Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I commend my colleague in the Technical Group, Deputy Donnelly, on proposing workable solutions. The Government would be well advised to consider what has been proposed, although there will be a countermotion.

People often view a house as a piece of property. It is one thing to lose a piece of property, but it is another to lose one's home. Every Deputy has met people who were about to lose their homes and had uncertain futures. It is particularly traumatic where children are involved. This morning, I listened to a guy on my local radio station. He was 34 and had a few kids who were farmed out to family members in a different county and were not getting to school. His wife was just out of hospital. He talked about losing weight, stress and breaking down. People must put themselves out there and tell these stories if they are to be understood. This situation is wrong.

Trends have been emerging in this issue, one of which has repeated and become embedded in the prevailing culture. A moral hazard exists for the little people, in that people who owe small amounts are treated differently from those who are heavily indebted. It may not be a mortgage or a home, but there is a difference in their treatment. For example, 11,000 mortgages were cruelly sold by IBRC's special liquidators without any concern for the welfare of individuals. The mortgages were broken up into four segments, including buy-to-let, non-performing and performing loans. Even those with performing loans felt that they were being placed in a perilous situation. I could not see the logic in selling the non-performing loans. People might have been able to sustain their mortgages at the discounted rates at which they were being sold on the markets. Where is the State's financial logic in pursuing people for the full value of their loans, perhaps even through the courts, and those people ending up on housing lists or receiving rent assistance? This contrasts sharply with how large commercial people with debts to the same bank were treated.

Irish Nationwide and Anglo Irish Bank comprised IBRC. Interestingly, a name keeps cropping up, that being, KPMG. It was Irish Nationwide's auditor, but that audit did not show what perhaps it should have. There is a question as to whether KPMG should sue itself to get a result in that regard. Irish Nationwide Building Society's mortgage holders are paying the price.

I will focus on the likes of the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, IMHO. If anyone approaches me with a mortgage problem, that is where I go. The IMHO has been telling us that the scale of repossession is accelerating. Where will those families go? The housing waiting list comprises close to 100,000 individuals and families. There is no private rented accommodation. This situation is particularly difficult in areas where the waiting lists are longer. The State will need to assist with rents. If someone cannot repay a mortgage, he or she will not be able to pay commercial rent. Often, mortgages are less than the rents being demanded. If one had a mortgage of €200,000, one would pay more in rent in an urban area. It does not make sense. There are no housing options. It seems illogical to pursue people and put them under such stress without there being solutions.

I listened to Permanent TSB's solution. It may be useful to some, but there is a misplaced presumption that local authority housing is available to people. In my area, one would need to be approximately ten years on the list to have any prospect of getting a house. The situation in Dublin and its surrounding counties is not much different. The situation in Cork is bad as well. While Permanent TSB's solution might suit some people, it will not suit the majority. The benefit is that they could walk away from their debts, but they would also be walking away from their homes. What does one do with one's children and possessions? Does one break them up? There are some solutions relating to council lists, but if one works even part time, one is not entitled to rent support. This situation must be examined in a more realistic and complete way.

The banks are creating significant problems for the State financially. Hundreds of millions of euro are being paid in rental subsidies to families that have been forced from their homes by the banks. If I am to be fair, that includes rent assistance. This does not make economic sense for the State, but it makes sense for the banks. If a bank wants a better balance sheet, it can now point to houses in positive equity. The riskiest time for someone who is in mortgage distress is when there is positive equity in his or her home.

In such cases, the bank will see the value in forcing a sale and securing full payment on the mortgage.

There is nowhere for people to go in that scenario. Mortgage holders who surrender their home in those circumstances will find it almost impossible to get a mortgage in the future and will, therefore, be wholly dependent on the State by way of social housing. In many cases, they will not even qualify for the housing waiting list. This will leave them in the precarious position of having no security of tenure, as leases in the private rented sector are generally renewed annually. Such people are at significant risk of ending up homeless. In fact, I frequently encounter people in employment who are at risk of homelessness. People whose homes are repossessed face the difficulty of never enjoying permanency in respect of where they live. There is societal damage in that, and the damage that is most profound is in terms of the impact on children and the stress levels of individuals. We meet people in that situation all the time. One particular afternoon, as I recall, three men came to see me in quick succession all saying they intended to kill themselves. They were absolutely distressed to the point where they had no hope and could see no way out.

The idea behind this proposal is not to rubbish what the Government is doing. Our message is that good things are being done but we must go further. The motion is prescriptive about what is needed. The bottom line is that we can do better and must do better for the citizens who are at their lowest ebb and are relying on the Government to come up to the mark. That is what the motion seeks to achieve.

See this speech in context