Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 2014

Vol. 856 No. 2

Mortgage Arrears: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]

The following motion was moved by Deputy Joan Collins on Tuesday, 4 November 2014:

"That Dáil Éireann:

notes the continuing difficulties faced by tens of thousands of homeowners in mortgage arrears due to loss of employment and income as a result of the deep recession in the Irish economy from 2008 onwards;

further notes that:

— the existing Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears (CCMA), whilst providing comprehensive instructions for creditors dealing with those in arrears, is not fit for purpose and does not provide necessary and important consumer protections; and

— there is no provision within the Code for lenders and mortgage servers to be mandated to provide necessary solutions for those in arrears which would prioritise safeguarding the family home; in fact lenders have the ability to choose which solutions they like and ignore the ones that they do not; and

calls on the Minister for Finance to amend the CCMA to mandate all creditors and mortgage servers operating in the State, including lenders or mortgage servers not registered within the State, to offer one of the following solutions to those in mortgage arrears:

— a split mortgage with no interest payable on the warehoused portion;

— participation in a reformed mortgage-to-rent scheme; or

— certainty for any borrower in negative equity selling or surrendering a property as to how the residual debt will be dealt with prior to the sale or surrender of the property."

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

“acknowledges that the Government inherited a severe mortgage arrears crisis from the previous Government;

accepts that the mortgage problem is a significant economic and social challenge for the State and that the Government is aware of the difficulties some homeowners are facing in meeting their mortgage commitments;

notes that the Government published the Report of the Inter-Departmental Mortgage Arrears Working Group in October 2011 and that the key recommendations of that Report have been adopted by Government as the most appropriate framework to address this major problem;

recognises that the Central Bank of Ireland’s interaction with mortgage lenders is key to addressing mortgage arrears and in particular to ensure that, where appropriate, lenders put more long-term and sustainable solutions in place for their customers in mortgage difficulty;

notes that:

— the Central Bank of Ireland has set performance targets for the six main lenders requiring them to ‘propose’ sustainable solutions to 85 per cent of their mortgages in arrears of greater than 90 days by the end of the year and to ‘conclude’ solutions with 45 per cent;

— the Central Bank of Ireland’s Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears sets out requirements for mortgage lenders when dealing with borrowers facing or in mortgage arrears;

— the Central Bank of Ireland published a revised Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears effective from 1st July, 2013 following approval by the Central Bank Commission and consultation with the Minister for Finance;

— the Central Bank of Ireland will commence a review of Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears compliance later this year; and

— the latest Central Bank of Ireland mortgage statistics show that the number of mortgage accounts for principal dwelling houses in arrears fell for the fourth consecutive quarter at the end of June 2014;

welcomes the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision to waive all fees previously payable to either the Insolvency Service of Ireland or the Courts by a debtor who applies for any of the debt solutions available under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012;

notes:

— that a comprehensive mortgage advisory service and mortgage-to-rent scheme have been put in place; and

— the recent reductions in mortgage interest rates by certain financial institutions which will have a positive impact on the affordability for their customers;

accepts that the vast majority of mortgage holders are meeting their repayment commitments;

further notes that:

— the Government is committed to bringing forward legislation that protects consumers whose mortgages are sold to unregulated entities and that the Department of Finance has recently published the submissions it received in response to a public consultation process seeking views on this legislation; and

— it is anticipated that this legislation will be published by the end of this year; and calls on the Government to continue and intensify its work across the relevant Departments and Agencies to deal with the mortgage arrears problem.”

- (Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Simon Harris).

Deputy Dessie Ellis

Tá géarchéim ann i dtaca le morgáistí ar fud na tíre. Sin an fáth go bhfuilim ag tabhairt tacaíochta don PMB seo. Tá sé an-tábhachtach ar fad.

As Sinn Féin's housing spokesperson, I welcome the motion by Members of the Technical Group on this important issue which lamentably remains a major problem and a cause of much heartache, stress and hardship for families up and down the country.

This is a simple and clear motion which I am disappointed the Government will not be accepting. Once again the Government has instead sought to gut the motion and force us to vote on an amendment which is more focused on giving praise to the Government than reflecting on the ongoing problems and seeking a resolution.

The mortgage crisis is still unfolding. People who lost their jobs, whose hours or pay were cut and who sank into negative equity, still to this day struggle to keep their home or to see a way out of crippling debt. This is despite an improvement in some of their circumstances.

In June this year, the Central Bank released its latest figures on mortgage arrears. The statements surrounding this release were grim to say the least. They outlined the fact that we are currently facing a catastrophe for those in arrears in the future if something is not done.

Some 35,314 mortgage accounts were found to be in arrears by two years or more, resulting in outstanding balances of €7.4 billion. This was a rise of 5.1% on the previous quarter. In more understandable terms the average arrears for these accounts rose by €5,000 to €46,000.

While restructuring figures could be spun as being somewhat encouraging, campaigners made the point that mortgages were being cherry-picked for restructuring which does not bode well for future figures and those in most distress.

Over 3,000 repossession applications were made in the first quarter of 2014 with no reason to believe that this rate has not continued throughout the year. A major crisis already unfolding within the wider mortgage crisis is that of the buy-to-let market. In February 2013, I had a Topical Issue debate on this subject taken by the former Minister of State, Brian Hayes. I was calling for a binding code of conduct for the buy-to-let market in a situation where tenants are in danger of losing their home due to mortgage arrears or repossession. It was clear at the time and still is that some people taking control of properties have no interest in acting as landlords and so are more than happy to remove tenants from repossessed homes.

Since the end of the moratorium on repossessions, this has put families out on the street. These families were good tenants who paid their rent on time - often rent which was totally unjustifiable based on the quality of the property and in excess of the mortgage repayment owed each month.

The Minister of State's response at the time was to quote a reply he had been handed. It completely ignored the issue. This has been the policy of the Government ever since. People continue to lose their homes. This code of conduct is still badly needed and I once again call on the Government to act on this.

Last night my colleague, Deputy Pearse Doherty, told of how the Government had ignored the work of the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform in developing a detailed report on possible measures to tackle the mortgage crisis. This report had all-party support and was born out of wide-ranging and comprehensive engagement with all manner of stakeholders.

The Government's amendment to the motion before us is a restatement of its desire to ignore the issue or to engage with anyone on it outside of a few Cabinet Ministers. Is it any wonder that people are so angry at this Government? Is it any wonder they feel so utterly betrayed by it? The Government has certainly blown a lot of hot air at the banks for their failure to engage properly in providing a solution. However, the Government has certainly not done anything to make the banks listen or force them to address the problems.

The report to which Deputy Doherty referred made it clear that the Central Bank must be firm with the banking industry that repossession and eviction are not sustainable solutions and they will not be accepted. Instead, the Government has responded to the banks' position with not much more than disinterest. The Government has sat by as families have lost their homes and its amendment shows that it intends to do little else in future. The Government hopes this problem will just go away, but it will not.

The motion from the Technical Group rightly states that a code of conduct on mortgage arrears is not working. It is weak and without a statutory footing. Before they can take legal action, banks should be bound to offer all of the options laid out by the code of conduct. This was an important part of the report by the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform.

In cases where a home is repossessed, those who have lost their home should be cleared of their debt to the lender. Failing to do this is simply cruel and leaves those who have lost almost everything without any hope at all.

While I am outlining Sinn Féin's policy on these matters, I am also speaking in line with the all-party report of the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, which I urge the Government to revisit. Or maybe the Government should take a first look at it, as it would seem that Ministers have never heard of it.

The mortgage to rent scheme must also be reformed so as to be more accessible and more effective. At present it has been described as unworkable and a miserable failure. It is a good idea put into practice in a pathetically limited model.

In June 2014, it had succeeded in getting just 40 homes purchased. Mr. David Hall of the Mortgage Holders' Organisation called it "rubbish". The scheme does not put enough pressure on lenders to engage. It limits too tightly the value of homes which can be entered into the scheme. It also puts in front of any potential applicant a long road of hoops to jump through, so that they might in the end remain in a home they no longer own.

A review of this scheme must take place. The Government must recognise that its application has so far failed to meet the needs of those it seeks to help, or to move on reform. This scheme could save families from eviction and provide AHBs and local authorities with extra rent revenue. In the long term it could provide an asset which becomes part of the hopelessly inadequate social housing stock.

The Government's performance on the mortgage crisis has been inadequate and limp-wristed at best. At worst, its inaction has put families out of their homes while banks do as they please.

I commend this motion to the House and call on the Government to wake up to the reality that this crisis is not going away and requires immediate attention and strong decisive action. This motion contains some of what is needed as well as the report by the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform that I have already mentioned. Some of the leg work has been done. It is now up to the Government to tackle the problem from the side of the thousands of families struggling to keep their homes however they can.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joe O'Reilly)

I call Deputy Twomey. I understand he is sharing time with Deputies Costello, Mulherin, Maloney and Doherty. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Liam Twomey

We are not completely in disagreement with Deputy Ellis on this side of the House. There is a serious crisis here. I have been a member of the Finance committee since 2007 and we have watched as our economy has basically imploded. We have seen what has happened to people and their livelihoods. It has been absolutely horrible.

At the end of the third quarter of 2009, approximately five years ago, 3.3% of home mortgages were in arrears by more than 90 days. By the end of the third quarter 2013, this time last year, some 12.9% of home mortgages were in arrears of more than 90 days. It is a catastrophic crisis. Not everyone can keep their homes but we must be mindful of the homeowners and children who have endured such a crisis. We must make sure we provide alternative homes, not alternative accommodation, for these people. It has had a shocking impact on young people and young families.

The mortgage to rent scheme is a good idea but it is not working well. I hope the Housing Agency, which has taken responsibility for it, will come up with better results than those we have seen so far. Housing in rural areas may not suit a housing agency and there are concerns about too many people being in a house or a house being too big for the people involved. The mortgage to rent scheme may not work for everyone. The priority remains to keep people in their homes.

The Government has responded but, as with everything else, more can be done. The crisis was almost overwhelming in an era when the economy was going through a significant crisis. Since 2011, the Keane report was published and the Government, along with the Central Bank, has responded. We have had legislation on personal insolvency as the previous legislation in that area did not work for those in serious financial debt. We introduced the mortgage arrears and information advisory service. One of the major problems with people who were in mortgage arrears was that they stopped engaging with the lending institutions. The crisis overwhelmed them and they stopped engaging. A service with fees removed is welcome so that people can engage and try to work themselves out of the crisis.

A practical measure introduced by the Minister for Finance was to increase mortgage interest relief for those who purchased houses between 2004 and 2008 to help them hold onto their homes. The Central Bank code of conduct on mortgage arrears is being used. The report of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform recommends that this should be put on a statutory footing, with which I agree. We have had a response from the Central Bank but we are awaiting a response from the Department of Finance.

The Central Bank is also working on the mortgage arrears resolution process because there is a need to help thousands of householders who are in difficulty. Some 70,000 people are in a crisis and there are also individuals in rental accommodation owned by someone else securing a buy to let mortgage. That person may be in mortgage arrears and we need to take on board those issues. The Government is working towards this and everyone, including the banks, needs to up their game. The banks have appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform every year since 2009. The Governor of the Central Bank and the Department of Finance have appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to discuss this. Progress is being made but it could be made faster. The report on hearings on matters relating to mortgage arrears and the resolution processes, published just before the recess by the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, could form the template to move the issue along as quickly as possible. I do not know how quickly we can get these resolutions sorted out.

One of the best things that happened last year was the drop in unemployment figures. We are creating jobs in the economy and this is taking people out of the crisis. We must move forward in our effort to make sure we get people working. Equally, we must move forward in resolving the crisis.

Deputy Joe Costello

I am delighted to speak on this Private Members' motion and I commend the Technical Group on tabling it. It is important we debate an issue of such importance that deals with housing, mortgages and people's lives and families.

This matter has been ongoing since the start of the recession. We know the background to what happened. During the Celtic tiger years, funding was thrown around like confetti, with 100% mortgages available everywhere and people were nobodies unless they got on the property ladder. People were talking not just about homes but about the property ladder and the number of properties they could accumulate. It did not matter where these properties were built and if tax incentives pointed them in one direction, they were built in those areas. We are now witnessing ghost estates being demolished. Some 250,000 additional homes were built in those years. In 2006 we, a small country of approximately 4.5 million people, built almost exactly the same number of houses as were built in England, a country of 65 million people. Anyone in their right mind should have seen that what was happening in 2006 was unsustainable and unrealistic. Nevertheless, the fires were fuelled by further tax incentives and the end result was that the massive bubble led to a massive bust. A large number of developers who had come to the country and built the houses soon departed. We moved from one extreme to another, with virtually no housing being built. Housing that had been built was mainly built in the wrong place, with the exception being Deputy Mick Wallace, who was building them in the right place, in Dublin. Nevertheless, he also encountered problems.

In 2004 and 2005, there were no mortgage arrears and nothing that exceeded 90 days. That moved up rapidly from 2008 as the situation deteriorated. The number of mortgages in arrears for principal dwelling houses increased for four consecutive quarters. People could not afford to pay and became unemployed. Between 2008 and 2011, 250,000 people lost their jobs. A crisis was created given the major cost of houses at that time and the number of people who purchased them because finance was cheap and easy to get. It was a bubble we must never allow to inflate again.

There is no easy solution to the mortgage crisis and what is proposed is, by and large, positive and forward-looking. The Government has researched and implemented a number of measures to deal with the problem such as the provision of the mortgage advisory service, the reform of the insolvency and bankruptcy regimes, and the strengthening of the code of conduct on mortgage arrears. The code of conduct is a central issue that the members of the Technical Group who have signed the motion would like to see addressed. I have a certain sympathy for that idea but the code of conduct is mandatory for lenders and its implementation is monitored by the Central Bank. There are on-site inspections of mortgage lenders and the Central Bank sets the mortgage arrears resolution targets that banks must meet on a quarterly basis. For example, the targets for the fourth quarter in 2014 require the banks to prepare sustainable solutions to 85% of customers who are more than 90 days in arrears and to conclude agreements with 45% of customers by the end of 2014.

We will examine those figures to see those targets have been reached. They may sound ambitious but the Cental Bank is making those demands. It will undoubtedly result in a decrease in the number of mortgages in arrears.

The overall figure has declined this year but the number of mortgage holders in arrears for more than two years has continued to increase. There has been an overall decline but the numbers of people in the most difficult position have increased. I have obtained figures from the Courts Service indicating the number of possession orders made in the Circuit Court has increased significantly in recent months. The average number of possession orders made in each quarter from the start of 2013 to the first quarter of this year was 88 but this more than doubled to 218 in the second quarter of 2014. That is the direction in which the trend is going. Unfortunately, the figures are only available from the Courts Service and the recorded statistics are not available in respect of residential possessions. We do not have the breakdown of other property repossessions as well as residential repossessions, which seems to be a serious flaw in the statistics. I have written to the Courts Service to ask that it address this issue in the way it compiles statistics.

I am concerned that lending institutions, particularly banks, are beginning to head down the repossession route, largely due to the upturn in the housing market. It was not as attractive in the past to repossess a property because the market was not there for purchase but the danger now is that as the market picks up, the lending institutions will see markets in which to sell homes. The incentive will be for repossession to become the norm rather than the exception, and that must not become the case. The Government has made it clear that repossession should be a last resort, coming at the very end of any other processes. The Irish people have given unprecedented support to lenders and co-operated with them in every element of the process in seeking to find a particular structure that would suit in dealing with people in difficulty. Such efforts should be reciprocated by the lending institution and we should ensure that repossessions remain a last resort.

We have now moved from cases of 100% mortgages to a position where the Central Bank is demanding a loan limits of 3.5 times the applicant's salary, with a 20% deposit. That is a mistake, particularly with regard to the deposit percentage. How can a young family get a roof over its head when a €200,000 house, for example, requires a €40,000 deposit? The required deposit should be reduced by half to 10% of the total loan, and the loan limit of 3.5 times a person's salary should be a sufficient guard against mortgages getting out of control. It is important to ensure that young families get a roof over their heads, and it should be made as easy as possible for them to get an initial deposit before working with a bank on a salary ratio limit. It is a more reasonable element in the proposal.

Deputy Eamonn Maloney

I commend Deputy Joan Collins on the comments she made on the motion last night. In fairness, in her introduction she reflected the experience perhaps not of all Deputies but certainly most of us who have dealt with families, in particular, who fell into a difficult financial position because of the collapse of banks and economies as a whole. Many of the points she made in introducing the motion were very solid and good in spirit. As Deputy Costello has mentioned, the principle is important regardless of which side of the House a Deputy sits. If something of merit is said, it should be recognised.

The fact that family homes could be at risk is a sensitive subject. It is one of the by-products of the collapse of the economy and it can lead to great anguish for families. It can even destroy some families, as I have dealt with cases where marriages fell apart because of financial strain. I know of cases where both parents lost jobs within a year, even when the jobs were very good and the mortgages were large. Most people would admit if they had borrowed way beyond their means but having said that, such people would have done so with the assistance of the local bank, which could not give out money quickly enough. Unfortunately, some people found themselves in an awful position as a result.

Different banks exercised different ways of dealing with clients and unsustainable mortgages. Until the collapse, banks had a free run in this country and were treated with too much respect by ordinary people. The population does not look up to banks or their managers now, although I am sure there are some good bank managers. I could not list any now.

Deputy Joe Costello

They are there.

Deputy Eamonn Maloney

Some of them are not so good and the institutions had a free run until the collapse. We have made some positive changes with regard to accountability and the control of banks, as people on both sides of the House would admit. We have also dealt with control of the Central Bank, which was a very powerful body in this country. Again, it had free reign but exercised little control. Some of what happened was unbelievable and, as we now know, contributed to the mess in which we found ourselves.

Other Members and I would like certain restrictions to be introduced for banks, which are held to account in other jurisdictions in a greater way than we can see here. This is a learning curve and Deputy Collins last night indicated that in the history of the State, we are fortunate that this sort of calamity has happened only once. I hope, if this Parliament does as it should, it will never happen again. The Members present might remember that when this Dáil was in its early days, the discussion predominantly concerned banks and their future. Not all of us used the word "eviction" but there was a fear in that respect and I am sure it was real for many people. Whatever the shortcomings of the legislation being introduced, there were some cries of the word in the House from a small number of Members, although most people behaved very responsibly. The word "eviction" has a connotation among us as Irish people for very good reasons.

Fortunately, use of that word did not become the norm. I acknowledge that there are sad cases; people are in difficulties with mortgages and we should welcome discussions like this about those who have been left behind, irrespective of from which side of the House the discussion originates.

Deputy Regina Doherty

I welcome the positive figures presented by the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris. Government policy is being implemented to support households in arrears and Government targets have seen progress in reducing the number of mortgages in arrears across the country. The statistics we heard at the finance committee meeting today with representatives of the Bank of Ireland reflect this. More such meetings are to follow with the other banks, but it does not take a genius to see that many households are still in arrears and families are in crisis as a result. This should never be acceptable - the statistics are positive, but each household in crisis is much more than a statistic. The targets set by the Central Bank for the fourth quarter are optimistic and I look forward to seeing the results at the end of the year, given the momentum that some of the banks have built in the past 12 months, but we in this House can do much more to assist people in mortgage arrears, as can the banks.

Research by Fitch Ratings was published recently and it showed that the figure for average default expectations in Europe was around €235 billion. Ireland, Spain and Portugal are, unfortunately, the worst culprits and the research shows a growth in hedge funds seeking to take advantage of the market position. These hedge funds are buying up commercial non-performing loans and buy-to-let performing loans, but there is a dearth of options for those in mortgage distress in their family homes.

I welcome this debate and thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. I take the opportunity to set out alternative solutions to the current list of problems in this area. Everyone in the House is aware of New Beginning; unfortunately, tens of thousands of families around the country are aware of it because they have had to avail of its services. It was co-founded by Mr. Ross Maguire and Mr. Vincent P. Martin and has a new programme that includes a socially responsible element, the idea being to allow families to remain in their homes while finding mechanisms to write down unsustainable debt. The fund New Beginning has established will allow banks and the Government to co-operate to find a solution for the 15,000 to 25,000 families that find themselves unable to pay much off their mortgages. Families with loans that have been non-performing for over 240 days will be able to sell their homes to New Beginning and re-lease them over a seven year period. At any stage during the seven year period they will be able to buy back their homes at the prevailing market value. Account will be taken of any rise in property prices between the initial purchase by New Beginning and the repurchase by the family in question. It is an initiative that the Government examined some years ago, when it went by the name of "mortgage to lease", but could not implement owing to a technicality that would not allow the State to act as landlord or lessor. This is an initiative where the fund will be regulated when established and, most importantly, has a socially conscious element whereby a family will be allowed to stay in their home and benefit from a rise in the value of the property. As we all know that property prices will rise in the coming months and years, this initiative is to be praised and supported, particularly by the banks. I encourage the Government to continue to support it, as it has done in the past.

I commend Mr. Ross Maguire and Mr. Vincent P. Martin of New Beginning on their work and extend this to the organisation's staff members who work on a voluntary basis. The work is done in a quiet and consistent manner and there are families who would not be in the position they are but for the support of the organisation. The work was particularly necessary before the Government got its act together and set up the Insolvency Service of Ireland, ISI, process. The support of New Beginning has helped families in distress up and down the country.

I encourage the six lending institutions that own most mortgage debt in the country, particularly the three banks the State has supported financially, to examine seriously this offering when it comes before them in the coming weeks and months. It could help the institutions to meet their mortgage resolution process targets and will give a decent offering that is greater than the mortgage to rent offering. In my humble opinion, the mortgage to rent offering is poor, but this gives a real, socially conscious offering to families that will allow them remain in their homes. This measure should be supported and I commend the Government on doing so, but I ask that the six lending institutions, including the three main banks, examine it seriously in the coming weeks. If it is accepted, it will help the 15,000 to 25,000 families in serious distress to keep their family homes in a discreet and quiet fashion.

Deputy Helen McEntee

I welcome the opportunity to speak about this matter and thank the Opposition for raising it as it is extremely important. Buying a home, be it a house or an apartment, is the biggest investment most people will make in their lives; therefore, it is important that we, as legislators, discuss this issue and try to bring forward measures to assist those in distress. It does not matter which side of the House we occupy; nobody wants to see a family, couple or an individual fall behind on a mortgage or be evicted. We want to give young people and young families the opportunity to step onto the property ladder - I am 28 years old and would like to do so in a number of years.

This is still a daunting issue because not long ago the property bubble caused extremely high house prices and once it burst there was an extraordinary drop in values. Ultimately, the entire property market collapsed and we are still trying to deal with the consequences. As a Government, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have tried to address this issue by putting arrangements in place to assist people. I am referring to the Personal Insolvency Act and the creation of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS. There are issues around MABS and not everyone agrees that it performs its duties as well as possible. The Government is trying its best. The mortgage to rent scheme was launched in 2012 and enables eligible individuals to remain in their homes. The number of accounts that have been in arrears for over 90 days continues to fall and we are moving in the right direction, although I agree that a figure of over 69,000 is still too high. Most importantly, I have spoken to a number people of my age who say that without mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers, they do not know where they would be. They do not know if they would still be in their homes and able to maintain making payments. The Government has taken many actions to help people, but some problems persist. If a person in mortgage distress cannot speak to someone in a financial institution on the telephone, there is a serious problem. A man in my constituency is a single parent and has worked his entire life. Like many, he lost his job and was unable to keep up making full payments on his mortgage, but he never failed to pay back something. He paid over €600 every month for four years, but he now owes over €50,000 more than he did when he first took out the mortgage. I do not know how anyone could do what he did, given the pressure he was put under, and he has now reached an agreement to pay €500 less per month, but it took a year to make contact with the bank. It is unacceptable that this should happen nowadays and banks should take note of such cases. We are moving in the right direction, but we all come across cases such this on a daily basis and must deal with them.

I thank Phoenix Project, an organisation in County Offaly, because it helps people like the man I mentioned to deal with banks and speak to them. We have come a long way, but we must ensure there is not another property bubble. It is worrying that house prices are rising - it is not happening everywhere in Ireland, but it is evident in Dublin.

An interested party is quite likely to come across a viewing of a house where there are 50 people standing outside all bidding for that same house while the price is going up and up because of demand. We need to be very careful with that.

The Central Bank is trying to address the problem and has put forward a motion that first-time buyers should have 20% upfront when buying a house. While I understand where the bank is coming from I believe that is too much. As a said earlier, I am 28 years old and I am keen to get on the property ladder myself, but I know from speaking to my peers and other young families that 20% is simply too much to ask first-time buyers to put forward for a home. I am calling for the proposed level to be halved, reduced to 10% or a maximum of 15% to allow people to get on the property ladder.

While we have seen a major increase in the number of people who have been assisted with their mortgages, there is still a long way to go. I welcome the debate and I am glad the Opposition has brought forward the topic for debate.

Deputy Tom Fleming

Figures released by the Central Bank in September indicated that the mortgage arrears crisis is continuing. The data showed that the number of mortgages in arrears of more than 90 days fell. At the time that figure fell for the fourth consecutive quarter but well over 120,000 homeowners continue to carry the burden of mortgage debt and long-term arrears. This figure is continuing to grow. According to the bank's statistics, over 37,000 mortgage accounts were in arrears for more than 720 days, over two years, during the second quarter of this year, an astounding figure. Instead of making progress with their arrears these people, who became seriously indebted at the early stages of the economic crisis, are becoming more deeply trapped in the quagmire. There has been an accelerated rate of applications to repossess homes. Over 3,000 repossession proceedings had issued by the end of the third quarter of this year.

Local authority lending is also crippled by arrears. This sector is often forgotten about and is a sector that does not seem to have been given any focus in this crisis. A great proportion of loans in this sector are in arrears to the banks. The total outstanding value of all local authority mortgages stood at almost €1.2 billion at the end of 2013. Almost one in three local authority mortgages were in arrears of over 90 days. Almost 20,000 people have a local authority or council mortgage and over 6,000 of these were in arrears of more than 90 days at the end of last year. Local authority councils have repossessed more than 400 houses between 2010 and 2013 and, according to the figures of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, many of the people involved may find themselves reliant on our social housing system. The system is already unable to cope with the existing numbers of qualified applicants on the lists. We are well aware of this but it puts all these councils in a precarious position. They will now have to re-house the people whose houses have been repossessed. This will rebound on the local authorities that are already under pressure.

The Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation ought to be commended on its outstanding work on reaching agreement on a long-term resolution for 1,330 people in mortgage arrears. This was achieved under the pilot scheme conducted with the AIB during the past 12 months. Since its establishment the scheme has been available free of charge to all AIB customers, including those with the EBS and Haven. As well as the 1,330 people referred to a further 177 cases are due to be decided shortly. In 30% of these cases customers who were facing proceedings managed to achieve a long-term sustainable solution. Strong commendation is due to David Hall and his organisation on achieving this.

I am pleased that the arrangements between the IMHO and AIB is to be extended for a further 12 months with an expanded team. The team is now functional and receiving over 125 calls per day. This will mean, for example, that in many of the these distressed mortgage cases a resolution can be achieved within two months or seven or eight weeks.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform produced a report on mortgage arrears in July. It recommended that the project be rolled out nationally to involve all the banks. It was disappointing to learn at today's finance committee meeting that the chief executive of Bank of Ireland, Mr. Richie Boucher, more or less did not embrace the concept. He was not over-enthusiastic when he was asked about extending the project to his bank. I understand Ulster Bank has a similar line of thought and is rejecting it.

It is interesting to note that Bank of Ireland repossessed 621 owner-occupied or buy-to-let properties in the first half of this year. This data was in documentation given to Oireachtas Members at the committee meeting today. The bank representatives told the committee that 322 judgments were enforced against owner-occupiers and 299 on buy-to-let investments. This means that the properties were either in the bank's possession or had been sold. In the first six months of this year the bank sold 80 properties that it had repossessed. Data provided to the committee show that 85 properties were repossessed in 2010, rising to 166 the following year, to 180 in 2012 and to 214 for last year. This means a grand total of 645 people have been evicted from their homes, to put it mildly.

Between 2010 and last year Bank of Ireland disposed of 383 of these properties, which are so needed by victimised people who have borne the brunt of what the banks have been carrying out in recent years. They were walked up the garden path in many respects. Now, with low pay, cuts to their pay packets and ongoing taxes, of which there is a long list, these people cannot keep a roof over their heads. They are only trying to survive and live. Mr. Boucher indicated he intends to veto the insolvency arrangements. I believe this is a drastic measure and that there should be more co-operation in this respect.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

It is a little disappointing that the Government has refused to accept what is a modest proposal by Deputy Collins. I commend her on putting forward this motion and on consistently raising the issues of mortgage distress and the need to deal fairly with people who find themselves in this extremely difficult situation.

The proposals Deputy Collins has put forward are nothing more than the proposals agreed by an all-party committee that examined these issues, including members of the Government parties. Therefore, I do not see why the Government has moved an amendment to the motion. There seems to be widespread acceptance that there is no consistency whatsoever in terms of the banks and mortgage lenders to deal with the problems of mortgage arrears and that we need to improve the situation considerably to bring fairness, certainty and assurance to the many tens of thousands of families who find themselves in extreme difficulty now, some six years after this crisis hit.

One can bandy about statistics on the number of mortgages that are less than 90 days in arrears and the banks meeting targets and so forth, but all of that masks the human reality that 130,000 families have been living a nightmare for six years. For many of them, there is no end to that nightmare. That is a very debilitating, unfair situation to put families and children through - living in a constant state of anxiety and insecurity about the roof over their heads. The Government has failed to deal decisively with that, despite the fact that an all-party committee of the Oireachtas has stated that it should do precisely what is proposed in this motion.

It is worth pointing out that I, Deputy Joan Collins, and many other Members would go a great deal further than what is proposed in the motion. We have said from the beginning that Ireland should have adopted the Norwegian model and simply forced the banks to agree deals with distressed mortgage holders which would ensure that they kept the roofs over their heads. The Government has resisted that. Instead, it has put in place some rules and regulations, but to a large extent it has left the ultimate decisions in the hands of private banks. The banks are commercially driven and interested in profit. They are not particularly interested in the distress in which mortgage holders find themselves.

It is worth noting the contrast between a bank that is fully owned by the State and other banks that are privatised or close to being privatised, after we bailed them out. The State-owned bank at least has brought in a third party in the form of the Irish Mortgage Holders' Organisation, which has been campaigning consistently for fairness and consistency in how we deal with distressed mortgage holders and is showing itself capable of getting results. It raises the question of why other banks, such as Bank of Ireland, which we also bailed out, are allowed to behave in whatever way they wish. As they consider their first responsibility to be their shareholders and making money for those shareholders, they are far less interested in the fate and plight of people who have distressed mortgages. It is against that background that the Government is being asked to be fair.

I wish to make a final point. The other side of this coin is the spiralling social housing lists, the bill for which is being picked up by the taxpayer. They are spiralling out of control and to a large extent this is being caused by banks forcing tenants out as receivers move in and the banks repossessing people's homes, as a result of which people go on social housing lists. It was confirmed last week that the social housing list in Dún Laoghaire has increased from 4,000 to over 5,000 in just one year. I have not seen the national figures yet, but if that increase is replicated around the country, we are facing a social housing crisis that is spiralling out of control.

We have not dealt in a proper way with the issue of providing housing for people as a right and ensuring that banks treat people fairly. If the State is not going to step up to the mark in terms of forcing the banks to behave properly, it should at least build social and affordable housing to ensure that people will have somewhere to go when they are turfed out by the banks. Indeed, it is this and previous Governments' privatisation of the housing market that has left us in this sorry state in the first place.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I commend Deputy Joan Collins on tabling this motion. Many of the problems highlighted in it have not gone away. The motion is about poor banking behaviour, deregulation and the failure of the State to control the banking system in any way. That has led to a situation in which we are now facing an increased number of repossessions. It is a crazy scenario.

Of course, we are all well aware that the deregulation should never have happened in the first place. However, the ideology that drove deregulation, neoliberalism, is sadly still alive and well, which poses a problem for the future. The Government still cannot tell the banks what to do. The State refused to have any measure of control over the banks in the good times, and even when the State owned the banks, it was still very reluctant to tell them what to do. That is a massive problem.

The principle behind repossessions does not make sense. It is fair enough if somebody can afford to pay a mortgage and will not pay it, but if a person cannot afford to pay a mortgage there is little common sense in throwing them out of the house. It costs more in the long term. There is no logic in throwing people out of their homes, especially if they cannot afford to pay the mortgage. Ninety-nine percent of people would pay their mortgages if they could, because they wish to remain in their homes.

The fact that we are still unable to tell the banks what to do means that they will be able to do what they wish. The banks do not look at the building a person lives in as a home. To them it is a financial asset on which money is owed, and if they do not get the money they wish to take action. They claim that repossession is a last resort. However, it is not the State that is deciding what a last resort means. Sadly, it is the banks, so they do what they like. That is the reason there is an increased number of repossessions now.

Repossessions were not nearly as plentiful three and four years ago. In the first place, the banks were so far under water they did not know their backsides from their elbows. Second, when people were living in homes that were seriously underwater and had no equity in them, the banks were reluctant to move on them. Obviously, the change in the legislation has facilitated their actions now, but it also has become more attractive for the banks to repossess because there is more equity in these homes. In cases in which people cannot pay their mortgage, it is becoming more attractive to the bank to sell the property, because prices have increased. One was nearly safer when one was in more trouble, because one's so-called asset, one's home, was less attractive to the bank.

This situation is going to get worse before it gets better, not just in the short term but in the long term. In my lifetime - and I have been in the industry for most of my life - there has never been a real housing strategy in this country. It has always been market and developer-led. Planning is market and developer-led and, sadly, the State has been too often led by the nose by the developer as well. I am not just referring to the present.

The problem has been prevalent for the past 30 years. If the State wishes to change how things are done, it has a great deal of work to do. First and foremost, a complete change of ideology is required.

The Central Bank has proposed that loans be limited to three and a half times the salary of mortgage applicants and that applicants be required to produce a deposit of 20% of the price of the property. This has created a new game, which is fine as it will mean with fewer people meeting these criteria, the number of people getting into trouble with their mortgages is likely to decline. However, it will also mean that almost half of young people will never be able to afford to own a home. This is not the end of the world. In the rest of Europe, there is much less emphasis on owning one's home because it is much cheaper to rent. The Italians, for example, are happy to rent, with home owners in Italy making up only 25% of the market and people renting making up the remaining 75%. One can rent cheaply in Italy, for example, in Turin it is possible to rent a nice apartment for €300 per month. If one were to try to do that in Dublin, it would not work out very well.

If fewer people are able to afford to buy a home, it will be crucial that the State turns its back on the current approach of throwing people at the mercy of the private rental market. This is not the correct approach. In the past 30 years, only minimal efforts have been made to build social houses and these have been concentrated in poor areas. As we know, people who live in poor housing tend to be poor and have poor life opportunities. Very often, this comes back to bite the State through various social problems.

If we proceed with the proposal that banks be required to provide loans of not more than three and a half times a person's salary and demand a deposit of 20%, we will also have to rethink completely our approach to social housing by building good quality social housing for up to half the population. Social housing will be required in all areas and we will have to move away from ghettoisation and poor quality social housing. An entirely new approach to the issue is needed and the sooner a Government adopts such an approach, the better.

Deputy Seamus Healy

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this simple, straightforward and common sense motion and I compliment Deputy Joan Collins on introducing it. I am surprised and disappointed that the Government saw fit to table an amendment which effectively amounts to a counter motion. Given that the contents of the motion are ostensibly Government policy, I hope the Government, even at this late stage, will withdraw the amendment and allow the motion to be passed unanimously.

I note the Government at least agrees there is a mortgage crisis. This crisis has been ongoing for a number of years, with as many as 120,000 families having lived a nightmare for the past six or seven years. Thousands of people are living in mortgage misery and in fear of action by the bailed out banks. They are being bullied by these banks which the State and taxpayers rescued. People are in genuine fear of losing their family home and this fear is both palpable and traumatic. All public representatives, whether at local or national level, will be aware that this issue is creating serious mental health issues for a significant number of individuals and families. At this stage, people even fear the sight of the postman in case he or she delivers the dreaded letter from their bank which demands either the sale or repossession of the family home. I have a copy of one such letter, which offers people the stark options of engaging in a voluntary sale or voluntary surrender of their home, failing which they will be evicted. This letter informs home owners in respect of "all of the options above" that "in the event of a shortfall", they remain "liable for the outstanding debt", including accrued interest, charges, legal, selling and other related costs. The bank in question also states that it will "always seek the gross sale proceeds and a certified copy of the unconditional contract for sale." The options facing these home owners are voluntary sale, voluntary surrender and eviction. Having a roof over one's head and being able to continue to live in one's family home is probably one of the most cherished aspirations of people here and worldwide. Why should that not be the case?

I draw attention to as many as 30,000 families who face eviction as a result of the Government's failure to protect them because they are not covered by the insolvency arrangements. I refer to mortgage holders who do not qualify under these arrangements on the basis that they have insufficient disposal income. The individuals in question have fully engaged with their lenders and are not strategic defaulters. Their only asset is their family home. I am not referring to owners of buy-to-let properties. The mortgages held by these families are modest, amounting to less than €100,000 in many cases and less than €200,000 in all cases. They are low income families headed in most, if not all, cases by an unemployed person. These householders took out a mortgage when they were employed, having been urged to do so by every arm of the State, from the Central Bank to the Government and politicians, as well as the banks and media. Having become unemployed, they now find themselves unable to meet their mortgage commitments. There is no doubt that these families are in very serious difficulty, with many facing eviction. The number of repossessions and court actions in train indicates that thousands of evictions are imminent. Apart from the severe human trauma this will create, whether in terms of people's health or otherwise, these families will join between 90,000 and 100,000 other families in the queue for social housing.

Again, this is an additional cost for the Government. They will find themselves in a position where they will have to apply for housing, be approved and qualify for rent supplement at a cost to the State. It would be advantageous to all concerned, namely, the mortgage holder, the State and the banks, to ensure such families remain in the family home. In that regard, I refer to the mortgage to rent scheme mentioned in the motion. It is a good scheme in theory, but, unfortunately, the banks are not prepared to use it and appear to be opposed to it. Very few mortgage to rent solutions have been approved. This should change and the scheme should be beefed up to ensure the 30,000 families who face eviction are dealt with.

Other issues need to be addressed. Split mortgages and the mortgage to rent scheme are mentioned in the motion. To solve this problem there needs to be a significant write-down of mortgages.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Dara Murphy)

The debate in the past two days has highlighted the mortgage difficulties faced by many homeowners and the importance of implementing measures to assist those who remain in difficulty. In that regard, I compliment Deputy Joan Collins for tabling the motion, in particular on its timing. Representatives of the banks appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform today. Like others, I attended the committee as a member in the past few years until my appointment as a Minister of State and it is fair to say the banks have a different opinion.

I have before me a list of many of the measure the Government has taken. I will address some of the points made by previous speakers, in particular Deputy Joe Costello's point about the availability of proper statistics, not just to the committee but more generally. It is a point well worth following up on and I hope the Department will do so with respect to the difference between mortgage to rent properties and family homes.

I share the positive commentary of Deputy Regina Doherty on New Beginning and the introduction of a changed scheme which could made a difference.

Deputy Liam Twomey, as Chairman of the committee, has engaged following publication of its report on this issue which was presented to the Department in July. Many Deputies who were part of the cross-party committee felt measures contained within it could be of benefit in helping to solve many of the very difficult problems people faced. As Deputy Liam Twomey said, the Minister is giving consideration to many of the suggestions made in the report.

It is interesting to note that there appears from the contributions made to be a degree of consensus on the difficult choice to be made between the deposit one is required to have to purchase a family home and not wanting to have it so low as to fuel another property bubble. The key component is targeting and identifying the family home. To a large extent, the property bubble was not fuelled by people purchasing family homes.

The Minister, the Department and all of us in the Government parties are aware that there is a lot to be done. There have been some very significant measures introduced and some of the statistics for the reductions in numbers show that they are, albeit slowly, starting to take effect. Borrower engagement with banks, through the introduction of the code of conduct on mortgage arrears which was revised in 2013 to strengthen consumer protection and ensure fairness and sustainability, is vital, as is achievement of the mortgage arrears resolution targets.

I agree with the comments made on all of these targets, percentages and statistics. Any of us who holds constituency clinics will be aware that it comes down to individuals and families. Deputy Mick Wallace said 99% of people wished to pay their home mortgages and we all have to acknowledge that this is the case. Strategic default is not happening as people are trying to pay their mortgages on their homes. We have also seen reform of the insolvency and bankruptcy regime which for some has been of assistance. The provision of the mortgage advisory service was the result of the Department of Social Protection's review last year.

Deputy Clare Daly

I wish to share time with Deputies Stephen S. Donnelly and Joan Collins.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Clare Daly

This is a very important discussion. Deputy Joan Collins was disappointed not to be able to table a motion on Irish Water as Fianna Fáil had done so previously. In some ways, it is ironic because if Irish Water is established, it will be like a second mortgage for many homeowners. That said, the issue of mortgages and the number of families affected has probably not received sufficient attention. From that point of view, it is important that the motion has been tabled.

As of October, 132,000 households were in mortgage arrears, representing just short of 500,000 citizens who are under severe economic pressure and for whom the Government stated it had a solution. Given that the overwhelming majority have been in arrears for over two years, whatever the Government thinks it is doing to deal with the problem, the reality is different.

We need to examine the issue by stepping back. There are hundreds of thousands of households in the State in serious need of housing who are forgoing the basic necessities of life in order to engage in a struggle to keep a roof over their heads, which is incredibly unhealthy. I will not repeat the points made by other Deputies, but the figures available for the numbers of sustainable solutions about which the banks are bragging - over 5,000 in the case of Bank of Ireland - pale into insignificance when we look at the large numbers in arrears. I agree with the proposition that what the Government is doing and the current code of conduct essentially allow the banks to do what they like.

We need to stand the arrangement in place on its head and put protecting the family home centre stage. That has to be the starting point, but the reality is that it is not. Today the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, spoke to the media and essentially bragged about the new arrangements in regard to mortgage protection and the scheme being brought forward to help buyers to buy property and overcome some of the restrictions the banks were introducing. This is not about the interests of homeowners; rather, it is, first and foremost, about protecting the banks' money. That is why we are in this position.

Everything is being done to appease the banks; we are not starting at the essential point of keeping people in their homes. This is a bit rich for people to accept against the backdrop of the €64 billion of our money that was spent on bailing out the banks. Mortgage arrears would account for only a small amount of that, and the banks have been recapitalised for that money already. We must have an arrangement in regard to the writing down of debt. That is the best move for the economy and for the citizens involved. This is the experience of other countries. Norway and Iceland recovered far more quickly by releasing people from the burden of debt, and that must happen here. The motion before us is more modest than this and does not even look for a Norwegian solution. It simply seeks to alter the code of conduct that exists currently and for us to start on the basis of keeping people in their homes.

I do not understand how the Government can oppose the motion. I know of a situation in my area in which a couple has been through hoops to try to defend the family home. They have gone through every form of restructuring arrangement, have changed to an interest-only mortgage and so on and kept to the agreements made, but out of the blue the bank decided to move the goalposts. It says now it wants everything, the full debt amount. This couple then goes into a process where they meet some young person with little life experience who tells them how to manage their finances. This family, which has been through an episode of serious ill health and needed to factor in emergency medical expenses, was suddenly being lectured by somebody as to how to manage their expenses. It is suggested that if they cut back on medicine in one area or food, they could sustain their mortgage. Clearly, they could not.

This is not good enough. We need more definite arrangements along the lines outlined by Deputy Collins in her motion in order to deal with this situation. It is not good enough that the banks are allowed to rule the roost in the manner they do. I do not believe the Ombudsman has played the correct role in this scenario either. Unless we deal with the big vulture of unsustainable debt that is on the backs of a minority of householders now, the economy and those families will be decimated. We must deal with this issue sooner rather than later.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I thank and congratulate Deputy Collins on bringing forward this important motion at this time. We sometimes forget when we are talking about water charges and other important issues that over 160,000 mortgages in this country are in arrears. This means that 500,000 men, women and children are living in homes with mortgages that are in arrears. This does not include the tens or hundreds of thousands more who are struggling to stay out of arrears or who have had their mortgages restructured and are not in arrears. Years into this crisis, huge numbers of men, women and children are living in these homes.

Let me give one example. I met a couple this week who are close to retirement. The husband has had to give up work for health reasons and the wife works on the minimum wage and has done so all her life. They live in Blessington, but their mortgage is in arrears and their bank has moved for possession of the house. The house is in equity, but not in significant equity. However, because of the shambles that is the mortgage-to-rent scheme, this couple cannot avail of that equity. If this couple had been fortunate enough to bank with AIB during the bubble, they would have passed its test for a split mortgage product for homes in positive equity. AIB would have given them a split mortgage with 0% interest on the warehoused portion. Then, when both reached retirement age, AIB would have done a debt-for-equity swap. It would take equity in their house and bring the remainder of their mortgage payment down to something they could pay through retirement, which would let them live and retire with dignity. When the couple passed away, AIB would have taken the portion of the home required to pay the debt. However, this couple banks with Bank of Ireland and cannot avail of the AIB solution. Instead, Bank of Ireland will evict them. It has already brought them to court and is refusing to do anything that will keep this couple in their house. Bank of Ireland does not have a split mortgage product where there is equity in a house. Even where it has a split mortgage product, it charges interest on the shelved portion, so this solution would not work anyway. Bank of Ireland does not have a debt-for-equity solution at retirement.

Therefore, this is what is about to happen. In three months' time, this couple will be pulled back into a court in Wicklow, the judge will grant possession of their house, the sheriffs will come and kick them out of their house and they will be left with just a small amount of money. Bank of Ireland will take approximately another €10,000 from them for legal fees, for having the audacity to have forced it to hire lawyers to bring them to court so as to kick them out of their house. This couple will not get rent allowance from the State because the council will say it is sorry but it cannot give an allowance as the couple has savings and does not qualify. They will be told they must spend the little bit of residual funds they have following their eviction on rent. In two or three years' time, when all that money is gone, they will show up at Wicklow County Council offices and say they are two retirees on very little income with no savings left and that they are now homeless. Wicklow County Council will tell them it has no house for them and they will then come to my office and say they are still homeless. This is what is going to happen because this couple banks with Bank of Ireland rather than with AIB.

I am not here to cheerlead for AIB, which has done both good and bad. The point is that the Government's approach from day one has been that this issue needs to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. The Government believes it is not up to it to interfere in the banking market, although it is when that market needs €64 billion of taxpayers' money. It believes it is not up to it to interfere when there is a need to protect people like this couple. Therefore, we, the Government, do not care that these people will be evicted. We do not care that other people in the country in the very same position will not be evicted because they banked with another bank. We do not care, because we do not feel it is right and proper to interfere in how the banks work. We may talk about the code of conduct on mortgage arrears, the CCMA, but is an entirely voluntary code. I have heard Ministers, who should know better, state that it is a mandatory code, but that is nonsense.

The heart of the matter is that this type of issue is arising every day. There are 500,000 men, women and children in these houses. The reason this continues in Ireland, in contrast to any other country, is that the Government continues to say, "We do not care; let the banks sort it out themselves." The only way this is going to change is if the decision-maker in government at this time is changed, because he is calling the shots.

Deputy Joan Collins

I would like to comment on the points made by Deputy Coppinger last night. The motion does not attempt to deal with the totality of the mortgage crisis. I put forward a Private Members' Bill on that issue on a previous occasion and proposed the Norwegian model which would allow a write-down of debt.

This motion deals specifically with problems with the Central Bank code of conduct on mortgage arrears, CCMA, the mortgage arrears resolution process, MARP, and the mortgage-to-rent scheme. Anyone who deals with serious problems as a MARP third-party representative knows that lenders do not operate on the basis that voluntary surrender or repossession should be the last option. The only way to change this is to introduce a legal requirement, not an onus, to offer substantial solutions as outlined in this motion. This would make an enormous difference to the tens of thousands of homeowners in their dealings with the banks. The proposals in the motion are fully supported by the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, whose members I welcome here tonight. It has done far more on third-party representation and has gained far more experience in this area than anybody else. It believes that what is proposed in this motion is what is needed to resolve the issues.

I want to refer now to some of the specific points made by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Harris, in his contribution to the debate last night. He said:

The CCMA provides that lenders may only commence legal proceedings for repossession where they have already made every reasonable effort to agree an alternative arrangement with a co-operating borrower. Any bank proceeding to legal recourse with co-operating borrowers in circumstances where an alternative sustainable arrangement is feasible and can be agreed is not acting in a manner consistent with a mortgage arrears resolution process or with the CCMA.

This is simply not true. There is no sanction or no compulsion under the CCMA or the MARP unless we accept that voluntary surrender represents a sustainable solution.

The Minister of State went on to say: "Of course, these efforts can only achieve positive results in circumstances where the borrower co-operates with the lender and engages with the process." This is outrageous. The Government is suggesting it is only non-co-operating borrowers who face repossession. Last night I gave two examples of distressed homeowners in my constituency. They are in the family home and borrowers who have co-operated fully with their lenders through the MARP. They were represented by a person in my office and then represented by the IMHO. The implication in the Minister of State's contribution to the debate should be withdrawn.

Some Government Deputies have expressed sympathy for the motion. I am sure all Deputies are genuinely expressing sympathy for the thousands of families who fear losing their homes. It is all very well to have sympathy, but, as Ministers and Government backbench Deputies, they are going to vote down a motion which, although it would not resolve the totality of the crisis, would assist thousands of families. From that point of view, I repeat the key points as to why the motion is before the House. There is an ongoing crisis. Some 22,000 cases are either in or will be entered into the legal process. We could, therefore, be facing more than 20,000 evictions. I thank Deputy Sean Fleming for using that term. The CCMA is not fit for purpose because there is no legal requirement to offer viable solutions such as those we put forward in the motion. The mortgage-to-rent scheme is in need of a major overhaul. It has not resulted in 50 but 38 conclusions, which is pathetic. House values are rising, which means that the limits of €180,000 and €220,000 are now too low and need to be raised.

To protect the family home, I brought forward the motion and hope Deputies will come into the Dáil Chamber to vote for it. This is crucial if we want to deal with the thousands of families who are affected by this issue.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 47.

Tá

• Bannon, James.
• Burton, Joan.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Joe.
• Collins, Áine.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Connaughton, Paul J..
• Conway, Ciara.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Creed, Michael.
• Daly, Jim.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• English, Damien.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harrington, Noel.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Humphreys, Kevin.
• Keating, Derek.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kelly, Alan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lawlor, Anthony.
• Lynch, Ciarán.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• Lyons, John.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McEntee, Helen.
• McFadden, Gabrielle.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Mahony, John.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Wall, Jack.
• Walsh, Brian.

Níl

• Adams, Gerry.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Broughan, Thomas P..
• Calleary, Dara.
• Collins, Joan.
• Colreavy, Michael.
• Coppinger, Ruth.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Daly, Clare.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donnelly, Stephen S..
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Fleming, Tom.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Healy-Rae, Michael.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kitt, Michael P..
• Lowry, Michael.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• Mathews, Peter.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McDonald, Mary Lou.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McLellan, Sandra.
• Murphy, Paul.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Sullivan, Maureen.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Ross, Shane.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Troy, Robert.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Joan Collins and Clare Daly.

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 46.

Tá

• Bannon, James.
• Burton, Joan.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Joe.
• Collins, Áine.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Connaughton, Paul J..
• Conway, Ciara.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Creed, Michael.
• Daly, Jim.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• English, Damien.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harrington, Noel.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Humphreys, Kevin.
• Keating, Derek.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lawlor, Anthony.
• Lynch, Ciarán.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• Lyons, John.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McEntee, Helen.
• McFadden, Gabrielle.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Mahony, John.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Wall, Jack.
• Walsh, Brian.

Níl

• Adams, Gerry.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Broughan, Thomas P..
• Calleary, Dara.
• Collins, Joan.
• Colreavy, Michael.
• Coppinger, Ruth.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Daly, Clare.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donnelly, Stephen S..
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Fleming, Tom.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Healy-Rae, Michael.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kitt, Michael P..
• Lowry, Michael.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• Mathews, Peter.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McDonald, Mary Lou.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McLellan, Sandra.
• Murphy, Paul.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• O'Sullivan, Maureen.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Ross, Shane.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Troy, Robert.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Joan Collins and Clare Daly.

Question declared carried.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 November 2014.