Vol. 694 No. 2
65 Deputy Michael Noonan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to review the guidelines for assessing a person under the habitual residence condition; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40649/09]
As I have already given an extensive answer to Deputy Naughten's priority question regarding habitual residence, I will confine this reply to the Department's guidelines on this provision in social welfare legislation.
An internal review of the operational aspects of the habitual residence condition was completed by the Department of Social and Family Affairs in 2006 and copies of the report were laid before the Oireachtas in February 2007. One outcome of the review was an in-depth examination of the guidelines which were subsequently updated in July 2008. The revised guidelines reflect the inclusion in Irish social welfare legislation of the five factors for determining habitual residence which have been set down in judgments of the European Court of Justice. They also included expanded material on the application of EU legislation to certain categories of migrant workers and the circumstances in which that legislation applies to override the national provisions regarding habitual residence.
Additional information was also provided about the different types of immigration stamps issued by officers of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the implications for habitual residence in regard to certain groups of non-EEA nationals. Minor amendments to these guidelines have been made from time to time as the need has arisen. Before the Department makes any significant changes in its guidelines, careful consideration is required to ensure there will not be any unforeseen and unwarranted outcomes from the revised text. Retraining may also be required to ensure the revised guidelines are correctly understood.
The Department is aware of the discrepancy between the guidelines as they currently stand and the recent decisions of the chief appeals officer in a small number of claims from asylum seekers. In the circumstances of this particular issue, it was deemed best to complete the process of considering the appropriate response to the chief appeals officer's decisions first and to postpone any changes in the guidelines until this process is complete.
There is, as Deputy Crawford noted in another context, a lack of consistency in implementing the habitual residence condition on the ground. Is the Minister aware that some community welfare officers continue to apply the old two year habitual residency rule? Will she give a commitment that more guidance and training will be given to community welfare officers in this matter?
There is a significant variation in the manner in which similar applications are dealt with by the Department. The disbandment of the habitual residency unit is facilitating this lack of consistency. I will give an example of the crazy position that has resulted in a deluge of appeals to the social welfare appeals office. It concerns a family which has always resided in the common travel area. While one son was granted jobseeker's allowance under the habitual residency requirement, another son's application for jobseeker's allowance was refused under the same requirement. Moreover, the father's application for disability allowance was refused under the habitual residency condition, whereas his wife, who is his carer, was granted the carer's allowance under the condition. This demonstrates the inconsistency with which applications are being processed. What action is the Minister taking to ensure this inconsistency is addressed?
The procedure makes sense, even if that may not appear to be the case in the example cited by the Deputy. Different criteria apply in the various schemes under which applications were made by the family in question. A genuine jobseeker from another European Union country would qualify for jobseeker's allowance, as would someone who had worked previously in this country. Different circumstances may apply to each of the two brothers to whom the Deputy referred.
Their circumstances are identical but we will leave that aside. Will the Minister explain the reason an application for disability allowance was refused but an application for carer's allowance made by the person caring for the individual who applied for disability allowance was granted?
The criteria for the two schemes are different. I will check the details of the case on behalf of the Deputy. The example to which he refers raises another interesting issue, namely, the fact that four members of one family expect to live off the State by means of various allowances. If two members of a family received jobseeker's allowance, one member received disability benefit and one member received carer's allowance, the household would be in receipt of a significant amount of money. It is critical in all cases to ensure the applicant qualifies for a payment and, in particular, that habitual residency requirements are met.
Will the Minister answer my question?
To return to the two year rule, the issue raised in Deputy Noonan's question, as soon as the community welfare officers transfer to the Department, we will provide more training and ensure greater consistency across their work. All five elements of habitual residency should be taken into account.
In view of the ruling that people applying under the habitual residency condition must be treated as individuals and considered under the five standard criteria, does it open up a liability for the State in terms of people seeking backdated payments? What legal advice has the Minister received in that regard?
We do not believe it does because the case determined by the appeals officer was based only on the legal arguments from both sides and did not look at or set out a particular set of circumstances by which people would or would not qualify. Since then, as I outlined earlier, decisions have been made to refuse applications and such decisions have been upheld by the appeals officer.
Previous decisions have been taken on the basis of assessing applicants as a group rather than individually.
Decisions were always taken on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment, which said that such people do not have a status until it has been determined by the court or the legal process.
I understood the issue was that they should not be assessed as a group but, rather, individually. Surely people in the past who were assessed as part of a group would now have a case against the State.
To date, we are satisfied. That is why we are currently examining this area very carefully. As I indicated earlier, if a change in legislation is needed, we will have to do that. To date, we believe it only applies to the particular case and does not have a knock-on effect or mass application.
I ask the Minister to respond to my question regarding the habitual residency condition and the lack of consistency. How can someone be granted the carer's allowance to care for a person who has been refused disability allowance on the basis that he or she is not eligible for a payment under the habitual residency condition? One rule contradicts the other.
Needless to say, we cannot go into individual cases.
In order to qualify for the carer's allowance, one must be habitually resident in the State. I presume the same applies to a person with a disability. There is no point discussing an individual case as I do not know the full circumstances.
My point concerned the inconsistency.
Different applications apply, but the Deputy referred to a particular case. Every individual case is assessed. One example concerned four people who applied for social welfare but did not qualify on the basis that they were not habitually resident in the State. That is the type of control measure we need.
66 Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps she is taking to ensure that all self-employed people applying for income support under jobseeker’s allowance are means tested on the basis of their current income. [40712/09]
Jobseeker's allowance is a means tested payment and the manner in which means are to be assessed is set out in the third Schedule of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. In most such cases, a social welfare inspector will interview the claimant to ascertain the means of the applicant. The Department of Social and Family Affairs also produces administrative guidelines to assist inspectors in this task, which are supplemented from time to time to take account of changing legislation or circumstances. Legislation provides that a person's income in the coming 12 months is the basis of his or her means. The means assessment guidelines state that where the income in the coming 12 months is not otherwise ascertainable, which is usually the case, the income for the past 12 months should be taken as a guide, allowing for any factors which it is known will vary. However, it was always the case that where an applicant had ceased self-employment and he or she could show that his or her income in the coming 12 months was likely to be greatly reduced in light of personal or economic circumstances, inspectors and deciding officers would take account of this.
As I have just outlined to the House, the Department issued a circular in May 2008 advising inspectors that in light of the changed economic climate it would generally be the case that less work would be available to a claimant in the foreseeable future. Inspectors were advised that they should apply their knowledge of local conditions to arrive at a fair assessment of a person's income from self-employment in the coming 12 months. Where a self-employed person's situation changes after he or she has made an initial claim for jobseeker's allowance, he or she can apply to have his or her means reviewed. In addition, it is open to the individual, if he or she is dissatisfied with the means assessed, to make an appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
It is important to remember that people who have urgent income support needs can apply for the means tested supplementary welfare allowance and more than 95% of basic social welfare allowance applications are decided on and paid within a week. I appreciate the need to ensure that claimants who have been self-employed and whose income is significantly affected by the economic down turn receive their full and fair entitlements in a timely manner and I assure the House we are doing our best to achieve this.
I continue to receive complaints about accessing payments from people who were self-employed, whose businesses have gone bust and who find themselves in dire circumstances. In many cases such people are being asked to produce the last set of accounts for their business, which are very often those for 2007. Decisions are being taken in an entirely new scenario at the end of 2009 on the basis of their financial circumstances in 2007. Does the Minister accept that many people do not have money to pay their accountant for their 2008 accounts and, therefore, the only finalised accounts they have are for 2007? It seems to be a continuing problem. I have brought it to the Minister's attention before but it is still a problem.
The Minister said she issued advice in March 2008. Is there a need to revisit that advice? There is a need for guidelines to be issued to deciding officers dealing with claims other than those for jobseeker's allowance, such as those applying for qualified adult payments. The same rules apply to such people who are being asked for up-to-date accounts, on the basis of which decisions have been taken. Would the Minister consider issuing up-to-date guidelines?
If inspectors on the ground need me to issue further clarity and guidelines, I am more than happy to do that. At the beginning of the year I indicated that we would do it and two circulars were issued to inspectors in May, one concerning people who were unemployed due to the down turn in the construction industry and the other concerning self-employment and jobseeker's payments. I accept there were discrepancies in the way people were being treated at the beginning of the year but, to be fair, it has a more general application. I accept the Deputy's comments on people not having accounts because self-employed people only had to produce their accounts in November 2008 for 2007. I will ensure flexibility is given to people in that regard.
There needs to be more flexibility. I have the same problems as Deputy Shortall and every Member of the House has come across examples of it. A more flexible approach needs to be taken regarding the capital assets people have. Fictional calculations are being provided regarding income which is being generated, particularly from commercial premises, when no income is currently being generated. On Deputy Shortall's comments on the need to reissue guidelines, can the Minister ensure that a clear and transparent checklist is put on the Department's website for applicants so they can try to provide as much relevant information and up-to-date documentation as possible to speed up the current backlogs in processing applications?
The Department's website has won a number of awards for its quality and the fact that it is so user-friendly. To my knowledge, there is a checklist on it. The website www.losingyourjob.ie which, unfortunately, has had a huge number of hits is also very practical and tells people exactly what they need. I will check to make sure the type of information to which the Deputy refers is also available. I know capital was an issue. We are examining the issue with a view to giving guidelines to inspectors not just on commercial property, but on assessing people whose only income was rental income from houses which are now no longer rented out. We are actively looking at the issue.
Many cases are going to appeal, which creates obvious expense and delay. Would the Minister consider a minor change which might improve the situation? A person now has only 21 days to produce all the necessary documentation, which is very difficult when a person had his or her own business and is looking for accounts and up-to-date information. If people were given a little more time they may be able to produce the required documentation which would enable a proper decision to be made and avoid the necessity to go to an appeal. Will the Minister examine the issue?
I am not sure how many people are being turned down on the basis that the information is not in on time or the period is closed.
Three weeks is a very short period.
We will certainly try to take a sample of cases to see where the problems are because I am particularly conscious that this group of people have paid a stamp that does not automatically entitle them to a number of benefits but are experiencing difficulties. We will take a look at that to see if we can help people.
67 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to reinstate the Christmas bonus for December 2009. [40718/09]
Promoting social inclusion, protecting the most vulnerable and recognising the contribution that older people have made to this country have always been major priorities for this Government. When we could, we provided unprecedented increases in welfare payments and ensured, for example, that the value of the State contributory pension more than doubled over the past ten years from just €113 per week to more than €230 per week. Even through the economic difficulties of the past two years, the Government has done its best to prioritise social welfare.
The October 2008 budget provided for increases of between 3% and 3.8% in the basic payment rates at a time when inflation for 2009 was expected to be 2.5%. Prices have actually dropped considerably this year. In framing the April supplementary budget, very tough decisions had to be made across the range of Government expenditure. In that context, the provision of €21.3 billion for social welfare services in 2009 — 20% more than the amount spent in 2008 — was a clear demonstration of our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable people in Irish society.
Both tax rates and borrowing had to be increased to fund this extra expenditure on social welfare. Providing a 100% Christmas bonus this year would have added another €223 million to the bill, money which, unfortunately, the State does not have. In seeking to contain the increased welfare budget to €21.3 billion, there were no easy options, and I assure Deputies that the decision not to pay the Christmas bonus was not taken lightly.
The increases provided for in the October budget were taken into account, as were the April forecasts for price deflation this year. The decision not to pay the bonus was announced in April so that people would have nine months' notice.
I appreciate that non-payment of the Christmas bonus effectively amounted to a 2% cut in the annual social welfare basic payments to those affected. However, it is important to recall that basic welfare payments were increased last January and that by September 2009 the consumer price index, CPI, had fallen by 6.5%. The average decrease in the CPI is now expected to be between 4% and 5% this year.
Given that tax revenue has deteriorated even further since April, putting increased pressure on the public finances as a whole, I regret that it will definitely not be possible to pay a Christmas bonus this year, as the Taoiseach already outlined this morning. I know that any welfare cuts are hard for people to cope with but if the Government does not take steps now to reduce overall public expenditure and restore stability to the public finances, we risk making the economic position far worse for everyone, including welfare recipients, in the long term.
At the outset I ask the Minister to stop using the 6.5% drop in the CPI as a figure in any way relevant to what is happening to people depending on social welfare. Those dependent on social welfare rarely have mortgages or significant foreign travel, and those two elements account for approximately half of the reduction in the CPI. It is not a relevant figure. The decision to cut the Christmas bonus will result in a real loss of 2% for people dependent on social welfare.
I do not know if the Minister saw the material produced by Barnardo's yesterday which showed the growing level of child poverty among families dependent on social welfare. Many of those families are already in serious difficulties in putting food on the table, paying for education, heating homes or clothing children.
These people are hurting and the Government's decision on the Christmas bonus will greatly exacerbate the hardship that those families are experiencing. It will mean that they will not have a Christmas. The same applies to pensioners and people with disabilities. It is an entirely heartless decision, especially where the Government had obvious choices to increase taxes.
If a choice had been available to continue to pay the Christmas bonus, we would of course have done so. It was undoubtedly one of the most difficult decisions that the Government had to make in the earlier part of this year. I accept that not everybody on social welfare has a mortgage or engages in foreign travel, but it is also fair to say that in more recent months other elements of the CPI, including the price of food and clothing, have dropped significantly as well. In making the decision in April, we had to have regard to the fact that we had given an increase in January, which was factored into the decision not to pay the Christmas bonus.
I know how difficult this is and there would be nothing nicer than to be able to turn around to people and say that we can pay it, but the money is just not there, unfortunately. The Exchequer is already spending at a rate which is far above what we are taking in. As everybody knows, there is a gap of €22 billion between what is coming in and going out. Whether it is a household or individual budget or the State budget, the message is the same: one cannot spend what one does not have. I regret that we cannot pay it this year.
It is a 2% cut across the board for payments but it is taken from people's income at a time of the year when they are most vulnerable. It will lead to moneylenders having a field day coming up to Christmas. There has already been significant pressure on families in the run up to September because of the increase in the cost of going to school and delays in processing the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. That has put massive pressure on families and at Christmas this decision will put significant additional pressure on families when they need income the most.
The increases given in January were of the order of 3.3% to 3.8%. Although I accept the loss of the bonus is a 2% drop, even if there had not been a change in inflation there would have been an increase over the year. It is a difficult time of year for pensioners who like to give to others despite needing to look after themselves and for families who need to buy for their children.
To return to Deputy Shortall's comments, Barnardo's yesterday acknowledged the discernible and real decline in child poverty.
That is up to this year. They are dealing with it.
Nothing has happened in this year which they say will have an impact on that. It has been acknowledged and the statistics show it. We are trying not to row back on advances which have been made. Deputy Naughten mentioned the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. All those payments made in September were on time where people applied on time.
That is not true. In some parts of the country they were late.
One part of the country had a particular difficulty but for the rest of the country there was a significant increase in the number of people who applied for it. It is a substantial payment and we correctly increased the amount of money that people could get for uniforms and other clothes.
Any cut to the income of the most vulnerable in our society and communities is bad but this is made worse at Christmas, as we are talking about people on the lowest income who are barely surviving. They are not living, they are just surviving. As Deputy Naughten said, families who want some kind of Christmas will be driven to moneylenders as a consequence. It also has a knock-on effect of taking money from the local economy, which will affect small retailers and inevitably lead to job losses.
Low income families and people on social welfare spend every ha'penny in their economy. We could proceed differently by taking this small amount of money from the higher income avenues. That would protect the most vulnerable in our society.
The rates of all the social welfare payments were increased by anything up to €7 last January. The amount of the fuel allowance was increased along with the number of weeks that people avail of it, yet the price of fuel has fallen since. The amount of money given for the back-to-school allowance has also been increased and the number of people who can qualify for various payments was also increased. Every effort has been made all year to protect people, including the most vulnerable. That was at a time when the country's economy was very bad.
It would be a complete disaster for us to have found ourselves turning around this month to people and indicating that we could not pay the Christmas bonus. I know it is a difficult decision to make at any time but by saying it in April, we were at least giving people some advance notice. I appreciate that it is a really difficult time and that it is a very sensitive issue for people. I hope people will not turn to moneylenders. People who are in dire circumstances can contact their local community welfare officers. The Money Advice and Budgeting Service is there to support people as they plan their budgets on the basis of their household incomes. Tough decisions are having to be made, unfortunately.
68 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the progress being made by her in the development of a second tier child income support payment as per commitments in the programme for Government; if the National Economic and Social Council are examining this issue; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40675/09]
The programme for Government that was agreed in 2007 contained a commitment to amalgamate qualified child allowances and family income supplements to develop a second tier of income support targeted at the poorest families. The possibility of such a reform had been mentioned in other documents, including social partnership agreements. It was argued that such a payment would target child poverty by channelling financial resources to low-income families without creating significant disincentives to employment. The proposed second-tier payment would, in principle, seek to combine the advantages of family income supplements and qualified child increases while avoiding the disadvantages of targeted payments, such as the creation of unemployment and poverty traps. When the National Economic and Social Council was asked to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of the merging of the child income support payments, it did not reach agreement on specific recommendations. In December 2007, the council's secretariat published a research paper that identified how such a payment would operate, in broad terms, and the significant number of issues which would need to be addressed. The secretariat's report included a useful preliminary estimate — approximately €775 million — of the net cost to the Exchequer of such a payment. The report concluded that such a payment would make significant demands on public service funding and administrative systems, and would take some time to implement. It is clear that additional resources of this scale are not available at present. The renewed programme for Government that was agreed recently did not contain a specific commitment to the introduction of a second tier child income support payment. In its deliberations on possible budget changes in the child benefit area, the Government is considering the needs of low income families and those who depend on social welfare.
Is the Minister telling us that this proposal, which was first recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1986, is being completely abandoned? What are the most up to date figures regarding child income poverty in Ireland? I refer to both forms of poverty — consistent poverty and relative income poverty — that would be addressed by the proposed new payment.
The proposal has certainly not been abandoned. As its cost was estimated to be €775 million, it is obviously not possible to develop it at this stage. It is important that any change we might make would not preclude us from going in this direction in the future. This country's levels of child poverty have decreased significantly in recent times. A paper that was produced by Barnardos yesterday, which was compiled using the standard European measurement, suggested that there has been a significant decline in child poverty levels, from 27% to below 20%, over recent years.
Can I ask the Minister to give the House the date of the study she has just quoted? Does the study relate to relative income poverty or consistent poverty? Can she give us a breakdown of those two types of measurement?
The Deputy may wish to table additional parliamentary questions to the Minister to get some of these more specific details.
I will provide the real and accurate data in this regard to the Deputy. As the study to which I referred is from 2008, it is up to date. I will get the most relevant figures on child poverty for the Deputy.
If the Minister had attended the Barnardos launch yesterday, she would have discovered more about the serious difficulties being caused by the undoing of earlier progress in tackling child poverty. The anecdotal experience of Barnardos is that there has been a significant increase in the number of families with young children that are experiencing poverty. Has the Minister had an opportunity to examine the research that was published by the Vincentian Partnership for Justice over recent days, which showed that the greatest pressures are being encountered by families with young and teenage children? The Minister's sympathetic comments about the abolition of the Christmas bonus will provide cold comfort to families who cannot feed their children, heat their homes or pay their rent. I ask her to reconsider the provision of income support to families. The research of the Vincentian Partnership for Justice indicates that many families' figures just do not add up — their weekly incomes do not meet their needs. They will certainly not have enough money this Christmas. Given that parents will not tolerate the possibility of cancelling Christmas, the Minister is in danger of driving many vulnerable families into the hands of moneylenders. What will she do to prevent that?
Factors such as the number of children in one's family, or whether one's spouse is in work, are taken into account when payments are made to people who have lost their jobs. The role of child benefit has to be acknowledged too. The Deputy suggested that people are unable to pay their rents, but the rent supplement scheme, which we discussed earlier, is in place to assist such people.
I am not sure the Minister realises that we are talking about people who are so badly off that they cannot afford to pay the rent on their local authority houses.
Rents are varied by local authorities according to the income coming into people's houses.
Exactly.
They reduce rents when people find themselves on social welfare. We are all familiar with how the system works. I know it is not easy for people who are trying to survive on social welfare, particularly those who suddenly find themselves in difficulties because their outgoings are commensurate with the good incomes they used to enjoy but no longer have. We have always had a commitment to try to protect such people as much as possible. We will continue to assess whether we can reduce the number of children who are in poverty. We have had huge success in that regard over recent years.
The Government is undoing that now.
We will aim to continue to do that, bearing in mind the difficult economic conditions we face.
Now that the Department of Social and Family Affairs has started to make contact with the Revenue Commissioners in respect of the incomes of certain families, will the Minister give a commitment to put in place a mechanism whereby direct contact can be made with individuals who are eligible for family income supplement? Such a system is necessary if we are to ensure there is a proper uptake of that scheme.
It is not possible to identify the family incomes of the vast bulk of the working population of the State. Married couples are identified in the code, but cohabiting couples are not. We are anxious for people to avail of the family income supplement scheme. By the end of the year, the number of people doing so will probably have increased slightly by comparison with the number at the end of last year.
What about the report in today's Irish Independent, which suggested that there are plans to contact the Revenue Commissioners?
I am saying that it cannot be done in the cases of the vast bulk of workers. One might be able to identify a target group, but one cannot do it for the whole working population. Such matters are being discussed at present. In the specific case of family income supplement, the system is designed to support people who are in low-paid employment. It is also a way of ensuring that people can ease themselves out of social welfare and into employment. We are very anxious to ensure that people are able to benefit from it. However, we are not readily able to identify them in the tax system, in order to advise them to apply for the supplement.
I presume the matter is being discussed in the current talks.
The other point that needs to be made is that most such people do not pay tax. They are not covered by the tax net because they are on low incomes.
Some of them are.
Almost 50% of people will be out of the tax net next year. Even if the Revenue Commissioners were able to identify everybody on its books, it could not identify those who do not pay tax.
69 Deputy Noel J. Coonan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the waiting list to access the Money Advice and Budgeting Service; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40611/09]
90 Deputy John Perry asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the waiting times to access the Money Advice and Budgeting Service money advisers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40655/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 69 and 90 together.
The Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, is the main Government-funded service that assists those who are overly indebted and need help and advice to cope with their debt problems. The role of money advisers is to help clients to assess their financial situations, make budget plans and deal with their creditors. MABS is dealing with increasingly complex debt situations in respect of clients who are presenting with multiple creditors and debts. It is important for people who are coping with debt difficulties to take early action and to approach MABS for help and guidance. This can be the first positive step for people in addressing debt difficulties. Some 52 independent MABS companies operate local MABS services from 65 locations throughout the country, with national support provided by MABS National Development Limited. The MABS national telephone line is available from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday to Friday. The MABS website can be accessed 24 hours a day at www.mabs.ie. In 2008, more than 16,600 clients approached the MABS for assistance with debt difficulties and the telephone helpline dealt with almost 11,000 callers. By the end of October 2009, some 16,300 clients had been seen by MABS staff to date this year. The MABS helpline had received some 20,800 calls in the same period. Funding of €18 million has been provided to enable MABS to deliver its services in 2009. An additional 19 staff are being recruited, which will bring the number of MABS staff to 271. Six new staff are already in place and the remainder will be appointed by early December.
The capacity of the LoCall telephone helpline has also been strengthened and MABS NDL, the national support company, has introduced a number of community education initiatives. For example, one initiative involves a money management education programme for people facing redundancy to inform them about managing on a reduced income and how to avoid getting into debt.
All MABS companies operate an appointment system for clients. Clients with urgent difficulties are prioritised for attention and are dealt with promptly. Less urgent cases are referred to the MABS helpline and to the MABS website in the first instance. More than 90% of callers to the helpline find that their money management and budgeting issues can be resolved with the assistance of the helpline adviser. Some 10% of callers are referred to the local MABS for assistance.
From first point of contact to first appointment with a money adviser the average waiting time is currently 4.5 weeks. This is the average nationally and there are fluctuations between offices. During the waiting period, clients are assessed and those in need of immediate assistance are given a priority appointment, others are provided with assisted self-help to ensure that they have taken steps to assess their situation and if appropriate they are supported to take holding action with their creditors.
I am satisfied that MABS provides a high quality personal money advice and budgeting service to members of the public who may have difficulty in coping with the burden of indebtedness and the additional resources provided will assist it meet the demand for its services.
The Minister said it takes four and a half weeks on average to get an appointment for a non-urgent case. If this is the average it means that some people are waiting a substantial period of time in some centres to avail of the services. What is the longest waiting time? How many people are waiting for such periods to access MABS? I am being told that MABS is oversubscribed and underfunded. Of the 19 advisers mentioned by the Minister, only five will be full-time advisers with the others providing their services on a part-time basis. Does the Minister believe it is acceptable for cash-strapped families to be faced with a bill of up to €3,000 to pay private debt advisers to provide them with a service that should be provided by MABS if the resources were made available?
The Deputy's last point is important. Some people are advertising that they are debt collectors, but are giving the impression that they are almost doing it as a community service and that they are working closely with MABS. We are concerned about this and that is why we are ensuring that information on the MABS website and telephone line is well advertised. The service provided by MABS is free and confidential. It has trained money advisers who are able to negotiate on a person's behalf with the financial institutions. That is an important message to get across.
Of the 19 new posts that were sanctioned, seven are full-time and 12 are part-time. We broke it down that way in order to ensure a spread around the country, recognising that some offices are under more pressure than others are. Advisers have already been appointed to the offices in Galway south, Fingal, Tallaght, Waterford, Bray and Cork west. The rest should all be in place by the first week in December.
What about the waiting time?
I understand the average number on a waiting list is 31. I believe the Deputy asked for the longest waiting time. I do not have that specific information.
I ask the Minister to furnish the figures to me.
It would be helpful for the Minister to commit to publishing the waiting times on a quarterly basis so that people might know which office to approach. MABS was established with a completely different brief from the demands placed on it now. It was set up to help people better manage their money in circumstances where they might have run up rent arrears or whatever. In many cases MABS is ill-equipped to deal with the serious financial difficulties with which people are now presenting. As the Minister said a completely unregulated financial advisory service is being offered and that needs to be regulated. There is need for the Minister or the Minister for Finance to introduce a package of measures to assist people who find themselves in danger of losing their homes. That level of expertise is simply not available within the MABS service.
In fairness the only issues MABS will not deal with are commercial difficulties. MABS advisers are finding that the people coming into them have a very complex range of personal difficulties, some of which may indeed be tied up with commercial entities. However, as far as possible they are able to deal with them very successfully. The renewed programme for Government contains a specific commitment to regulating debt collectors and also dealing with all aspects of helping people to counteract debt. In that regard I welcome the decision by the Irish Banking Federation about mortgages and extending the time for people. The MABS protocol with the Irish Banking Federation is working very successfully. These are the initiatives that are been taken. We are working not only with the Department of Finance, but also with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on issues relating to debt to come up with a package to support people in difficult circumstances.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
