Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. It is timely that we are discussing the Bill in the House because it has given us an opportunity to debate in issue of major concern.

It is that there is a prevailing view that the banks and lenders are ruling the roost at the expense of the mortgage holder. It is very important that we flag the issue with the Government because the matter needs to be addressed.

The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2013 is clearly rectifying an issue arising from a court case and we are remedying a loophole in a previous Act. We must act to remove the unintended constraint on banks to realise the value of a loan collateral under certain circumstances. We must also ensure at the same time that the rights of the home owner are protected. I particularly welcome section 2 of the Bill, which provides that in repossession proceedings involving a principal private residence, a court may, where it considers it appropriate on application by a borrower, adjourn the proceedings to enable the parties to consider whether a personal insolvency arrangement under the new Act would be a more appropriate alternative to repossession. That is helpful.

We really need to be careful in Ireland because we do not have a history of repossessions. Should that begin to happen here, we will change the landscape completely, and we will alter a trust that has existed for decades. We can give out about banks all we want but there has not been a history of repossessions. I lived in the United States for three and a half years and there is a very big history of repossession there, with auctions of repossessed properties and foreclosures. Should we go down such a road, much trust will be lost at very delicate moment in our history.

Will the Minister of State collaborate with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, as we urgently need a thorough review and analysis of the prevailing concern that banks are getting too much power in the impending repossession scenario? I accept that we have a low rate of repossessions but we do not want that to unnecessarily increase if people can be enabled to stay in their homes. I request for the autumn a progress report on the personal insolvency legislation and the split mortgage issue in particular. If there are so few split mortgage being arranged, we need to know the reason, as a split mortgage is one of the best ways to enable people to repay what they can afford while parking another piece of a mortgage until they are in a better position to pay. Like others have indicated, such as Senators Hayden and Mullen, I would like a review of the code of conduct on mortgage arrears.

I want to be able to see people enabled to stay in their own homes so we should call a spade a spade. The collapse in the economy was largely - and perhaps wholly - caused by banks and a lack of regulation by the previous Government. The Minister of State might address the following question in summing up. Would people be facing repossession today if the banking collapse had not happened, through no fault of those people? If the answer to the question is "No", the people in question should be enabled to stay in their own homes. However, if people were reckless enough to be facing repossession regardless of the banking collapse, we are talking about a different kind of customer. On the whole, we condemn the behaviour of people who can pay but will not pay but we must carefully work out which is which.

I am particularly concerned about the prevailing reports that banks are moving on homes that have equity because they are good value. That would be despicable behaviour. The majority of proposed changes should not favour the lender over the borrower in the mortgage arrears process and it must be on a level playing field, with engagement between customers and advisers.

There are many concerns and much to say about the Bill. I do not know if my time is close to an end.