Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

I welcome that indication. A similar dilemma presents itself for young people in transitional accommodation.

The wisest course of action is for the Minister to be provided with powers in the Bill to exempt by regulation certain categories of unemployed teenagers from these provisions. This would allow the Minister to establish a period of public consultation and reflection on this measure before the relevant sections are commenced and to exempt people before they cause unnecessary hardship. If this is really about activation, the Minister should have no problem doing this.

Section 7(b) proposes to disallow rent supplement unless a person is an existing tenant or has been assessed by his or her local authority as in need of housing. In my view, this measure is reckless and downright irresponsible. It puts in harm's way young people who have a serious falling out with their parents and any person who, for example, is subject to abuse in the family home. I am appalled by this measure. It is a bull-headed ivory tower reform of the worst possible kind and reflects a pathetic understanding on the part of the Minister about the reality on the ground. I do not have any confidence that the discretion afforded to community welfare officers is sufficient to guarantee that no one is made homeless from this proposal. I spoke to Focus Ireland about these measures and it does not have much confidence either. Can the Minister absolutely guarantee that no one will be made homeless as a result of this measure? If she cannot, then why is she attempting to pass this proposal? The Minister might respond directly to this.

Of course, other cutbacks are also being made by regulation to the minimum contribution a person must make to rent supplement and to the maximum amount of support a person may receive under the scheme. The Labour Party accepts that there were savings to be made from rent supplement at a time when some rents are falling, although it has to be pointed out that rents are only 1.3% lower now than when the rent supplement limits were changed in January 2007, and the 6% to 10% cut is certainly excessive.

There is also something pathetic about a policy decision being taken based on what the Daft website states.

See this speech in context