Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

Right. Therefore, in order to receive the supplement one must engage with the bank and be in an arrangement for 12 months before accessing the mortgage interest supplement. Will the interest that has built up in that 12-month period be paid and backdated? The borrower will lose out unless there is some obligation on the bank, as a result of this legislative change, to write off interest arrears that might have built up in the 12 months when that person was not entitled to mortgage interest supplement. Can the Minister clarify that issue?

I do not see why the Minister cannot accept that point. In order to be fair to the borrower, a loud and clear message should go out from the Minister to everybody who might lose their job and find themselves in mortgage difficulties, to engage with their bank. If, however, the bank will not engage reasonably and fairly, the borrowers should not worry because they have done their best by trying to engage in the process. They should be told not to worry about mortgage interest arrears arising because the Government will put pressure on the banks. If people are not reassured they will continue to worry if banks are not engaging fairly, reasonably or at all. The best way to do this is by putting pressure on the banks.

The Minister says her Department relates to the borrower, not the bank, but she also says the bank is the target of this legislation. As Deputy Catherine Murphy said, there is no way to see this other than that the borrower is being used as a pawn between the Department and the banks. Is that fair? Is it the right approach to use the borrower as a pawn if, as the Minister says, the target is the banks? Why not go directly to the banks instead of using the distressed borrower as a pawn?

See this speech in context