Alex White (Labour)

Even in circumstances where a mistake is made surely the telephone can be switched off.

There has been a response on the banking issue. When we talk about people who face or are trapped in negative equity, it is not merely rhetorical for us to point out they cannot sell their house with the benefit of long-term economic value. A person stuck in negative equity who looks to sell to get out of a problem will have to sell at whatever market rate exists. Whatever they manage to eke out will be little or nothing in current circumstances.

Compared to the gift of so-called long-term economic value that is to be assigned to loans in the bailing out of the banks, no such long-term economic value is being afforded or gifted to individuals who find themselves in negative equity. They must face the music if they can manage to offload their houses for any price at the moment. In the circumstances, it is fair to draw the comparison between what the Government did for the banks and what they have failed to do for individual mortgage holders.

The other point about the Government amendment is that it is replete with references to the renewed programme for Government. Senator Boyle echoed that in his speech. I look for two things from the Government, as do all of us. First, what is going to be done? Second, when will it be done? The difficulty is that the references to the programme for Government are completely devoid of any timelines in respect of commitments in these matters. For example, the third paragraph of the Government amendment notes: "the renewed programme for Government envisages an examination of ways of expanding mortgage support measures". When will that happen? It is only an examination. Where is the action or the delivery?

At the bottom of the first page the same phrase is used again, namely, "the renewed programme for Government envisages an examination of ways of expanding mortgage support measures". I do not know how that managed to get in twice. It continues: "and new measures to protect families having difficulties". The section quoted by Senator Boyle noted that the renewed programme for Government also provides for the existing statutory code of conduct and the recently agreed protocol to be reviewed further. That is a commitment to review. The bullet points state that the new mechanisms "could include" the measures that follow. Will they? Is there any commitment to their doing so? When will this be done? The following paragraph "notes the renewed programme for Government envisages that ways of expanding mortgage support measures will be examined with reference to the measures adopted in other jurisdictions", and continues: "the renewed programme for Government envisages reform of debt enforcement in light of the deliberation of the Law Reform Commission". These are the references to which Senator Boyle referred so warmly as being a response to what the Fine Gael motion seeks to achieve. They are not commitments for action but are repeated references to reviews and examinations to happen in the future.

As colleagues will be aware, my party proposed a very concrete set of proposals in this area in the other House. I commend those proposals to my colleagues. The Government code of conduct as introduced in February is simply not adequate in the circumstances. It requires a very serious effort on the part of the Government. People become concerned about the legal problems. We all know a mortgage is a contract between a borrower and a lender. There is a reluctance on the part of the State to intervene in that contractual relationship. However, all the old rules have been thrown out the window in the current circumstances. What we are doing in the context of NAMA is completely unprecedented. Apart from the fiction of long-term economic value, the State is intervening like never before in contractual relationships by taking them over and stepping into the banks' shoes. If this can be done in respect of the banks and at a considerable cost, the full amount of which we do not know and might not know for many years, Fine Gael's relatively modest proposals to deal with the concrete, everyday dilemmas facing mortgage holders should commend themselves to the Government.