Vol. 838 No. 2
1. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will contact persons who have been refused domiciliary care allowance for the past two years in view of the decision of the High Court of 1 April 2014 that found serious flaws in her Department's handling of such applications; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17793/14]
This question arises out of the review conducted by the Department of eligibility for domiciliary care allowance and a decision by the High Court on 1 April which overruled a decision of the Department to refuse domiciliary care allowance.
The domiciliary care allowance, DCA, is a monthly payment to the parent or guardian of a child with a disability so severe that the child requires care and attention and-or supervision substantially in excess of another child of the same age. This care and attention must be provided to allow the child to deal with the activities of daily living. The child must be likely to require this level of care and attention for at least 12 months. DCA is currently paid to more than 25,000 clients in respect of more than 27,000 children at a cost in excess of €140 million per year, including the cost of the associated respite care grant.
The High Court ruling of 1 April, to which the Deputy referred, involved a challenge by a mother in regard to the process involved in determining eligibility on her claim for domiciliary care allowance. While the judge found in her favour and ordered that the individual claim be returned to the Department for a new decision, he put a stay on the order to 28 April, thus providing time to the Department to consider the detailed judgment, along with any implications it may have for decision making. Therefore, as the Deputy will appreciate, I am not in a position to comment further on what actions may be required as a result of this judgment. As this matter is still under consideration, it is not possible to say what contact, if any, will need to be made with customers.
In May 2012, I initiated a review of the DCA, to which the Deputy referred, which specifically brought parents into the process and involved a very wide sampling of parents. More than 300 submissions were received at the time. As a consequence of that, the application form has been redesigned to allow the details of the child’s care needs to be more comprehensively documented by the parent or guardian. Also, an additional medical information form can be completed for children with pervasive developmental disorders, such as autism. This additional medical information, which will be supplied by the specialist attending the child, will ensure that the appropriate information is available to assist in the decision making process.
It is hoped that having as much information as possible on the child’s care needs available at the initial assessment stage will allow the correct decision to be made at the earliest opportunity possible and reduce the need for further examination and for recourse to the appeals process.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The revised application-decision process will also include improved feedback in regard to the decision reasons at both application and appeal stages. Details on the new process along with revised guidelines covering the administrative changes are available on www.welfare.ie and have been notified to all CIB offices and to parent-guardian representative groups.
This decision was on medical eligibility. The Minister will be aware that the High Court was scathing about what it referred to as the Department's disdainful mindset to the evidence of long-term experts, all of whom had seen the child in question, and condemned the fact that despite this evidence, the Department insisted on making its decision based on the desk top review done by its medical assessors.
Is this not a problem which exists outside the domiciliary care allowance area? There are many social welfare payments which depend on one's medical condition, including invalidity pension, disability allowance and illness benefit. Does the same system not apply throughout the Department? We have come across numerous cases where people have applied for one of those medically-based entitlements and have submitted evidence of experts who have seen the patients but where the desk top review still triumphed at the end? Will the Minister accept that this is a problem which is not just confined to the domiciliary care allowance area?
As the Deputy will recall, it is for that reason that after I became Minister - we have had a number of discussions on this - I set up the review group, which was chaired by Sylda Langford and included quite a number of parents and which involved carrying out a sampling exercise involving 1,000 parents. This included work on the domiciliary care allowance right down to redesigning the forms in a way that they would be much more parent-friendly.
The Deputy should remember that up to 2009, domiciliary care allowance was paid by the HSE. It then transferred over to the Department. Since it transferred from the HSE, the number of applications and the number of successful claims for DCA have gone up enormously. In 2013, for instance, under the new system, the success rate in terms of people applying increased to 73%.
One of the problems we have, which is why I drew attention to it in my reply, is incomplete medical evidence at the early stage of application. That is why we have provided, in particular for children with specific disorders, including children on the autism spectrum or the Asperger's spectrum, a specific form which would allow medical advisers as well as parents or guardians to put forward a much more detailed case than was the case in the past.
I thank the Minister for answering a question I did not ask. I am aware of the review in regard to domiciliary care allowance but I asked her about other health-related entitlements where the decision on medical eligibility is taken in exactly the same flawed way which the High Court condemned in its decision on 1 April. As the Minister said, a review has taken place, parents are more involved in domiciliary care allowance, forms have been redesigned, etc. However, many people have been refused domiciliary care allowance under the old system. Does the Department intend to contact those people who have been refused under the old system in recent times and advise them that the whole system has changed, that there is now a new form and that they are entitled to apply again?
As the Deputy knows, it has been made absolutely clear to parents - it is a unique feature of the Irish system in regard to this allowance and to other medically-based allowances paid in respect of disability or invalidity - that under our system, we allow people to submit fresh medical evidence for review purposes at any stage.
We have discussed this before. If people immediately go to an appeal, the appeal process is statute based and inevitably takes more time. We have been reducing the times but the backlog I inherited, particularly from the Deputy's Government, was very significant.
It is very significant now. It takes six months for appeals.
That is a fact. The facts are there to show it. The actual rates for people getting this very important allowance for children and their parents have increased significantly. In 2013, the granting rate for this particular allowance went up to 73%.
I do not have the statistics to hand for all of the other allowances because the Deputy did not ask about them in his question. If he cares to put a separate question on them, I would be happy to answer it separately.
2. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection the steps she will take to ensure that appropriate regard is given by deciding officers to the medical evidence submitted by applicants for domiciliary care allowance in response to the recent High Court ruling against her Department, which was highly critical of the current assessment policy; the steps that will be taken, including the timeframe; and if she will confirm whether the relevant policy changes will be made in advance of the intended recommencement of eligibility reviews. [17795/14]
On the same matter, what specific steps will the Minister take to address the very serious shortcomings the High Court judge found in the case of a mother who challenged the refusal of her domiciliary care allowance, DCA? The judge referred to the disdain shown for her application. He also called into question the operating procedure of the deciding officers which he said was inappropriately fettered.
Domiciliary care allowance, DCA, is currently paid to over 25,000 clients, parents and guardians, in respect of over 27,000 children at a cost in excess of €140 million a year, when the cost of the respite care grant is included. In 2013, over 4,800 applications were received, with 3,227 claims awarded in the year, including those awarded on review and on appeal. The situation following the review has improved enormously, which people have acknowledged. As I already stated, the High Court ruling of 1 April, to which the Deputy refers, involved a challenge by a mother to the process involved in determining eligibility on her claim for DCA. As the Department is still considering the detailed judgment, I am not in a position to comment further on what actions may be required. However, I can confirm that the DCA eligibility review programme will not recommence until the implications of the judgment are clarified.
The eligibility review process has been comprehensively redesigned as part of the scheme review undertaken in 2012 and while it has not yet recommenced, a lot of work has been undertaken to prepare for a recommencement of eligibility reviews. The scheme review was overseen by a working group comprising representatives of the Department, other relevant Departments and representatives of parents and guardians. It was chaired by the former Secretary General of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Ms Sylda Langford. On publication of the review report in April 2013, an implementation group was formed, involving representatives of parents and guardians to work on implementing the administrative recommendations. We have been working closely with representative groups, including parents and guardians.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
When the review programme recommences, parents and guardians will be given three months' advance notice of their child’s review to enable them prepare documentation. When this time elapses, they will get a form to complete and have another two months to complete and return it to the Department. The newly introduced forms facilitate the provision of additional medical information, which will be supplied by the specialist attending the child and this will ensure that the appropriate information is available to assist in the decision-making process.
This, combined with the new information guidelines and claim process, as outlined in my earlier answer will ensure that the claim and review process will be fully transparent to parents and guardians and that better outcomes are achieved for the children concerned.
I accept some of the Minister's answer in respect of being hampered because the Department has not had time to fully assess this. Given that a working group has examined this issue, the Department must already have some of the answers. Does the Minister think that, as part of the process, she would produce guidelines and training sessions for the deciding officers covering the relative weight to be attached to medical evidence in the future? When the processes are reformed, will the Minister ask the Department to consider the cases that were refused in the past and encourage them to make fresh claims so that their medical evidence can be examined? Can the Minister confirm that the review of domiciliary care cases in payment, which have been suspended, will recommence next month? Some of the recommendations have been implemented. The form has been changed but there are other changes that should have been implemented, even in that case.
I confirm the DCA eligibility review programme will not recommence until the implications of the judgment are clarified. The review is required under social welfare law by the Comptroller and Auditor General and by the Committee of Public Accounts. We must carry out regular reviews of all our schemes and everything in the Department. That is the context for the review.
The review programme will not commence until we have clarified the understanding of the implications of the judgment. The difference, which we have worked on with parents and guardians, is that when the review programme recommences they will get three months advance notice of their child's review to enable them to prepare documentation or an opinion, or whatever is required for the review. When this time elapses, they will get a form to complete and will have another two months in which to complete and return it to the Department. This is being done to facilitate the provision of additional medical information which will, I assume, be supplied by the specialist who attends the child. This will ensure that, as far as possible, the appropriate information is available to assist in the decision-making process, as the Deputy asked.
I welcome the changes in the form but, while it might not be in the Minister's gift, there is a waiting list for each and every specialist, unless the client has the money to purchase the services of a private specialist to fill in the forms. Most of the families applying for this do not have the money. That is why they want DCA, to have access to some of the specialists. What steps can be taken to help where the forms and a new system specify two months but in some cases parents wait six months or more to see a specialist consultant? In some parts of Dublin they must wait two years to see a speech and language therapist.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has determined that social welfare payments are subject to review. The parents will be given three months' notice of the child's review to enable them to get the documentation together and apply for an appointment. When this time has elapsed, they will receive the forms from the Department and will have two months to complete them before getting an appointment. If they cannot get an appointment, they should tell us that and the review will be rescheduled. I give the Deputy an undertaking on that. He probably does not have any specific cases in mind because we suspended the review-----
It is a new form.
-----pending the redesign of the system. I do appreciate any advice from any of the Deputies on how they feel the system can be improved. I am very anxious to ensure that parents with children who have special needs in the context of the domiciliary care allowance access any allowance to which they are entitled. That is very important.
3. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Social Protection the rationale behind taxing income gained through employment on Tús programmes (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17796/14]
Will the Minister explain the rationale behind taxing income gain through the employment Tús programmes? I understand that income over €350 is taxed at 4%. I draw the Minister's attention to the details I have attached to my question.
I gave the Minister an example of a chap who was taxed €15.70 on his €20 which meant he received 22 cent per hour for the 19.5 hours he worked on the Tús scheme. Surely the Minister would consider that an exploitation of workers.
The Deputy's examples relates to an individual who worked 19.5 hours per week on Tús from October 2012 to October 2013. I understand he has a spouse and partner and for most of the year three qualifying children but subsequently two qualifying children. I presume one child reached the age of 18 and became an adult. He would have been paid a standard social welfare allowance of €422.20 per week consisting of a jobseeker's allowance of €188.00, a qualified adult payment of €124.80 and €89.40 in respect of three qualifying dependent children. That is without considering that the individual would have probably been entitled to a fuel allowance of €20 a week for six months of the year, back to school clothing and footwear allowances for the children going back to school and in addition a medical card. The individual had €422.20 a week in total. As Deputy Halligan correctly said, PRSI is chargeable from €352 per week. Employees who are liable for class A PRSI contributions who have an income of up to €352 per week do not pay anything. The rate of PRSI paid on amounts earned over €352 per week is 4%. It is not income tax; it is a social insurance contribution. As part of our fundamental social insurance system, that applies to people in private and public occupations around the country. It is what people in any job contribute. In return, the participants who pay it acquire very valuable social welfare and pension rights. I cannot accept Deputy Halligan's contention that this individual was not being paid significant amounts of money in terms of his family circumstances. It is a benefit for such people to participate in a Tús scheme, which are hugely popular around the country. I was in Waterford recently where people wanted more Tús places.
The Minister missed the essential point. I am not attacking the Tús schemes. I have contacted the Department of Social Protection on the issue and it has acknowledged that one can be taxed and PRSI can be taken from the €20. Essentially, a person on a Tús scheme is on a social welfare payment. The Minister is asking such a person to work 19.5 hours for €20.
No. They are earning €422.
The Minister should allow Deputy Halligan to conclude.
Surely, common sense would make it clear that if we ask people to work on a Tús scheme - the Minister is correct that many people want to take up such schemes - we should leave them alone, irrespective of their social welfare income and allowances for dependent adults and children. The additional €20 paid on top of their social welfare income should be excluded from tax and PRSI. After all, the income is very low anyway for anyone on social welfare with children who gets an additional €20 on the Tús scheme. I did contact the Department of Social Protection and it has acknowledged that it is possible that once the additional €20 is paid through the Tús scheme on top of a moderate or very low income that one will be charged tax and PRSI. That is clear from the example I have given of the individual concerned.
When someone moves onto a Tús scheme he or she works 19.5 hours a week for their social welfare payment. In this case the social welfare payment was €422 plus a variety of other supports. If someone was working in a private business in Waterford earning €422 plus a medical card, fuel allowance and back to school clothing and footwear allowances they are expected to contribute a relatively small amount of PRSI, which is significant.
In the long run, in terms of the social insurance system, the people who are on the lowest income benefit most because they qualify ultimately for a contributory pension when they retire. There is significant demand around the country for placements on the Tús programme. I hope the particular individual enjoyed and got value from the placement on Tús. The key issue is that for someone like the individual concerned who has been out of work for more than a year and in some cases out of work for many years, Tús is a significant help towards ultimately getting back to education in many cases or further training or employment.
According to figures from the Department of Social Protection which I received during the week, men make up 74% of those who take up the Tús scheme and 65% of the total Tús cohort falls within the 25 to 49 age bracket. That age and gender profile would suggest that in a significant number of cases a Tús worker is also the main breadwinner in a family. That is the argument that is being made by many people on the Tús scheme to whom I have spoken in Waterford. The scheme is not the issue. Although I have difficulty with it but that is neither here nor there relative to the question I ask. The individual concerned has a family and is the main breadwinner. Surely someone on a social welfare payment who works 19.5 hours and is offered an additional €20 on top of his social welfare payment should not have to pay tax or PRSI. That is common sense. Otherwise, one is asking someone to work 19.5 hours for €20 for which one would take home 22 cent an hour.
I am coming at the issue from a slightly different approach. A constituent of Deputy Halligan who has been unemployed for a long time, along with 7,500 people at any one time, essentially do a one-year community contribution because almost everyone who is on Tús is working and contributing something in his or her local community. That is one of the reasons the scheme is so popular. The individual is earning €422 in social welfare plus a medical card, a fuel allowance for six months of the year of €20 a week, and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance for his children going back to school. Because the individual in question is employed for 19.5 hours, a small amount of PRSI is paid on the total package, which will build up the individual's entitlements in terms of social protection and ultimately and importantly result in a State retirement pension. If he was working in a private job and earning that money he would be paying the same amount in PRSI. I will talk to the Minister for Finance because he sets the rate of PRSI. Deputy Halligan might even raise the matter with the Minister for Finance when he gets an opportunity. The Tús scheme is very successful. I hope the man enjoyed his participation on it.
4. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of persons under the age of 26 years now in receipt of reduced jobseeker's allowance; if this change has reduced the number of persons unemployed under the age of 26 years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17794/14]
I am sorry that the question is somewhat ambiguously drafted. I will explain what I am trying to ascertain. It relates to the substantial reduction in social welfare payments to people under the age of 26 on the basis that they should be encouraged to apply for jobs or training places. I am trying to ascertain how successful the change has been.
There were 300,590 recipients of jobseeker’s allowance at the end of December last year. Up to 100,000 of those were working part time or signing for credits and the number has fallen significantly since. Reduced rates for younger jobseeker’s allowance recipients were first introduced when Deputy O'Dea was a member of Government in 2009. Budget 2014 further extended the reduced rates of jobseeker’s allowance to recipients under 26 years of age.
The decision was made on foot of ongoing consideration of unemployment and incentives policy by the Government. The measure aims to incentivise young jobseeker’s allowance recipients to avail of education and training opportunities. A jobseeker in receipt of the reduced jobseeker’s allowance rate who participates in an education or training programme will receive a higher weekly payment of €160. Some 4,700 individuals under 26 years of age are entitled to a reduced rate of jobseeker’s allowance on SOLAS funded training courses. More young jobseekers, approximately 5,000, are also attending other courses operated by the education and training boards such as the vocational training opportunities scheme, VTOS, and Youthreach.
At the end of March 2014 there were 57,900 jobseeker’s allowance recipients under 26 years of age, of which 36,800 were in receipt of a reduced jobseeker’s allowance payment. The equivalent figures for December 2013, before the introduction of the Budget 2014 measures, was 65,400 because, thankfully, the rate of youth unemployment is falling significantly. We want to incentivise young people not to end up trapped on social welfare but to take opportunities for education and training, and to take up employment where it is available, which would pay them infinitely more. That was the reasoning behind the Deputy's Government introducing this measure in 2009.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Some 39,400 of those 65,400 jobseeker’s allowance recipients under 26 years of age in December 2013 were in receipt of a reduced jobseeker’s payment. When allowance is made for seasonal factors, the trend in the number of young people on the live register has been in line with the trend for the register overall in the early part of 2014. However, the impact of changes like this is likely to be gradual rather than immediate, and will need to be monitored over time.
In order to incentivise young jobseekers to avail of education and training opportunities and try to avoid them becoming welfare dependent from a young age, the changes made to Jobseeker’s allowance rates in 2009 were extended in budget 2014. This decision was made to encourage young jobseekers to improve their skills and to ensure that they are better placed to avail of a future employment opportunity. A cornerstone of the Government’s strategy to tackle youth unemployment will be the implementation of the youth guarantee, which will ensure that young people receive a quality offer of assistance within four months of becoming unemployed. This objective is to be achieved over time by enhancing the Intreo engagement with newly unemployed young people, and by maintaining and developing the current range of education, training and employment interventions for young people. The youth guarantee is already being piloted in Ballymun involving a partnership of key national and local stakeholders. The findings from this pilot, which is being mainly funded by the European Commission, will feed into the national roll-out of the guarantee.
I thank the Minister for the history lesson, but let me elaborate on her knowledge of history. Under the old scheme as introduced by the previous Government, if somebody was unable to access a training or education place, his or her social welfare was not reduced; now it is automatically reduced and that is the fundamental difference. There were many people under the age of 26 who could access employment, education or training. If they accessed education or training they would be better off so it was an incentive. In a reply to a parliamentary question of mine on 8 April, last week, the Minister told me that people between 16 and 25 who are in neither employment, education or training number 85,200. That is 85,200 young people, one in six people under the age of 26, who are neither earning nor learning. Will the Minister accept that the changes in the budget provided no incentive? If she does not, can she tell me how many people they incentivised? Does she accept that the changes in the budget were simply a device to cut the social welfare bill?
Who said the following?
In order to incentivise young people to avail of training and education opportunities and to prevent their becoming welfare-dependent from a young age, changes have been made to the jobseeker's allowance. This decision is not discriminatory but rather a targeted measure aimed at protecting young people from welfare dependency.
It was the Deputy's colleague, former Minister Mary Hanafin, in reply to Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh in April 2009. It is to give people a better opportunity, which so many young people are taking up. As we roll out the youth guarantee we will call in every young person under 26 years of age and over a period of time, particularly the people who are very hard to reach. There are people who left school early, went on social welfare, maybe got small bits of work but nothing that would constitute a well-paid job that would allow them to be financially independent. In the Ballymun pilot scheme young people are responding very positively to the engagement with our officials and people who are essentially helping to develop a life plan and go back into work and education. They get significantly more money as a consequence.
The difficulty is that the budget change was presented as a measure whereby if a person under the age of 26 could not get a job there would be a place in training or education readily available which he or she could avail of and get an increased allowance, 60% more in most cases. However, there are not enough training or education places for the young unemployed. By the Minister's admission last week, 85,200 people under the age of 26 are neither earning nor learning. How many training places are being made available for those people? Is it not true to say that many of them, including many who have been unemployed for more than four months, cannot access a place in training or education and that in those circumstances it is grossly unfair to cut their social welfare?
The Fianna Fáil-led Government introduced this measure.
No, I did not.
The Deputy must have been sitting at the Cabinet table at the time.
On a point of order, we introduced an entirely different measure.
I quoted the then Minister. The Deputy was in the Cabinet.
Hear, hear.
I do not want the Minister to mislead the House. We introduced an entirely different measure whereby if one could not access a course one's social welfare did not reduce.
Ah now, Willie.
Amnesia is all the rage in Fianna Fáil. Sometimes I wonder if they even remember the bank guarantee.
Yesterday somebody said the Labour Party is reduced to lying openly in the House.
The Deputy should withdraw that if he is implying it about me.
He should.
I quoted from his colleague as Minister. I suggest he withdraw his remark. I quoted the record of the House.
I will withdraw it on the basis that the Minister withdraws her assertion that the scheme she is introducing is exactly the same as the scheme we introduced. It is not.
I never said that.
The Minister used it in defence of her arguments, therefore she is implying it.
On a point of order, the Deputy opposite made an accusation of lying and should withdraw it unconditionally, with none of that smart aleck talk.
I will handle this. The Deputy has withdrawn his allegation. That is fine.
I made no assertion.
He did.
I simply quoted somebody who said-----
When the word "lying" is used that is the supposition so I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.
Correct.
I withdraw it on the basis that the Minister withdraws her assertion that the two schemes are exactly the same.
I am not sure what the Minister-----
I quoted from the Deputy's colleague when he was a Minister, then Minister and Deputy, Mary Hanafin. It is a straight quote from an answer to a parliamentary question.
Does the Minister accept that the schemes were different? The Minister quoted it out of context.
Some 105,650 places are being provided in 2014 including 6,000 by Youthreach and 7,700 by JobBridge. I could read them all but I will sent the Deputy the table. We anticipate and hope that an additional 28,000 young people will take up further courses this year. It is all set out in the table.
Send it to me.
Send it in large print.
5. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Social Protection the way rent allowance limits can differ so drastically by county and in local areas throughout the country, particularly in Waterford where the rent allowance limits are so much lower than in the neighbouring county of Kilkenny (details supplied); her views on whether the current rent limits brought in to run from June 2013 to December 2014 accurately reflect the recent rise in rents charged by landlords and whether this is resulting in a serious lack of availability of rental accommodation which would comply with the rental limits making it almost impossible for applicants to comply with the regulations; her views on whether the current rental limits need to be radically reviewed in line with local rents payable; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17797/14]
Could the Minister clarify to the House how the rent allowance scheme appears to differ so drastically from county to county? Does she agree that the rent limits set to run from June 2013 to December 2014 do not accurately reflect the recent rent rises charged by landlords?
There are approximately 78,000 rent supplement recipients for which the Government has provided over €344 million for 2014. Following the most recent review of the private rental market, revised maximum rent limits were introduced from Monday 17 June 2013 until 31 December 2014. For all counties, major urban population centres were tested to ensure access to housing and value for money. The Department used information from tenancies registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, to analyse actual costs in each county. The purpose of the most recent review is to ensure availability in the areas required, not to provide access to housing in all areas.
Despite pressures on the social protection budget, there have been increases in the rent limits in some areas, including Dublin and Galway, as well as reductions or no change in others. The limits for counties Waterford and Kilkenny reflected the respective prevailing rental markets and analysis shows there are properties available within these limits. I am fully aware that in some areas, particularly Dublin, prospective tenants are finding it increasingly difficult to secure accommodation due to reduced availability of supply. Increasing rent limits will not resolve this difficulty and would result in additional increases in costs for everyone who is renting, including those who are at work and who pay their rent out of their wages.
The Department continues to monitor trends in the private rental market. Its officials have considerable experience in dealing with clients of the scheme and continue to make every effort to ensure their accommodation needs are met. The Department’s strategic policy direction is to transfer responsibility for recipients of rent supplement with a long-term housing need to local authorities under the housing assistance payment, HAP. Officials are working closely with those in the lead Department, namely, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, in piloting HAP in Limerick with further roll-out to selected local authorities during the year.
It has been stated repeatedly that the varying rent levels nationwide are intended to fall in with the cost of rent in the private sector. However, if, for example, one takes a one-parent family or a couple in Waterford with one child, they must comply with a rent limit of €475 per month. The average for all dwellings let in Waterford in the final quarter of last year was €540. These are the Minister's own figures, as well as figures from the average rent database of the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. Consequently, it is incorrect to think rental levels are at one countrywide. Second, I believe the rents are only reviewed every 18 months. Moreover, decisions are taken at central or national level, often by people who are far removed from the reality facing tenants in receipt of rent supplement who are put to the pins of their collars trying to find a place to rent. I will provide an example to the Minister.
Sorry, Deputy, I call the Minister and will come back to you.
Based on the money available at present, for the aforementioned €475, a young family in Waterford would be lucky to get a one-bedroomed apartment. These are facts confirmed by the PRTB's average rent database.
First, this is a supply problem in a number of cities. I note the recent study on what are the likely requirements for housing and homes in the near future. I believe the only solution is to have a major investment in housing and to have a housebuilding programme. Unfortunately, the direct involvement of local authorities in housebuilding was abandoned by the previous Government at the height of the boom because at the time, it was thought the private market could provide for everything other than perhaps special needs accommodation for older people and those with particular needs. Consequently, this is a supply issue.
As for the specific area to which the Deputy referred, the rent limits are in line with the prevailing market conditions in Waterford. I suggest to the Deputy that if he has an issue, he should meet the official dealing with the rents because in many cases, particularly if there are any exceptional circumstances relating to the family or individual concerned, the community officers will be in a position to assist. However, there is an issue. I understand the area to which the Deputy refers is Ferrybank, which has a very small supply of houses for rent overall going back to the supply problem.
I call Deputy Halligan and will come back to the Minister.
First, applicants receive rent supplement on the basis that they have no other source of accommodation available to them. Otherwise, they would not be able to afford rental accommodation. The point is that in some areas throughout the country, rents have increased dramatically. It is incorrect to state it may only have increased in Dublin, Cork, Wicklow or wherever. Rents have increased in Waterford. All of the evidence is there from both the PRTB and the Department of Social Protection but yet, the limit has stayed as it is. All this is doing to many young couples is to force them into poverty, because they need some place to stay. They are not going to get onto the housing list - there are far too many people on that list - and inevitably must try to find rented accommodation. Yet, on an income that is nearly €130 less than in many other areas of the country, they are being asked to find such accommodation. My final point is it is €475 per month. While one can try to argue this with the Department, its representatives will reply these are the limits on which they have been told to work, namely, €475 per month. I have tried to do this, as have other Deputies and politicians in Waterford. It is not working and the Minister must change the rent allowance.
The Minister, in her final reply.
As the Deputy is aware, many people in Waterford who rent are being paid the rent supplement within the limits. The Deputy should remember that the limits were identified by an intensive and extensive survey of all of the current up-to-date data. One concern I have is that because the Department accounts for just under 40% of the total rental market, it will end up pushing up rents for everyone. When the rent was increased last year and when the changes were made, there was a general welcome for it. However, since then, there has been a huge amount of publicity, much of which encourages landlords to seek additional rents. However, as for those renting in the private sector and those in receipt of rent supplement, the evidence we have, because we know what people are renting-----
The Minister does not.
I do not believe so.
The evidence I have is that many people are able to rent. However, there is an issue in respect of housing and the way to deal with that, as part of the construction strategy, would be to recommence significant amounts of housing construction. That in turn would ease the pressures on rents as more supply becomes available.
