Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. I commend Senators Rónán Mullen, Gerard P. Craughwell and Feargal Quinn for tabling the motion. As we are all aware, the ongoing debt crisis is continuing to dominate the lives of countless people across Ireland. Unfortunately, the Government's personal insolvency legislation has been a failure to date, with an abysmally slow take-up.

It was interesting to hear Senator Tony Mulcahy's contribution and I agree with every single word he said. I am amazed to say I also agree with everything Senator aideen Hayden said. I apologise I was not present for other colleagues' contributions because I had a meeting to attend.

We have a difficulty with receiverships. As colleagues outlined, a receiver can be appointed for a property by a court or under a mortgage deed. That is fine if it is necessary to do so where every attempt by a financial institution to regain the money loaned has failed. It is sometimes as a last resort, but it is also used as a first resort by financial institutions.

I have been a Member of this House for almost 14 years and in that period the issue of receiverships and financial institutions' repossessing machinery has been raised from time to time. I have raised it myself. Since the financial tsunami hit this country, finance companies and other financial institutions have, unfortunately, become a law unto themselves. I am aware of many cases where bully boy tactics have been used to recover machinery and other goods from decent people who, in some instances, have paid over 90% of the money back, yet late at night or in the early hours of the morning people who can only be described as thugs arrive and use force to take back that machinery or property. The way receivers conduct themselves in some instances, although not in all, leaves a lot to be desired. Regulation is urgently needed.

The Minister of State should ask his senior Government colleagues to examine another aspect of receivership. I am aware of cases where property had been up for sale prior to the receiver taking control of it. It was sold for far less than it was worth before the receiver took over.That is happening wholesale throughout the country. We have heard about Siteserv and all these other things happening, but on every day of the week throughout the country banks are doing sweetheart deal through receiverships. First, such a policy deprives the financial institution of the full worth of the property. Second, those who have been bailed out by the taxpayer deprive the taxpayer from getting money back. That is a fact and it is wrong. It is another reason there should be very tight regulation on receiverships.

I have another question for the Minister of State. Did anyone ever check how much the financial institutions that are guaranteed by the State pay public relations consultants? The use of such consultants is another tactic that has been used to sully the name of ordinary decent people who got themselves into financial difficulties through no fault of their own. I would like the Minister of State to answer that question, if at all possible.

Bankruptcy has been mentioned and I agree that the period should be reduced to one year. The bank veto is wrong and should be changed. There are arrangements that can be put together which will see financial institutions regain quite a substantial amount of the money, in some cases but not all. However, the veto means banks will not come to a deal and that is the reality. If it takes the reduction of the period of bankruptcy to 12 months then that is what we should do. We must approach this matter in a logical manner.

Once again, I compliment my colleagues, Senators Craughwell, Mullen and Quinn, who tabled the motion. I thank the Minister of State for coming here on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality.