Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leader for extending the time for Second Stage of the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013. We have six speakers remaining and I acknowledge the position on the Government side. The proposal is sensible in that it will give everyone who wants to speak an opportunity to do so. That is important.

On Tuesday, I tabled an amendment to the Order of Business on the new Central Bank statutory code of conduct on mortgage arrears that the Government brought forward and approved. The Leader suggested to me on that morning that I raise my concerns directly with the Minister for Finance under the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011. I took him up on his advice and endeavoured to elicit as many answers to the questions as I could from the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, on the day. None was answered because, as I mentioned to the Leader, they were not relevant to that Bill. The Minister of State was not required to answer the questions that I asked.

To remind the House, I specifically asked why the Government was removing the 12 month moratorium and would now be allowing banks after three months to issue legal proceedings to repossess homes. I also asked why the Government was removing the maximum number of contacts someone in mortgage arrears could have with a bank from three a month to any number the bank wanted such that if at any time the bank wanted to ring the person concerned, knock at his or her door, call to him or her, hassle and harangue him or her, that was what the code of conduct on mortgage arrears meant it could do.

Ulster Bank completely misled the public in its statement earlier in the week that 35% of those in mortgage arrears were strategic defaulters. That is absolute rubbish and, frankly, a lie. I ask Ulster Bank to produce the figures that apparently prove one third of those in mortgage arrears with the bank are strategic defaulters. It is total nonsense.

Banks talk about co-operating and non-co-operating borrowers. I asked the Leader on Tuesday what was the Government's definition of a co-operating or non-co-operating bank and why, in God's name, had the Government and the Central Bank given the banks everything they wanted in this new code of conduct on mortgage arrears. There is no independent appeals office, which we brought forward by way of legislation, only for the Government to vote it down, although this was recommended by New Beginnings, the Independent Mortgage Advisers Federation and many other independent groups. It would mean there would be an arbitration process whereby the decision would not be left to the banks, that the banks would be the ones to come forward with what they believed was a sustainable solution, and, if the mortgage holder could not meet this, all bets would be off.

What the Government is proposing in the statutory code of conduct is free gain for banks against those in mortgage arrears. I remind the House that one in four mortgages is either in arrears for 30 days or more, or has been restructured. Nearly 50% of restructured mortgages have gone back into arrears. I do not believe anyone in his or her right mind can stand over the new code of conduct.

During the course of the debate on the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011 I directly asked the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, the questions I had put to the Leader on Tuesday and not one answer did I receive. As a result, I am again proposing an amendment to the Order of Business that we allow one hour for either the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, or the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Brian Hayes, to come to the House to answer the questions many of us have regarding how the code of conduct will protect mortgage holders and why the Government allowed the banks to get everything they wanted in it. I will continue to propose amendments to the Order of Business every single day until we have a specific debate in order that we can all tease out this issue because I know Members on the Government side are just as concerned about it as I am, as has been referred to on the Order of Business and in debates all the way through. I formally propose that amendment to the Order of Business.