(Cavan-Monaghan) asked the Minister for the Environment if he will give particulars of the increase in the rent of a person (details supplied) in County Cavan; and if he will take steps to have this rent reduced as it is beyond the tenant's capacity to pay.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Cavan Rent Increase.
5.
The monthly rent of the tenant in question as determined by the county council was £3.42 under the 1979 national rents scheme. This rent was payable from 1 March 1979, and was based on income from widow's pension payable at the beginning of December 1978, and estimated income from land valuation. The correct monthly rent payable from 1 May 1980, calculated in accordance with the terms of the 1980 national rents scheme is £16.51. This rent is based on income from widow's pension payable at February last and estimated income from land valuation.
I understand from the county council that the rent from 1 May 1980, as initially calculated, amounted to £21.97 per month. This rent was incorrect due to confusion which arose in respect of the income from widow's pension payable at February last. This matter has now been clarified and the rent reduced to £16.51 per month which will apply retrospectively to the beginning of May.
It should be noted that the current rent is calculated on income payable at February last and that any subsequent increase in pension which may be granted to this tenant will not be taken into account for rent purposes until the next annual revision of income takes place.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am grateful to the Minister for his reply but is he aware that the sole income of the tenant in this case is the widow's pension? She is a widow with a large young family and her rent according to the Minister, was increased from £3.42 to over £21 and has now been reduced to £16.51 per month. Does the Minister not think this is a brutal increase in the case of a woman who literally cannot make ends meet? Is he also aware that the increase in the widow's pension barely took care of inflation so that while her rent has been increased by approximately five times, her income has remained the same? Does the Minister think that is fair?
Under the 1979 scheme her income for rent purposes was £40.60 widow's pension——
(Cavan-Monaghan): How many children had she?
——I could not say—of which 50 per cent, £20.30, was taken into account for rent purposes together with an estimated £2.09 income from land valuation. Land was valued at £7.25, an income estimated at £15 per £1 valuation. Her rent was calculated at 79p per week or £3.42 a month. That is the general breakdown. Her land valuation is included in the rent of the house.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister must realise that the valuation of the land is static. Therefore, the only increase was the miserable increase in the widow's pension which did not take care of inflation. Because of that her rent is increased from £3.42 to £16.50. Does the Minister realise that this is the effect his rent order 1980 has had on these isolated cases, and this is not the worst of them, strange as it may appear? Some people had their rents increased from £4 or £5 per month to about £40 a month. This is a poor way of paying for election promises.
Rents are a matter for local authorities. There is a hardship clause involved here and it is a matter for the local authority——
The Minister sets the rents.
Yes, but there is a hardship clause in the Act.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister must be aware that these rents were fixed this year and were the direct result of a ministerial order. Every time we write to the county council we get a letter saying the rents had been fixed in accordance with the ministerial scheme and could not be reduced. The Minister is ashamed to stand over this and I do not blame him.
I am not ashamed of anything. All I am saying is that it is a matter for the local authority and there is a hardship clause included in the Act.