Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I thank the Fine Gael Party for tabling this Private Members' motion. It is a great shame the Government's amendment to the motion consists principally of platitudes on how well it is responding to this crisis. The amendment is heavy on generalities with no specifics included. One would get a different response if one asked the recently unemployed what they think of the State's support for them. Ask the recently unemployed computer programmer in Crumlin if she thinks it is acceptable that waiting times for jobseeker's allowance is almost seven weeks. Ask the unemployed bricklayer in Ballyfermot if he thinks it is right that he cannot access mortgage interest supplement as his wife is still employed. Ask the lawyer in the Liberties if she still feels the system treats her well when she has to queue up on Thomas Street for an hour to get her social welfare payment. These are cases of people who have been in touch with me in the past weeks.

Figures released today by the Central Statistics Office show that 16,834 new people signed on to the live register in March, bringing the total number to 372,800, or 11% of the workforce. Unemployment has nearly doubled in a year. I remember when it was headline news when the queues outside the social welfare offices began to emerge in the autumn. Now it is matter of fact that the queues will be there day in, day out, and it is just taken for granted. It is unacceptable that people should have to stand in a queue for hours; it robs them of their dignity. A young man interviewed this evening on the news, said, "I am sick of it". His was a straightforward statement of frustration with the system. An element of hopelessness is creeping in that must be addressed and reversed.

The State's services for unemployed people are at breaking point. How could they not be, when the numbers utilising its services have effectively doubled year on year while its resources have not? Social welfare offices are bursting at the seams Community welfare officers are working unpaid overtime to try to process claims. Targeted action from the Minister is needed.

I welcome that additional staff have been hired and the Minister has introduced some measures such as on-line forms for jobseeker's allowance. However, contrast these measures against the procedures put in place to bail out the banks. In effect, the banking system could be tackled in the course of one night. Why can we not have this type of radical action from the Government to alleviate the problems for people on social welfare?

People should not have to wait for weeks for a payment. This drives them into the hands of money lenders, gets them into credit card debt or forces them to default on their mortgages. There must be flexibility in deploying people to where they are needed. For instance, staff from the Department of Health and Children could be trained up as community welfare officers.

There is a need also to co-ordinate the services and entitlements for people who find themselves in a new and frightening situation, where the system to them appears convoluted and difficult to access. Why should the onus be on the person to chase after that to which he or she is legally entitled? People have paid their taxes and their PRSI. Why should they not be told of the full gamut of supports to which they are entitled, shown how to claim them and where to go to get advice?

Like every other Member, I would like to extend my support to MABS and highlight the great work it does. Considering the unprecedented increase in demand for MABS advice, there must be a parallel increase in support for the service. Together with the citizens information centres, they have an invaluable store of sensible information for people who are looking for help with their finances or entitlements. MABS is under great pressure, however. Between the local offices and the telephone line, more than 8,100 new clients were in contact in the first two months of this year. The service must be given the resources to deal with the new influx of requests. There is an urgency about this and it cannot be shelved until next month or next year.

One issue not mentioned by the amendment or the motion is the role of the banking sector. One of the best ways to lessen the problems in social welfare offices is to prevent people losing their jobs. Despite the illusory guarantees the banks have offered, they are ruthlessly cutting overdraft facilities to shore up their vanishing balance sheets. Modest requests for credit have been refused with the consequence that small businesses are going to wall and individuals losing their homes.

This is an area where the Government must act to stem the closure of business and the haemorrhage of jobs in every village and town by forcing the banks, which took advantage of the State guarantee system, to offer real extensions of credit facilities. This is vital for employment, the economy and ultimately the banks themselves to have paying customers. More importantly, it is vital for the individual clients who are at risk of falling behind in their mortgage repayments, losing their homes and joining the ever-increasing dole queues.

Today the housing charity Respond called for banks to allow families in difficulty to renegotiate their mortgage repayments in line with their ability to repay. Numerous ways in which this can be tackled have been put out in the public arena. Various arrangements can be put in place, if the will is there to do it. It also is common sense. Repossession of homes means the State will have to provide social housing for those who lose their homes.

The banks are resolutely refusing to renegotiate mortgages for people on fixed rate terms. Unbelievable penalties are attached to mortgages when someone tries to move from fixed rate to tracker. It makes no sense for a mortgagor to attempt to change their terms and conditions.

The chaos in rent supplement and mortgage interest supplement must be sorted out. The number availing of mortgage interest supplement has increased by 175% since the end of 2007 to 11,000 people, yet there is no flexibility in the system. For example, in the case of a couple paying a mortgage, if one partner loses his or her job, the couple are not entitled to access mortgage interest supplement if the other partner is working. If they cannot afford their mortgage, this acts as an incentive to give up employment or acts as a disincentive to taking up new employment. This is a classic poverty trap that must be addressed.

The last any Member wants to say to a constituent at an advice clinic is that he or she would be better off on social welfare. However, it is coming to the point where this is likely to be the best advice. I wholeheartedly support the need for legislation on debt collection. There is a real fear that because of the developing demands on people who cannot meet their repayments that they will be driven into the hands of debt collectors who will treat them badly.

See this speech in context