Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:"Amendment of Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005

3. Section 290(3)(c) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 is amended by the insertion of “the Parish of the Travelling People or any credit union for the purposes of the Lough Payment Scheme, or” before “any other body that may be prescribed". ".

I tabled this amendment on Committee Stage. It is a simple one which would give effect to a guaranteed loan scheme that was in place previously. The scheme which had been developed with MABS was quite successful in addressing particular problems in paying loans, fines and even rent arising from nomadic nature of the Traveller community. In the past Travellers were able to have loan repayments deducted from their social welfare payments. The amendment would correct an unintended consequence of changes to the social welfare payments system.

The National Traveller Money Advice and Budgeting Service, NTMABS, has worked with a number of clients since the scheme was first put in place. Originally known as the household budget scheme, it was facilitated by An Post in partnership with the Department of Social Protection and offered a facility to pay local authority rents and utility companies such as Bord Gáis. It then became known as the Lough scheme because of the involvement of Lough Credit Union and was extended to facilitate additional creditors. In September the NTMABS published a report on the scheme which found that 25 MABS offices supported more than 400 clients in paying debts via the scheme. Examples of debts repaid through the scheme included credit union loans, Garda fines and court fines. In one case three debtors owed up to €20,000. It was also possible to pay private landlords through the scheme.

With the discontinuation of the scheme, those who would otherwise avail of it have nowhere to turn other than family members who are often in a similar predicament, or illegal loan sharks. The stability provided through the scheme ensured some people who had previously faced major financial troubles would no longer have to face such situations. For example, Clann Credo, Dublin City Council and Wicklow County Council supported a number of MABS clients in accessing loans for families who needed to replace their caravans. This was an important facility because these families had been turned down on the open financial market, not necessarily because they were bad debtors but because their nomadic lifestyle meant they could not meet the criteria for accessing loans from financial institutions. Many families relied on loans provided through the scheme to pay for new homes.

When I tabled the amendment on Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that she was prepared to consider it. Is she still prepared to consider the amendment or another version of it, either now or when the Bill goes to the Seanad, or at the very least can she give a commitment that the issue will be addressed in the next Social Welfare Bill which is due in February? I have introduced the amendment now because this is the time of the year when many people with limited finances - not just Travellers - turn to illegal moneylenders to buy Christmas presents or simply to pay their fuel bills. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment to give a legal basis to the Lough payments scheme to enable it to continue in the run-up to Christmas. I also hope it can be further developed in the years to come to give a greater role to credit unions and MABS, not only for the Traveller community but also all those who until now have had to turn to illegal moneylenders who are a scourge on working class communities.

We should do what we can to interfere with that scourge. That is the logic behind the proposal.

When the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, came to my constituency to launch a report for the Dublin 10 MABS group in the civic centre in Ballyfermot, some of the representatives of National Traveller MABS who were present raised this issue with him. He was not hostile to the idea, but I do not know if he managed to take any action to give effect in some way to the intention of my amendment.

See this speech in context