Sinn Féin welcomes this Bill. Ensuring the right to be forgotten is essential for people who have overcome cancer. For people who face a diagnosis of that kind, and we all know somebody who has, purchasing a home will not be the first thing on their minds but shelter and owning your home is so important to recovery and the quicker we realise the difficulties people are facing - the battle with cancer, even when they are on the far side of it, it is an battle to simply be treated like everybody else by the banks and insurance companies, which are the modern gatekeepers of home ownership. The Government can be assured of Sinn Féin's support for this Bill. In many ways, it is long overdue. In Ireland we saw a voluntary code recently adopted by the insurance industry. Insurance companies can choose whether they adhere to a code in each individual case. The longstanding default of self-regulation has not served us well. That voluntary code only applies to mortgage protection insurance and not to other types of insurance. That said, the fact we are looking at this policy area raises many more questions. Is after five years of being cancer free a fair threshold to be set for the right to be forgotten? We have to add the difficult years of battling cancer. Only when people are finally cancer-free does the clock start and then they have to wait for five years to apply for mortgages. I do not think that seems right. We need to look hard at that and perhaps the Minister of State will do so on Committee Stage. I hope the Government will be sincerely open to looking at how we could go further than what is set out in the Bill. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have a long track record of siding with the banks, including allowing them to send up to 100,000 mortgages to vulture funds, many for no reason, and without consent. The families deserve justice there. The banks are allowed to enjoy corporation tax relief while boasting a combined profit of €5 billion last year alone and despite never fully repaying the Irish people for bailing them out. This is an opportunity for the Government to show is it on the side of ordinary people and not the banks. Ordinary people deserve so much more. Make no mistake, banks and insurance companies do not want this even if they would not say it publicly. If this is to pass, they want it to be as narrow as possible, with the wait time for a fresh start as long as possible. A year after the first all-clear from a doctor should be more than enough. We need to understand that very recently, in the past decade, healthcare treatment and options have been revolutionised, as has the treatment of serious illnesses with the rapid positive results that were always promised. This needs to be taken into account. Survival rates from cancer have quadrupled and it is no longer necessarily the big C scary stuff we thought it was perhaps a decade or so ago. Healthcare has moved on and has been revolutionised so I do think a year being clear from a doctor should be enough. People need to be able to move on with their lives, especially with lives they felt had been threatened. We have to think about why we are only talking about cancer. There are many serious medical conditions that mean people cannot access mortgages either because the banks will not lend or the insurance companies will not provide the insurance banks require to issue a mortgage. My party colleague Deputy Conway-Walsh was dealing with a case a couple of years ago where a woman who had previously suffered from an eating disorder was denied insurance. She was denied precisely because she was continuing therapy to ensure she did not relapse. She was effectively being punished for doing the right thing, for seeking help and staying healthy and investing in her own health. I believe that eventually, due to the woman bravely speaking out and to political pressure, she was offered cover but nobody should have to go down that route and that is all on an individual, desperate basis, putting your life story out there and begging and pleading for somebody to listen so they will act and give cover. This leads me to another area. It is not often that lending is the greatest barrier. As I mentioned in the story about the women with the difficulties with an eating disorder, the issue is often accessing the mortgage protection insurance. This is where we need to be careful to ensure the legislation has the intended effect. Not only must people not be denied cover but we also need to ensure they are offered fair and affordable premiums. If someone gets an offer but the monthly cost is extortionate, then the barrier to accessing a mortgage will remain. It is a kind of catch-22. This issue is sometimes kicked around between the banks and the insurance companies; hands off, Mexican stand-off and it is somebody else's problem. The insurance company will say that where they will not insure, there are exemptions under section 126 of the Consumer Credit Act. While banks will say that insurance companies should be providing insurance, people are denied mortgages for not having mortgage protection insurance and are quoted extortionate premiums. Many people do not know that they can argue their case with the bank. I welcome this legislation and commend my Dublin South Central colleague and former Seanad mate, Deputy Catherine Ardagh, and well done to her for bringing this forward. I commend her on progressing this and ask the Minister of State to have a think about what I have just said.

Sentiment score: -0.01