Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, to delete line 10 and substitute the following: “1. In this Act—

“Act of 1976” means the Family Home Protection Act 1976;

“Act of 2009” means the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009;

“Act of 2013” means the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013;

“Act of 2014” means the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014.”.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. The purpose of this legislation, which is being promoted by the Minister of State, Deputy Moran, is to provide greater protections for people who find themselves in the very unfortunate position of a financial institution trying to gain possession of their property. Everyone here commends the Minister of State on seeking to improve the situation for people who find themselves in that unfortunate position and are before the courts. As I mentioned during the Second Stage debate, my party is supportive of this legislation. I do not know whether it will have a significant impact on the position of the aforementioned people when they are before the courts but hopefully it will. I had tabled a number of amendments which would have improved the legislation in a number of ways. First, it is very important that people who find themselves before the courts have the benefit of having the legal protections available to them advocated before the courts on their behalf. That is why in one of the amendments I tabled, which is similar to an amendment tabled by Deputy Ó Laoghaire, I sought to expand the parameters of the Civil Legal Aid Act so that it would apply to the applications that can be brought under this new legislation. I also wanted to put forward an amendment that dealt with the situation in respect of a person who is applying for the appointment of a receiver. The appointment of a receiver is a very complex aspect of our legal system. Generally, receivers are appointed pursuant to a deed of instrument or a contract. The provision tabled by myself and Deputy Ó Laoghaire aimed to facilitate a change in the law so that a receiver could not be appointed over a certain type of property unless there was an order from the court. The final amendment I tabled is in respect of what may be a bit of an ambiguity in the Bill. We all hope that when this legislation is enacted, it will apply to all existing mortgages and will not simply apply to mortgages that are created in the future. We have a problem in Ireland at present with people who are in mortgage arrears and it is these people this Bill is seeking to protect and that the Oireachtas should be seeking to protect. In that context, I am concerned that in the future, financial institutions will be able to claim that this legislation does not apply to mortgages that existed prior to its enactment.

I had an opportunity last night to speak to the Minister of State about these amendments and I am conscious that if I push them, at best the legislation may be delayed and at worst, it my not be enacted. That is not what I want to do. My objective and that of Deputy Ó Laoghaire is to improve the legislation. However, if there is a potential threat of the legislation not being enacted at all, I will withdraw my amendments. It is preferable to get this legislation enacted and if it is enacted, I hope it will be of benefit to the house owners who find themselves in the terrible position to which I referred earlier. I have some concerns, as I said, about the civil legal aid system and its application, the appointment of a receiver and the extent to which the legislation applies to existing mortgages. If the courts interpret this legislation in a negative way once it is enacted, we will have to come back and amend it. Indeed, we may need to amend it in any event in due course. I want to see the legislation enacted without delay which is why I am not going to pursue or proceed with any of my amendments.