Dáil debates
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)
3:00 pm
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
As Deputy O'Brien has said, there are key concerns about the process by which we reached this point. This amendment has been introduced at the last minute. It will have significant consequences for those who will apply for mortgage interest supplement. I will give the House an example. One usually receives a redundancy package when one loses one's job. That money is used to try to hold one's life together. One always lives in the hope of being able to get another job. One does not always look for mortgage interest supplement straightaway. One's first port of call is to try to look for work and ensure one can hold things together. As one's redundancy payment or savings start to whittle away, one realises that one might not get another job. One might not approach the Department of Social Protection to look for help under this new scheme until six months or a year after one became unemployed. One will try to find a way of taking the big burden of one's mortgage off one's shoulders while one struggles to survive on the social protection one is receiving at that stage. One's priority will be to ensure one has a roof over one's head.
The process of making such an application can take a number of months. At that stage, the Department tells the applicant "sorry, you have to liaise with your bank and come up with an agreement". The whole onus falls on the applicant, who is already in distress. That is fine until the applicant approaches his or her bank only to be told "sorry - no agreement, no hope, no nothing". The code of conduct on mortgage arrears, which the Minister will probably mention, does not oblige the bank to enter into an agreement. There is an obligation on the bank to meet the mortgage holder. If it refuses a request, it is obliged to write a note setting out the reason for the refusal. Even if the bank agrees to the request, it will be another 12 months before mortgage interest supplement is granted by the Department under this new scheme. Where is one supposed to get the money to pay one's mortgage, in line with whatever is agreed, in the meantime? One has to comply with the requirement to make every repayment under the agreement for a full 12 months before the Department steps in to help. I know the Minister will say that a certain amount of money is being spent on this, but I suggest that some of the money that was pumped into the banks should have been conditional on a write-down of the mortgages that are held in the banks. That would have been much more beneficial to Irish society. What is done is done, in some ways. The onus to change the system is now being placed totally on the person in mortgage distress, rather than on the banks.
I would like to refer to the case of a person who re-engaged with me this week about a particular problem he is having. Some of the banks that are trading in this country no longer have offices here. I refer to Bank of Scotland, for example. One cannot meet a Bank of Scotland official in this State. Such a person does not exist. A company deals with the bank's mortgage accounts on behalf of the bank. When one tries to engage with someone in that company as part of this process, or in the event of a problem, one cannot get beyond the person one meets at reception. One has to deal with it on the telephone or send a letter. The person to whom I refer has entered into an agreement. In fairness, the Department is paying mortgage interest supplement to him. As a result of the bureaucratic incompetence of the company in question, Certus, the man in question is being forced to jump through hoops every three months. He receives a bill for the interest because the company in question is incompetent in its processing of documentation. It is not the fault of the Department or anybody else. This problem has continued for two years because the man cannot deal with an individual in the company on a continuous basis. The Department and the Citizens Information Board have worked well with him, but the bank is forcing him to get bank statements, etc., all of which comes at a cost. He cannot deal with a faceless company. I mention this as an example of the bureaucracy that people in distress are having to deal with. The man in question managed to get into an agreement, but the bank keeps breaking it and then blames him for breaking it. If he was one of the individuals we have discussed, through no fault of his own he would not be able to get mortgage interest supplement in the future because of the chaos in the bank.
There has to be something in this. If more time had been available, I would have tabled amendments to close this off. This amendment is very conditional. It sets out what the person has to do. No provision is being made to allow the Department to consider offering mortgage interest supplement to a person who can prove or show that the bank has refused to engage or enter into an agreement with him or her. Such a provision would offer some relief to those who are engaged in a process. I have major problems with the requirement for a person to come up with a certain sum for 12 months. As I have said, such people could be in total distress. People whose short-term contracts are not renewed do not receive redundancy. They do not receive the limited pot of gold that allows some people to survive their financial problems for a number of months. Their distress is immediate because they are living from hand to mouth. They do not have the luxury of entering into an agreement to be implemented over 12 months. The way the redundancy issue is now dealt with in this country - people who have worked for many years are not getting what they should be due - means that most of those who are laid off need somebody to step in within weeks of being made redundant or moving into mortgage distress.
I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the amendment she has thrown in at this stage and to revisit this complicated matter at some future time. Another social welfare Bill will be introduced in October and a further one will be introduced after the budget. This is a cost-cutting measure because some savings are being made as a consequence of the decision to delay the payment of mortgage interest supplement to new applicants for 12 months. The savings element of this measure is not so substantial that it cannot be delayed until its consequences have been properly reviewed, thrashed out and analysed.
No comments