Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that leave has been given for me to delegate some time to Deputy Pearse Doherty. I am very disappointed that no Minister or Minister of State from the Department of Justice and Equality is here, given the significance of this issue for hundreds of families and the implications it could have, which could include people being put out of their homes.

The phrase "equality of arms" is occasionally used in the context of court cases. It is a central part of a fair trial that there be a fair balance in the opportunities afforded to each of the parties involved in litigation. The changes to the legal aid rules brought in last Friday have absolutely destroyed that balance for families making insolvency applications and who may be facing repossession of their homes. They will make it much easier for banks and vulture funds to repossess homes. People will be left completely to the wolves.

Up until now, people applying for a personal insolvency arrangement, or appealing a bank's refusal to grant one after the veto was removed, could avail of the advice of a solicitor and a barrister. As of last Friday, the Government has removed the debtor's right to have a barrister in court other than in exceptional circumstances and has halved the fees paid to solicitors and personal insolvency practitioners, PIPs. I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind that these are people who, if they are not granted a personal insolvency arrangement, could be on the verge of losing their home. They are people who, by definition, cannot afford their own legal representation. On the other hand, they are taking on banks that have the very best of legal representation available and they are dealing with very complex legislation. The banks will spend €5,000 to €10,000 on each interlocking case. Even in the exceptional circumstances in which a barrister will be given, the fee of €1,200 represents a loss for a barrister. Therefore a person will not be able to get a barrister to take on his or her case.

I will give a brief example before I pause. Just yesterday, the case of Ms Lisa Parkin was decided. The judge approved a personal insolvency arrangement and accepted that the bank had been making a different case on entering the case from that upon which it ended up relying. Had Ms Parkin not had a barrister capable of responding to the bank, which was changing the goalposts in the case, there is every likelihood that she would have lost her home. To that could be added countless more cases which could result in people being out on the street. This is an attempt to disarm the debtor, who may well be fighting repossession.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an absolute scandal. We need to call a spade a spade. This is an attack on vulnerable people - people who find themselves insolvent, people who are going through the insolvency process, and people in respect of whose arrangements a PIP has recommended restructuring, which has been blocked by the bank. The Government has now restricted the fees available in such a way as to prevent those individuals enlisting the services of a barrister to fight the banks that are trying to block the arrangements suggested by the PIPs. When these reviews under section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 do come before the courts, 65% of debtors are successful. They actually beat the banks. That is probably the core of this change because the Government is in the pockets of the banks, it is on the side of the banks and it is always against the struggling debtors. We see that in a number of the initiatives this Government has brought in. This is scandalous and needs to be reversed. We need a level playing field. We cannot have a situation in which banks march in with teams of barristers and solicitors and in which vulnerable debtors - who, as I have said, usually win in these cases - are allowed to be left in vulnerable positions. I call on the Government to reverse this decision, even at this late stage, and to make sure that there is equality of representation in our courts.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for raising this issue. The Legal Aid Board recently notified some changes to professional fees payable to lawyers and personal insolvency practitioners in cases that are legally aided under Abhaile. I should emphasise these measures do not reduce the protections afforded to borrowers under Abhaile, as has been claimed by the Deputy.

Under section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, if creditors refuse a reasonable personal insolvency proposal by a borrower to resolve his or her mortgage arrears, the borrower’s PIP can apply to the court for review. The court has power to impose the proposal on creditors if satisfied that it is fair and reasonable to all parties.

Where legal aid is approved for a court review under Abhaile, the Legal Aid Board pays set fees to the PIP, the solicitor, the junior counsel and, where needed, the senior counsel representing the borrower. Under Abhaile, the Legal Aid Board has already approved legal aid for more than 1,000 court review applications. Some 64% of these were decided in favour of the borrower in the year ending June 2018.

Two reasonable changes have been introduced to the fees for all professionals. First, the full fee will not be payable in undefended cases, that is, where no creditor opposes the court review. Second, personal insolvency cases often involve parallel applications by both partners where a couple has the same home mortgage. In practice, the vast majority of parallel applications are treated by the courts as single cases. There is no reason for taxpayers to cover two full fees in such cases. A full fee will be paid for one spouse and a reduced fee, equal to 10% of the full fee, will be paid for the second spouse in order to represent the actual extra work involved. There is no change to the legal aid fees payable to the PIP and the solicitor for a defended personal insolvency court review.

Barristers’ fixed fees are being reduced, but only to bring them into line with fees payable to them in other areas of civil legal aid where complex legal or procedural issues arise. It is not correct that borrowers will be left without barristers to argue their case.

Barristers will not be approved automatically. In undefended cases, for example, there may be no need for a barrister, but the Legal Aid Board has expressly underlined that counsel will be approved where a creditor is raising legal issues that need to be argued by a barrister or in exceptional circumstances.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has attempted to outline that there are no changes but clearly when we look into the text and the detail there are significant changes. The specific example I gave was based on the case of a husband and wife with interlocking cases, in which the reality is that banks will spend €5,000 to €10,000. What is now being allowed, even in those exceptional circumstances where someone can get a barrister, is €1,200. That is not going to be enough to pay for a barrister. Nobody is going to take that job given the complexity of what is involved. To give the Minister of State an insight into that complexity, section 115 processes are complex. The brief would run from 300 to 500 pages, four or five affidavits and substantial exhibits. There is a substantial body of jurisprudence and one cannot expect a solicitor to do this alone. It should not be only in exceptional cases but as of right. This needs to be reversed.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The long and the short of it is that the Government has moved to cut the amount of support available for struggling homeowners in a case where a bank or vulture fund is blocking a PIP arrangement. It has done so in such a way that no barrister is going to take instructions from a solicitor knowing that the maximum amount payable to him or her is €1,200. Barristers know, because they see it in the courts, that the banks and vulture funds are losing these cases on the basis of the numbers and figures. What the banks and vulture funds are doing now is raising legal technical issues and homeowners will not be represented for that. The Government is literally throwing these debtors to the vultures, which is absolutely no surprise. It is not acceptable. The Minister of State talks about the principle of the Government being to keep families in their homes wherever possible. This is exactly the reverse of that. This is taking away the safety net of legal representation to fight the army of solicitors and barristers who walk into the courts with the banks and vulture funds. They know they are on the wrong side of the argument as has been proven in the past, when 65% of cases were ruled in favour of the borrowers, who have been able to remain in their homes. There is no reason for this to be cancelled.

This comes in the same week as the Government was proclaiming the success of Abhaile. Within a number of days, it pulled the safety net from those using the Abhaile service and has seriously undermined the service as a result.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the Deputy's concerns and wish to ensure that the protections available under Abhaile remain in place. I emphasise that these changes do not undermine the free legal protection afforded to borrowers under Abhaile. Borrowers can still access full financial and legal aid services and help, including legal aid for a personal insolvency court review, without any charge. The Minister has already outlined, when launching the recent Abhaile reports, the priority that he attaches to the good work being done under Abhaile and to ensuring that the personal insolvency review will function effectively. It is emphatically not the case that borrowers will be left without a barrister to argue their case. Most will benefit from a PIP, a solicitor, a junior counsel and, wherever needed, a senior counsel. The Legal Aid Board expressly indicates that counsel will be approved if a creditor is raising legal points that need to be argued by a barrister.

The question was raised that Abhaile does not also provide legal aid for contesting repossession proceedings. This criticism misses the point. Abhaile does not focus on contesting repossession proceedings because in most cases doing so will not help the borrower. As the lender still has an enforceable mortgage contract, it can reissue repossession proceedings as long as there are mortgage arrears. Instead, Abhaile focuses on getting into place an integrated solution to the arrears themselves in order that the borrower can remain in his or her home and return to solvency. This is a far more effective focus for public intervention. It is better for borrowers and for taxpayers. Meanwhile, Abhaile provides court mentors and duty solicitors to assist in ensuring that the repossession proceedings can be adjourned while the borrower is working with Abhaile to get a solution in place.

I do not accept the assertions of the Deputies that we are throwing these people to the vultures. In my constituency of Wexford, I am aware of the important work Abhaile has done, which it will continue to do going into the future.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government has just undermined it. There is no justification for this.