asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that an old age pensioner (name and address supplied) is required to pay increased rent to Dublin Corporation because of an increase in her contributory pension; and whether he approves of this action by the local authority in effectively reducing the woman's income which totals 52/6 per week.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Increase in Pensioner's Rent.
21.
I understand from Dublin Corporation that the person referred to by the Deputy receives a contributory widow's pension, that increases in such pensions are taken into account in the corporation's present differential rent scheme, and that an increase of 6d per week is payable in this particular case as a result of the 10/- increase in the weekly pension rate.
I have already recommended Dublin Corporation, as well as all other housing authorities, to review their rent policies comprehensively with the object of ensuring that rents are related to ability to pay, and to the standard of accommodation provided, and that no one in need of rehousing should suffer hardship on account of inability to pay rent. By securing reasonable rents from those who are able to pay, it should be possible for housing authorities to make concessions in regard to the reckoning, for rent purposes, of such items as increases in social welfare payments. Any such proposal which the corporation may make as part of their comprehensive rent review will be sympathetically considered.
That is no use to the widow in Ballyfermot, is it? I am very well aware of the Minister's desire to see the rents raised and his recommendation to the corporation to have the rents raised, but that is another day's battle. This is the case of a woman living on 52/6 a week and the corporation, because of the increase in her contributory pension, propose to increase her rent. The Minister refers to 6d a week—an awful lot of money to a woman trying to live on that miserable sum. I ask him to tell the corporation that this is not good enough and that they should not do it.
There is no reply to Question No. 19.
We have passed from Question No. 19. I have it marked here as having been answered.
It was answered separately.
Surely I am entitled to raise this on behalf of, undoubtedly, a very humble citizen?
I want, first of all, to nail the allegation that I am deliberately trying to increase rents. This is unfounded. I am trying to have them reviewed so that rents may be reduced and that the corporation and other authorities will be able to do so for people such as those we are talking about here. If the Deputy reads the full reply which I have given, the last couple of sentences will indicate that my sympathies are in the direction the Deputy wishes them to go.
That is all in the sweet bye-and-bye when a scheme comes up for approval. I am asking the Minister to tell the corporation that they should be ashamed of themselves for increasing the rent of this person who is trying to live on 52/6d a week.
The Deputy knows that the system under which this rent was raised has been in operation for some considerable time. What was the Deputy doing in the years it has been in operation?
The Minister is deliberately suggesting something which is untrue and he must have been deaf when I was talking about it in this House.