Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this simple, straightforward and common sense motion and I compliment Deputy Joan Collins on introducing it. I am surprised and disappointed that the Government saw fit to table an amendment which effectively amounts to a counter motion. Given that the contents of the motion are ostensibly Government policy, I hope the Government, even at this late stage, will withdraw the amendment and allow the motion to be passed unanimously.

I note the Government at least agrees there is a mortgage crisis. This crisis has been ongoing for a number of years, with as many as 120,000 families having lived a nightmare for the past six or seven years. Thousands of people are living in mortgage misery and in fear of action by the bailed out banks. They are being bullied by these banks which the State and taxpayers rescued. People are in genuine fear of losing their family home and this fear is both palpable and traumatic. All public representatives, whether at local or national level, will be aware that this issue is creating serious mental health issues for a significant number of individuals and families. At this stage, people even fear the sight of the postman in case he or she delivers the dreaded letter from their bank which demands either the sale or repossession of the family home. I have a copy of one such letter, which offers people the stark options of engaging in a voluntary sale or voluntary surrender of their home, failing which they will be evicted. This letter informs home owners in respect of "all of the options above" that "in the event of a shortfall", they remain "liable for the outstanding debt", including accrued interest, charges, legal, selling and other related costs. The bank in question also states that it will "always seek the gross sale proceeds and a certified copy of the unconditional contract for sale." The options facing these home owners are voluntary sale, voluntary surrender and eviction. Having a roof over one's head and being able to continue to live in one's family home is probably one of the most cherished aspirations of people here and worldwide. Why should that not be the case?

I draw attention to as many as 30,000 families who face eviction as a result of the Government's failure to protect them because they are not covered by the insolvency arrangements. I refer to mortgage holders who do not qualify under these arrangements on the basis that they have insufficient disposal income. The individuals in question have fully engaged with their lenders and are not strategic defaulters. Their only asset is their family home. I am not referring to owners of buy-to-let properties. The mortgages held by these families are modest, amounting to less than €100,000 in many cases and less than €200,000 in all cases. They are low income families headed in most, if not all, cases by an unemployed person. These householders took out a mortgage when they were employed, having been urged to do so by every arm of the State, from the Central Bank to the Government and politicians, as well as the banks and media. Having become unemployed, they now find themselves unable to meet their mortgage commitments. There is no doubt that these families are in very serious difficulty, with many facing eviction. The number of repossessions and court actions in train indicates that thousands of evictions are imminent. Apart from the severe human trauma this will create, whether in terms of people's health or otherwise, these families will join between 90,000 and 100,000 other families in the queue for social housing.

Again, this is an additional cost for the Government. They will find themselves in a position where they will have to apply for housing, be approved and qualify for rent supplement at a cost to the State. It would be advantageous to all concerned, namely, the mortgage holder, the State and the banks, to ensure such families remain in the family home. In that regard, I refer to the mortgage to rent scheme mentioned in the motion. It is a good scheme in theory, but, unfortunately, the banks are not prepared to use it and appear to be opposed to it. Very few mortgage to rent solutions have been approved. This should change and the scheme should be beefed up to ensure the 30,000 families who face eviction are dealt with.

Other issues need to be addressed. Split mortgages and the mortgage to rent scheme are mentioned in the motion. To solve this problem there needs to be a significant write-down of mortgages.

See this speech in context