Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Deputies for their contributions. We have had a very useful and timely debate in a context where the Government is expected to present a package of new policy measures in the coming weeks. I thank my colleagues in the Technical Group who put their names to the motion.

My sense from listening to the debate tonight is that there is a great deal of good intentions on all sides of the House but also an extraordinary lack of urgency on the part of the Government. Its amendment to the motion does not scream "crisis", yet there can be no doubt that we are facing a crisis. It is a crisis that was allowed to develop by the previous Government and allowed to continue by this Administration. The international data show that the country in the eurozone that has come closest to our level of arrears is Spain. The data show, too, that our level of arrears is two and a half times that of Spain. In other words, no other country is facing this level of mortgage arrears, and that is because other countries have acted to address the issue. In Ireland, we simply have not seen enough action by Government.

My colleague, Deputy Thomas Pringle, noted that the Technical Group first tabled a Private Members' motion on this issue in May 2011. Even back then we were calling for many of the measures that are being called for now, not only on this side of the House but also by Deputies opposite. The Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, will be familiar with many of the actions we are proposing because he and I were both signatories to the finance committee's report on the mortgage crisis, upon which this motion is based.

I will use the remaining time available to me to address the points made by the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, in his contribution. His response reflected the nub of the problem, which is that there is a lot of good intentions and a great deal of talk about schemes that are in place and attempts that have been made to address the problem but which are simply not working. The Minister of State noted that the Government has put in place a broad strategy to address the mortgage arrears crisis, which includes the mortgage arrears resolution targets. We know, however, that this process mostly resulted in the issuing of thousands of legal letters. In fact, the spike in repossession claims comes out of those targets.

The Minister of State also referred to the code of conduct on mortgage arrears, CCMA. That was a nice idea but there are two important points to note in regard to it. First, the original code was watered down significantly and, second, it is completely unenforceable. No lender has suffered any sanction for anything to do with the CCMA. The code is, unfortunately, largely irrelevant.

The Minister of State went on to talk about the extensive recasting of the personal insolvency legislation. Every Deputy in this House knows that legislation is not working. Only a handful of cases has been brought through, as explicitly referenced in the report by the finance committee last year. There is talk of the provision of advice through the Department of Social Protection. The most useful aspect of this should have been the €250 to be paid to an accountant to provide the borrower with independent financial advice. The problem with that, however, is that the accountant is legally obliged to provide advice only on the offer made by the bank. Therefore, it is next to useless. The other measure referred to by the Minister of State was the mortgage to rent scheme. That initiative is a good idea, but it has never worked and it still is not working. It must be made to work.

The policy objective for mortgage arrears, which is referenced in the Government's response to the motion, is very important. I have before me the report of the expert group on repossessions, which states: "The Government's paramount objective in the context of resolving the mortgage arrears problem is to keep borrowers in their home wherever feasible; repossession of private residences is a last resort where all other options have failed". That sounds good, but it does not reflect what is happening in practice. I attended a sitting of the Circuit Court last week in Bray where a repossession order was granted on a mortgage where the last payment was made just three weeks previously. Ten possession orders were granted, several of them in a context where it clearly was not the case that every conceivable option was exhausted. The Government policy in this regard makes sense, but it is not reflected in what is actually happening.

The Master of the High Court, Mr. Edmund Honohan, made a presentation to a conference recently where he observed that there is a lack of Government policy objectives. In the absence of such objectives, the courts are being asked by legislators, in an unreasonable manner, to use their discretion. They do not know, however, what they are meant to use their discretion for. That is why I have outlined in my motion a range of additional policy measures, such as minimising socio-economic harm, avoiding repossession where possible, ensuring the dignity of all parties, ensuring equity in the resolution of debts, ensuring restructuring arrangements are sustainable for all parties, minimising rehousing needs, avoiding incentive for strategic default, ensuring adequate advice and representation for borrowers, and ensuring adequate insolvency options for borrowers. I hope the Government will consider broadening the explicit policy objectives along these lines.

The Minister of State said that the CCMA provides that lenders may only commence legal proceedings for repossession where they have already made every reasonable effort to agree an alternative arrangement with a co-operating borrower. That is only useful if one can go to court with a lawyer who can say to the judge or registrar, "I am sorry, but the lender is not compliant with the CCMA". If people are turning up to court without legal representation, which most seem to do, the CCMA is irrelevant because they do not know they have those rights. Moreover, the CCMA only applies where a borrower is deemed to be co-operating. Under the legislation, the entity that deems a person to be co-operating or not co-operating is the lending bank, and the latter has fairly wide discretion as to what it deems to be non-co-operation. That is a very important point.

The Minister of State went on to talk about the changes to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act, changes which I welcomed. In fact, Mr. Ross Maguire of New Beginning and I wrote a lot of those measures into my Family Home Protection (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which was subsequently incorporated into the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act. The Minister of State notes that the latter gives discretion to the courts to adjourn proceedings unless every option has been considered. A personal insolvency practitioner, PIP, can come in and his or her advice will be taken on board. That is useful if the borrower has access to a PIP. In most cases, however, borrowers cannot afford to avail of the services of a PIP and Government policy does not provide for same in those circumstances. That is dealt with in the motion.

We have talked about the mortgage-to-rent process. The Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, stated that up to the end of 2014 70 cases had been completed. I have pushed a few of them across the line, as I am sure have other Deputies. There are 166 Deputies in the House but only 70 cases have been completed. The process is not working. Worryingly, the Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, stated that the new protocol has been reviewed and that it tries to address the acknowledged delay in the mortgage-to-rent process. The issue is not the acknowledged delays in the process. There are complexities in the process. The issue with the mortgage-to-rent scheme is that the conditions for qualification are so onerous that virtually nobody qualifies for it. Many years ago, I brought this issue to the attention of the then Minister with responsibility for this issue, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, but nothing meaningful has happened yet. The conditions for qualification must be widened if the mortgage-to-rent scheme is to work.

I want to make a final point on the proposal the Government is talking about bringing forward. The Minister of State, Deputy Harris, said in his response that, "It is intended that the announcement will focus on initiatives aimed at reducing the number of mortgages in long-term arrears and will seek to facilitate borrowers remaining in their homes wherever possible." That is good but it is not enough. The finance committee report, for example, suggests that a comprehensive solution must include consistency for borrowers. We all know that the first question one asks a borrower in arrears when he or she comes in seeking our help is, "Which bank is it?". If it is Bank of Ireland versus AIllied Irish Banks, one is in a completely different world. That must change. There must be equity and transparency. The bankruptcy period must be reduced at least temporarily for a few years until this issue is sorted. The payment attachment order period must be reduced.

I look forward to seeing the Government proposals. The motion before the House is a comprehensive, non-political effort. It reflects the wishes of the finance committee. It also reflects what borrowers and experts in the field are saying. Had it been implemented in 2011, the mortgage crisis would now be a thing of the past. I ask the Government to please take a look at this, to implement as much of it as possible and to be more ambitious than it has been with the proposal so far.

See this speech in context