Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We should have a debate on debt, mortgages and home repossession. This is an ongoing issue that is raised in these Houses. Of particular concern is the manner in which the courts are dealing with personal debt and family home mortgages. The Personal Insolvency Act 2012 sought to address these issues by reforming bankruptcy law. I have criticised that Act in the past as ineffective. Concerns expressed by me and others in this House have been borne out by the low take-up of the debt packages of the Insolvency Service of Ireland.

Leaving aside that flawed legislation for the time being, I wish to focus today on those debtors who, for whatever reason, do not or cannot avail of a personal insolvency package under the provisions of the Act. For these people, the deluge has started, with banks pursuing mortgage defaulters with vigour. In Galway Circuit Court before Christmas, more than 70 cases were brought before the county registrar. For debtors who invariably cannot afford legal representation, being dragged into court is a deeply stressful experience to add to the stress they are already under. The court approaches debt and mortgage applications in the typical adversarial manner, with barristers in legal garb and with the county registrar and Master of the High Court seated on a dais sitting in judgment. The affidavits are opened and personal details are read out. Judgment orders, orders for possession and well-charging orders are moved. While the county registrar and the master have the power to adjourn matters for two months regarding applications to the Insolvency Service of Ireland, many cases are not amenable to debt arrangements under the Act.

There is or can be a more humane way of dealing with personal debt in our courts. The mechanism of less adversarial hearings that is found in the family law Act of 1996 should be used in personal debt cases. That Act provides for case-management-style hearings to be conducted around a conference table, not in open court and not in formal court dress. The county registrar presides over the hearing. Using similar provisions to deal with personal debtors would reduce their stress and allow the possibility of exploring settlement without having to air personal financial details in open court.

I am asking for a debate on this and would like to hear what the Government thinks about it. The proposal would not interfere with creditors' right of access to the courts or prevent them from claiming property that has secured a debt; it is aimed at debtors who are, in the main, unrepresented by lawyers and whose family home may be at risk. They deserve better than a 19th century Dickensian courtroom experience. There are humane ways of resolving personal debt without the humiliation of court hearings in public. I would welcome the Government's response to this and an early debate.