Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I thank Members from all sides of the House for their contribution to the debate. In particular, I thank Labour and Sinn Féin for their support of the motion.

I wonder where is the elusive Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Government's response to this motion demonstrates the extent of the problem because no Minister or Minister of State thought it worthwhile to address in the Chamber that half of the motion which deals with debt. Before making that comment, I checked through the speech I heard the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Hanafin, make last night, in which she told Members the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would contribute to this debate and that he would deal with the Legal Aid Board, the role of the justice system in respect of debt enforcement and the relevant legislation. People are losing their homes or are being forced into prison and no one in the Government considers it worthwhile to enter the Chamber to inform Members what it intends to do about it. In itself, this provides a fair indication of the Government's attitude to people.

While listening to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Hanafin, I detected no sense of urgency from her as to how she intends to tackle the various issues in this motion that relate to her brief. Staffing levels are absolutely crucial. As for measures such as putting forms on the Internet, that is not a big deal as all Members have them in their offices. While it might be handier for some people to avail of the Internet, at the rate things are going some will not be able to afford to use it, such is the serious nature of the problems in which they find themselves. While the introduction of appointment systems may be fantastic, this should always have been available to people. These are not big ideas that will deal with the scale of the difficulties that have arisen in respect of the long delays being experienced in social welfare offices.

Such long delays have resulted in an over-reliance on the community welfare system, which is evolving into something it should not be and that it certainly is not staffed sufficiently to be. The Government is forcing a position in which people must undergo a double assessment. In nearly all cases, applicants are obliged first to go to a community welfare officer for an assessment, after which they undergo another assessment in the social welfare system that asks almost all the same questions. While community welfare officers can do this in one week, waiting times of up to 16 weeks and longer are being encountered in the Department of Social and Family Affairs when appeals are made. As the same test is used, this issue must be addressed.

The Minister stated last night that any requests from the HSE for additional staff would be given due consideration. Can I assume from this that despite all that has been said and despite the claims by the CWOs that they are beyond breaking point, the HSE has not sought additional staffing to deal with this problem or has not examined how it might reallocate staff within its own offices? Each day this problem is ignored, the position worsens for the individuals and their families who are affected.

During Question Time last month, I suggested the beefing up of MABS so that people everywhere should have access to qualified individuals who are able to deal with negotiations. At present, the Government is asking individuals in dire circumstances to go up against someone in a financial institution who spends the entire day crucifying people to squeeze the last penny out of them. Does the Government consider this to be a fair balance? That is what is being stated by its speakers in response to this motion. I mentioned this suggestion again last night, as did Deputy Noonan, and the Minister said it was a good idea. If so, something should be done about it. The system should be changed to make available this good idea to people, who then will be able to get the help they need.

For the past 12 years, the Government has allowed financial institutions and sub-prime lenders in particular to act at will. They lured people into the situations in which they now find themselves. However, the Government's amendment appears to perceive the debtors as the authors of their own destruction and the creditors as the wronged parties. The Government is setting up a David and Goliath scenario, except this time it will not be David who wins. All the stakeholders, including the creditors, are in favour of an alternative dispute resolution system. I do not know the Government's attitude to this issue because no one has bothered during this three-hour debate to tell Members where it stands. The manner in which some Government Members stated that there must be recourse to courts was simplistic. Fine Gael's motion does not deny this, as such recourse is essential. However, it must be the last resort and not the first option, which is the difficulty at present. The Government's moratorium is not enough and I want to know what happens to the credit rating of a person who avails of the moratorium. My understanding, from speaking to those involved, is that such people get a negative credit rating even having availed of the moratorium. I seek clarity in this regard.

The Minister of State who is present should think of a young couple, perhaps in their early 30s, who live in a house that is worth tens of thousands less than they spent on it. They are out of work and have young children. The Government is giving such people nowhere to turn and nowhere to get advice. While MABS will give people some advice, it can only advise them on how to spend the money they have. As MABS does not have the people, time or skills to negotiate with the financial institutions, another system must be developed. MABS itself has recommended that an alternative dispute resolution system should be established. As nearly every other country in Europe has acted on this, why has this not happened in Ireland? Is the Government telling Members it still defers to the financial institutions?

The Government should address the disastrous waiting times and get rid of duplication in the system. It should give people the respect to which they are entitled and should provide them with their entitlements when they need them. Moreover, the Government should make the criteria for mortgage interest supplement relevant to the present climate. Above all, those in debt should be provided with the opportunity to receive the advice they need to help them get out of the situation in which they find themselves, without fault on their own part in respect of losing their job, and to come to an agreement with their creditors in a manner that respects both sides.

Finally, the Government should desist from talking about averages. If one is waiting 16 weeks for receipt of €204, it is no comfort to learn that somewhere else, the waiting time is two or three weeks. It is one's family that one cannot help survive.

See this speech in context