Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I support the amendment and the various amendments put down by the Labour Party on rent supplement. My party has some of its own on the issue later so I will speak to it now.

There are a number of considerations. This amendment links the registration with that of the Private Residential Tenancies Board. I put down questions last week following Committee Stage to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and, as with so many instances here, the first line of the response informed me that the Minister had no function in the matter as the operation of tenancy registration is the responsibility of the PRTB, an independent statutory body. This immediately makes it more difficult to have effective co-operation between the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the PRTB.

There are approximately 240,000 landlords registered with the PRTB. It is frequently the landlords renting accommodation to somebody on social welfare who are not registered. I am sure everyone in this House can cite so many instances of people coming into our clinics who are living in poor accommodation, who want to get local authority housing and get it based on their accommodation being so poor. At the next clinic in the same area a new person will come in who is in the same accommodation and is seeking local authority housing based on the poor quality of their accommodation. Along the way, these people have been on rent supplement in that poor quality accommodation.

This is a vicious circle that costs the local authorities and the Minister's Department a lot of money. The only way of dealing with it is if the rent supplement is linked to the PRTB. The Minister will argue that she does not want to make the recipient of the rent supplement suffer but we are not doing these tenants any service by effectively forcing them into poor quality accommodation. There is also an issue for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

I agree with Deputy Wall in that the rental accommodation scheme is the way to go. There is a fear among people that if they go into better quality accommodation through the scheme they will not be considered for local authority housing. This is not the responsibility of the Minister alone but rather a case that needs interdepartmental co-operation, as well as input from State agencies. The issue will not be solved by any one Minister. There has been a little improvement in trying to ensure we sort it out.

Under-the-counter payments are common, although they are technically illegal. Those in receipt of the rent supplement are only entitled to it if the accommodation is at a particular standard. People are desperate when looking for housing and are willing in some instances to pay the landlord extra money per week because it may be the only housing available.

Another issue relating to payment links to the Minister's Department and the Revenue Commissioners. A Comptroller and Auditor General report indicated concern about the number of landlords getting rent supplement who are not paying tax on the properties being rented. There must be better co-operation to ensure that issue is fully and adequately addressed. This is one way of tracking it within the system so as to ensure tax is being paid. It is difficult to do this with a private tenant, although it should still be done, but when the State is giving rent supplement there must be a mechanism to ensure that where the landlord is the ultimate recipient, he or she is paying tax on that money. It does not always happen.

Another issue is the method of receipt for the supplement. I asked the Minister on Committee Stage to consider the Focus Ireland submission as it was worthwhile. It highlighted some of the difficulties that arise and the poverty traps that can ensue. An interesting matter brought up by the submission, which has been raised here before, is the fact that if a person works for more than 30 hours per week, that person is ineligible for rent supplement.

That makes no sense and amounts to another poverty trap. The issue should not be how many hours are worked but how much money is earned. We spent much time yesterday debating activation for lone parents and this issue of rent supplement is related. If a trap is put in people's way — after 30 hours working they cannot get rent supplement regardless of how much money is brought in — it is not a logical way of doing business. We should encourage these people to get employment. The issue must be addressed.

See this speech in context