Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

These amendments, which are being taken together, to a large extent fall outside the scope of the Bill. Amendment No. 10 relates to situations where tenancy agreements are in place and seeks to invest the court with the power to require mortgagees to abide by the terms of such agreements.

Repossession is not the only option in such situations. Where rents are being paid and where it is viable, the mortgagee may opt to appoint a receiver of rents rather than seek repossession. Where, however, the mortgagee wishes to sell the property, the mortgagee is under an obligation to obtain the best price reasonably attainable, which would normally require vacant possession of the property. In those circumstances, the proposal in amendment No. 10 would work to the disadvantage of the borrower and impede operation of the terms of the mortgage contract between the borrower and the mortgagee. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.

In regard to amendment No. 11, which seeks to instruct the court in regard to the orders, it may make in reaching its judgment on a repossession action, I will, once again, point out that the court has a general power to stay proceedings, and on a regular basis, the courts stay orders for possession for a period of time to enable people to reorder their lives, obtain alternative accommodation or, as happens on occasion, allow children to sit examinations. In those circumstances, I do not think it necessary to legislate on this issue as proposed in the amendment and, therefore, I will not be accepting it.

Turning to amendment No. 12, if we were to go down this route, which would in effect introduce non-recourse mortgages to this jurisdiction, we would, in the current circumstances where non-recourse mortgages are not available in this country, encourage strategic default and compound our current difficulties. While I stated on Committee Stage that I, on a personal level, would favour the introduction of a non-recourse mortgage product, the fact remains that such products are not available nor can we prescribe them by legislation. To accept this amendment would create even more serious difficulties for both financial institutions and the State and I cannot accept the amendment for that reason.

Amendment No. 13 seems to indicate that the Oireachtas should legislate to provide that the cost of the repossession should be paid by the mortgagee. Again, I cannot agree that such a provision should be enshrined in primary legislation and I cannot accept the amendment.

See this speech in context