Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The unfairness with which people in mortgage distress in this country have been treated in the past eight years since the crash is mind-boggling.

If anything shows how this system cares nothing for the majority in society, it is the fact that so little was done by the previous Government to help people. This was one of the key issues, as I am sure people remember, in elections a few years ago. The personal insolvency practitioner service we heard about is not being taken up by many people.

I have a question about the vulture funds. It is interesting that it was mentioned that despite the protestations of the vulture lovers, vulture funds do not have a long-term interest in settling with people in distress. Is it fair to say the witness is in disagreement with the Minister for Finance who, when he came before us two weeks ago, made an analogy with vulture funds? He stated that vultures provide a very good service in ecology through cleaning up dead animals littered across the landscape. He has met representatives of those funds on several occasions, as have his departmental officials. Does the witness agree it was wrong to sell so many mortgages to vulture funds and the Government should not have allowed that to happen? We can only assume from the Minister's comments that he is likening mortgage holders and people in distress to dead animals that need to be cleared off the landscape. As has been noted, unfortunately, people are very much alive and it is a bit of an insult to vultures because they perform an important function in ecology.

The other point made by the witness is that radical action was taken by the Oireachtas in dealing with the banking crisis and €64 billion was passed over for that. Where did that €64 billion go? Did any of it go to releasing the debt on mortgage holders or did it all go to releasing debts on developers and the banks? Does the witness have any figures on that? For example, AIB wrote off €5.4 billion in construction and property loans in the past two years, compared with only €1.1 billion on residential mortgages. That relates to owner-occupier and buy-to-let loans.

I am glad the witness raised the issue of compulsory purchase orders, CPOs, as legislation is required in that regard. Does the witness advocate that the State should pursue this for mortgages in distress? Could the process be used by State-owned banks where possible to write down people's mortgage debt? At the end of 2015, AIB had €5.7 billion in impaired residential mortgages but it wrote down €5.4 billion in construction and property loans. What would have happened if the company used that money to write down debts on the mortgage holder rather than the developer?

I have many examples of statements from the Government indicating how there is a conscious policy to allow property prices rise in order to reduce negative equity for people so they will feel better about their debt. Does the witness agree that this has also led to the housing crisis as well? If a person is waiting for prices to rise, houses and land would be held back, contributing to the housing and homeless crisis.

In the interest of people knowing where Mr. Hall is coming from, I must ask him about his relationship with AIB. The Irish Mortgage Holders Association, IMHO, has had a connection with AIB since 2013. Will the witness outline the nature of that relationship so that people can be aware of it? In AIB's annual report last year, it indicated that to year-end 2015, some 2,370 people achieved a resolution with the bank through the IMHO, with 779 resolutions achieved during 2015. The IMHO website indicates it is funded by grant-aid from AIB. How much does it get paid by AIB and is it essentially a contractor for the bank? The IMHO has been able to take on staff as a result of that arrangement. Does that compromise the IMHO in dealing with AIB, as it is one of the biggest mortgage providers in the country?