Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming into the Chamber. I welcome the Bill. It is good legislation which will help people in mortgage arrears to stay in their homes and avoid having them repossessed. As many of the cohort of new homeless persons have had their homes repossessed through the courts, the broadening of the criteria judges will be able to consider and take into account is most welcome. However, I have a query that I have raised with the office of the Minister of State, whom I thank for his engagement on it.

In the briefing note on the Bill supplied to Senators there is a reference to an objection lodged by the European Central Bank to a provision in the original Private Members' Bill that would have allowed a court to consider whether the lender seeking repossession was the original lender of the mortgage. It would incorporate circumstances in which the original lender that provided the mortgage on the property had sold it on to a third party such as a vulture fund which then sought repossession. The briefing note states the ECB objected to this provision on the grounds that"it could impede investment fund activity in secondary markets and reduce participation and price competition in the lending market". I do not have much time for this objection. We are facing a crisis of repossessions and homelessness and our laws should be assessed on their benefits to vulnerable citizens, not the needs of actors in the international financial market. It seems very important that such a provision be included in the Bill. Whether a person's mortgage is still with the original lender or a third party is salient and relevant in considering his or her ability to repay the loan and a court should be allowed to include it in its deliberations. If the mortgage is with the original lender, one will have a pre-existing relationship that can be used to discuss personal insolvency arrangements, whereas if it is with a vulture fund, there will be a very different relationship. A court should be able to take this into account when deciding whether to grant a repossession order.

The briefing note goes on to state the relevant provision was not included in the Bill owing to the ECB's objection but would be introduced as a Committee Stage amendment later in the process. I presumed it would be introduced in the Seanad, but as that has not happened, I ask the Minister of State whether there are plans to introduce it in the Dáil. Has there been further engagement with the ECB and where do we stand on its objection? I considered tabling an amendment to this effect, but I did not want to prejudice the process under way with the ECB. This provision is a critical part of the suite of measures required to tackle the homelessness and repossessions crises. I would appreciate an update on the issue from the Minister of State.