asked the Minister for Social Welfare the amount of the highest and lowest allowance paid by his Department under the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982.
25.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rent Allowances.
24.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of persons who received allowances from his Department as a result of being subjected to very substantial rent increases under the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982.
I propose to take Question Nos. 24 and 25 together.
The amount of the highest and lowest weekly rent allowance paid by my Department to date are £35.63 and £3.40, respectively.
The number of persons to whom rent allowances have been granted is 32.
I had to wait a long time for the information which I sought earlier. Would the Minister not agree, in the light of the information which he has just now given the House, that this would confirm the view that there is widespread confusion over the operation of this rent assistance? Would he give consideration to engaging in some way in a publicity campaign to alert elderly people of their rights in this respect? That would go a long way towards alleviating the dreaded fear which elderly people are experiencing at the moment. As a Dubliner, the Minister must be aware of that.
I agree with the Deputy that we should do everything possible. I have suggested that in the courts where these cases are heard the relevant notices and forms be readily available. I will have it checked that that has been done and will also consider — and believe it is necessary — an advertising campaign. The Deputy in his opening remarks indicated that at least I had answered the question. I might add that the question has just now been put down for answer.
I forgot to include Cork as well.
Could the Minister tell me the estimated cost to the State this year in implementing the scheme and the number of people who have applied under the scheme?
We cannot estimate the actual cost. We have put aside £10 million to meet any contingency in that area. We believe that that will be adequate to cover the amount. To date approximately 500 cases have been dealt with through the courts. That is at the rate of about 70 per week. A further 1,500 cases have been listed for hearing by the end of September.
For the rest of the country, rent cases are normally dealt with under District Court procedure and we have very few of them, except in Cork where about 40 cases a week are now being processed.
How many applications have, in fact, been rejected by the Minister's Department for assistance under this scheme?
Six claims have been disallowed as the dwellings were not formerly rent-controlled and one because of means.
What was the total number rejected?
33.
Does that not indicate that people are not aware of their rights and of the facilities that are available?
This seems to be a repeat of what Deputy Gerard Brady has said.
As my colleague indicated, the situation is very serious.
As I have said, we are doing our best to mount a campaign to ensure that the situation is being dealt with properly and to make people aware of the benefits that are available. Perhaps people are aware of the situation but there appears to be general confusion about it.
Is the Minister aware that large amounts are being awarded by the courts on the assumption that Social Welfare will pay the difference between the existing rent and the new one? Have the Department placed an upper limit on the amount they will pay and, if not, is it the intention to introduce an upper limit?
Once a person qualifies, there is no upper limit and there are no proposals to have an upper limit. I cannot assume what impression the court might have in regard to what Social Welfare would pay.
How do the Department calculate the means? How much is allowed before one can qualify?
In the case of a married couple with means of up to £70, the rent would be £3.50. For the next £10 it would be 50p and thereafter pound for pound.
Would the Minister accept that the upper limit would rule out many people who, in addition to receiving old age pensions, are in receipt of, say, Department of Posts and Telegraphs pension or some other civil service pension? The amount allocated this year in this respect is probably far too much. The scheme is being totally abused and is feathering the nests of certain sections of the community who are abusing the legislation. The Minister should use his position to put an end to that abuse. The interested people in this city, and I do not have to name them, will co-operate to ensure that the £10 million is used. This is a scandal and is totally discriminatory so far as old people are concerned. The Minister should cut down that £10 million and bring the scheme back into the Fair Rents Tribunal in order to avoid filling the pockets of people who do not deserve this money.
We must make money available but we cannot mandate the courts to take certain action. These institutions, as the Deputy knows, are very independent. All we can do is ensure that moneys are available for people who are entitled to claim welfare allowances. The Deputy says we have allocated too much but in a case like this it is better to err on the side of being generous. Normally the complaints from the other side of the House are to the effect that we are not allocating enough.
Has the Minister been in touch with the Department of the Environment on the question of rents tribunals? I ask the question because the rents tribunals would take the whole issue out of the courts system and would be a far more humane system whereby information could be passed on to the people who are being subjected to treatment that they should not be subjected to. When can we expect the legislation in that regard to be ready?
This seems to be another question.
It involves the Department of Social Welfare.
It does not arise on the question that was tabled.
It would result in the saving of a lot of money by the Department of Social Welfare.
The Minister indicated here that the legislation would be before the House during the next session.
Are the Department of Social Welfare in touch with the Revenue Commissioners about this?
Is the Minister aware that very many tenants have entered into private agreements with landlords thus invalidating their legal right to avail of appearing in court? This has happened through ignorance on their part and through fear of the courts. If the Minister is aware of this situation, will he use his good offices to in some way extend the scheme to enable such people to avail of the benefit being offered?
The fixing of rents is not a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare.
A tenant who made some kind of verbal agreement with his landlord is welcome to come back into the scheme.