Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 1994

Vol. 440 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Wexford Capital Assistance Scheme.

Mrs. Doyle

I am expecting good news from the Minister because since I tabled it this matter has progressed towards a successful conclusion. The tenants of the capital assistance scheme in Westlands have now been deemed eligible for rent allowance by the South Eastern Health Board.

The saga of the application of the tenants through Respond to the health board, which acts as an agent for the Minister for Social Welfare, for rent supplement is a lesson in how not to operate the public sector. For months the tenants of this lovely housing scheme, for which the people of Wexford are indebted to Respond, have been put through the most protracted negotiations to establish their right to a rent supplement. Notwithstanding the Department of Social Welfare circular, the regulations issued last year by the Department of the Environment, the fact that a similar scheme in Waterford, which is in the same health board region, had no trouble whatsoever in establishing the right of tenants to a rent supplement, the efforts of the tenants, Respond, inspectors of the Department of the Environment who were sent to Wexford, Threshold, the Irish Council for Social Housing and many other voluntary housing agencies and the South Eastern Health Board up to the level of the chief executive officer, Mr. Cooney, a 34-page file and deputations to the Minister, this saga went on for months, thus stringing out the tenants in terms of their entitlement to rent allowance,.

The scheme was introduced on a monthly basis and as the deadline was reached it would be extended for another month. The final deadline was to be Thursday, 31 March. Last Friday a hand delivered letter from the South Eastern Health Board to the tenants indicated that their rent supplement was safe pending a national review, or words to that effect.

This saga is a lesson in how not to operate and if nothing else it must concentrate the minds of the public sector in general on the handling of such matters. Why does it take three Departments of State — the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, with regulations interacting between them — to decide whether tenants in a capital assistance scheme in Wexford, built by Respond and completed only last July, should be entitled to a rent supplement? Why were these tenants treated differently from the tenants of similar capital assistance housing schemes, including those in the South Eastern Health Board area?

This matter gives rise to many questions and I hope the Minister will be able to explain why it took so long to reach a reasonably successful conclusion to this appalling saga which gave rise to a waste of time, energy and money. Ministers, health board chief executive officers and county managers were all involved in trying to reach a decision which should have been decided by a simple formula which could be applied nationally. There is no reason the tenants in this capital assistance scheme should be treated differently from tenants in similar schemes.

I look forward to confirmation by the Minister that this saga was brought to a conclusion last Friday by the hand delivered letter to the tenants. Will he indicate how he intends to streamline the supplementary rent allowance scheme and say whether he thinks it is satisfactory for the health boards to continue to operate as agents for the Department of Social Welfare and whether health boards are the best body to determine a fair and accurate rent, which is part of their remit?

Dr. Woods

In some ways Deputy Doyle has explained the complexity of the issue as between the health boards, local authorities and voluntary bodies. This matter needs to be clearly resolved on a national basis.

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme empowers health boards to provide a weekly payment to assist eligible persons with their accommodation costs. Under the legislation governing this scheme the determination of entitlement to an allowance and the amount of such allowance is entirely the function of the chief executive officer of each health board.

The Minister for Social Welfare is responsible for the general direction and control of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme and in this regard my Department informed health boards, by circular issued in 1990, that residents of voluntary housing schemes may receive such assistance subject to the usual criteria for assessment of applications for rent supplement. The circular pointed out that there is a standing instruction from the Department of the Environment that the principles of the differential rent scheme should be borne in mind in determining acceptable rent levels under the voluntary housing scheme. It was stressed also that in setting reasonable rent levels voluntary bodies in the social housing area are obliged to have regard to their philanthropic and non-profit nature, to the extent of the State subsidy and to contributions from other sources, such as the general public.

By way of illustration, the circular indicated the method of assessing reasonable rent which had been agreed by the Eastern Health Board with voluntary housing organisations. This was included as an example of how one board had approached the question of determining rent levels. It was not suggested as standard practice nationally because of the differences in rent levels in various parts of the country.

The issue of establishing reasonable rent for voluntary housing was raised recently by the South Eastern Health Board with my Department and a review of the guidelines on rent supplementation for voluntary housing is currently being addressed in my Department.

Pending completion of this review, the South Eastern Health Board has decided to continue to pay rent supplements to tenants in the Westlands project using the Eastern Health Board criteria. I expect that this review will be completed in a matter of weeks and the South Eastern Health Board will be advised of the outcome.

My Department is increasingly picking up the tab, so to speak, for certain housing matters. Yet the Department of the Environment has responsibility for this area and the health boards have a say in whatever decisions are taken. I only cover the general scheme. I have pointed out the position to them. Voluntary organisations are looking for moneys which will help them with both their current and future projects and which will cover maintenance costs, etc. Different elements have entered into the equation and I have pointed out that in order to sort out the matter we will have to put our heads together, look at what is happening in different health board areas and consult with Department of the Environment advisers. I hope we will shortly have a scheme which can be applied nationally. In the meantime the people about whom the Deputy is concerned will be protected.