Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)

With all due respect, this section has been badly thought through. The idea in principle is a good one, namely, that we would ask the banks to shoulder the blame but I ask her to withdraw the section for a number of reasons. The Minister was present the morning Professor Kilborn spoke at the FLAC conference which I also attended. It was one of the most enlightening speeches I ever heard on the mortgage and indebtedness problem. A point Professor Kilborn repeatedly made was that the situation for Irish borrowers negotiating with banks is very much predicated upon the fact that the alternative is bankruptcy and that the alternative favours the banks rather than the borrower, giving the banks the upper hand. Professor Kilborn spoke about trusted intermediaries being required, whether that be the strong arm of the Central Bank or the 100 debt advisers the Government promised with the publication of the Keane report, to give a strong arm to the vulnerable borrowers who are negotiating with their banks, but nothing has happened on that. As Senator Moloney stated, what the Minister is doing is sending in vulnerable borrowers to negotiate with banks to try to get some sort of deal. Incidentally, the banks are not obliged to give a deal under the mortgage arrears resolution process. They are obliged only to consider such a deal. What happens in a situation where a bank refuses to offer an alternative repayment arrangement? That is possible under the current procedure.

Where is the definition of a mortgage defined in social welfare legislation? A mortgage is a document I hand over to the bank and the bank gives me a housing loan in return. The Minister might explain where the word "mortgage" arose from in the legislation because my understanding is that the term is a housing loan and that is what it should be in the legislation. The terms "Mortgage interest" and "mortgage lender" are defined but I do not know if the word "mortgage" is defined anywhere in social welfare statutes.

Interest due because of delay is not covered under whatever rules are in place regarding mortgage interest supplements. We will now have delayed interest because of alternative arrangements that are being introduced. What is the position on that? The interest that builds up in the meantime over the year one has not paid may well be part of this engagement with the banks. Who will pay that or will people be allowed to claim mortgage interest supplement in respect of that particular interest? There is no obligation on banks to engage. Why do we always put the obligation on the small person? There is no obligation on the banks. Professor Kilborn or perhaps another speaker made the point at the conference I referred to that we are always obliging the consumer to do something and there is never a positive obligation on the banks. There is no obligation on the banks in this legislation to do anything, and there is nothing in the code of conduct to force the banks to put in place what is envisaged in this legislation. That is a major gap.

In terms of the lender refusing, I have given a number of reasons in that regard. Politically, I might fight with the Minister on the lack of mortgage advisers but it is a serious problem. As the people from New Beginning have stated, we are sending people into banks. The banks are telling them they have to stop watching Sky television or stop shopping in Dunnes Stores and that they should stop in Lidl or wherever instead. That is not right. While the intent of the section to force more of the burden onto the banks is welcome, it is badly executed and will lead to many more problems than it will solve and before this legislation comes into effect the Minister will be encouraging a deluge of applications. I will be encouraging anyone who is considering looking for mortgage interest supplement to apply as soon as possible.