Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I stand to absolutely and wholly oppose this legislation, which is the wrong legislation at the wrong time. In a normal, functioning economy, when people are in work, one would not mind having a system of repossession. However, when people do not have a job and cannot pay their mortgages, it is not right. There is no evidence of the strategic defaulters referred to by Senator Mullen. When a person cannot pay a mortgage, why should the banks be given the power to oust him or her from a home?

This legislation is giving banks the power to put people out of their homes, as under it the banks will be entitled once again to go to court to seek repossession orders. The court has no discretion but to grant the order, except with regard to a two-month adjournment and an adjournment relating to personal insolvency legislation. If the Minister for Justice and Equality or the officials had read the texts on this law as it applied before the 2009 Act, they would have seen that there was always a major gap in the law and a judge has no discretion but to give a repossession order. The judge has no guidance whatever on what factors should be taken into account when he or she must give the repossession order. This means that in effect there is no point in having a court process as nothing will happen aside from a granting of the order or pushing the process towards the personal insolvency area if it is not there already. I am surprised this issue has not been addressed.

On this side of the House we put forward a family home Bill at around the same time as the Dunne judgment, which was designed to address the loophole created by the judgment as there is nothing to guide the courts in this area. That position is not changing with the Bill and there is still a major gap. If the Department officials had looked at the texts in this area they would know about this, as they would have if they had looked at our Bill. The Bill before us is simply putting the banks back in charge.

I pay tribute to the Oireachtas Library and Research Service because once again it has produced a totally unbiased and potentially controversial statement in the Bill's digest. The service has done that before with the septic tanks legislation, as it contradicted Government statements. The digest indicates "Repossessions will allegedly focus mostly on investment properties rather than family homes". There is no difference except that with a family home case, personal insolvency arrangements may apply. Why can that not happen with other properties or why does it only apply to family homes? The family home ought to be protected and there should be guidance but there is nothing to tell the court that if people have nowhere to go, the repossession order cannot be made, or that alternatives like a mortgage to rent scheme can be suggested. Our family home Bill tried to facilitate a position where if proceedings went to repossession, many other options would have to be considered. There is nothing in this Bill in that respect. That is wrong and unfair.

I pay tribute to the Members of Dáil Éireann who stood up at the Allsop auction last week and I will do the same if any family homes in County Meath - or anywhere else - are in a similar position. It would be wrong and unjust for that to happen. Senator Healy Eames analysed the position very well. If a person is in a bad position because of the economic collapse or the loss of a job that is beyond the person's control, he or she should not have the family home repossessed. If somebody has gone overboard, on the other hand, it is hard to justify keeping him or her in the house, as long as there is some place for that person to go. We cannot kick out people to the streets, no matter who they are. Why should this not be addressed in the Bill, as that is what we tried to do with our family home legislation?

The Government has been lobbied by the banks, as has happened before and is happening once again. The code of conduct is another bankers' charter. There was some nonsense during the by-election a few months ago about targets that would be reached but the issue has proven to be a bankers' charter. It is the same with this Bill. It is about time we had some fairness.

The Irish public has given so much to the banks that it is time for those institutions to give back something. There should be some balance on that see-saw; it is currently stacked in favour of the non-paying borrower who cannot be put out of a house, in effect, but the see-saw is going right in the other direction. We are only seeking balance because if somebody is not paying a mortgage on a property, the matter must be addressed. Nevertheless, the State cannot put these people out on the street because the consequences for society would be horrendous.

One can consider some of the cities in America where repossessions are rife and some parts have turned into ghost towns. I do not know if that is likely here but there are tremendous social consequences to repossessions which have not been addressed at all in this debate or legislation. We really need to give people a break until they get back to work because once people are working, there is no excuse. If people are working in a sustainable job but their mortgage remains unsustainable, something else must be done. There should be a proper mortgage to rent or mortgage to shared equity scheme in place, with some fairness shown to people in difficulty.

This Bill ought to be opposed or at least amended significantly to consider the family home Bill that we produced. We consulted with the Free Legal Advice Centres and New Beginning but I do not know their position on this Bill; they can speak for themselves. At the time we produced our Bill, they felt the lacuna in the law was significant, although the Dunne judgment addressed it to some extent by essentially postponing repossessions. The matter has not been dealt with in the Bill and I ask the Government to look at what the standard Irish textbooks on conveyancing state about repossession orders. The gap is not being dealt with in this legislation.