Vol. 561 No. 6
8 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the assessment which has been undertaken by her Department to ensure that the recent capping of rent supplement payments will not result in an increase in homelessness; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4932/03]
41 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if her attention has been drawn to the fact that severe hardship is being experienced by social welfare recipients in private rented accommodation as a result of the capping of the rent allowance; if she will reverse this decision; the steps she proposes to take to alleviate the stress caused by this cutback; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4822/03]
59 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on warnings from Threshold that the changes to the rent allowance scheme are forcing many people out of their homes; her plans to address such a warning; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4823/03]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 8, 41 and 59 together.
The maximum level of rent a person may incur is determined by each health board in respect of its functional area and is set by reference to local property considerations. The health boards review these limits regularly, usually once a year, and increase the limits by reference to the housing market in their functional areas. During 2002, this resulted in increases in the maximum rent limits ranging from 5% to 28%.
Data provided by the Central Statistics Office show that rent levels have been stable for some time. In fact, rents have been falling since last April and are now lower than they were one year ago.
Is the Minister talking about Dublin?
Accordingly, there is no need for health boards to set higher levels of maximum rents for the purposes of the supplementary welfare allowance rent supplement scheme.
I am concerned to ensure that increases in maximum rent levels should be set by the health boards in response to rises in market rent levels. However, it appears that these increases may actually have been driving up rents. In the circumstances, I decided to maintain the maximum rent levels set by the health boards at their current levels until the end of December 2003.
Regulations giving effect to this were introduced on 22 November 2002. I am satisfied that rather than having an adverse impact on social welfare recipients in the private rented sector, this change will improve their position in acquiring accommodation. Setting higher maximum rent limits than are justified by the open market would distort the rental market, leading to a general rise in rent levels that would disadvantage people on low incomes.
If an individual is unable to secure accommodation at or below the applicable maximum rent level it is open to the health board to provide a payment above the maximum level as an exceptional measure for a limited period. This measure is designed to provide the person concerned with an opportunity to secure alternative accommodation at the applicable rent level. My Department is not aware of any case where the change in relation to the maximum rent levels has resulted in individuals being made homeless.
The effects of the change are being monitored on an on-going basis by my Department. In this regard the health boards are required to notify my Department of instances where supplements are put in payment in cases when exceptional circumstances are involved.
All aspects of the current system of rent supplements are being reviewed in the context of a review of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme which is currently under way in my Department.
The Minister said that average rents are decreasing. Does she accept that there are also cases where rents are increasing? She spoke of flexibility within the scheme where community welfare officers can make a judgment. Will she elaborate on that? Does the Minister accept that there are people on the housing list who are genuinely concerned about the cap? Can she say anything to allay their fears?
Does the Minister agree that we need to look at security of tenure for tenants? In her capacity as Minister for Social and Family Affairs, has she raised this at Cabinet, particularly with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, who could introduce such legislation? Such legislation is the norm in continental Europe. In Germany a person cannot be given a month's notice to quit and rent cannot be increased overnight. Deputy Ring stated that this is the most right wing Government in Europe but does the Minister accept that there is now a compelling case for security of tenure?
Last year €252.3 million was made available and this year €304 million is being made available for rental allowances in my Department, the majority of which is being spent on rent supplement, with the rest going on single exceptional needs payments.
Most Members of the House have experience on local authorities and appreciate the problems with housing. I have a difficulty with the manner in which an income support Department is estranged from the housing sector.
I agree there was a Government decision on this previously but we are now looking at how this can work better. There are people for whom, through no fault of their own, it is to their detriment to be in the private housing market and they lose out as a consequence. Those are real issues which I have discussed and will discuss further with the Minister and Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government in the very near future. Security of tenure is an ongoing matter which is outside my remit. However, I agree there is often a futility in using money to support people in the private rented sector who either have inadequate facilities or inadequate housing or are subject to the whim of landlords. Changes have been made in regulations and in the context of the amount of money spent, in the main, on rent allowance, there are issues which will have to be addressed and with which I and my parliamentary party agree. I hope we will have similar agreement on both sides of the House when very difficult decisions are being made. Perhaps some very difficult choices will have to be made by local representatives in each area. As I indicated already, any exception must come to my attention and that has not happened so far. Accordingly, it is untrue to say that people have become homeless as a consequence of such a decision.
Is the real problem not that Fianna Fáil is, perhaps largely, a party of landlords – the party that supports landlords' rights?
I reject that.
How, then, does the Minister account for the fact that, during almost six years of the present Administration, my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, has been on his feet in the House, day after day, asking for action on the report on the privately rented sector and some level of rights for tenants? In our forefathers' time, Michael Davitt fought for the three Fs. We now need the three Fs again. A huge segment of our society is being treated despicably. I do not know to what area the Minister is referring. In the centre of my constituency, typical rents are around €1,200 per month and have been rising constantly. The homelessness section of our local authority, Dublin City Council, is desperately trying to house people but is being squeezed out of the rental sector because of the Minister's action through the regulation.
With regard to the €300 million, we never asked for €300 million in rent supplement—
The Deputy has used up his allotted time.
We would ask for €300 million for a decent local authority house building programme. There are only 400 or 500 starts this year throughout Dublin city. That is a total outrage. Has the Minister not, in effect, contributed to a situation in which many families in this and other Irish cities are becoming homeless?
I refute that remark. The Deputy's comments are absolutely ridiculous. Nobody has been made homeless as a consequence of the State providing funding to help people to get into the private rented sector. The Deputy's argument does not stand up.
The Minister should visit a homeless centre.
Allow the Minister to proceed without interruption.
As I indicated, there is flexibility. However, with all due respect to the representative thereof, there are many who would like to live in Ballsbridge at the expense of the State where they could be facilitated in a better area. The maximum rent in the Eastern Regional Health Board area, which the Deputy represents, is €1,200 for a couple with two children. That is quite a considerable amount of money as a maximum rent. It is much less in some other health board regions. That reflects the level of rents in this country and I have received professional advice that rents have decreased.
I fail to understand the Deputy's argument. When exceptions are being requested, they are submitted to me. I believe there have been no more than seven such requests in the context of this regulation. I have been wholeheartedly supportive of people who cannot find appropriate accommodation to suit their needs at a particular time in their lives. The flexibility is there and it is a total nonsense to say that people are homeless as a consequence of this regulation. I totally refute that.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
