Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

In the context of the questions that have been asked, particularly by Senator Mooney, the overarching theme of the Keane report produced by the interdepartmental group which looked at mortgage arrears was that mortgage interest supplement is not an appropriate long-term support and should become a time-bound payment and that an appropriate exit strategy should be formulated for recipients.

The overarching theme was that mortgage interest supplement is not an appropriate long-term support and should become a time-bound payment with an appropriate exit strategy and be formulated for the recipient. Senator Mooney was very close to the mark when he implied that the banks would not be upset that we have paid €319 million to them since 2008. Who would not like to receive payments on the nose totalling €319 million? It is a very nice business for the banks but they are probably the only happy people in this arrangement because the couple whose house it is are not advancing to resolve their debt. We know from bank crashes around the world, or from companies and individuals who get into financial difficulty, that, at the end of the day, they must try to resolve the financial crisis. While many people have been built up on the mortgage interest supplement for an average of three years, many have been on it for six and seven years.

The other difficulty is that these people cannot work for more than 30 hours a week. That applies to each spouse and both together. Otherwise, they will lose the supplement. It is a bit of an employment trap too. We are talking about people who went out in good faith to buy houses on the basis of their employment and, in many cases, their business because they were involved in construction. One of the downsides of the mortgage interest supplement is that it locks one in. If one is going back to work or business full time, one immediately loses the supplement.

The Keane group recommended the development of mortgage-to-rent schemes for eligible couples or families to give them access to housing supports. It may interest Senators to know that we have been working with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, whose job is housing and the Housing and Sustainable Communities Agency, where appropriate, to move families whose debt is unsustainable from the mortgage interest scheme into the mortgage-to-rent scheme. That has had a slow take-off but if we can move people from one to the other, it may well be that, down the road when people's financial position has recovered in ten or 15 years' time, they would be able to buy back the interest in the house which they probably bought proudly and in which they started their family life and so on. The family home is very important in this context.

We are engaging with the Department. Almost 1,000 cases are being progressed in the mortgage-to-rent scheme. Lenders are engaging with approximately 600 households, and the number of fully completed cases is low, at 22. Approximately 30% of these cases are in receipt of mortgage interest supplement. Those cases are being progressed. Over the four years of the winding down of the scheme, we will certainly assist people, where we can and in that way, to sustainable solutions. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is by and large the one delivering sustainable solutions through the Housing and Sustainable Communities Agency. I assure Senators, who are understandably concerned about this, that I agree with the Keane report that this is not an appropriate scheme and is not doing very much. I gave examples yesterday of up to €60,000 and more being paid in interest while the capital amount outstanding on the loan had risen, so people were no better off, even though the Department of Social Protection had spent a very significant sum of money on paying the interest to A.N. Other bank. I agree with the Keane report that we should move to sustainable solutions. Mortgage interest supplement is not a long-term sustainable solution. If it makes no provision for people to re-start their business or employment on a full-time basis, it is an unemployment, anti-business, anti-starting again poverty trap.