Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support Deputy Fleming's comments on amendments Nos. 2 and 5 in the name of his party colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath. The objective of amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5 is to broaden the application of this Bill. The economy is improving at the moment and dramatically so in Dublin, but one of the downsides of that is the fact that capital assets, including commercial property and family homes, are increasing dramatically in price. As they increase in price, the holders of the loans against those properties are in a position to cash in. The banks are in this economy for the long term. If a loan is performing or can perform in the future and the banks can, in the longer term, be repaid, they will probably stick with it. The difficulty with vulture funds is that when they can see that there is a quick buck to be made, they will grab it. That is the enormous downside of the improving economy, particularly the improving price of property.

The greatest fear for people in this country is that they will lose their family home and they will do everything and anything to retain it. As the Minister knows, the latest figures show that four family homes are being repossessed in this country every day. Homes are being sold off to investors for less, in many cases, than people could afford to pay if they were given reasonable solutions to their financial difficulties. Home owners are ending up out on the street, dependent on their local authorities which have overflowing housing waiting lists.

I am disappointed that amendments Nos. 1 and 8 were ruled out of order. I tabled those amendments specifically to deal with vulture funds. One can reasonably deal with most of lending institutions in this country, with only one or two exceptions. I am dealing with a case at the moment involving a widow whose husband died only a few weeks ago. Her family home is under threat because a business went to the wall due to her husband's ill health. She has two school-going children. Her mortgage was taken out with a company that operated in this jurisdiction but that company sold on the loan to a vulture fund. That vulture fund is going to put that woman out on the street. If her mortgage was with any of the major banks in this country, a deal would be done to ensure that she could remain in her own home. However, because we are talking about a vulture fund, we do not have the same level of leverage. That fund is only looking at the bottom line, at the quick buck it can make and at turning around that portfolio as quickly as possible.

On Committee Stage, Deputy Tóibín gave the example of a constituent who had offered 30 cent in the euro for a loan and yet it was sold off by a bank for 15 cent in the euro to a vulture fund. Once that property increases in price to the equivalent of 20 cent in the euro, the property will be sold and the vulture fund will make a profit, but that family will turfed out on the street.

I tabled the amendment to ensure families cannot be put out on the street without having adequate provision for accommodation. We are in a very serious housing crisis that will not be solved easily and the Government alone cannot solve it. The worst thing we could do would be to put fuel on that fire by putting people out on the road and leaving them homeless. Housing lists are increasing daily. It is not a question of whether someone can afford private rented accommodation; it just cannot be got at any price at the moment.

It is encouraging vulture funds to sell these properties. Investors see an opportunity for them to rent that property out. It is a seller's market at the moment. Families are being put out on the street when their homes are bought by an investor. It is put on the rental market at €200 or €250 a month in excess of the rent allowance cap, meaning that the family cannot afford to rent that house and they have no short-term accommodation. We need to put a safety net in place, particularly when it comes to these vulture funds and credit companies outside the jurisdiction that are not operating here on a day-to-day basis. They are not concerned about brand reputation and are only concerned about turning that money around.

I urge the Minister to consider my amendment No. 8, if not in this legislation then in forthcoming legislation, to ensure the courts have the power to refuse repossession of a family home where the family does not have the resources available to access the private rental sector or where the family cannot get access to local authority housing. The vast majority of families at the moment are throwing in the towel. They are not going to court to contest the repossessions. The lack of engagement with the lending institutions before they get as far as court means there is no point trying to make a case. If this provision were put into legislation to allow the safety net that a repossession could not proceed without consideration being given to the family's housing situation, it would be an additional tool in helping to support families in a housing crisis.

When responding, will the Minister clarify a matter I raised in the House last week regarding IBRC? At present IBRC is not honouring bonds taken out by developers for the completion of housing estates. A number of housing estates throughout the country have been left half-completed-----

See this speech in context