Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Earlier this month, the Master of the High Court criticised the Government for failing to protect people who are facing the repossession of their homes. He said that under EU consumer law, our courts are required to examine each mortgage contract, regardless of whether the defendant is in court, to ascertain whether its terms are unfair. His claim is that county registrars, as agents of the EU, are failing in their duty. In light of the seriousness of these claims, I tabled a parliamentary question to the Tánaiste. The reply I received from her on Tuesday directly contradicts Mr. Honohan's claims. Her reply places the onus on the defendant to seek protection under EU law on the grounds of an unfair contract. On further examination, I discovered that Mr. Honohan's claims in respect of the State's responsibility are supported by three compelling sources. First, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2013 that "the national court is required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term... is unfair". Second, Mr. Justice Max Barrett's recent ruling in the Counihan case cited the European Court of Justice's 2013 ruling. Third, the scheme of the Consumer Rights Bill, which is being advanced by the Minister, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, in her Department states that this obligation on the courts has been clearly established. Will the Tánaiste tell the House whether her reply to my parliamentary question was cleared by the legal team in her Department before it was issued to me? Did she discuss the matter with the Office of the Attorney General? How can she explain the direct contradiction between her reply and the sources I have cited?

See this speech in context