Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

This is a very important discussion. Deputy Joan Collins was disappointed not to be able to table a motion on Irish Water as Fianna Fáil had done so previously. In some ways, it is ironic because if Irish Water is established, it will be like a second mortgage for many homeowners. That said, the issue of mortgages and the number of families affected has probably not received sufficient attention. From that point of view, it is important that the motion has been tabled.

As of October, 132,000 households were in mortgage arrears, representing just short of 500,000 citizens who are under severe economic pressure and for whom the Government stated it had a solution. Given that the overwhelming majority have been in arrears for over two years, whatever the Government thinks it is doing to deal with the problem, the reality is different.

We need to examine the issue by stepping back. There are hundreds of thousands of households in the State in serious need of housing who are forgoing the basic necessities of life in order to engage in a struggle to keep a roof over their heads, which is incredibly unhealthy. I will not repeat the points made by other Deputies, but the figures available for the numbers of sustainable solutions about which the banks are bragging - over 5,000 in the case of Bank of Ireland - pale into insignificance when we look at the large numbers in arrears. I agree with the proposition that what the Government is doing and the current code of conduct essentially allow the banks to do what they like.

We need to stand the arrangement in place on its head and put protecting the family home centre stage. That has to be the starting point, but the reality is that it is not. Today the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, spoke to the media and essentially bragged about the new arrangements in regard to mortgage protection and the scheme being brought forward to help buyers to buy property and overcome some of the restrictions the banks were introducing. This is not about the interests of homeowners; rather, it is, first and foremost, about protecting the banks' money. That is why we are in this position.

Everything is being done to appease the banks; we are not starting at the essential point of keeping people in their homes. This is a bit rich for people to accept against the backdrop of the €64 billion of our money that was spent on bailing out the banks. Mortgage arrears would account for only a small amount of that, and the banks have been recapitalised for that money already. We must have an arrangement in regard to the writing down of debt. That is the best move for the economy and for the citizens involved. This is the experience of other countries. Norway and Iceland recovered far more quickly by releasing people from the burden of debt, and that must happen here. The motion before us is more modest than this and does not even look for a Norwegian solution. It simply seeks to alter the code of conduct that exists currently and for us to start on the basis of keeping people in their homes.

I do not understand how the Government can oppose the motion. I know of a situation in my area in which a couple has been through hoops to try to defend the family home. They have gone through every form of restructuring arrangement, have changed to an interest-only mortgage and so on and kept to the agreements made, but out of the blue the bank decided to move the goalposts. It says now it wants everything, the full debt amount. This couple then goes into a process where they meet some young person with little life experience who tells them how to manage their finances. This family, which has been through an episode of serious ill health and needed to factor in emergency medical expenses, was suddenly being lectured by somebody as to how to manage their expenses. It is suggested that if they cut back on medicine in one area or food, they could sustain their mortgage. Clearly, they could not.

This is not good enough. We need more definite arrangements along the lines outlined by Deputy Collins in her motion in order to deal with this situation. It is not good enough that the banks are allowed to rule the roost in the manner they do. I do not believe the Ombudsman has played the correct role in this scenario either. Unless we deal with the big vulture of unsustainable debt that is on the backs of a minority of householders now, the economy and those families will be decimated. We must deal with this issue sooner rather than later.

See this speech in context