Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Many previous speakers referred to people whose mortgages are in arrears. This continues to be a major problem and we are awaiting a debate on the ongoing increase in the number of house repossessions. That debate should take place soon. It is extremely sad that we have reached this juncture. The Insolvency Service of Ireland has failed. Its stated aim was to keep people in their homes, where possible. I have been a consistent critic of the insolvency legislation, particularly the provisions in the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, that bestow on the banks an effective veto on personal insolvency arrangements.

The statistics show that since it was established in 2013, the Insolvency Service of Ireland has concluded just 199 agreements to allow people to deal with their debts. That figure is pathetic, particularly in the context of the 7,101 bills for repossession lodged by the banks in the courts to date. Property prices have increased and now the banks are pushing through repossessions with zeal. There are 80 cases before the county registrar in the Galway Circuit Court. Where are the public interest directors on the boards of the banks? Are these individuals not in place to ensure that the public interest - in terms of keeping people in their homes - is represented? Of the thousands of people who account for the 7,101 bills for repossession to which I refer, very few own mansions in Dalkey or are the subject of media headlines. In many cases, they are living lives of quiet desperation. These are ordinary people living in normal homes in communities and they certainly deserve better. I was interested to hear Senator Ivana Bacik call for a debate on banking and insolvency. The reports that emerged after the property crash pointed to groupthink and a lack of open criticism of Government policy as a basis for the property bubble. I am struck by the groupthink in the political establishment at this time in regard to the forthcoming referendum. I am struck by the way people champion the presence of politicians at yesterday's launch of the Yes Equality campaign, for example, when we all know that there are probably as many politicians in this House opposed to the proposal as there are in favour of it but who simply dare not to speak out. One sees a small chink in the consensus when one hears a person such as the distinguished Labour Party representative Deputy Willie Penrose saying it is best to leave this issue to people to decide for themselves and observing that he knows a family where two people are on one side of the argument and two on the other. Where are the politicians to represent the vast number in the country who have serious reservations about the impact of what is proposed on the right of children to be brought into the world or brought up by a father and a mother? On the whole business of smacking children, what is at issue is a defence of reasonable chastisement, that is, that parents can offer such a defence in a court case. It is not that people have a right to punish their children physically but a question of having such a defence in place. I do not know whether that defence should change. I can see the arguments in favour of taking it away, but I would be far more impressed with the so-called advocates of children's rights if they abandoned their dereliction of duty around children's right to be brought into the world or brought up by a father and a mother. Their silence on the issue or, worse than silence, their abandonment of support for children's right to a father and a mother reflects no credit on them. This is a far more important and relevant issue in the life of every child than the discussion around smacking. I wish the people concerned would abandon the groupthink and begin to reflect what a lot of people regard as common sense.