Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left) | Oireachtas source

Like the previous speaker, I do not oppose the Minister's amendment but I think more debate is required. Some offices are fortunate to have the staff and support to tease out these issues but some of us do not have this support so it is difficult to grasp how changes can impact on people's lives. This discussion is on the legitimate expectations men and women have regarding pensions that were paid for over a long period. These people have discovered that problems with legislation mean they are not protected when a pension scheme collapses and in such circumstances they end up out of kilter and without the income they had expected. This matter arises due to decisions of the European courts and challenges in the UK and other countries. Workers have a legitimate right to be protected from pension fund crises and more debate is required on this.

Many of the amendments that were tabled have been ruled out of order, as usual, but it is good to see the amendments we tabled on the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS, and those on pensions remain to be debated. This has happened only because the Minister has decided to make a particular change to pensions relating to double insolvency. I welcome the opportunity to debate these matters in a more detailed way.

The amendments tabled seek the introduction of a six-month check on how the rent supplement impacts on people's lives. I wish to put on the record of the House the details of an e-mail I received from people in an apartment block in Crumlin. The developer went into receivership and the apartments were in NAMA but were taken over by a vulture capital company. Tenants received notice that rent was to increase from €1,300 per month to €1,600 within 28 days and this will have a big impact on whether they can afford to pay the rent. It is outrageous that this is allowed to happen. Landlords are allowed to increase rent once a year, irrespective of inflation, wage levels or anything else. Rack-renting landlords wish to make quick profits and I think the points made earlier by Deputy Boyd Barrett on the Minister for Finance are apt. A rent cap should be introduced and if landlords have difficulty maintaining such a cap they should be dealt with individually and make their cases to the relevant person. At the moment people must find themselves almost homeless before their individual cases for rent supplement are considered. The Government should take the approach I mentioned rather than oblige ordinary people who find themselves homeless to seek an increase in rent supplement. Sometimes these increases are not given because they are considered individually. There should be rent controls and if landlords find them difficult they should talk to the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, for support. It could be the case that landlords cannot pay their mortgages.

I wish to mention another matter that was ruled out of order. We were asked by the Northside Civic Centre to examine the 15% deduction relating to people with historic payment problems. These problems may be the fault of the tenant, the Department's mistakes or something else. People can find themselves below the €186 threshold that is supposed to protect people. People with a property tax rate of €240 cannot have an income of below €186 because it is deemed the minimum necessary to live. Community Law & Mediation asked us to table amendments to return this area to how it was at after the 2005 Act. There should be a six-year cap on the investigation of historical matters relating to this issue and a human rights standard should be applied. It was found that seeking the recovery of an overpayment could be a violation of constitutional rights. We wanted to address these issues through amendments but they were ruled out of order.

See this speech in context