Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

I wish to speak on my amendment, No. 20, which proposes the deletion of the entire section dealing with rent supplement. I argued earlier that it was wrong and discriminatory. I do not believe there was any real consultation, although many areas are being regenerated. The Minister seemed to be under the impression that there was political consensus, but there is no such consensus. If there was once, there is none now, and my party was certainly opposed to this measure.

I genuinely believe that this matter will end in the courts. If the Minister feels there is anything positive in this Bill, he should think again. The Office of the Ombudsman has already stated its belief that the provision is discriminatory. It goes against the thrust of what we are trying to do in many communities. We are trying to keep young people, particularly those on rent supplement, close to their families, communities, and work and school supports. This says that it may not happen.

I have heard the Minister say that those who currently receive rent supplement in an area will be able to continue doing so. It is a case of pulling up the ladder and creating new areas. It is a little rich that this legislation is ostensibly to provide for greater social integration, since it will not do so. I am conscious of where this originates, and the Government watered down Part 5, which stipulated that any new developments should include 20% social and affordable housing. It allowed private developers to buy their way out of commitments and construct estates devoid of any social or affordable housing. It is claimed that this provision will achieve happy communities, but it will not do so. Rather it is a form of snobbery, and I intend to press amendment No. 20, which calls for this section's deletion.

Regarding community welfare officers, it is sad that the two should be linked. This is about removing their capacity for flexibility and exercising more control; that is the view coming from the officers themselves. They have great experience of community welfare and can look at the age profile and know what is going on in their communities. The Minister is making these proposals without any real consultation. Months ago I asked about this area and was told that consultations were under way. One wonders what was meant. Were there any real negotiations or union involvement? Its members have told me that there were not, and community welfare officers have inundated Members with concerns regarding where this might lead. This is about exercising control rather than supporting the existing flexibility that other speakers have raised. It is certainly a retrograde step.

See this speech in context