Michael Harty (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will lead off. I would like to speak in favour of this Bill. The proposal in this Bill is broadly similar to what are known as class actions in the United States and, thus, is worth considering seriously. Clearly, there are a number of advantages associated with this form of litigation. However, there are also some disadvantages but I will deal with advantages first. As has been pointed out, multi-party actions will lead to lower litigation costs as they will be divided among the class members, thus giving people greater access to the courts. The model offers an opportunity for plaintiffs to seek relief at a lower cost. It will be much cheaper for people with limited resources to seek relief in a way that the traditional lawsuit cannot do at present. Importantly, a class action is decided in one court, leading to greater judicial efficiency. Class action litigation takes up less cumulative court time and involves fewer judges. Also, since only one decision by one court will be made, plaintiffs' recoveries should be consistent.

However, in the United States there are some noted disadvantages, one being a lack of decision-making control. Representatives of the affected class make the important litigation decisions, including when to settle. The power of the individual plaintiff to have a say in whether to settle is diluted. Also, another consideration is that cases may also settle for financial compensation of some kind, whereas if the plaintiff is seeking other types of compensation, this can be problematic. It also appears that if the class action is unsuccessful in the lawsuit, then individual class members may not have the right to bring individual lawsuits at a later date. However, on balance, the advantages appear to outweigh the disadvantages. The introduction of a broadly similar system here would give citizens an important additional instrument in seeking justice.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire has pointed out in his Bill that this could revolutionise the way courts deal with large-scale actions and could improve justice for countless people who have faced serious injustice, for example, people affected by the tracker mortgage scandal. It is quite likely that in the future large numbers of people will need to seek redress from large institutions, companies or corporations.

I remain to be convinced that our regulatory system has sufficient robust measures to protect our citizens. In these circumstances citizens may have no choice but to go to the courts, and the multi-party action model may be the way to go.

I am astounded that the Central Bank cannot even provide information to me on tracker mortgages county by county and it could not provide information to me on the number of people affected by the tracker mortgage scandal in County Clare. I was told that the Central Bank does not have the data at this granular level. In plain English, I believe this means it does not know how many people are affected by the tracker mortgage scandal region by region. At the time I put the question, the banks said 13,000 affected customers had been identified to date nationwide, the majority of whom will receive their redress and compensation before the end of the year. Since then, Bank of Ireland has said it has discovered an additional 6,000 cases where customers were due low-rate mortgages, having been told initially they were not entitled to them. Who knows what the final figure will be.

All this leads to my conclusion that affordable access to the courts for large numbers of people is highly desirable. In an age when great financial institutions can wield unscrupulous control and where the regulatory authorities seem slow to catch up with them, I welcome the introduction of this Bill.

See this speech in context