Dan Boyle (Green Party)

It is unusual, in one sense, to see an amendment to a motion which is longer than the motion itself. The spirit in which it is being tabled is not part of the usual cut and thrust of Government and Opposition politics. All of us in the House recognise that a significant problem exists in our society that must be identified and dealt with. The purpose of a debate such as this is to work through such identification and work out common approaches on how to deal with the problem. From what I have heard of the debate, it has been conducted along those terms.

I will read into the record a section which has been included in the recently revised programme for Government. It is not my wont to read in most debates but for the sake of accuracy I would like to have these couple of paragraphs put in as a context for the debate we are having this evening. The revised programme for Government, under a section entitled "Protecting the Family Home" states:

We will introduce new measures to protect families having difficulties with their home mortgage payments. The existing statutory Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears and the recently agreed protocol between the Irish Bankers Federation (IBF) and the Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS) on debt default will be further reviewed with a view to expanding the options available for dealing with debt situations, including for example, the use by banks and lenders of more flexible mechanisms to avoid foreclosure in appropriate circumstances. These could include:

reduced rates

longer maturity dates

rolling-up of outstanding interest

bank taking equity in the house

bank taking ownership and leasing back to the resident with rent payments coming off the loan.

With reference to the measures adopted in other jurisdictions, the Government will examine ways of expanding its own mortgage support measures.

Under the section dealing with regulation of debt collection, the programme states:

We will reform debt enforcement in light of the deliberation of the Law Reform Commission, which has recently published a consultation paper on the matter. We will regulate debt collection agencies. We will create a new system of personal insolvency regulations allowing for a statutory non-court-based debt settlement system. We will seek to establish a central Debt Enforcement Office to remove as many debt enforcement proceeds from the courts as possible.

I have read this into the record because there are several elements included in the original motion which references the greater support of MABS, the use of the Law Reform Commission and how there should be regulation of debt collection agencies. There is no disagreement from anyone on either side of the House on such questions.

We must be aware of the scale of what exists as a potential problem in our society. The debate which has been ongoing in the other House and which we will have in this House next week relates to a speculation-led property development debt of €77 billion in many of our financial institutions. The level of private debt altogether in our financial institutions at €400 billion dwarfs our own State debt, and there is even a level of that debt which can be attributed to personal sources such as the use of credit cards and household mortgages. One is still talking about a sum of €160 billion, which is NAMA multiplied by at least two. The potential for default and the difficulties in which individual citizens may find themselves are very real and there is an onus on Government and the political system to ensure they can be averted. The five bullet points in the revised programme for Government offer as good a code to help stem that as anything we might do as a political system. Reduced interest rates and longer maturity dates, the rolling up of outstanding interest, the taking of equity by banks in a house or their taking ownership and leasing back or renting are some of the measures we must adopt to a greater extent. We must recognise that the moratorium that was put in place, and is to be renewed shortly, has had an effect.

Even under conventional methods the time difference between a debt being recalled and acted upon in a repossession is still approximately 18 months. Once we have those kinds of benchmarks within which to work, there will be a timeframe in the lifetime remaining to this Government, and for whomsoever shall compose the next Government, to put in place measures that over the next five years will protect as many as possible in our society. I hope today's debate will be an important contribution to that. I cannot see any real political disagreement. The amendment to the motion is an attempt to adopt most of what is in the original motion and in what the Government proposes and further embellish it. That would give the greatest agenda possible for all Members in this House to ensure that as many of our citizens as possible are protected from this risk and that the risk can be avoided in years to come.