Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

I assume the Minister will accept this amendment because all it is seeking is, that on the passing of this Bill a report should be prepared and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. That seems to me to be a very sensible way of approaching this particular problem.

I should respectfully suggest that, having been laid before both Houses, it should then be debated by the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs so that the views of all committee members can be sought on how we deal with this unique problem. It is unique because of the state of the economy, banking and building society structures. This is something I have never seen before, and I have lived through a couple of recessions. It is unique in so far as the banks and building societies are in such a mess that strange things could happen.

I tend to ask when there is a problem how it may be solved, and what will happen if such and such an initiative is taken. Let us consider for a moment what will happen if people are thrown out of their houses. What will be done with the people? They have to go somewhere and they are entitled, under the supplementary welfare Act to seek assistance, albeit for accommodation. What is to be done with the house that has been taken from them? Is to be added to the other tens of thousands of vacant dwellings?

Perhaps the Minister might listen to a point I am trying to make here.

What are we to do with the tens of thousands of houses already vacant? This is something that has to be debated openly and positively within these Houses. Nobody is addressing the situation at all. What happens to the building industry? Are another 10,000 or 20,000 vacant houses to be added to an already very serious situation? This is not just about taking the house of a particular couple and putting them on the street. What happens after that? This is part of what must be dealt with in the resolution of the banking problem. What is the difference between toxic debt from land banks and toxic debt from vacant houses? In other words when this issue is being debated by the Government, I respectfully suggest that it take this situation into account. If the Government is to resolve the difficulties with the banks, it will have to solve the problem of toxic land banks which are the main cause of the crisis. Nobody will invest in banks without knowing the level of debt that exists in respect of land banks. There is no market for such land, and therefore no one knows its value. It could have been worth €100 million two years ago but nobody knows its value today because there is no market. It could be worth €50 million or €20 million or €70 million. However, all adding to the vacant housing stock will do is drive the market crazy altogether. If one applies the normal principle of failure to repay in the current climate, we will have a huge problem, incapable of being resolved other than by removing people from their houses, sending them to the community welfare officer and giving them a supplementary welfare allowance until such time as they can rent accommodation. Then they go back to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and get rent subsidy. It is all a roundabout.

This issue must be resolved quickly, because it will not go away. Unique situations demand unique solutions. This problem has not been solved previously, because we did not have this situation. Therefore, the thinking caps must go on in all Departments. The Department of Finance must wear its thinking cap in negotiations with banks and building societies. The Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Health and Children must wear theirs in dealing with the HSE because of its involvement with community welfare officers. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government must wear its cap when considering public housing.

I cannot stress enough the importance of this amendment, even though it does not seek something immediate, but asks that something happen as soon as the Bill is passed. The amendment should be accepted by all here. It is not a party political issue, but a real problem for which people are awaiting a resolution. Everybody has an interest in finding a solution to this problem, whether one is a person with growing debts for either rent or mortgage repayments, a property owner who is renting property or a building society or bank that has loaned money.

I have always found it peculiar that one of the conditions in respect of rent allowance was that a couple did not qualify if one was on welfare, but the other was working more than 30 hours. There is no reference to the amount one is earning if one is working over 30 hours. A person could be earning more money on 25 hours. It is all about ticking the box. People could be earning €12 an hour and working 25 hours or €8 an hour and working 30 hours, but they would be better off if they were working 25 hours at €12 an hour.

I have never been able to understand the ceiling of 30 hours. Perhaps the ceiling should be an amount earned rather than the number of hours worked. If somebody was working 31 hours, he would most likely go to his employer and ask him to take two hours off him so as not to lose his rent allowance. This issue needs debate. The acceptance of this amendment would give a guarantee to the House that a report will be produced on the implications of any changes. A committee is the right place for such a report to be debated and it could then come back to the House with its report.

See this speech in context