Deputy Eoghan Murphy, I am delighted that it is going through the House before the summer recess, even if we have to sit until midnight, as it is extremely important.

I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on producing this radical legislation which will overhaul the personal insolvency procedures. I welcome the Bill and thank the Government for delivering on the commitment to help families who are struggling to repay their mortgage. The Bill gives hope to thousands who are in mortgage arrears because it provides light at the end of the tunnel. When we went into government, we made a commitment that we would try to help the people concerned. Like other Deputies, I am well aware of the problems mortgage arrears pose for families. I am assisting a number of families in my constituency who are in such a position. It is not easy for them. I have had lots of tears in my office from people encountering such problems. The current process is cumbersome and provides little solace for those in trouble. Previous speakers have stated negotiations with various interests can be difficult. Some banks offer no leeway in negotiations with householders. That is why a new and innovative approach is required.

In the wake of the property bubble and the resulting recession the number in mortgage arrears has accelerated. According to the Central Bank, at the end of March there were 764,138 private residential mortgage accounts in total, of which 77,630, or 10% of mortgages, were in arrears for more than 90 days. When we look at restructured mortgages, it is interesting to note that of the total stock of such mortgages at the end of March, just over 40,000 were in arrears of varying length. In essence, a sizeable number of people are still in mortgage difficulties, even where restructuring arrangements have been put in place. We have all seen evidence of this.

The scale of the problem is compounded by personal indebtedness. In 2008, for example, the level of personal indebtedness equated to every household borrowing €158 for every €100 earned, which speaks for itself. There is no simple or quick-fix solution because of the complexity of the problem. I welcome the provisions included in the Bill that provide for a number of solutions for people in various circumstances. It is also welcome that the Bill recognises those who ran up a substantial personal debt and whose circumstances have changed since they first took on the debt. That is the case for many householders because at the height of the Celtic tiger people were encouraged to borrow and there were a number of cases in which people had taken out loans had since lost their jobs and were in real difficulty in paying back their debt. The provision of debt relief certificate provides the opportunity for persons who have accumulated unsecured debts of up to €20,000 to wipe the slate clean. That is a welcome move.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.