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

It is important to remember that the Courts Bill was introduced last month, November, for a particular reason. The House was told that it was being introduced to deal with the unintended consequences of a Court of Appeal decision on a case called Permanent TSB v.Langan. That decision was given in July of this year. The Government said it was introducing the Bill to deal with some of the consequences of that court case. In particular, the Government stated it was introducing the legislation because the Circuit Court may not now have jurisdiction in respect of a certain type of case. Those cases in which it would not have jurisdiction related to buy-to-let properties in respect of which a mortgage had been granted prior to December 2009. On the basis of what the Government said in the House, it received agreement or main support on Second Stage.

When it came to Committee Stage, in light of concerns that were expressed to me by parliamentary colleagues in Fianna Fáil, I tabled an amendment to the legislation. That amendment was amendment No. 10 that was due to be considered on Committee Stage. What it sought to do was protect tenants on repossessed land. The reason I refer to it is because the amendment that I tabled on Committee Stage is relatively similar to the amendment being put forward now on Report Stage by Deputy Smith. The amendment being put forward by Deputy Healy is a much broader amendment. I particularly want to address the amendment being tabled by Deputy Smith.

When it came to Committee Stage, I brought to the attention of the Government that in fact the Court of Appeal decision in PTSBv.Langan was being appealed to the Supreme Court. That was something that this House did not know at the time of the Second Stage debate. In fairness, it could not have known as the decision to allow the appeal to the Supreme Court was only given two days after the hearing of the Second Stage debate in the House. As a result of bringing this information to the attention of the Government, on foot of the fact that the Committee on Justice and Equality indicated that it would not support it, the Government decided to drop the first three sections in the Courts Bill, which dealt with giving jurisdiction to the Circuit Court in the particular type of case that I outlined earlier. As a result of the Government dropping sections 1 to 3, inclusive, I did not proceed with or pursue amendment No. 10 because I did not think it was appropriate in light of the fact that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was not going to be changed by the legislation. There was no reason to introduce legislation because there was a matter before the courts. It may not be necessary to introduce legislation in the long run.

I wanted to give that as an explanation as to why Fianna Fáil will not be supporting Deputy Smith's amendment, though I have a lot of sympathy for it. The reason we will not be supporting it is, due to the first three sections of the Bill being gone, it does not fit within the legislation we are drafting as a Courts Bill. However, I agree with a lot of what was said by Deputies Healy, Smith and McGrath about there being a housing crisis within this problem. That crisis is not going to be resolved by a Courts Bill or by amendments to it. It will only be resolved through the Government putting in place a coherent and sensible plan that will result in greater supply being provided in the development of houses and apartments in the country. It is also the case, however, that further consideration needs to be given to greater protection for tenants, including tenants of buy-to-let properties. That is a matter that Fianna Fáil will consider in due course. However, we do not believe that including this particular amendment is appropriate in the context of this Courts Bill. We will keep ourselves open to including a similar clause in subsequent landlord and land and conveyancing legislation that comes to be amended.

See this speech in context