Mr. Paul Joyce:

They are not being borne out because mortgages that were on fixed rates were sold to funds and they are offering variable rates only. Mr. Brendan Burgess, Mr. Padraic Kissane and, Mr. David Hall appeared before the committee last week. Evidence was provided of increases of up to 3% between the rate on the original loan and the rate being offered by the fund. It is clear that it is very easy to sit at a certain juncture and state that the consumer protection framework is identical whether a loan is held by a bank or a nonbank, but this has patently not been borne out over time. One wonders whether that was really just stated as a badge of convenience at the time or whether, in fact, the former Governor actually believed that this was how things would spin out. We know that has not been the case, however. It is not just with regard to rates of interest but also how alternative repayment arrangements are dealt with.

It is ironic that it has been almost four years since the Deputy's No Consent, No Sale Bill 2019 was debated. We probably would not have thought then that, four years later, the landscape would have changed so markedly in terms of the cost of living, interest rate rises and so on. Here we are again in a bind whereby people not only do not have the financial capacity to make mortgage repayments but they also cannot make rearranged mortgage repayments or honour alternative repayment arrangements. Obviously, as the Deputy noted, with continual interest rate rises being passed on to the borrower, the situation is unsustainable.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have all the cases that are before the courts. Many of those are legacy cases that resulted from the follow-up to the global financial crash. It looks like another wave of new mortgage arrears cases could be in the pipeline. We made the point earlier about the Central Bank's quarterly figures. We would prefer if it noted accounts that go into arrears for the first time, on the one hand, and accounts that exit arrears, on the other.

During Covid-19, obviously, some people were able to sort out their mortgage arrears problem. Instead of having this net figure, can we have two separate figures to give us a better idea of what is actually happening? How do we deal with this? The code of conduct on mortgage arrears has been mentioned. The mortgage arrears resolution process has been mentioned. Again, will it be a realistic assessment of what people can afford to pay this time? In 2013 and 2014, banks said that they would put people on interest-only arrangements and see what happened. Many of those cases worsened. If they had been dealt with in a radical way from the get-go in terms of a realistic assessment of where households stood, the outcome may have been better.

The code of conduct on mortgage arrears should have an independent appeal mechanism; it does not. The suite of arrangements are set out as potential scenarios and the lender gets to choose which one of those suites of arrangements they potentially offer. They should all be available and looked at. We suggested in the series of four From Pillar to Post papers we produced in the past couple of years that maybe it is also time to try to look at taking mortgage arrears cases out of the courts and get involved in a concentrated but balanced look at how these cases can be resolved by working with funds, lenders, insolvency practitioners and, obviously, MABS in the context of trying to work these out once and for all. The Deputy mentioned mortgage interest relief. It almost seems inevitable that the State is going to have to contribute to this through the taxpayer in some shape or form.