David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The objective of the scheme is to ensure that persons at risk of losing their homes due to mortgage arrears can access independent expert financial and legal advice that will help them to identify the best options for returning to solvency, with priority given to remaining in their homes where that is a sustainable option. It aims, in particular, to reach those in arrears of more than two years. The scheme started in late July and is already proving very effective. Eligible clients are given vouchers to obtain expert advice from financial and legal advisers in order to resolve their debt issues. In addition, they can get assistance in court where needed, have access to solicitors and get help obtaining legal aid. Since the establishment of the scheme in July, over 2,100 home owners have received assistance. Other initiatives including the establishment of a dedicated new court to handle mortgage arrears and other personal insolvency cases and a review of the Central Bank's code of conduct on mortgage arrears will come on stream in the coming months.

Regarding the rights of tenants, a matter that falls outside the scope of the Bill we are discussing, Deputies may be aware that the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016, which is expected to be enacted shortly, contains two provisions relating to security of tenure. It provides that a landlord may not terminate a tenancy on the grounds that he or she wishes to sell a dwelling in circumstances where the landlord is selling more than 20 dwellings at the same time in the same development. In addition, the Bill provides for the repeal of section 42 of the 2004 Act, thereby extinguishing the landlord's right to terminate a further Part 4 tenancy in the first six months of that tenancy for no stated ground. I should add that action No. 5 of the rental strategy published earlier today by the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government commits to the establishment of a working group to examine the scope for transferring the obligations of landlords to receivers where receivers have been appointed. The group will report to the Minister by the end of March 2017. Finally, in so far as it seeks to infringe on property rights safeguarded by the Constitution, Deputy Healy's amendment cannot be accepted.

On amendment No. 6, the intention appears to be to protect tenants in the event of repossession of dwellings by a mortgagee or the appointment of a receiver. I note at the outset that the scope of the proposal is not defined and that it would, therefore, appear to be intended to apply to all categories of tenants, including tenants of commercial premises and office blocks. Adoption of such a broad measure would be likely to have far reaching and unintended consequences. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the proposed amendment would, because of its breadth and the fact that it is not limited to some class of tenant or some type of requirement of what could reasonably regarded as social justice within the meaning of Article 43 of the Constitution, withstand a constitutional challenge. In the absence of some established social necessity or other similar justification and the proportionate limitation of the proposed amendment to what could reasonably be regarded as necessary for the purposes of such a justification, it does not seem likely that the constitutionality of the proposed restriction on the right of mortgagees could be successfully defended if there were a challenge alleging the proposed restriction constituted an unjust attack within the meaning of Article 43.2 of the Constitution. I cannot, therefore, accept amendment No. 6.

See this speech in context