Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

If we do not get the right answer we will pursue it. At least we have an opportunity to do so. In the previous system we could not pursue anything, there was a set reply and that was the end of it.

How we deal with housing and distressed mortgages, in particular the family home, is a major burning issue of the day. The family home is sacrosanct and a fundamental principle should inform all our deliberations, namely, that no family should ever have the roof over its head taken from it because of an inability to meet its payments. As long as a family is making a serious effort to deal with the situation - circumstances have arisen such as mortgages, employment and other things - it should not lose the roof over its head.

There is a very strong declaration of intent from the Government in its programme for national recovery. A policy of putting the interests of big developers and the banks ahead of people looking to purchase a home was a direct cause of Ireland's disastrous property boom and bust, something I am sure the Minister of State knows. The Government is committed to helping homeowners in distress to weather the recession and ensure Ireland has a sustainable housing policy. Both parties believe more protection is needed for homeowners with distressed mortgages. The recommendations of the Cooney report are inadequate to address the scale of the current crisis and a more radical approach is needed to protect families in fear of losing their homes.

We all agree it is the intention of the Government to address those issues. We need to determine how to put it into practical operation. A two-year moratorium has been introduced, mortgage interest supplement is available and there is the flexibility of interest only repayments. We now need to have more radical reforms because the number of people having difficulty with their mortgage repayments is increasing by the day.

I am dealing with two deadlines on 1 October. A self employed consultant became unemployed and was entitled to nothing. He has three young daughters in secondary school. He was not entitled to jobseeker's allowance, mortgage interest supplement or the advice of a community welfare officer. No aspect of the current system is of any value to him.

After much toing and froing he eventually managed sort out his jobseeker's allowance but has been adamantly refused any mortgage interest supplement because his wife is working. She is on a low wage but it has prevented him from accessing it. The repayments for a home that was bought during the boom are substantial and he is simply not able to meet them. He is facing repossession on 1 October and the matter has been put into the hands of a debt collection agency which is insisting on it.

The second case involves a 73 year old woman who ten years ago signed over her house to her son when he started a garage business on the understanding, but without the legal provision, that she would be there for the rest of her life. The bank is now owed more than the value of the house, repossession has been sought and the court has determined that she has to be out by 1 October.

She has been told by the debt collection agency to go to the local authority who will deal with the issue, but it has told her it cannot do anything until the house is handed over, in other words until she has been evicted from her home. Is it satisfactory that the roof is taken from over the head of the poor senior citizen concerned simply because the market operates in an unreal and artificial fashion?

There are many such cases. I look forward to the response of the Minister of State.

See this speech in context