I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and detailed reply. I welcome the removal of the six-month rule, a provision which, when introduced by the Minister's predecessor, was to provide for people not on local authority housing lists and which improved matters to some degree in my constituency. The removal of that rule will further improve matters.
The exclusion of the spouse of a person in full-time work from receipt of rent supplement is an issue which needs to be broadly debated. I acknowledge the issue of housing and accommodation should not, in all probability, come within the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. However, as things stand, we must deal with it in that regard. I and many of my colleagues have encountered people who, because of that exclusion, have had to give up their employment. We want to keep people in employment. The cost of rented accommodation continues to spiral. Many people on modest incomes, one in employment and the other who remains at home, can make a case for rent supplement. The combination of one income plus rent supplement enables such people, who are not eligible for housing, to retain private rented accommodation.
We will have to put in place a scheme whereby those in private rented accommodation in receipt of a modest income, pending local authority housing to deal with the unprecedented number of people on the housing lists, are not excluded under that provision. We cannot have a system whereby such people are being reported although we want to discourage such practices. We are all aware that there are people in private rented accommodation who are not disclosing that their partner is in employment. I do not know to what extent such practices exist but there is a degree of it taking place. When discovered, such people change accommodation and continue as before. Alternatively, one of the couple must give up work. This leaves an anomaly that must be teased out and examined.
Another issue is the refusal of housing authority accommodation. I note the Minister has increased the number of refusals allowed from two to three. Colleagues from different constituencies or people in the market might ask how we have a situation where somebody in need of housing can refuse accommodation once, twice or three times. In my local authority area, which runs from Balbriggan in the north to Dublin 15, all applicants are encompassed in a general housing list. There has been a worthwhile tradition to try to keep families, particularly young couples or single parents starting off, as close as possible to their parents for family support. However, we could now have a situation where somebody in Balbriggan in need of housing is offered a house in Dublin 15. For obvious reasons that person will say they want to remain close to family support and refuse the accommodation offered. The authority will then count that as a refusal and a mark against them. They could be offered another house in another location miles away from their home and refuse again. The situation is then critical. Under duress they must accept the next offer and are left in a limbo situation with no family support.
Another issue, unfortunately, is that accommodation is offered in areas where there is anti-social behaviour. I do not know whether this pertains in other parts of the country. Some houses in these areas are boarded up and people who want to try to make a go of life and bring up their families are advised clearly that if they move in, they are moving into an area where there is a history of drug addiction and everything else in a particular estate. A young girl looking at that scenario might well say she is not prepared under any circumstances to accept the accommodation, which is another mark against her.
Previously, people could refuse twice, but now we have an improvement with a third refusal allowed. In the context of discussions the Department will have on an ongoing basis with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the local authorities, we must be conscious of these anomalies. I am not in favour of and will not support anybody who tries to abuse or use the system and refuse offers for reasons that are not above board. However, there are genuine anomalies in the system that must be examined.
The previous Minister stated another system was pending. She said that anyone who was receiving rent supplement for 18 months or more would have his or her case reviewed by a community welfare officer and, if deemed in need of long-term housing, the case would be passed on to the local authority. The local authority would do the assessment of housing need and take over the payment of rent supplement. Options available to tenants would include continuing to rent from the existing landlord, moving to accommodation provided under a public private partnership or moving to local authority accommodation. There were supposed to be a number of pilot schemes before the implementation of that scheme. What progress, if any, has been made in that regard?