Mr. Gary Tobin:

I will provide my viewpoint and the representatives of the Central Bank may wish to offer theirs. I thank the Deputy for her questions. On the constitutionality point which was the first issue raised by the Deputy, obviously, we consulted the Office of the Attorney General and it was on foot of that consultation that we came to the view that the Bill is disproportionate and, therefore, likely to be unconstitutional. The sale of mortgages is currently carried out with the consent of the owner. Consent is effectively irrevocably given pursuant to the mortgage contract when it is entered into. As the Deputy is aware, that tends to be what currently happens. When one takes out a mortgage, one signs the contract, the terms and conditions of which state that the mortgage may be sold on.

The extent to which property rights may be interfered with is, in our view, dependent on what is proportionate or, essentially, the extent to which the interference is justified and necessary. There is a justification to interfere with such rights in order to prevent the sale of a family home, such as in a case where the home is being sold without the consent of the spouse. The power to interfere with property rights in order to prevent the family home from being sold already exists in law.