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?

This issue was the subject of a Topical Issue debate in this Chamber earlier this week. The reply that was given on that occasion, like the reply that was given to Deputy Shortall's parliamentary question, outlined the approach that is being taken in this regard. Both replies made it clear that further legal advice is being taken on this issue, that the court statements and judgments have been noted and that varying legal advice has been received. My Department has taken legal advice on this issue generally, although not necessarily in relation to a particular parliamentary question, and has drawn up its replies on that basis. It was made clear during the Topical Issue debate that the Department will be taking further advice. I will communicate directly with the Deputy when that information has been received.

The Government has taken a series of initiatives within the Departments of Justice and Equality and Social Protection to reach out to mortgage holders to ensure further information is available to them. Under a new scheme, vouchers for legal advice are made available to individuals to ensure they have better access to legal advice in the courts system. That new scheme has been taken up very successfully since it was announced some months ago. More general information and advice is also available. The Insolvency Service of Ireland has seen a very large increase in its activity recent months since the changes were made and the new scheme was announced. The new scheme has removed any financial barriers that may be encountered by people when they are deciding on the best way forward from a legal point of view. I will communicate further with the Deputy when I have received further legal advice on this issue.

The Tánaiste's response is just not good enough. I asked her a specific question about Mr. Honohan's criticisms and her potentially inaccurate response to a parliamentary question I tabled on Tuesday. I would expect that the veracity of a reply to a parliamentary question on an issue like this would have been checked before it was issued. Under the European Court of Justice ruling, "the national court is required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term falling within the scope of the directive is unfair, compensating in its own way for the imbalance which exists between the consumer or the seller or supplier" of a service.

The implications of the failure of the courts to adhere to the requirements of EU consumer protection law are potentially extremely serious. It appears that repossession orders are being granted without the courts taking the initiative to assess whether mortgage contracts are unfair. This is clearly a denial of people's rights by the courts. Are repossessions happening without people being afforded their rights and does this expose the State to legal challenge due to its failure to adhere to the requirements of EU law?

County registrars are officers of the court and independent in the exercise of their functions and duties under statute and the rules of court. It is important to point out the following. As a matter of law, they may only make an order for the 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.

The Tánaiste is repeating the inaccuracy.

Let me finish. Therefore, the power of a county registrar to make orders for possession is extremely limited.

The Tánaiste is wrong.

Where any defence is raised by a 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. The courts are independent, which is an important point to make. Following the transfer, it will be a matter for the judge to consider any issues raised, including, if applicable, issues in relation to the EU directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, which was given effect in Ireland by way of regulations in 1995. The directive and regulations are matters for 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 them.

The Tánaiste is compounding the error now.