Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I understand that leave has been given for me to delegate some time to Deputy Pearse Doherty. I am very disappointed that no Minister or Minister of State from the Department of Justice and Equality is here, given the significance of this issue for hundreds of families and the implications it could have, which could include people being put out of their homes.

The phrase "equality of arms" is occasionally used in the context of court cases. It is a central part of a fair trial that there be a fair balance in the opportunities afforded to each of the parties involved in litigation. The changes to the legal aid rules brought in last Friday have absolutely destroyed that balance for families making insolvency applications and who may be facing repossession of their homes. They will make it much easier for banks and vulture funds to repossess homes. People will be left completely to the wolves.

Up until now, people applying for a personal insolvency arrangement, or appealing a bank's refusal to grant one after the veto was removed, could avail of the advice of a solicitor and a barrister. As of last Friday, the Government has removed the debtor's right to have a barrister in court other than in exceptional circumstances and has halved the fees paid to solicitors and personal insolvency practitioners, PIPs. I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind that these are people who, if they are not granted a personal insolvency arrangement, could be on the verge of losing their home. They are people who, by definition, cannot afford their own legal representation. On the other hand, they are taking on banks that have the very best of legal representation available and they are dealing with very complex legislation. The banks will spend €5,000 to €10,000 on each interlocking case. Even in the exceptional circumstances in which a barrister will be given, the fee of €1,200 represents a loss for a barrister. Therefore a person will not be able to get a barrister to take on his or her case.

I will give a brief example before I pause. Just yesterday, the case of Ms Lisa Parkin was decided. The judge approved a personal insolvency arrangement and accepted that the bank had been making a different case on entering the case from that upon which it ended up relying. Had Ms Parkin not had a barrister capable of responding to the bank, which was changing the goalposts in the case, there is every likelihood that she would have lost her home. To that could be added countless more cases which could result in people being out on the street. This is an attempt to disarm the debtor, who may well be fighting repossession.

See this speech in context