Mr. Karl Deeter:

I suspect that because of the difficulties lenders have with repossessing homes and the fact that insurers in this area were supportive of legislation that made it harder, they probably do not want to see repossessions because that triggers their indemnity. If they have a way of keeping the person in situ so it remains the bank's problem, there might be a weird set of incentives.
If we are talking about pensions and access to them, at a time of increased longevity where people are not saving enough already, giving them money from their future pot that will keep them going could be a mistake. By definition, a mortgage or at least credit involves moving money through time so one is reaching into one's future. Let us suppose prices stay the same. If one bought a house for €100,000 and after ten years, one owed €90,000, that €10,000 difference constitutes one's wealth. Mortgages in a way are like forced savings and are quite beneficial in that respect. When people get to an older age and they are mortgage-free, it helps them to take on the income shock that retirement represents.
It is important to realise that being able to access that credit is important and it is important in terms of household wealth. We are probably not the people who will be affected by this. We include a professor, someone involved in a finance, a lawyer, a barrister and another accountant. We are all successful people. The people I see who are discriminated against financially work in real, regular jobs and the banks are already starting to look down their noses at them. Any move in this area will have many bad outcomes. As I said, a person's household wealth at retirement is mainly made up in the world of home ownership, regardless of whether it is ideal or not. That is a fact. Home ownership should not be discouraged by stopping people from getting credit because most of the loans are working out. Most homes do not get repossessed and the majority of them do not go into arrears.