John Kelly (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, back to the House and commend Sinn Féin on tabling this motion. Contributors have spoken a lot of common sense thus far and despite the Minister for Social Protection's description of rent allowance as a short-term scheme, it is far from short term. From my own experience as a community welfare officer, I am aware of people who were in the scheme for 20 years. Nothing will change until housing is made available through local authorities or voluntary bodies, unless these individuals find work in the meantime.

I take issue with the new rent caps being imposed in certain parts of the country. The levels set in my own part of the country are ridiculous because they do not reflect the rents charged in the west of Ireland. If rent allowance is to continue in its current form we need to reconsider the rent caps. However, the debate on rent caps is essentially about whether they have reached the appropriate level or if it is simply the case that too many houses have been built. It is a tenant's market and if a renter does not like one house he or she can move to another. Prior to the Fianna Fáil building boom and bust, one might find rental accommodation with mushrooms growing out of the ceilings and floors due to dampness. Accommodation is now relatively good, however, although it is not appropriate to the needs in certain parts of the country. A single person cannot find an apartment in rural Ireland because the majority of accommodation is in three bedroom houses.

The Minister, Deputy Burton, has spoken about value for money. She noted that the €1,000 per month paid to individuals in Dublin in rent supplement works out as €12,000 per year. It is difficult to take people off social welfare on that basis. I agree with her in this regard but if one goes down to the country one will be lucky to receive €3,500 per year, which would not make the difference between going to work and staying on social welfare. Perhaps rents in Dublin need to be investigated.

I have sympathy with certain landlords. I do not refer to those who own 40 or 60 houses or the landlord who paid the non-principal private property charge on 70 houses. However, ordinary landlords can include public servants who decided they will never be able to save enough to support their families in the future unless they bought a house as an investment in their children's education. They have been hit with pension levies and the universal social charge at the same time as they face reduced rents and difficulties in collecting money from tenants. I do not see why we should not deal directly with landlords on rent supplement in the same way as the county councils deal with landlords on rental assistance. The reluctance to deal directly with landlords is the result of a 20 year old case in which a landlord in Galway sued the health board for property damage because it was paying the rent directly to him. The problem of liability can be easily addressed through legislation, however.

NAMA's portfolio offers us an opportunity to house people who are currently in rented accommodation. We should be housing people in units that will never otherwise be considered for anything but demolition. When will the transfer of the rent allowance system to local authorities be completed?