Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2012

Vol. 754 No. 1

Topical Issue Debate

Community Care

Deputy Catherine Byrne

I raise this important issue on behalf of the many parents who are concerned at the reduction in the provision of respite care. I refer specifically to the provision of respite care for young people suffering from autism and Asperger's syndrome. Many young people on the autism spectrum feel emotionally isolated in their own world. Often they cannot or are reluctant to go outside and mix with other children. The lack of early intervention and the long wait for appointments and treatment puts immense pressure on the parents and families of these children. The responsibility of care rests almost entirely on their shoulders and, sadly, many feel ignored and abandoned by the health service.

Parents face significant challenges while they care for an autistic child. Many say they would be lost without the support of friends and family. They also say that the support of outside groups is invaluable at times when they simply need a break. This is where respite is so important; it gives them time-out and serves as an important coping mechanism for them and their partners.

In many of these families, one parent gives up work to care 24 hours, seven days per week for a child with autism. They see respite as a valuable period of several hours or an overnight period during which time they can entrust their child to a dedicated service and do simple things for themselves that would be impossible otherwise. Respite provides a safe haven for young people with autism to meet their peers and engage in social activities. The nurses and staff who work in respite services are fantastic people with a specific understanding of their conditions.

However, in recent months provision of respite in our communities has been reduced. This is due to reduced staffing levels which have come about as a result of staff going on leave. In addition, the moratorium on staffing in the HSE is having a detrimental effect on respite hours. Services are stretched and simply cannot cope with the demand for respite. Many families are struggling and parents are devastated that their lifeline is being taken away.

Under the HSE plan for 2012 provision has been made for investment of €1 million for autism services. This will be used to address waiting times for specialised treatment for children who have been diagnosed with autism and to develop early intervention teams. I welcome this commitment but we need to address urgently the problem of inadequate provision of respite for families of young children and young adults with autism. Young Irish people with autism have specific needs but we in Ireland are only slowly waking up to the seriousness of autism and how best to treat and care for children and young adults with autism.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall)

I thank Deputy Byrne for raising this matter. Under the Health Act 2004, the Health Service Executive, HSE, is required to manage and deliver, or arrange to be delivered on its behalf, health and personal social services, including disability services. The HSE's service plan for 2012 states that the allocation for disability services will reduce by 3.7% as a consequence of the impact of the efficiency, procurement and targeted pay reduction savings. However, the aim of the HSE will be to tailor such reductions in a way which minimises the impact on service users and their families, as much as possible. The Government is very much aware of the importance of respite service provision for the families of both children and adults with disabilities including those with autism. Disability service providers have been requested by the HSE to advise and discuss with it the challenges they are experiencing, prior to any reductions or changes to service provision being implemented. While there may be some changes to front line services, in many cases these changes will not necessarily result in service reduction, but in a different model of service delivery being applied. For example, respite provision is not always centre based and can be provided in a number of ways, such as, out of home, in home, home to home, home support or family support. Assessments are completed locally to determine and prioritise needs.

In 2010, a working group was established by the HSE to carry out a national overview of models of respite and residential care with host families in community settings and to determine the viability of these models of service delivery for future development for people with an intellectual disability. The report of the working group will be published shortly and one of its recommendations will be that each HSE area review and reconfigure respite and residential service provision to include the host family support model of service provision as an element of the overall respite or residential package available.

The cumulative impact of staff reductions from this year and previous years through the moratorium on recruitment of public servants and retirements represents a significant challenge for the health system in delivering services. The priority is to reform how health services are delivered in order to ensure a more productive and cost effective health system. The reduction in staffing increases the need for reform. The HSE national service plan includes a commitment to addressing these issues within the context of the Croke Park agreement. It also commits the HSE to minimising the impact on services by fast-tracking new, innovative and more efficient ways of using reduced resources, including greater flexibilities in. work practices and rosters.

Service provision continues to be a challenge for all of us in the current environment. However, the HSE is currently involved in detailed discussions and collaborative working under the auspices of the National Consultative Forum, which includes umbrella groups such as the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies. Through these discussions, the HSE is developing an innovative approach to service provision to maximise how resources are used to protect front line services. There has been a continued expansion in the availability of respite support services and these services have grown significantly in recent years. More than 4,600 people availed of respite services funded by the HSE in 2011. This service has supported people to continue living with their families and in their communities. The Government is very much aware of the importance of respite service provision for the families of both children and adults with disabilities and will seek to ensure that front line services are protected as far as possible within the current difficult circumstances.

Deputy Catherine Byrne

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. These young people are not faceless and nameless but are people who live in all our communities where they are known by name by neighbours and friends. Their journey through life is difficult enough, without adding further stress or confusion. I welcome what the Minister of State has said with regard to trying to keep provisions in place. The country is in a dark place and we all understand the need for cost effectiveness and value for money. However, we should not extinguish the glimmer of light for these families. The Minister of State may already have given a partial answer to my questions, but can she give a commitment to these families that the services they currently access will be maintained and that when staffing problems occur, provision will be made to ensure these children retain the respite care hours they already have? These people are not looking for anything extra, only to maintain what they have.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Every sector of the health services wants assurances that things will not change, but we have no choice but to try and change the way we deliver services, because budgets are being cut. This is a reality with which we must all live and we must work within those constraints. This means we must try to get better value for money from the services we provide and closely examine how we spend money to ensure that we achieve savings where there is a potential for making them. We must also ensure we keep the focus on the front line services and end users or clients. It is about the clients, not about the organisations, salaries for management or so on. The focus must be on the end user. The challenge for all of us is to maintain the level and quality of services we have as far as possible, but to do that in a flexible way because of the reduced budgets.

Child Abuse

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for accepting this important issue. I welcome the publication of the Garda Inspectorate's report Responding to Child Sexual Abuse, a report which was provided to the Government at the end of 2010. This report was initiated by the previous Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and it was important it was done, as is highlighted by the serious issues which have come to light since publication of the report yesterday. The report shows that all has not been done well in terms of how agencies of State have dealt with child sexual abuse and with the reporting and handling of these cases over the years. We are well aware of this from the inquiries that have been held over recent years into the church and into how gardaí and the HSE handled the reporting of those crimes.

The Garda Inspectorate's report raises particular concerns. For example it showed delays in recording of reports of child sexual offences, which then resulted in intelligence gaps. It showed a failure to make timely entries in the PULSE system, exposing children to continuing risk. Basic record keeping was poor and as a result the official crime records did not capture up to 65% of sex crimes. The report also showed that in almost one-third of cases, details of investigations had been entered into the PULSE computer database, but had not been classified as criminal offences and were, therefore, missing from the overall crime figures. More worrying is the fact the report showed there were turf wars between the Garda and the HSE in terms of how reports were dealt with. It showed inadequate co-operation between the Garda and the HSE in the investigation of child sex abuse to ensure that investigations were done promptly. In a sample of cases in Dublin, the report showed that plans as to how complaints would be investigated between the Garda and the HSE had only been developed and put together in 1% of cases. This is unacceptable.

I want the Minister of State to outline here what has happened with regard to the recommendations made in the Garda Inspectorate's report since it was left on the Minister's desk well over a year ago. Many of the recommendations are straightforward and urgent. They need to be implemented in order to ensure that some of the mistakes of the past are not repeated. Will the Minister of State outline what has happened in terms of implementing those recommendations? Although the report was only published yesterday, the Government has had it for a long time. I would expect significant progress to have been made in that time in terms of dealing with many of the recommendations and problems highlighted in the report.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I am taking the debate on behalf of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, who is attending a North-South Ministerial Council meeting in Armagh today. She regrets that she cannot be here.

I note that this debate stems from a report in today's The Irish Times on the Garda Inspectorate report on responding to child sexual abuse, which refers to a turf war between the HSE and An Garda Síochána on the issue of child sexual abuse cases. I wish to make it clear to the House at the outset that is no such turf war between the HSE and the Garda Síochána on this issue, nor is this contention contained in the report itself. The issue of child protection is one that the HSE and the Garda Síochána are totally committed to addressing in a co-operative manner.

I wish to place this issue in its proper context by quoting directly from the Garda Inspectorate report, Responding to Child Sexual Abuse.

The International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ISPCAN) recognises that turf issues will inevitably arise when work begins on a multi-disciplinary response to child abuse. Turf issues are the result of each agency or professional group's identification of its own mandate, and the concerns that somehow the co-operation that is being sought will negatively affect this mandate. ... The important dynamic with turf issues is to recognise and confront them as they occur. Understanding why these issues have come to the forefront is key.

This statement clearly seeks to comment on so-called turf issues in the general sense and is not a statement aimed particularly at either the HSE or the Garda authorities. In addition the Garda Inspectorate report states, "There is no doubting the declared commitments of the (then) OMCYA, the Garda Síochána and the HSE to the protection of children from abuse".

The Garda Inspectorate report was prepared on foot of a direction from the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, following the publication of the commission of investigation's report into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin in July 2009, issued on 26 November 2009. The report was published yesterday by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The purpose of the report was to conduct a comprehensive review of police practices for handling these very sensitive and important cases. In preparing the report, the inspectorate conducted a review of published reports relating to clerical sexual abuse but also considered the full spectrum of child sexual abuses perpetrated by a wide variety of offenders. The inspectorate states that only a holistic, collaborative approach by all statutory and voluntary agencies will make the difference that is required.

The Minister welcomes the report of the Garda Inspectorate and the response document. In particular she welcomes the emphasis throughout on the need for more effective inter-agency working in the area of child protection. This is an area which she considers critical as we progress a range of reforms necessary to strengthen the child welfare and protection system generally. In this regard, the Minister has published revised Children First guidance, the implementation of which is being overseen by an interdepartmental group including representatives of various Departments, the HSE and An Garda Síochána. There has also been good progress made in advancing preparatory work on the establishment of the new children and family support agency and on the preparation of legislation to underpin Children First.

The HSE has welcomed the report and noted the considerable progress which has been made since its preparation with regard to the development of child abuse services and in developing close liaison between the HSE and An Garda Síochána in a number of areas. The HSE children and family services are engaged in a major programme of reform. A major element of the change agenda in 2012 involves implementing consistent child protection procedures in line with the revised national guidelines which were published last year, namely, Children First 2011. As part of the drive to improve the response to child abuse, the HSE developed the child protection and welfare handbook, National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children, which is a reference text for practitioners. This handbook was launched by the Minister with the HSE and An Garda Síochána. In addition, a programme of joint training involving HSE staff and members of An Garda Síochána on the implementation of Children First has been progressing since last year.

Let me reiterate that there is no turf war between the HSE and An Garda Síochána on this issue. Instead, we are now seeing real progress in implementing inter-agency working in the child protection area, something which was lacking for far too long.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The report shows the importance of putting the Children First guidelines on a statutory basis. I urge the Minister of State and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to ensure that this work is done as quickly as possible. It highlights how our State agencies, which are responsible for protecting children and for ensuring that safeguards are in place so that abuse can be prevented and dealt with, were not working well together in the past and have not been following the Children First guidelines to the full in recent years.

Putting these guidelines on a statutory basis is critical but we cannot just legislate our way out of this and legislate our way towards better child protection practices. We also have to ensure that the resources are put in place. At a time when the Government is cutting the resources of the Garda and at a time when there are additional pressures on our social work system, we need to ensure that the resources and trained personnel are there so that the situations highlighted by the inspectorate's report are dealt with.

I am also disappointed that the publication of this report has not been accompanied by an update from the Government on the 19 recommendations contained within it. The Government has had this report for over 14 months. I would have thought that an item by item update on the 19 recommendations that are part of it would have been an appropriate response. I ask the Minister of State to give more detail on that and to its importance upon the Minister. What does she intend to do to ensure they are being implemented as quickly as possible?

Deputy Róisín Shortall

We all share a concern about this issue. I know that the Minister has been very involved in addressing it and it is being treated with absolute urgency in her Department. There is a clear focus on developing child protection services and the interaction between the different agencies. It is important to recognise the positive findings on the high level of co-operation between the Garda and the HSE that has been achieved, although we still have some way to go on that.

I am happy to relay the Deputy's concerns to the Minister about putting the Children First guidelines on a statutory footing. I will send her a note to that effect.

Back to Education Allowance

Deputy Michael McCarthy

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for selecting this issue.

My concerns centre on the difficulties being experienced by graduates of business courses who are applying to study professional diplomas in education but who cannot receive the back to education allowance. This is due to a higher points threshold imposed upon them by the Postgraduate Applications Centre since 2006. This was introduced due to the high demand of business graduates for places on PDEs. The requirement effectively demands that business students have a master's qualification in order to reach the required number of points to qualify for the postgraduate diploma in education. However, this has implications for one's eligibility for the back to education allowance as the same students are ultimately seeking to study for postgraduate diploma in education, which is a lesser qualification than a master's degree. This goes against the principle of progression and therefore renders the students ineligible for their payment. It defeats the purpose intended by the Government, as many prospective PDE students, once they realise they cannot receive the back to education allowance, are deciding not to pursue the course, as it is financially unviable for them to do so.

This is fundamentally wrong. We are meant to be encouraging people to return to education with a view to upskilling, acquiring further training and gaining employment in future. To cite an example, with business graduates this year required to have 53 points to qualify for the postgraduate diploma in education, it is impossible for such graduates to secure a place without a masters degree because 45 points is the maximum awarded for a first class honours primary degree. Therefore, even when one factors in the five points awarded for work experience, business graduates still fall short of the 53 points required.

I fully understand that the progression principle is in place to ensure displacement does not occur and I accept that courses should not be offered to students who are not progressing at a cost to students progressing from a lower level. However, business students are being disproportionately affected by the progression rule. For this reason, I ask the Minister to review the position to ensure business students are not penalised.

I draw attention to two significant and noteworthy points. First, the Government, through the Teaching Council, insists that everyone who pursues a teaching career must have a postgraduate diploma in education, PDE. In other words, the only way to secure employment in teaching is through the PDE process. Second, this requirement is affecting a larger cohort of students than ever because of the massive swell in the number of unemployed people seeking to return to education. As I outlined, it is Government policy to return people to the classroom to upskill and engage in further training.

A further difficulty is the absence of clarity at departmental level as to which Department is responsible for rectifying this administrative difficulty. I have pursued this issue in recent months with the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Social Protection. The former is responsible for the postgraduate applications centre which made the decision in 2006 to impose a higher points threshold on business graduates. As I noted, this decision was taken in response to the large number of applicants for the course. The Department of Social Protection, on the other hand, is responsible for the back to education allowance.

The Department has pointed out in its statement of conditions applying that the scheme is not statutorily based and decisions on eligibility are made at its discretion. This means there is scope to accommodate business students who find themselves trapped in this administrative quagmire and who are ultimately discouraged from returning to the classroom. The scheme, as administered, is flawed as it disproportionately affects business graduates and acts as a disincentive to education when we should be making every reasonable effort to get people back into education and training.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton)

I thank Deputy McCarthy for raising this important issue. The back to education allowance, BTEA, scheme is a second chance education opportunity scheme designed to remove the barriers to participation in second and third level education by enabling eligible people on certain social welfare payments to continue to receive a payment while pursuing an approved full-time education course that leads to a higher education than that already held. The number of participants engaged with the BTEA has grown steadily in recent years. As of 31 December 2011, provisional figures indicate in the region of 25,700 participants are engaged with the scheme in the 2011-12 academic year, which is an increase on the previous year. In the 2010-11 academic year, the scheme attracted 25,032 participants, an increase of 20% on the previous year when there were 20,808 participants. The 2009-10 academic year, which was when the recession began to bite, saw a dramatic increase in participation of 79% on the previous year. Provisional expenditure on the back to education allowance scheme in 2011 was €200 million. An estimate of €183 million has been provided for the scheme in 2012.

A person wishing to pursue the back to education allowance scheme will have to satisfy a number of conditions, such as being of a certain age, receiving a prescribed social welfare payment for a specified period, pursuing a full-time course of study leading to a recognised qualification in a recognised college and progressing in the level of education held by the client with reference to the national framework of qualifications, among other matters. The BTEA scheme covers a large range of full-time courses of education in approved colleges spanning basic foundation courses to third level courses across all disciplines. The back to education allowance is available to eligible persons in pursuit of a professional diploma in education, which was previously known as the graduate diploma in education or higher diploma, in any discipline - level 8 in the national framework of qualifications. Other postgraduate qualifications - levels 9 and 10 - are not included.

BTEA guidelines are in the main in line with the mechanisms in place for student support type schemes administered by the Department of Education and Skills. State support for education purposes is grounded on a student progressing from one qualification level to a higher qualification level. This is necessary to ensure displacement does not occur in that courses could be offered to students who are not progressing at the cost of students progressing from a lower education level. It should be noted that of the 25,032 participants supported through BTEA in the 2010-11 academic year, 43% pursued second level courses. It is sometimes overlooked that many of those returning to education are completing second level.

My officials inform me, following discussion with officials from the Department of Education and Skills, that the Postgraduate Applications Centre Limited was established in 1998 to centrally process and assess applications to postgraduate diploma in education courses. A common points system was devised and it has been used since. Applicants apply to the Postgraduate Applications Centre online and their applications are centrally assessed by a team of assessors.

In 2006, a decision was taken, owing to the large numbers of applicants with business related degrees, to impose a cap on business type degrees. To this end, a 10% allocation was introduced. This decision was taken to ensure an adequate supply of post-primary teachers for all subject areas and avoid an oversupply of teachers of business subjects. Since the demand for places from graduates with business related degrees is high and the number of places available capped, the point scores tend to be higher than for other degrees. I am not in a position to comment on entry requirements or thresholds associated with this specific course or any other course as the matter is not within my remit. The issue of points is one for my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills. I do not know if Deputy McCarthy has been around the Houses with the Minister on this issue.

Deputy Michael McCarthy

I thank the Minister and respectfully note that her reply sums up the difficulty I have outlined. The reply includes five paragraphs dealing with the back to education allowance. I am familiar with the detail of the scheme and the eligibility criteria for the allowance. However, the response does not address the administrative quagmire I described. The final paragraph, in which the Minister refers me to the Minister for Education and Skills, sums up the difficulty I face. I have been over and back between the two Departments for several weeks. The difficulty I highlighted is that if applicants are to achieve the required points, they must have a masters degree while those with a masters degree are not eligible for the back to education allowance.

I will not forward a copy of the Minister's reply to the person who asked me to raise this matter because it is a bureaucratic response that describes the current system but fails to address the administrative quagmire I have described. I have been in touch with the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Social Protection on this matter. The specific case I raise is a typical example of an issue that falls between two stools. The conditions attached to a scheme in one Department have resulted in an individual failing to meet the criteria set by another Department. What is required is a ministerial decision. As the criteria are not statutorily based, there is room for discretion. I will pursue this matter further because the response does not address the anomaly I have raised and runs counter to the spirit of Government policy, that is, to get people back into the classroom.

I want to see movement on this issue because the case I raise is not an isolated one. There are bound to be others who are being prevented from availing of reasonable entitlements as a result of bureaucratic anomalies arising from two Departments having a role in one broad area.

Deputy Joan Burton

I appreciate the dilemma and the almost catch-22 in regard to the points qualification and the anomaly Deputy McCarthy raised. He will appreciate that the role of the Department of Social Protection, in supporting students on the back to education allowance, is income support. We do not get involved in the technical educational qualification side of it because that is not our competence but rather that of the Department of Education and Skills. The Deputy referenced the Teaching Council also.

I accept there is a problem here and I would be happy to pursue it with the Minister for Education and Skills. I would like to make another suggestion. There is now an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education, although I do not know if the Deputy is a member of it.

Deputy Michael McCarthy

No.

Deputy Joan Burton

Perhaps that committee could look at this.

There are 25,700 participants on back to education. Some 43% of them are in second level while the majority are in third level. The cost is very high. We spent €200 million last year and we will spend €183 million this year. As the Deputy identified, it is money well spent if people move on to employment but we have a limited budget. It would be dishonest of me if I did not say that we are in a very tight budgetary situation. I will certainly ask my officials to raise this with the Department of Education and Skills but I think the Deputy hinted at part of the solution himself, that is, to reference the Teaching Council and how it came up with the specific points requirement it has which, in a way, constitutes the difficulty. As I suggested, perhaps the joint committee might offer some scope to bring the different parties together.

Debt Management Companies

Deputy Joan Collins

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. This issue came to our attention on Monday when a number of people called to our office to say the doors of Rents & Co., a bill payment company, were closed on Monday morning. There was a certain anxiety among people in regard to the money they had given the company to pay their bills.

Subsequently, customers received a letter dated 31 January from the company advising that the bill payment system was closed, that the Central Bank had frozen its account, that it was no longer able to provide for further collection or deposits, that it would notify customers' creditors on their behalf and that it was currently updating its computer system. What it did not say was whether customers' money would be refunded in full. That is a huge concern for people.

This is a very unfortunate victim of the recession. Many people in the area depended on the company to pay their bills, as they are cut to the bone in terms of paying mortgages, utility bills, insurance and so on.

This is a limited company but we do not know if it is in receivership or insolvent. It seems the money has been frozen under the new Central Bank regulations. I was under the impression that only institutions, such as credit unions and banks, which lend money were covered by the new regulations. This company does not lend and does not appear to have invested in property using money on deposit.

In whatever way this company is dealt with, we must ensure people are paid first. A young lad with a young family put €7,000 in just before Christmas to pay the mortgage, insurance and many other bills which were coming up. Already a number of people have had their UPC connection cut off because the cheques bounced. The company wrote them in good faith but the money was then frozen.

It appears that such companies are not bonded. We should look at limited companies and at what people are signing up to, in particular companies looking for money up-front, for example, the private for profit waste companies asking people to pay up-front. These companies should be bonded to secure that money if they go into liquidation or close. This seems to be happening much more. I would like to hear the Minister's ideas on that.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan)

I thank Deputy Collins for raising this important issue. As I indicated in the Dáil in reply to parliamentary questions, I am advised by the Central Bank that, following the failure of Home Payments Ltd. last summer, the bank inspected the bill payment and debt management sector to assess whether firms providing these services are carrying out any activity that falls to be regulated by the Central Bank and whether consumer funds may be at risk. Following identification of a dozen companies providing these services, the first phase of the Central Bank's review has concluded with the bank writing to a number of companies notifying them that their activities are subject to regulation by the Central Bank and requiring that immediate steps be taken to provide additional protection for client funds. The bank has advised me again today that this process is continuing.

The companies that are subject to regulation by the Central Bank need to determine whether they wish to apply for authorisation from the Central Bank or, alternatively, whether they wish to change their business model. In the meantime, the Central Bank is requiring that certain controls be put in place in regard to client assets which are overseen by an independent third party. The House will appreciate that this is being done in the public interest. While the Central Bank is independent in the performance of its functions, I agree with the action it is taking.

Depending on the exact business model undertaken by a firm, it may or may not be subject to regulation by the Central Bank. I wish to inform the House that debt management firms which process payments on behalf of clients are subject to regulation under the EU Payment Services Directive. The Payment Services Directive was transposed into domestic legislation in September 2009 and came into effect in November 2009. Any firm which provides payment services, as defined by the legislation, requires an authorisation to trade from the Central Bank. Again, the Central Bank has advised me that it is currently pursuing the issue with the sector and, in the interim, is advising clients of the risks involved in dealing with unauthorised firms. I fully agree with the Central Bank's action in that regard. The Central Bank is also advising those clients of other options available to them, such as joining their local credit union which will, generally speaking, provide bill payment services.

The Deputy will be aware of the press statement from the Central Bank on 24 January last in regard to bill payment and debt management firms. In the statement, the bank advised customers to be aware that the bill payment and debt management companies they have engaged may not be regulated by the Central Bank. Where customers provide funds to an unregulated company for onward payment to a creditor, the handling of this money will not be subject to segregation and safeguarding rules. The bank also advised customers to check directly with their creditors, for example, utilities providers, mortgage providers, credit card companies etc., without delay.

In regard to the company mentioned specifically by the Deputy, I am advised by the Central Bank that the company is based in Crumlin Cross in Dublin. Under the powers granted to it under the payment services regulation, the bank has informed me that it has intervened, again in the public interest, and has frozen the accounts of the firm. I have been informed that the Central Bank is currently engaged with the company and has been informed that the company has written to its client base to inform them that it is closing and that it will provide further information to them in due course. Pending the finalisation of the Central Bank's engagement with the company and its report to me, I do not wish to make further comment in this House. It would not be prudent to do so in the absence of the relevant information.

On the basis of the experience with a number of debt management companies since last summer and on advice received from my officials I have agreed that all debt management and debt advice firms should be subject to regulation by the Central Bank. This is an important public issue at a time which certain members of the public are straining to meet all their liabilities. The public must have confidence in the provision of these debt management and debt advice services and there must be a proper and robust system of regulation in place. To that end, I have instructed my officials to prepare the necessary legislation which, subject to Government approval, will be brought forward as a Committee Stage amendment to the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011. Committee Stage of the Bill, which has already passed Second Stage, will be taken in the near future and Deputies will have the opportunity to put forward their views.

Deputy Joan Collins

I thank the Minister for his reply, which covers a lot of points, but he is not saying that there is any guarantee for those involved with this company that their moneys will be refunded to them in some way through the Central Bank, or that they will be paid first. That is a huge concern for the people involved. I know the Minister is saying that he cannot comment further prior to the finalisation of the report, but people would like to hear that they will get priority and will receive their money first. In future it will be important that companies have a bonding system to protect customers in such cases.

Deputy Michael Noonan

I again thank the Deputy for raising this matter. The Central Bank has moved in and frozen the company's accounts, and the company has gone out of business. The bank is assessing the position now to see what assets are available in the frozen accounts. I will communicate the Deputy's concerns to the Central Bank and will stress that she sees it as an absolute necessity that customers of the company get priority in the disbursement of funds available.