Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Okay. In a general sense, there is a significant issue in relation to legal aid across a wide range of actions, including serious delays and excessive minimum contributions being requested due to under-funding of the Legal Aid Board. The cases addressed by this legislation will inevitably involve significant legal argument at the Circuit Court, whereby people will have to have a debate with the financial institutions and their legal teams. It is only right and proper that people who do not have the means, which will often be the case with people in mortgage arrears, should have access to civil legal aid, where appropriate, in order to make strong arguments on their own behalf in court in order to advance their case. That is only right and proper. The amendment providing for same has been ruled out of order because it would involve a charge on the Exchequer but it is a matter for which the Minister can provide on Report Stage. The Department can try to address it because it is vitally important.

I will now turn to the other amendments, specifically amendment No. 3. We had a meeting with Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, recently and Deputy O'Callaghan has also had communications with that organisation about an issue it has correctly highlighted. There are instances, increasingly, of people who due to mortgage arrears have moved out of a mortgaged property, moved back into the family home and rented out the mortgaged property. They did so in order to meet their mortgage payments and to keep up with their financial obligations in the hope that in the longer term, they would be able to move back into the property. However, because they are renting out the property, it is possible to appoint receivers without the same court procedures that might apply for a repossession. The financial institution does not have to go through the repossession process and the additional protections that have been created in that regard do not apply. Neither would the protections in this legislation apply. In such cases, we are proposing that applications for receivership should come to the Circuit Court. Very often these are people who are trying to do the best they can to stay on top of their mortgages in order to get their home back. That is what they want to do but there is a backdoor there that has been created. Often it is not the traditional banks but some of the other financial institutions that are using that backdoor and in those circumstances, the people involved need protection which is what the amendment seeks to provide.

The final amendment, to which Deputy O'Callaghan also referred, deals with the issue of retrospectivity and I ask the Minister of State to clarify the position in that regard. It is not immediately clear that this Bill will apply retrospectively. It must be the case that the tens of thousands of mortgages that are in arrears and the people who are very worried about repossession are afforded the maximum protection. The amendments that Deputy O'Callaghan and I have tabled seek to ensure that retrospectivity is crystal clear and to provide a sound legal basis for those people in this legislation.

Generally I do not share Deputy O'Callaghan's view on the amendments, which I communicated to him.

I accept the point, and do not feel any desire to delay this legislation unduly, but this is how the legislative process works. We have a discussion and we table amendments to try to strengthen the Bill. I believe that these amendments do strengthen the Bill. If it is delayed subsequent to that, and people decide to try to slow it down, that is a matter for the Government and the Minister's colleagues. These are good amendments and it is worth including them in the legislation. Consequently, I will press them.