Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On the comment I made earlier to which the Minister took offence, it was directed at the procedures of the House rather than him, in terms of the allocation of one hour to him and only ten minutes to the main Opposition spokespersons, which is unsatisfactory, particularly on such an important Bill. The debate is to be guillotined in that it must conclude at 5 p.m., in respect of which a proposal has been dealt with by the House. Already one third of the time allocated has been taken up by the Government, which is completely unsatisfactory.

Fianna Fáil welcomes the introduction of the Bill as a small step towards alleviating the financial pressure on individuals who are unable to make ends meet. However, we have serious concerns around the veto power wielded by the banks in respect of any settlement deal and the regulation of personal insolvency practitioners. I note the Minister's remarks in that regard. Bolder measures are needed to resolve the issue of household debt. However, the Minister has challenged our main criticism of the Bill which relates to the veto power of financial institutions over arrangements to be made under it. In this regard, he referred to normal commercial contractual issues. Unfortunately, the justification of anything on the basis of freedom of contract or normal commercial contractual issues has a chequered past.

It was used in courts in America and across the globe in order to stop the reform of child labour and fair employment laws. The Minister is using that justification to allow the banks to retain a veto over the arrangements covered in the legislation. The debts incurred by Irish people in this instance do not relate to normal commercial agreements. They were not entered into in the normal commercial way. Many individuals were put upon by financial institutions and there was a generalised attack on the property market. I know the Minister will respond to what I am saying but these were not normal commercial arrangements. In such circumstances, it is not fair for him to justify the approach he is taking - which gives the banks and other financial institutions a veto - on the basis that normal contracts are at issue.

There is another aspect of the Minister's contribution which gives rise to serious concern. He said:

The approved intermediary or the personal insolvency practitioner, as the case may be, will take account of the obvious basic necessities of living, for example, food, heat and light, etc. However, he or she will question the continuation by the debtor of certain other lifestyle expenditures.

Who came up with that statement? What kind of ivory tower do the Minister and his officials occupy, who see food, heat and light as being the necessities of living? The Minister and his officials are only too well aware of the other necessities of living. Those necessities can be provided for in homeless shelters. Is it to such shelters that the Minister wants the people who will benefit from the legislation to go? What is outlined in this regard is completely unrealistic in the context of what constitutes reasonable living expenses. Even if we give our support to this legislation, I wish to place on record the fact that I and my party do not associate reasonable living expenses with "food, heat and light". There is so much more to an ordinary life than those three things. I wish the Minister to place on record - in the context of the future interpretation of the statute - that reasonable living expenses contemplate much more than mere "food, heat and light, etc."

The Bill makes provision in respect of debt relief notices, debt settlement arrangements and personal insolvency arrangements. It also reforms the period relating to bankruptcy. The latter is probably the only lever available to borrowers. However, it is a difficult one to pull because a period of three years will still apply. It is not going to provide the comfort that indebted persons will require. Under the terms of the Bill, 65% of the creditors involved will be obliged to agree to a personal insolvency arrangement. In practice, this is probably going to mean that one bank will have to agree to the arrangement. This is exactly where the veto for banks and the other financial institutions to which I refer will come into play. The Minister has denied there is such a veto but the facts say otherwise. In addition, there is no scope for appeal and this strengthens the banks' veto further.

There is a major imbalance of power between vulnerable debtors and the creditor banks which pursued them for business during the boom and which are now effectively in the same position as those debtors. There does not appear to be any justice or a rebalancing of the scales in this instance. The Bill my party put forward in the Dáil made provision for an independent authority to provide binding solutions in situations where citizens in serious debt are unable to reach agreement with his or her creditors or where the latter choose not to reach such an agreement. There is a glaring omission in the legislation before the House in this regard.

There are some other issues I would like the Minister to address. In the context of the famous judgment handed down by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, does he propose to amend the position, either by means of this Bill or through the introduction of legislation relating to land conveyancing, to enable the banks to repossess properties more quickly? I understand the banks have been in contact with the Government in respect of this judgment, which may be under appeal. I am seeking to discover the legislative proposals that are being brought forward in respect of this matter.

We look forward to the amendments the Minister intends to introduce. These may lead to the Bill being changed significantly. They may also address some of our concerns in respect of personal insolvency practitioners. It is essential that if the legislation is to be changed in a dramatic fashion on either Committee Stage or Report Stage, then this should not be done following a mere one or two-hour debate. That would be both totally wrong and completely unjustified. We will require at least a week of debate if this legislation is to be changed dramatically.

My party has put forward a range of measures in respect of the mortgage crisis. These include the Family Home Bill 2011, which Senator MacSharry and I drafted, the Regulation of Debt Management Advisors Bill 2011 and the Personal Insolvency Bill which was introduced on Private Members' time in the Dáil. Some of these measures were accepted by the Government, while others were rejected. We are normally accused of unconstitutionality in this regard. It is funny that we are accused in this way by the Government on a regular basis but when it is accused of unconstitutionality by those who have the power to make such accusations, it rejects what is stated out of hand.

Our legislation in respect of this matter should have been the subject of closer consideration by the Government. The Bill in question advocated the establishment of an independent debt settlement and mortgage resolution office which would provide an independent and non-judicial debt settlement system for people. That would be very different to the system outlined in the Bill before the House, under which the banks will effectively have a right of veto. While we are supporting the Personal Insolvency Bill 2012 as a step on the road towards progress, I really do not hold out much hope for it in the context of how it deals with people. Individuals are already approaching Members in order to discuss what will be its impact. It is difficult to see how it will work and how it will benefit those people in practice.

The Minister and his colleagues in government need to give urgent consideration to the code of conduct relating to mortgage arrears and how this is operating, particularly in view of the fact that the banks have their mortgage arrears resolution procedures up and running. The latter has given rise to a significant change in the context of how the banks interact with customers. It is not always to customers' benefit that banks are working more efficiently. The banks were quite inefficient in this regard in recent years. This meant that there was a delay in the process and that was of benefit to homeowners. However, this is no longer the case. I urge the Government to examine how the code of conduct is operating.