Dáil debates

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

Land and Conveyancing Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

 

9:00 pm

Photo of Ciarán LynchCiarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)

I support the intent of this amendment. In the Minister's response to other speakers and to my own contributions I ask him to explain in detail what he means by exclusive jurisdiction in the context of the Circuit Court. Is there a constitutional matter arising such that a person may not have recourse to appeal to a higher court? Can it be provided for in legislation that a matter must be dealt with exclusively in one court and no further appeal can be taken in any other court? If that is what the Minister is actually proposing, it is a significant measure.

I suggest to the Minister that this could be broadened out. The Minister will be well aware of the Laragan developments in Dublin in which more than 100 people who had placed deposits on properties recently found that the developer had gone into examinership. The examiner is currently offering 1% of these €20,000 deposits as walk-away money. The Minister will be aware, as are other Deputies in the Chamber, that if those people took the developer to the Circuit Court and won they would quickly find themselves on appeal in the High Court. If such a thing as an exclusive provision for one court can be put in place, it could perhaps be broadened out.

The issue being addressed by the Minister's amendment is something we will be seeing far more of. In the autumn of last year around 14,000 households were in danger of mortgage default and the Labour Party proposed that a two-year moratorium be put in place to protect mortgage holders. As the Minister is aware, a mortgage agreement is simply a lending agreement no different from any other. The only thing that makes a mortgage unique is that one's home is the surety on the loan, but it is still a loan by any other measure. Perhaps what is being signalled by the Minister this evening is a long-term intention to ensure that loans acquired to buy homes are treated differently in the eyes of the law. They should have a particular significance which does not exist at present because under current legislation a mortgage is just a loan. It is no different to borrowing money to buy a car or go on a foreign holiday. Perhaps the door can be opened up on this.

Does the Minister envisage the voluntary code about which we have spoken this evening actually being implemented by bankers? What is absent here is a mandatory code whereby a set procedure, laid out in legislation, is adhered to when people default on mortgages. Voluntary codes are all very well in times of prosperity but with the danger of so many people losing the roofs over their heads we need something else. The voluntary code will ultimately result in people being brought to court.

Deputy Flanagan mentioned earlier the possibility of dealing with these cases in camera. I do not know if this is something that will require further legislation; perhaps the Minister can deal with it in secondary legislation. However, there is a significance to somebody walking into the Circuit Court and having their debts exposed for all and sundry to witness. In addition, the local media are in the court on any given morning, reporting that six or eight householders in a particular region are in danger of losing their homes. This is one of the shortcomings of the Bill and I ask the Minister to deal with it at a later date, if not sooner.

What advice has the Minister received from the Office of the Attorney General with regard to ensuring that jurisdiction over these matters can be given exclusively to the Circuit Court?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.