Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

While I rarely disagree with the Minister, the modification to the rent supplement scheme carried out by his predecessor has made a mockery and a mess of it. It is a unique poverty trap which locks low income families and workers into a choice between their State subsidy for the rent and taking up a job offer. People need help with accommodation because under this Government, the pace at which rent rates have escalated has gone out of control. Effectively, rent allowances are a State subsidy of rent paid to landlords, many of whom do not wish to supply their names as they do not wish to enter the tax net. The allowance can be as much as €90 or €100 per week. There are 60,000 tenants in private rented accommodation and the supplement costs €400 million.

The Minister's predecessor made a change whereby anyone in full-time employment, that is, employment of 30 hours or more per week, does not qualify for rent supplement. In the case of couples, if one member of a couple is employed on a full-time basis, both are excluded from claiming rent supplement. Does the Minister agree that this provision is particularly anti-family? It was introduced at the same time and by the same Government that introduced individualisation in the tax code. That is both incongruous and a contradiction. Does the Minister agree that the denial of rent supplement to households where even one partner is at work means that tens of thousands of low income families and workers have been financially crippled with higher rents? Is it not the case that these are the working poor who cannot afford to buy a house of their own, who have not been provided with social or affordable housing and who work to pay the rent?

Does the Minister agree that it is time to make the rent supplement scheme work neutral, in a manner based on the Labour Party's proposal? This suggests that rent supplements should be replaced by a new form of housing support which would be related to housing needs, housing costs, the circumstances of the applicants and the rent levels pertaining in the areas concerned. It would be important that the new form of housing support did not discriminate between those on social welfare and those at work and that its reduction should be tapered as income increases. That would be the fairest way out of the present system. In the interests of fairness, it would be necessary to reduce the financial hardship of working households, which are obliged to rent in the private sector. This would also act to incentivise and reward work, rather than penalising those who take up employment. The Minister realises that the loss of the entire benefit on the part of those people who move from being in receipt of social welfare and rent supplement to employment constitutes a poverty trap and a disincentive to work.

The Minister mentioned a social welfare circular dating from 2000. I presume that the community welfare officers are responsible for its administration. How many people have received help under the terms of that circular? How often is it published or is it akin to a great mystery of nature? Does it only appear occasionally whereby some people moving into work receive 75%, while others receive 50% and 25% in a graded scale over four years? Deputy Ring is very sharp and will agree that one rarely hears of the operation of this circular. Have the circular's contents been advertised by the Department to ensure that those entitled to such help receive it? How many people receive this benefit in each of the four years before it concludes? It could be an important factor in ensuring the elimination of this disincentive to work and poverty trap.

See this speech in context