Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

169. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality her views on the comments made by the Master of the High Court (details supplied) that the Circuit Courts around the country are not properly applying EU law in relation to applications for the repossession of homes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1355/17]

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

207. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if she can take the necessary action to ensure that Circuit Courts and county registrars are correctly implementing Irish and EU law with regard to home repossessions (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1863/17]

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

210. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if her attention has been drawn to the highly critical comments made by the Master of the High Court in relation to the application of the 1993 EU directive on unfair contract terms in consumer contracts within the courts; the steps she is taking to address the issues raised in these comments; if her Department will provide additional resources to conduct necessary awareness raising and additional training; the discussions she has had with the Presidents of the Courts in relation to these matters; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1938/17]

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 169, 207 and 210 together.

As the Deputy will be aware, the courts are, subject only to the constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and in the management and conduct of cases which come before them. I am aware of the High Court decision referenced and wish to reassure the Deputy that this is currently being examined by my Department and the matter will be kept under review in terms of any definitive additional obligations arising.

In relation to County Registrars, as a matter of law, a County Registrar may only make an order for possession of any land in cases where no defence to an action for possession has been delivered by the defendant or no appearance has been entered by the defendant. Therefore the power of a County Registrar as regards making possession orders is extremely limited and where any defence is raised by the defendant, including any defence in relation to the nature or terms of the mortgage contract between the borrower and lender, the matter must, when it is in order for hearing, be transferred by the County Registrar to the judge's list at the first opportunity. At that point it would be a matter for the judge to consider any such issues raised, including, if applicable, issues in relation to the EU Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts which was given effect to in Ireland by Regulations in 1995 and amending Regulations in 2000 and in 2013. In addition, all orders of a County Registrar are subject to appeal to the Circuit Court.

The Directive and Regulations are a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, and it is understood that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has supervisory powers to ensure compliance with the legislation.

The raising of this issue in relation to the matters for consideration by the Court in a possession case underlines the critical importance of people who are in mortgage arrears on their homes and who have been issued with legal proceedings engaging with their lender and with the court processes and entering a defence for the consideration of the court where they believe that they have a defence. If they engage with the court processes they will be subject to various forms of statutory and non statutory protection including the provisions of special legislation introduced in 2013 and 2015 and also the ability to avail of the free legal and financial advice services provided for under the Government's Abhaile service introduced in October 2016.

It is already the case, since special insolvency legislation passed in 2015, that a PIA (personal insolvency arrangement), the key statutory insolvency measure which has the objective of keeping a homeowner in arrears in the family home and restoring him/her to solvency, can be imposed by the court in particular circumstances where it has been rejected by the creditors. It is also the case that, under Section 2 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 the Circuit Court may, in any repossession proceedings in respect of a borrower's principal private residence, adjourn proceedings so that a proposal for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 may be fully explored as an alternative to repossession. The Act provides for an initial adjournment period not exceeding 2 months, with the possibility of further adjournments where it considers that progress has been made on preparing a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA).

The concentration during the latter part of 2016 was to get the new Government Abhaile service up and running and producing results as the new national mortgage arrears resolution service, operating with MABS (the Money Advice and Budgeting Service which has a network of offices across the country) as the key point of entry. This now ensures that people who are in danger of losing their home have access to free professional advice, including advice from a Personal Insolvency Practitioner. Under this Scheme, home owners who are in arrears on their home mortgage and at risk of losing their homes are provided with access to free independent expert financial and legal advice and assistance, so that a solution can be put in place that will deal with their debt and keep them in their home, where that is a sustainable option.

The Abhaile service is in addition to the help already available from MABS to homeowners in mortgage arrears. This includes the presence of MABS court mentors at all Circuit Court repossession hearings across the country to provide information and assistance to unrepresented borrowers; and providing in-house dedicated Mortgage Arrears advisers (DMA advisers) in MABS offices across the country, specifically to assist and negotiate on behalf of borrowers in mortgage arrears.

Over 3,700 vouchers for financial or legal advice and assistance were issued under Abhaile between 22 July and 13 January 2017, of which over 3,000 were requested for consultations and assistance with Personal Insolvency Practitioners.　The Abhaile Scheme includes provision for free legal aid for homeowners where a PIA which includes arrears on the home mortgage has been rejected by creditors and an application needs to be made to the Court to review the case and impose the arrangement where applicable. Legal Aid has been approved under the Abhaile Scheme in over 100 such cases, up to 13 January 2017.

During 2015, the Insolvency Service of Ireland helped almost 1,700 debtors secure permanent debt solutions that returned them to solvency, up from 996 in 2014.

The number of people availing of solutions through the Insolvency Service of Ireland continued to grow in 2016. During 2015 ISI received 2,028 applications, 1,371 Protective Certificates were issued and almost 1,700 permanent solutions for debtors were put in place. In the year Quarter 4 of 2015 to Quarter 3 of 2016, the latest full year figures that are available, the ISI received 2,731 applications, 1,581 Protective Certificates were issued and almost 1,800 permanent solutions for debtors were put in place. The number of solutions for this period is expected to increase further over the coming months, as the outcomes of vouchers issued under the Abhaile Scheme come to fruition and as personal insolvency review cases currently before the courts are decided or settled.

Continuing education for the Irish judiciary is facilitated by the Committee for Judicial Studies and any person appointed to judicial office agrees to take such course or courses of training or education, or both, as may be required by the Chief Justice or President of the court to which that person is appointed.