Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for attending and particularly for staying for the entire debate, given that he could have nominated someone in his place and have his officials take notes.

There are two sentences in the Minister's speech which sum it all up for me. The first is: "Lenders must engage properly with customers.". The second is: "If our financial institutions refuse to engage, then we will in the future, have to refine our approach to debt resolution". That says it all. The financial institutions have been given the opportunity to come to the table and make an agreement with parties. There has been much comment on the issue of a bank veto but there is no bank veto here. A veto cannot operate if an agreement has been made. If the financial institutions do not agree, we may have to revisit this legislation. If they are not prepared to work with the relevant parties to try to ensure that debtors are given the opportunity to come out of their insolvency, then our approach may change.

I will not go back over issues that have been raised already but I am concerned about the personal insolvency practitioners. Many of the people who are in a financial black hole and who could potentially benefit from this legislation are there because of unwise financial decisions. In that context, I am concerned that the legislation does not spell out who the personal insolvency practitioners will be. I know there is an insolvency group in the State but it is primarily made up of lawyers. I understand that the Minister is trying to be flexible within the legislation so that personal insolvency practitioners are not pigeonholed but there is a gap that may allow people to set themselves up as practitioners, with knowledge, experience and ability, to advance a deal or arrangement with banks on behalf of their clients.

This is something we should consider. I do not know if there is a minimum requirement or the position internationally but I am concerned that people may be hoodwinked by individuals who set themselves up as insolvency practitioners. I do not think the issue has been addressed thus far in this debate, although it may have been addressed in the other House.

I am loth to say so, but I agree with Senator Ó Clochartaigh regarding homeowners. I hope they are the principal beneficiaries of this legislation, although I doubt it will be possible to offer them a higher level of protection. I do not have sympathy for those who gambled on buy-to-let properties or borrowed irresponsibly on commercial units.

When I met with representatives from the Irish Banking Federation, they appeared reluctant to negotiate capital. While I am not old enough to remember the last boom and bust cycle of the 1970s and 1980s, I know that interest rates were very high during that period. The banks did not find it difficult then to write down compound interest but they have always found it difficult to remove capital. I am concerned they will be slow to come to an agreement on capital in the context of the current low interest rates.

I thank the Minister for remaining in the Chamber. He has shown respect for the House by staying for the entire debate.