Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit ar ais go dtí an Teach agus gabhaim buíochas leis as ucht an méid atá ráite aige fós faoin mBille freisin. On behalf of Fine Gael, I welcome the Bill. It is important amending legislation that corrects a number of aspects of the personal insolvency legislation but also adds to what is there in terms of practical solutions to some of the issues have arisen in the past decade or so.

The Minister of State correctly referred to the timeline of legislation in this area from 2012, including the amendment Bill of 2015. It is important to look at why that happened. After the crash in 2010, or around then, we as a country got to a stage where we had an exceptional number of mortgage arrears, particularly relative to other countries within the OECD, and it was important for the Government at that time to put in place measures to deal with that. The 2012 Act was very much that solution and it worked in many ways. Ireland was behind the curve in dealing with personal insolvency and bankruptcy. Many people who found themselves in insurmountable difficulties with their finances had to leave Ireland, usually going to the UK where there was a much more reasonable and more modern approach to insolvency than there was here. As a result we lost many people, and some of those still have not come back. They stayed and re-established themselves in the UK. It is not the way to treat our citizens because the reality is that debt can occur to anyone. There is no shame associated with it but there is a great deal of difficulty.

I have heard people, primarily, I suppose, in particular financial sectors, being critical of the regime we have here, but nobody should be under the misapprehension that entering into a personal insolvency arrangement or other of the systems provided for in this legislation is in any way an easy way out. It is not. It is something that, no matter what, will follow people at one level or another for the rest of their lives, but it is an important mechanism by which we allow people to re-engage in a functional way with society. If we tar and feather those who are in debt difficulty or who have become bankrupt, often through no fault of their own, then we have a situation where they are essentially excluded from being a functional part of society. That was wrong. It is important we changed the measures.It is important we change the measures. I was glad we did that in 2012. The 2015 amending legislation furthered that regime and improved things in many respects.

I welcome this legislation. It has a number of common sense aspects to it. The Minister made reference to a number of them. The affirmation of truth follows on from the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 in relation to court proceedings and allows people to move away from the necessary requirements to sign affidavits or swear on oath. As a modern democracy, we need to consider solutions like this and it makes perfect sense. It does not mean it is a less powerful affirmation of the truth or that they are less liable to issues arising from mistruths or lies. That is not the case. This is a modern and progressive way of dealing with issues that have arisen, during Covid-19 in particular.

Sections 3 and 5 dealing with remote meetings with the personal insolvency practitioner is a common sense measure that deals with our new reality. It is a horrible phrase but a nonetheless pertinent one in the context of Covid-19. More of us are having online meetings, often one after the other during the day. It is wonderful in many respects because it allows us to connect with people in many different places in a short period of time. However, it is tiring and impersonal and one loses the benefit of meeting in the margins or speaking to someone after a meeting.

In the context of this Bill, it would be a mistake to frustrate the operation of the personal insolvency practitioner, PIP, scheme which allows that person to deal with the client online so I welcome the provisions in sections 3 and 5.

I have a few issues with how the Bill is phrased and I am aware the Minister has outlined the primary changes. I want to consider in the first instance section 14(c) of the Bill which amends a section of the 2012 Act. It removes a sunset clause that had been in existence from the genesis of this stream of legislation which required the arrears to have accrued before 1 January 2015. It meant that only a certain category of mortgage was eligible to be in the process and benefit from the provisions of this legislation.

I have frequently been critical of the banks in this Chamber and elsewhere. I maintain the banks are less about serving the people than serving themselves. Banks are bodies that give one an umbrella on a sunny day and ask for it back when it starts raining. It is the experience we have had banks and it is unfortunate. I have met with the banks over situations relating to mortgages. It is insanely difficult for young people in particular to get mortgages or to get them at the level they need to buy houses or apartments where they want to. It is also a function of the cost of property and we must deal with that.

In that context, the Central Statistics Office, CSO, today published figures which show that Blackrock, which is my area, has the highest property prices in the country. It is wonderful for people who own houses in Blackrock and I understand that. However, it makes it difficult for their children to buy houses in Blackrock.

As someone who is applying for a mortgage at present, the experience of dealing with the banks is difficult. The manner in which they approach it is almost obstructionist. Part of it is a function of the magnitude mortgages have gotten to and the rules the Central Bank imposes on them and that is understandable. However, I think banks are unwilling to engage in any kind of risk.

The problem I have is that if we remove that sunset clause, as is proposed in section 14(c), all mortgages will come under the provisions of this legislation. That means that, according to Central Bank rules, banks will have to put in place provisions for the risk attached to all mortgages they give henceforth. The danger is it will increase mortgage rates and decrease the amount of money the banks give out in mortgages. There might be an unintended corollary effect, which would be unfortunate for young people applying for mortgages to live in the places they are from. Has the Minister considered what that is? Could another sunset clause be put in at a date henceforth, perhaps at the conclusion at the restrictive measures because undoubtedly Covid-19 will result in people going into arrears?Is the blanket removal of the sunset clause wise in all the circumstances?

I mention section 115A which extends the period within which an application can be made to a bank from two weeks to four weeks. That is very welcome. The 2015 Act removed the essential veto the banks had and that is a good thing. It is good that we will also extend the period to allow people to make those applications.

This is a good and important Bill which makes important changes. I wonder if consideration has been given to the ancillary effects it might have on the lending and mortgage market to ensure we do not further cripple young people who are trying to get mortgages.