Sinn Féin TD for Dublin South West Seán Crowe has expressed disappointment at the Government’s refusal to accept Sinn Féin’s Land and Conveyancing Reform (Amendment) Bill 2013.

Deputy Crowe said that the government’s response shows that its priorities lie with the banks rather than struggling families who have found themselves at the very real risk of having their home repossessed.

Speaking following the Dáil debate on the Bill, Seán Crowe TD said:

“Sinn Féin’s Land and Conveyancing Reform (Amendment) Bill 2013 would substantially enhance legal protections for pressurised mortgage holders and make it harder for the banks to repossess homes.

“This week the Dáil Finance Committee heard that the main four banks have issued 30,034 letters, relating to repossessions and voluntary surrenders.

“Our bill would put in place a realistic and solid legal protection from repossession for struggling homeowners who are making a real effort to repay their mortgage.

“Housing is probably the greatest single source of difficulty for people at this time. This Bill represents a fair and reasonable compromise for addressing some of these issues.

“We are not living in normal times. The housing market is not normal and there is a desperate shortage of houses particularly in the Dublin area. The big worry is that with more and more houses in negative equity being forced to put up for sale, that the only ones who will come out on top again are the banks that originally gave these mortgages.

“Rents are increasing and there is great difficulty in the rental market. The rent supplement scheme is not fit for purpose in the Dublin area as it does not meet existing demands. The rental accommodation scheme, RAS, also has many problems, especially in the case of large families.

“So with more and more people being forced out of their homes by the banks there is currently no realistic housing alternatives for families and individuals.

“The Government signed the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act into law which removed legal protection for the family home. We all accept that the protection offered was not ideal. It was blanket protection based on a legal loophole. Nevertheless, by removing it without a sufficient legal replacement the Government was consciously – or perhaps unconsciously – opening the door to more repossessions. That has been the result of their legislation.

“It is disappointing that the Government cannot agree to move our Bill forward. The onus is on the Government to now come up with proposals. It is clear that the law, as it stands, is not fit for purpose and needs amending or new Legislation

“This decision by government was a missed opportunity and the fall out will impact negatively on tens of thousands of individuals and families.”

###