Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt that where there are rights, there ought to be responsibilities also. It is a question of finding a balance. I do not dispute the principle of the amendment, but I have some concerns about the responsibility of the State. As we know, there is a dual application process for rent assistance. If somebody out of work discovers he or she must put himself or herself on an approved housing waiting list, he or she applies and the local authority has 12 weeks in which to deal with it. There is sometimes correspondence between the various parties which results in a breaking of the 12 week deadline. I certainly have experience of this in the cases of some constituents. The next step for the applicant is to apply to a separate body. This issue may well resolve itself in that there may eventually be one application process. At present, there are two. The difficulty is that the second application can take another 12 weeks to process. The State has a responsibility in this regard. Some arrears and non-payments arise because the State does not deal with the application for rent support in a timely way. It is a complex system, as members know. The issue I describe could lead to a problem.

If a community welfare officer or the Department of Social Protection hears there is a dispute, rent assistance will be stopped. If a tenant complains that accommodation is of poor quality or that a landlord is not dealing with a matter, rent assistance could be stopped at that point. How would this be handled? Threshold produced a report last year that showed that 61% of tenants were topping up the rent assistance payment. The caps are way below market rents in their respective areas and people obviously face having to top up, mostly from social welfare payments, to try to ensure there is a roof over their heads. Such circumstances can result in homelessness. The State has a responsibility and it is undermining some tenancy rights by virtue of the fact that it is forcing tenants to negotiate reductions with landlords. These are not real reductions. What is occurring is that they are saying the landlord has agreed to a reduction, while, in reality, they are topping up. Inevitably, they will end up with the community welfare officer trying to seek help with an electricity bill or another bill because their income simply does not match their outgoings. I have concerns about these issues. While I do not dispute that there is a need for the legislation, I am concerned about how the tenants in the position I have described will be catered for.