Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)

No one is suggesting that the borrower and lender should not engage. They should. If someone gets into mortgage difficulty, the first port of call should be to engage with the lender.

The Minister asked whether we were getting value for the €50 million. We have invested billions of euro in banks to pay bondholders and have received no value in return. At least this €50 million has a visible value, in that it keeps roofs over the heads of 18,000 families. It is not fair to argue that we are investing €50 million in the banks without any evident benefit. It has a tangible benefit, unlike the tens of billions of euro previously invested in banks. The question of whether we are getting good value for money should be asked. Under the Minister's proposals, however, the onus is on the borrower to enter into an arrangement. Otherwise, he or she will be excluded from applying for mortgage interest supplement for 12 months.

The Government has made much of its labour activation measures. If someone loses a job, he or she might not receive a large redundancy package, if any. A number of people are on short-term contracts that roll over continually, which means they will never be in a position to receive large redundancy payments. I will cite an example of a person who loses a job and gets into mortgage difficulties. The person engages with his or her lender and arranges to repay the interest only, which is the usual arrangement. After waiting for 12 months, the person applies for and receives mortgage interest supplement. A couple of months down the line, the person is offered three or six months work on a short-term contract. Does the Minister believe that there is any incentive for those people to take up employment for such a short period knowing that, in three or six months time, they will be back to being unable to repay their mortgages and will need to go through the process again? It is not reasonable for someone who is offered a short-term contract, summer work, etc. The Government has stated that the nature of work is changing to something more transitional and seasonable. If someone is offered three months work in the hotel trade, there is no incentive to accept the offer because he or she would be back to square one afterwards. The amendment makes no provision for a suspension of the supplement during a short work period.

The Minister's proposal is flawed and I ask her to withdraw it to allow for further consultation. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh stated, we can revisit the issue when we debate the social welfare Bill next October, but trying to introduce such a far-reaching amendment on Monday without an accompanying impact analysis is wrong. It will only serve to create more problems for people who are already struggling, increase the likelihood of mortgage arrears among people who are in desperate need of the mortgage interest supplement and increase the possibility of family homes being lost. There is no other way to view it. It is shameful, disgraceful and short-sighted and should be withdrawn and reconsidered.

See this speech in context