Apologies have been received from Deputy Brian Stanley, for whom Deputy Dessie Ellis will substitute. The meeting has been convened for the purpose of consideration of Committee Stage of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014. We will, if necessary, continue until 2.15 p.m., at which time, if we have not completed Committee Stage, we will adjourn until a later date. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Committee Stage
I must leave before 12.30 p.m.
We will get through Committee Stage as quickly as we can. I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and planning at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. I also welcome the officials from her Department - Mr. John O'Neill, Mr. Gabriel O'Duffy and Ms Lisa Clifford - and the Department of Social Protection - Ms Jackie Harrington and Mr. Brian Duff. I thank everyone for attending and invite the Minister of State to make her opening statement.
I am pleased to be present for the Committee Stage debate. On Second Stage I referred to this Bill as substantial legislation and a significant change in how we delivered housing support. I will briefly outline some of the issues covered in the amendments that I will move, particularly the additional aspects relating to the operation of the housing assistance payment, HAP, the legal framework for which is provided by the Bill. These provisions were still under development during our Second Stage debate. The first of two particular amendments will provide for a formal internal review process in respect of certain decisions on the operation of the HAP. The second will make the necessary amendments to the social welfare code subsequent to the introduction of the HAP. There are also a number of amendments to section 49 on foot of views expressed by the Minister for Social Protection during the consultation process on the Bill. These amendments are, in the main, designed to streamline the legislative provision for direct deduction in order to bring it into line with legislative and operational requirements in the Department of Social Protection. We have also tabled an amendment to allow the Housing Finance Agency to lend to the Local Government Management Agency. A number of other minor amendments will be tabled, as is the case on most Bills. That is the general scope of the amendments I propose to make to the Bill.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8
Amendments Nos. 1, 12, 13, 18, 20 and 27 are related and will be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 10, line 28, to delete "the authority and the tenant" and substitute the following:
"the authority is satisfied that the failure to make a repayment or pay rent on a due date was due to circumstances outside the household’s control and the authority and the tenant".
These six amendments are proposed to update and harmonise the approach taken in the Bill to disqualifications from social housing support arising from arrears of rent owed to housing authorities or approved housing bodies. The fundamental objective of the amendments is to relax the rent arrears disqualification by not applying it where the housing authority or approved housing body is satisfied that the household's failure to keep up the repayments of rent arrears agreed to under rescheduling arrangements is due to circumstances beyond the household's control, for example, because the tenant has been laid off from his or her job. Amendment No. 1 relates to section 8(2)(f) of the Bill and provides that a tenancy warning relating to rent arrears shall, in setting out the possible consequences of not paying off rent arrears, refer to the relaxation of the rent arrears disqualification where non-payment of rescheduled payments is due to factors outside the household's control.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 to section 23 are linked with and update the rent arrears disqualification relating to the purchase of a dwelling under Part 3. Amendment No. 18 amends section 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 to relax the existing rent arrears disqualification from eligibility for social housing support in the manner I have outlined. This amendment also extends the disqualification to cover arrears of rent owed to an approved housing body, as well as a housing authority.
Amendment No. 20 makes three amendments to the 2009 Act, two of which relax the existing rent arrears disqualification from eligibility to allow tenant purchases of newly built or newly acquired local authority housing under Part 3 of that Act or, under Part 4, local authority apartments. The amendments extend the rent arrears disqualification to cover arrears of rent owed to an approved housing body, as well as to a housing authority. Amendment No. 20 also deletes from the 2009 Act the requirement that an incremental purchaser of a newly built or newly acquired local authority house will, during the charge period, obtain the prior written consent of the housing authority to carry out material improvements to the house. This will make it easier for purchasers to improve their homes, with consequent benefits for the construction sector generally.
Amendment No. 27 amends the new subsection (5A) proposed to be inserted in section 20 of the 2009 Act.
The amendment brings the disqualification from continued social housing support relating to rent arrears into line with the other disqualifications relating to rent arrears by providing that a household in arrears of rent shall not cease to qualify for social housing support where the household's failure to repay rent arrears in accordance with rescheduling arrangements is, in the opinion of the housing authority or approved housing body concerned, due to circumstances outside the household's control. The main purpose of these amendments is to disapply the various statutory disqualifications from social housing supports relating to rent arrears in cases where the household's failure to meet repayment commitments is due to circumstances beyond its control. It is an easing of the situation in light of the fact that for many people the reason they cannot repay is because they have lost their jobs.
Sometimes the arrears are not real arrears in that owing to staffing issues, local authorities only review cases annually and a person may lose his or her job following a review resulting in a change in his or her circumstances for that year and this is only amended the following year. A different approach may be required to ensure that the arrears are not over-stated. It is a situation which I have come across. Local authorities differ in terms of how they apply the rule. I do not have any difficulty with the amendments but simply want to draw the Minister of State's attention to how arrears are arising.
Tenants are advised to inform the local authorities of difficulties as soon as they arise. I know that tenants might not always do that but it would be the preferable course of action to take. I take on board the Deputy's point.
Even when tenants do inform local authorities of their difficulties the local authorities, in some cases, will not do anything about it until year end. People who have never been in arrears before then panic because they believe they will be liable to pay rent which is substantially above their ability to pay because of changing circumstances. There must be some flexibility within the local authorities to review cases on a quarterly basis. The idea that cases can only be reviewed once a year when circumstances can change dramatically at any time puts people under significant pressure because they do not know the amount they should be paying and this causes problems in terms of household budgeting and so on. I ask that the Minister of State take on board how this matter is actually being dealt with by the local authorities and to ensure there is a uniform approach in this regard.
We will be communicating regularly with them on all issues. We will probably have in place improved IT systems because of the introduction of the housing assistance payment, HAP, which will also facilitate that relationship.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 16, line 29, after "than" to insert ", where there is no joint tenant,".
This is a minor amendment which will bring the provisions of section 12(12) of the Bill into line with section 19(4)(a) of the Bill which updates section 3(2) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 to empower a housing authority to apply in specified circumstances for an excluding order against a tenant where that tenant is a joint tenant. Under current law a joint tenant may seek an excluding order against the other joint tenant of the dwelling in specified circumstances. Amendment No. 2 provides that where a possession application is being sought in the District Court on the grounds of anti-social behaviour, the court will be empowered to treat the possession application as if it were an application by a housing authority for an exclusion order under section 3 of the 1997 Act, as revised. Effectively, if the person engaged in anti-social behaviour is a joint tenant the court has the discretion to consider making an excluding order against that tenant rather than making a possession order that has the effect of putting the entire household out of the dwelling. It will remain the case following enactment of the Bill that a housing authority will not be able to seek an excluding order against a sole tenant.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 18, lines 26 and 27, to delete "but a date so specified shall not be in respect of a date that is more than 6 months" and substitute "but the date so specified shall not be more than 6 months".
This is a technical amendment to improve the readability of subsection (9) of section 13. Subsection (9) relates to a possession order in respect of a local authority dwelling, in respect of which there is no tenancy or it has been abandoned and is occupied by an illegal occupier, and provides the housing authority with the right to repossess the dwelling within six months of the date of the order. The amendment seeks only to make the subsection more readable rather than make any substantial change to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14
Amendments Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 20, line 21, to delete "an employee" and substitute "an officer or employee".
These amendments relate to section 14 which specifies the steps that a housing authority must take in order to enter an abandoned dwelling for the purposes of securing the property against vandalism or trespassers or making safe any electrical, gas or water supply in the dwelling. The amendments are textual and seek to update the terminology in the section by changing references to "an employee" of the housing authority to "an officer or employee" of the housing authority. These amendments will ensure that the relevant powers in the section are conferred on all categories of local authority staff and remove any possibility of doubt about whether a particular staff member can exercise the powers concerned.
Amendment No. 4 provides for a local authority staff member to provide information on oath to the District Court in support of an application for an entry warrant; amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 provide that a local authority staff member may enter a dwelling in accordance with the section and amendment No. 8 provides that a local authority staff member may accompany another local authority staff member entering the dwelling in accordance with the section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 20, line 32, to delete "An employee" and substitute "An officer or employee".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 20, line 39, to delete "an employee" and substitute "an officer or employee".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 21, line 2, to delete "that employee" and substitute "a named officer or employee".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 21, line 3, to delete "employee" and substitute "officer or employee".
SECTION 19
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
As amendment No. 10 is consequential on amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 28, to delete line 16.
This amendment arises out of an issue which I raised on Second Stage. Some of the anti-social behaviour in this area is being caused by minors. According to the Garda Síochána there is very little it can do when there is a minor involved. While I acknowledge that the Bill does not provide for an excluding order in respect of minors, I am seeking a multi-agency approach to address the anti-social behaviour problem. It is often the case that particularly vulnerable people are being terrorised by five, six or more youngsters who are aware they are above reproach. This issue needs to be addressed. I do not believe this is necessarily only a court issue. It is also a child welfare issue in that often these youngsters are not attending school. There is a whole range of issues involved. While the issue may not be one for address in this Bill there is a need for a different approach if we are to break the cycle of anti-social behaviour.
It can be a very costly cycle. I am aware of someone who has caused extensive damage to public and private properties - I refer not just to one person but to several - and this is behaviour that has been replicated around the country. How can we deal with the situation? What legislation covers these activities? What legislation can impose a legal obligation on local authorities to engage with other agencies? Unless one legally forces change, one will not change the culture of how the situation is handled.
I will outline my experience of what happens when a tenant liaison officer is involved. He or she will deal with the situation and will liaise with a juvenile liaison officer if there is one. Often one finds that problems at home have led to such behaviour. The problem will not be resolved unless one gets the ringleader, breaks the cycle and demonstrates that there are consequences to their actions. Moving them on is not good enough. The problem must be tackled head-on. Moving them on just means they will do exactly the same thing somewhere else, which is true where minors are involved. The agencies should be required to do something about this type of behaviour and resolve these cases, perhaps with the aid of child welfare training and a JLO, which several of us have sought for many years. That must be done before things get out of control.
We have all come across cases of anti-social behaviour involving minors. Going down the road of excluding them is not possible because they are below age. There is merit in what Deputy Catherine Murphy has said about her amendment. She suggested that a multi-agency approach could be utilised. I think it would be worthwhile to look at the amendment.
First, I agree with the Deputies that a multi-agency approach is appropriate. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment because it involves the granting of an exclusion order. Second, a balance must be struck between the rights of the respondents and the rights of the community. The adjudication of the balance to be struck in an individual case is most appropriately determined by the court. It should not be influenced by a statutory provision giving the right of one party priority over the rights of the other party. That is the legal process that is contained in this section.
I support a multi-agency approach. We are liaising with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs on the implementation of this legislation, particularly with regard to minors. If the Deputy wishes, I can return and report on those discussions. It may well be more appropriate - if it is appropriate legislatively at all - that it not be done in the context of an exclusion order but in some other way. I support the concept of adopting a multi-agency approach but I cannot accept it here in the context of a determination by the court.
The Child and Family Agency will also liaise with the Garda and will probably act as the link authority.
We must find a mechanism to achieve what is sought by the Deputy, but I do not think that we can do so in this part of the Bill.
I ask the Minister of State to come back to me about the matter and I will not press my amendment.
SECTION 22
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 19 agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 is in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy and amendment No. 21 is in the name of Deputy Barry Cowen. The amendments will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 37, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(4) A housing authority shall ensure that, unless otherwise directed by resolution of the elected members of the local authority to which the housing authority is subject, 100 per cent of the proceeds garnered from the sale of a house under this Part shall be retained by the local authority for the specific purpose of providing further accommodation.".
My amendment seeks to have 100% of the funds generated by the sale of local authority houses retained in order to build new houses. The argument that people should be able to buy houses should not be made at the expense of an ongoing turnover of housing stock that is available to other people. We have seen over the years that due to the sale of local authority houses, the turnover across the lifetime of a house is reduced. My amendment is the only way I can see of protecting the housing stock while at the same time providing housing stock from the funds generated by sales.
My amendment seeks to provide for the purchase by existing tenants of dwellings owned by voluntary housing associations, along with incremental purchase arrangements. The proceeds derived from same will be retained by approved bodies for the provision of housing or, in exceptional circumstances, will be retained by local authorities for the repair and maintenance of existing stock, where funds have been depleted for such provision in recent years.
I wish to comment on what Deputy Catherine Murphy said about the sale of houses by local authorities to tenants. I have said that the money should be ring-fenced, when I spoke on the housing Bill previously, and used to fund the purchase of new housing to add to the housing stock instead of being whittled away or used for other areas by a local authority. The revenue generated should be ring-fenced. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to table an amendment on the subject and missed the deadline for submission. I am also a member of another committee, and it is hard to keep an eye on what is happening. I shall try to find a mechanism for the committee to let me know when housing items are coming up. It is very important that the initiative contained in the amendment be implemented.
I cannot accept these amendments because they duplicate an existing enactment in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. Section 13 of the 2009 Act provides that capital moneys accruing to a housing authority from a number of sources, including the sale of a dwelling under the old tenant purchase scheme provided by the 1966 Act, or the two incremental purchase schemes provided for in the 2009 Act, will be ring-fenced in a separate account and, "subject to the prior approval of the Minister, may be used for the provision of housing or for the refurbishment or maintenance of existing housing, or any other related purposes." Furthermore, section 32(a) of this Bill amends section 13 of the 2009 Act to provide that money accruing from the sale of a dwelling under Part 3 of the Bill will also be subject to the provisions of section 13.
For similar reasons, I cannot accept amendment No. 21, which proposes to insert a new subsection 1A into section 44 of the Act of 2009. It would appear to be an attempt to extend the incremental purchase arrangements for newly built local authority houses, as provided for in Part 3 of the 2009 Act, to existing local authority housing. The proposed amendment is unnecessary as it is already encompassed by the provision in Part 3 of the Bill underpinning a purchase scheme for existing dwellings along incremental purchase lines.
Section 13 of the 2009 Act states:
Any moneys accruing to a housing authority from
(a) the sale of a dwelling owned ...
(b) the resale of a dwelling ...
The list continues, and at the end it reads "... shall be accounted for by the housing authority in a separate account and, subject to the prior approval of the Minister, may be used for the provision of housing or for the refurbishment or maintenance of existing housing, or any other related purposes." It is in that sense that I say the provision already exists.
Is that provision part of the general Government deficit? Is there flexibility to use the money for the purpose of housing? Are there moneys in the fund? We know it is retained at each local authority level, but do we know what is in the fund?
I understand that it is available and retained at local authority level. I can come back to the Deputy with more practical information. The provision exists and perhaps it should be more publicly known.
Is it possible to go a step further than the 2009 legislation that the Minister of State just quoted? Can the provision "to hereby instruct local authorities from here on to retain the funds for the purposes provided for in the previous Act" be included? The provision needs to be strengthened rather than await ministerial approval.
Is there no provision in the Bill for the purchase of units from bodies other than local authorities or housing associations? It is an issue that must be addressed, as people must be allowed to step up and purchase units rather than continuing a never-ending rental agreement.
Do local authorities need the approval of the Minister or the Minister of State in order to build council houses? From what I can see, local authorities have no freedom to make decisions about providing housing or taking money from elsewhere in the capital budget, allocating it to housing and deciding to build houses. Should we not give as much freedom and flexibility as possible to local authorities to make decisions about the housing they need and how they would use the funding available?
The Minister of State mentioned the 2009 Act and described what is allowed. There is too much flexibility. Deputy Catherine Murphy has been saying that this should be ring-fenced. The amendment gives a considerable amount of scope for where the money should go. It should be narrowed down, even if this involves changing the Act so that the money is ring-fenced. There is too much scope for the money to be used elsewhere. If we are selling off social housing to tenants and not replacing housing and there is flexibility to use the money elsewhere, we are taking the wrong approach.
This is a legacy issue and is not of the making of the Minister of State. There were major sell-offs over the years and it has sometimes been seen as a windfall for the State. In fact, this is a short-term approach because we end up in a situation, as we have at the moment, in which it costs a fortune to deliver houses because of the shortage. Unless we do something to change this, where there is a direct relationship between the sale of a local authority house and the ability to replace the housing stock, we will continue with the same set of circumstances down the road. It may be that the legislation is not here for six months but will involve a long-term change. We must look at this in the long term and, if it provides for the sale, it should equally provide for the retention of the funds and the replacement of the housing. The proportion of the population that requires local authority or social housing units will not change dramatically. If we do not provide for it through this mechanism, I will oppose the idea that we allow sales without the provision.
To answer the question posed by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, if local authorities have money, they can build houses-----
With the approval of the Department.
-----provided they get planning permission. We all know about the general restrictions in that regard. They are telling me that they do not have money. With regard to vacant houses, local authorities are telling me they do not have the money to do up the really bad ones and that they must get money from the State to do so. Deputy Catherine Murphy or Deputy Barry Cowen raised the question of whether we need to do this through legislation or whether we need the Minister of State to tell the local authorities to use the money. We can look at doing this by regulation, by direction or by a circular but I share the view that, if money is available, it should be used for the provision of housing. There is already legislation in place to address the specific issue and the amendments. If I can use some other method of ensuring that available money is used, I will do so. Deputy Catherine Murphy said there was a lot of money in the past but I suspect there is not much money at the moment. If they have money, I would want it to be used for the provision of housing.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Section 22(3) states:
(3) The purchase of a house under this Part does not apply to—
(a) a separate and self-contained dwelling in a building that—
(i) is divided into a dwelling and one or more dwellings or other properties or both, and
This refers to flats or maisonettes. I think it is unfair on the people in flats and maisonettes. Notwithstanding my agreement with Deputy Catherine Murphy on the point that the State should replace any housing it sells on a house-by-house basis, if we have a tenant purchase scheme it should apply equally to everyone. It is not fair otherwise. In our area, people get allocated whatever house they are allocated and it may be a self-standing house or it may be a maisonette. In the older parts of Dun Laoghaire and Monkstown Farm, people live in the up-down flats and they cannot buy them. The same applies to some of the new apartment complexes. This is not fair and it is discrimination against people who are allocated a flat or a maisonette. I ask the Minister of State whether she agrees it is unfair and discriminatory and whether she will remove the exclusion from the Bill.
Legislation already exists providing for the sale of flats but it does not apply to the different types of dwelling to which the Deputy refers, such as maisonettes. I do not have the precise detail of why certain types are excluded, but legislation exists for the sale of flats, although the measure has not had a huge uptake.
Maybe I am reading the Bill wrong, but it seems clear. It is pretty clear and it seems it applies to any apartment complex or maisonette. This is specifically excluding apartments and flats from the provisions of the tenant purchase scheme. Does Minister of State think that is fair and reasonable? I do not think it is, and it should be removed.
Apartments are not included because, under Part IV of the 2009 Act, section 50 relates to the tenant purchase of apartments. A portion of the 2009 Act already deals with the sale of apartments. There is an issue in respect of maisonettes and common areas. I acknowledge that there is an issue, but there is a facility for the purchase of apartments. It is on page 57 and 58 of the 2009 Act. We can go into the matter in greater detail on Report Stage, provided the procedure allows for it.
I must examine that section of the other Bill. Does this provision override the existing provision? Why is this particular tenant purchase scheme different?
The scheme for apartments is in existence, whereas the former tenant purchase scheme is gone, so we are introducing a new one to replace it.
It is along the lines of the one already in place for apartments in so far as it is an incremental purchase scheme.
I can come back to the issue on Report Stage now that I have flagged it. Is that correct?
Yes.
I can be helpful to Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett. Several councils have already agreed to bring forward a pilot scheme for the purchase of flats under the previous legislation. However, there are several problems relating to bills, common areas, management companies and the percentage of purchases within a complex.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 have already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 37, line 20, to delete “the tenant” and substitute “subject to subsection (2), the tenant”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 37, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(2) In applying subsection (1)(a)(ii), a housing authority shall disregard the case where the authority or the approved body concerned is satisfied that the failure of the tenant or household member concerned to substantially comply with the terms of the rescheduling arrangements was due to circumstances outside the control of such tenant or household member.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 39, to delete lines 22 and 23.
This amendment is to section 25(2) and deletes the requirement that a tenant purchaser of an existing local authority house will, during the period of the incremental purchase of the property, have to obtain the prior written consent of the housing authority to carry out material improvements to the house. This will make it easier for purchasers to improve their homes, with consequent benefits for the construction sector generally.
I have this point underlined. The Minister of State is planning to remove section 25(2)(f). Is that correct?
We are removing the requirement to obtain prior written consent to make improvements.
The Minister of State is removing the line "the purchaser shall not, without the prior consent of the housing authority, make material improvements to the house". Is that the case?
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 26 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 45, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“ Part 3 and amendment of Principal Act
31. The Principal Act is amended in section 90—
(a) by deleting subsections (1)(a)(i), (2), (3), (4A) and (6A), and
(b) in subsection (7), by deleting paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and by substituting the following for paragraph (l):
“(l) in the case of a sale under this section, the obtaining of the consent of the Minister to the sale;”.”.
I am proposing these three amendments which arise from the provisions of Part 3 providing for a new incremental purchase scheme for tenants of existing local authority houses. With the enactment of Part 3, the amendments will repeal the tenant purchase provisions of section 90 of the Housing Act 1966 and related provisions.
Amendment No. 15 will delete from the Statue Book the tenant purchase provisions of section 90 of the Housing Act 1966, under which the 1995 tenant purchase schemes and previous national purchase schemes operated, thus providing a clear legislative basis for the new scheme. The provisions of section 90 relating to the sale of local authority dwellings to persons other than tenants will continue in force.
Amendment No. 16 repeals section 26(2) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 which was a transitional arrangement consequent on the substitution, under the 1992 Act, of an entirely new text for section 90 of the 1966 Act. This enactment is now out of date.
Amendment No. 17 is to section 10 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 and changes the reference to section 90 of the 1966 Act to reflect the narrower scope of the enactment following the proposed repeal of the tenant purchase provisions of section 90 provided for in amendment No. 15.
If the Minister of State is going to change it, do we know to what it will be changed? Clearly, there would have been well known discount criteria for persons more than ten years in a local authority house. Obviously, they be tapered. If I recall correctly, a person had to be in a house one or two years - it may have been three years - before becoming eligible to purchase it. Is this the type of arrangement with which the Minister of State intends to continue? What does she have in mind in that regard?
Another issue is the availability of mortgages. I presume it is exactly the same arrangement that would apply in the event that a person is turned down by a bank or a building society or two banks. In such cases the local authority can consider funding a mortgage. There have been significant problems with some of the mortgages offered. For example, this does not apply to tenant purchases. In the case of shared ownership loans, what lessons have been learned about the age profile of people who wish to purchase but who are unable to buy or are significantly in arrears because their work circumstances have changed? Has this occurred mainly where people are in affordable housing or houses on a shared ownership basis? From my experience of people going through the local authority in looking for a mortgage, the criteria are stricter. Obviously, ability to purchase a house will be an issue, if a person is to be treated in exactly the same way as if going to a bank or a building society.
The tenant purchase scheme now going out of date was certainly an attractive one. I am unsure of the intention. The Minister of State could put in place a scheme similar to the one in place and renew it on that basis. Under that scheme, if a person was a tenant for ten years, he or she received extra discounts, etc. I am somewhat concerned that the scheme will not be as attractive, as there is no indication of what will happen. What are we looking at in this regard? While we are abolishing the previous scheme, I remain unclear on what will be put in its place. That makes it rather difficult to be objective in considering the legislation. Perhaps the Minister of State might tell us what plans she has or what she intends to put in place.
What we are proposing is a relatively generous scheme, but we have not yet drafted all of the regulations. There is no reason I should not give the committee some indication of what we hope will be included in them and I will do so as soon as I can. We hope the discounts will be related far more to income than was the case in the past, when it was mainly a matter of length of tenancy. At issue is the provision of discounts of up to 60% for persons on low incomes.
(Interruptions).
I am delighted Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett is so impressed.
That should help to address the issue of arrears. The intention is that this will be far more related to ability to pay and income than previous schemes. However, matters such as work done will be taken into account, where somebody has carried out improvements on their home while living in it.
The general scheme will be generous. I am not sure when we will be in a position to publish an outline of the regulations for the information of members as I am not sure how far along we are in drafting them, but it would obviously be helpful to the members if I could give them as much information as possible regarding the planned scheme.
What about the arrears?
There were significant arrears in respect of local authority tenant purchase and mortgages generally with local authorities. There are significant arrears anyway among people who have mortgages of one type or another, and because local authority mortgages tend to involve people who are in lower income bands, they tend to be under a great deal of stress. I have probably provided replies to parliamentary questions on the level of arrears, but I can get the Deputy that information. They are significant. One of the elements of this scheme is that it is more related to income, so we should not run into those difficulties as often as has occurred in the past.
The other question was about the availability of finance. There are more strict criteria now. Will that be true of the local authorities?
I do not know of any plans to change the scheme relating to local authority loans in terms of getting two refusals and so forth. I have some concerns about cases in which people have been refused loans even though one would be of the view that they should be in a position to repay them. I am trying to ascertain whether that must be examined. We must be very careful about these things because we do not wish to lend to people who will not have the ability to repay a loan, but I think it must be re-examined every now and then to ascertain whether it is too strict. People will generally say that if one gets a refusal from two banks or building societies, one is quite likely to be refused by the local authority as well. That is something on which I wish to make inquiries. The members would probably all be aware of cases in which one would be of the opinion that the people concerned would have the ability to repay and that, rather than have them privately renting or renting from a council, they should be given fair consideration in terms of purchase.
I am concerned about considering the income rather than the tenancy when estimating what discount will be given. It was always the tenancy that was considered, and it was then up to the individuals to get the money, be it through the banks or the local authority. If we are to base it on income, what about a situation such as occurred in the past where family members have been able to help with the purchase? I am a little concerned that we are moving in that direction and not looking at the tenancy, whereby it is then up to the individual to seek to raise the money. I believe this will put a big obstacle in the way of some families.
I believe income is one good criterion, but there should be a few criteria. We should have a textured position on it. Deputy Ellis makes a good point about relatives and family who might be willing to assist. If that can help people, it should be taken into account. The other matter that was taken into account in the past was how long one had been in the house. People will regularly say, "I have been here for 30 years and I have probably paid two mortgages." I do not know if they have paid two mortgages but they have paid a great deal of money and have made a big contribution in rent over a long period of time. They would say that should be taken into consideration in deciding what the sale price would be. A number of matters must be taken into account in drafting a fairer scheme that gives people the maximum opportunity.
I will try to publish an outline of what we have in mind as quickly as possible. That will give members a sense of it and an opportunity to debate it before we sign off on the regulations.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 45, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“ Part 3 and amendment of Act of 1992
32. The Act of 1992 is amended by deleting section 26(2).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 45, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“(a) in section 10(a) by substituting the following for subparagraph (iv):
“(iv) the sale, or consent to the sale, of a dwelling under section 90(1)(b) of the Principal Act to a person other than another housing authority;”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 46, to delete lines 6 to 18 and substitute the following:
“(c) in section 20 by substituting the following for subsection (5):
“(5) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a household shall not be eligible for social housing support where—
(i) at any time during the 3 years immediately before the carrying out of the social housing assessment, the household or a member of his or her household was in arrears of rent, rent contributions, charges, fees or loan repayments or any other moneys due and owing to a housing authority or an approved body for an accumulated period of 12 weeks or more in respect of a dwelling or site to which Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Act of 2009 relates, and
(ii) the household or the member concerned has not entered into rescheduling arrangements with the housing authority or approved body concerned for the payment of such arrears, or, having entered into such arrangements, has not, in the opinion of the authority or body, substantially complied with their terms.
(b) The failure of a household or household member to substantially comply with the terms of rescheduling arrangements shall be disregarded in any case where the housing authority or approved body concerned is satisfied that the failure was due to circumstances outside the control of such household or household member.”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 46, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(f) in section 43(1) by substituting the following for paragraph (a) in the definition of “eligible household”:
“(a) a household assessed by a housing authority under section 20 as being qualified for social housing support, which has been allocated a dwelling to which this Part applies in accordance with an allocation scheme, and which applies to purchase the dwelling under this Part within 5 years from the date of such allocation, or”,”.
This amendment to Part 3 of the 2009 Act is required to clarify that in order for a household off the waiting list to be eligible to purchase a new house designated for incremental purchase the household must apply to purchase under Part 3 of the 2009 Act within five years of the date of being allocated the tenancy of that house. This was always the intention of the original provision but the existing wording of paragraph (a) of the definition of "eligible household" could be read as requiring the household to complete the purchase of the house within five years of allocation. This would be too onerous a requirement. I am proposing this amendment to make it clear that the requirement is for the household to apply to purchase within five years of being allocated the house. If the household does not apply to purchase under Part 3 of the 2009 Act within five years of allocation, the household will of course be eligible to apply to purchase the house under the new scheme of tenant purchase that I will introduce for existing local authority houses under Part 3 of this Bill.
I hope it is clear from the amendment that the household should have started the purchase, not that it shall have to complete it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 46, to delete lines 25 to 42, and in page 47, to delete lines 1 to 11 and substitute the following:
“(f) in section 43 by substituting the following for subsection (2):
“(2) (a) A housing authority shall not proceed with the sale of a dwelling under an incremental purchase arrangement to a household referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of ‘eligible household’ in subsection (1) where—
(i) at any time during the 3 years immediately before applying to the authority to purchase a dwelling under this Part, the household or a household member was in arrears of rent, rent contributions, charges, fees or any other moneys due and owing to a housing authority or an approved body for an accumulated period of 12 weeks or more in respect of a dwelling or site to which Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Act of 2009 relates, and
(ii) subject to paragraph (b), the household or the member concerned has not entered into rescheduling arrangements with the housing authority or approved body concerned for the payment of such arrears, or, having entered into such arrangements, has not, in the opinion of the authority or body, substantially complied with their terms.
(b) In applying paragraph (a)(ii), a housing authority shall disregard the case where the authority or approved body concerned is satisfied that the failure of the household or the member concerned to substantially comply with the terms of the rescheduling arrangements was due to circumstances outside the control of such household or member.”,
(g) in section 45(2) by deleting paragraph (d),
(h) in section 64(9) by substituting the following for paragraph (a):
“(a) where—
(i) at any time during the 3 years immediately before applying to the authority to purchase an apartment under this Part, the tenant or a member of his or her household was in arrears of rent, rent contributions, charges, fees or any other moneys due and owing for an accumulated period of 12 weeks or more to a housing authority or an approved body in respect of a dwelling or site to which Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Act of 2009 relates, and
(ii) subject to subsection (9A), the tenant or the household member has not entered into rescheduling arrangements with the housing authority or approved body concerned for the payment of such arrears, or, having entered into such arrangements, has not, in the opinion of the authority or body, substantially complied with their terms,”,
and
(i) in section 64 by inserting the following subsection after subsection (9):
“(9A) In applying subsection (9)(a)(ii), a housing authority shall disregard the case where the authority or approved body concerned is satisfied that the failure of the tenant or the household member concerned to substantially comply with the terms of the rescheduling arrangements was due to circumstances outside the control of such tenant or household member.”.”.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 47, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 44 of the Act of 2009
33. Section 44 of the Act of 2009 is amended by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):
“(1A) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply in circumstances where a local authority and an approved body agrees that to dispose of a dwelling to a tenant that was constructed prior to the enactment of this Act would be in the best interests of—
(a) the tenant, and/or
(b) the local community in which the particular dwelling is situated.
(1B) The proceeds of sale of any disposal under subsection (1A) shall be ring-fenced for the purposes of—
(a) provision of additional housing by approved bodies in the local authority area in which the particular dwelling is situated, and
(b) to upgrade existing housing stock in the local authority area in which the particular dwelling is situated.”.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34
Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Minister will explain why the Residential Tenancies Act should not apply to housing assistance payment, HAP, tenancies. The section refers to the restriction on the application of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.
The section provides that payment of housing assistance by a housing authority in respect of a dwelling will not mean that the dwelling has been let by a public authority within the meaning of section 3(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The Residential Tenancies Act will apply, so it still be under the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, even if the person is in HAP, because he or she is with a private landlord.
The tenant should be covered by the PRTB and there should be some type of division in the Ombudsman's office to deal with disputes and grievances. Will the PRTB have a role here?
Yes, it will. That is the intention. The Residential Tenancies Act and the PRTB will apply, except to dwellings provided under the capital assistance scheme, CAS.
I presume the same obligation exists with the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, or with rent assistance.
Will it still be necessary for them to register?
Yes, they will still be obliged to register with the PRTB and they will still subject to the latter's rules. Legislation designed to bring voluntary housing bodies under the remit of the PRTB is before the Seanad at present. There will be a need to co-ordinate that Bill and the one before us.
If the PRTB is going to have responsibility for tenancies involving housing assistance payments, HAPs, and also for voluntary housing associations, why will it not apply to housing built under the terms of the capital assistance scheme, CAS?
It will apply when the other legislation to which I refer has been enacted. It is really a question of which Bill is passed first.
Why is provision for an exception being made in this section?
That is a fair question. We will be obliged to consider this matter, particularly in the context of which legislation might be enacted first. I am advised that the Bill before us will be enacted first and that when the other legislation is passed, all the approved housing bodies will be brought under the remit of the PRTB. It is a question of timing. The intention is that the legislation with which we are dealing today will be enacted before the summer recess - thereby facilitating the introduction of HAPs - whereas the other Bill may not be disposed of by that time.
I will take the Minister of State and her officials at their word. However, I wish to flag my concern to the effect that the same processes of recourse should be available to everybody.
That is a fair point. I may be in a position to clarify the matter on Report Stage at which point I will know a little more about the timeframe relating to the passage of the other legislation.
I know the PRTB will have a role in respect of this matter but will the Office of the Ombudsman also have a role?
My understanding that recourse to the Office of the Ombudsman is available to people who have undergone the various processes and who are not satisfied with what has occurred. There is nothing to suggest that this will not be-----
There is no section relating to the matter.
There is no exclusion and as is the case with any matter relating to local authorities, I presume it will be open to people to approach the Office of the Ombudsman.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 48, line 3, after "shall" to insert "not".
The Bill proposes that when clients have received HAPs, their housing need will be deemed to have been met. Unfortunately, this will remove many people from local authority waiting lists and it disregards the wishes of many who would enter into short-term agreements as a step towards being accommodated on a more permanent basis in local authority housing. There is a feeling that what is proposed in the Bill may distort the figures and will not allow people to understand the real issue, namely, that sort-term measures will not solve our long-term problems. Giving 90,000 or 100,000 people on a housing waiting list HAPs is a short-term measure and it will not allow us to meet our obligation to assist these individuals on a long-term basis. I am concerned that there may be a perception that this legislation provides the means to solve short-term problems while it also seeks to tick the box of solving our long-term difficulties. Of course, it will not solve the latter. The amendment would replace the word "shall" with the term "not" in order that people will not be removed from waiting lists and will, like others, still be able to avail of long-term solutions. People should not be pigeon-holed as having had their problems solved when that is definitely not the case.
This is one of the most problematic and objectionable sections in the Bill. It goes to the heart of a policy shift which began with a document produced by the Department in either 2011 or 2012. That shift involved a move away from direct provision of council housing to a situation where the provision of social housing was outsourced to landlords. This was slightly glossed over by what is a positive idea, namely, that if a person happens to be in receipt of housing support, there should be no disincentive for him or her to work. Such a disincentive currently exists under the rental accommodation scheme, RAS. That element of what the Minister of State is trying to do is positive. In addition, it is both sensible and positive that all of the matters in question should come within the remit of local authorities rather than a plethora of agencies or Government Departments. However, what is proposed in this section presents a major problem. In the first instance, people are going to be removed from the housing waiting list. Essentially, it states that a short-term solution is, in fact, a long-term one. That is absolutely not the case, particularly because we are institutionalising and making permanent a massive outflow of public money into the pockets of landlords. The latter is incredibly wasteful and we need to move away from doing it. The major difficulty with what is proposed in this regard is that it is just not going to work. Landlords are running away from arrangements of any sort which involve local or rent allowance. They either state - in the most horrendous and discriminatory manner - that they will not accept these arrangements or they run away from agreements with tenants for whose business they were desperate a number of years ago when matters were not going so well.
This is just not going to work. It is also going to cause major problems in terms of relationships between tenants, landlords and local authorities. As matters stand, nobody knows who is responsible for what. For example, landlords are discussing matters with tenants which perhaps they should be bringing to the attention of local authorities. Questions are also arising as to who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of properties. I wonder whether councils have proper oversight in respect of matters of that nature. There are major problems in respect of this matter.
Landlords who signed up to RAS are now withdrawing from it. The latter is much more advantageous than the HAP scheme in that it involves 92% of the market rents. I do not know which landlords are going to rush to sign up to the HAP scheme in the first instance, particularly as it will be less advantageous than RAS from the point of view of the income they will receive. There are many aspects to what is proposed which, in theory, are correct. However, difficulties are going to arise both in the context of the number of landlords who sign up to the scheme and the amount of money that will be available in the form of rent paid.
I completely agree with the point Deputy Cowen made with regard to people being removed from housing waiting lists. At present, and as already stated, landlords are withdrawing from RAS. This means that certain families who thought they would be able to remain in the same location for five or then years are on the verge of being homeless and councils are being obliged to find alternative accommodation for them. Reference is continually made to Irish people wanting to buy houses but there is an extremely large cohort of individuals who, as a result of their income levels, do not fall into that category. Those who surrender their local authority houses and enter RAS find themselves in a very precarious situation because of a lack of available accommodation. If there are no guarantees for these people, then they are in trouble. In the context of the waiting list, they are being placed ahead of those who are homeless because local authorities gave them a commitment and they now feel a sense of obligation to them.
This is an exercise in massaging figures rather than dealing with a housing need where people can believe they have a home rather than a temporary arrangement that meets their needs temporarily. We must see this as somebody's home rather than somebody else's property that the local authority will rent temporarily. That may be fine in terms of crisis management or for a small cohort of the people on the waiting lists, but they should not be removed from the permanency a local authority house would give them.
I support amendment No. 22. The housing assistance payment is not a form of social housing and does not sufficiently address the housing need. It is a subsidisation of the private market. In terms of the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, and all the issues that arise in terms of trying to get that, we have seen that even though they are advertised constantly on the website people do not take rental supplement. Will the local authorities be any more successful in getting this than anyone else? We need to examine the area of rent controls, which are used in other European countries, because if the local authorities here take over the role RAS played we will inflate this even more without some form of control. That area must be examined but we seem to be avoiding that. Constitutional issues may arise in that regard but we are not getting an answer to the question about some form of rent control.
I agree with Deputy Ellis that we need to look at rent control but we do not have it here right now. Whether we like it or not, the current position is that the money is going into landlords' pockets and the question is whether we leave it with the Deposit Protection Service, DSP. What was meant to be a short-term payment of rent supplement effectively has become long-term for many people because of lack of capital to build houses etc. and a variety of reasons I am sure the Deputy does not want me to go into now. The reality is that the money is going into the pockets of the private landlords already. One of the core objectives of the scheme is to bring all social housing supports under the umbrella of local government of which the housing assistance payment, HAP, is one. That will enable the State provide a more integrated and streamlined service for households seeking support to meet housing costs. That is the purpose of doing it.
I am aware that it is getting more difficult to get a landlord who will accept rent supplement at the caps available. One of the reasons is that they are not certain they will get their money. That is not the only reason but it is one of the factors-----
Twice as much-----
-----whereas this scheme will involve the tenant's proportion behind deducted at source and the entire amount due to the landlord being paid to the landlord by the local authority. In that sense I am not so sure about it. We will have to see what happens as it rolls out. As the Deputy knows, it started in one local authority and will roll out in an additional six this year, and gradually extend to the rest of the country. We will have to see whether it improves the attractiveness for landlords on the basis that they know they will get all their money, and when they will get it. That remains to be seen. I do not know the answer to that but I hope it might make it a little more attractive for landlords.
On the specific amendment, accepting this amendment would undermine the entire basis of the decision to transfer responsibility for long-term rent supplement recipients who have an established housing need from the Department of Social Protection to local authorities by providing that the HAP is not to be considered as social housing support. Part 4 of the Bill would effectively be providing for the management of rent supplement by housing authorities and in so doing would lose fundamental benefits and opportunities provided by the new scheme. Undoubtedly, the introduction of the HAP as a social housing support is a major change but the intention of it is that people who have social housing support needs are brought under the one system and in that sense, the local authority has certain obligations to them. It does not mean there will not be short-term rent supplement, which we will deal with later, but short-term rent supplement will continue for people who lose their jobs, for example, and are in urgent need of support etc. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment.
Is the amendment being pressed?
The Minister of State is saying that anybody who enters these agreements goes off the housing list, therefore, there is no permanent housing solution for those people.
I did not answer that the first time. I will come back to that.
Okay. All of us have examples but I came across a case only yesterday. It involves a recently separated young woman with two children who cares for her mother also. She was offered short-term rental accommodation under RAS in a location that did not suit not just because of the situation with her mother but the difficulty for her children and not wanting to move them at such a distressing time for them and the family. However, in refusing that accommodation she has reduced points in terms of a permanent solution. That cannot go on. It cannot be such that there would be a sleight of hand on the part of those in authority to give the impression that they are solving a housing crisis when, with all due respects, they are doing no such thing. Fifty thousand people are accommodated through this scheme. Is the Minister telling me we do not have a problem with those 50,000 because they are in short-term rental accommodation? That is not the case, and we have to call a spade a spade. Those people should still be considered for long-term, permanent solutions, and they should not be cast aside because of that. I do not abdicate responsibility for my party being a party to the RAS, which similarly has deficiencies in that regard, but this issue is resulting in a huge crisis. If we are serious and fair to people, that is fine. If, in the short to medium term, the only solution that can be offered in a certain circumstance is that of short-term rental accommodation, we should not penalise people in terms of the opportunity they might have for a permanent solution because they take that. To think that a system is penalising people in that scenario is wrong, unfair and absurd. We have to stand up against that. There should be no sleight of hand, massaging of the figures or misrepresentation of the current situation. It is too serious an issue with which to play games. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that, if not today, going back to the drawing board and coming back to us before the next Stage of the Bill. We should not play games with people's livelihood and ability to provide a home for their families. I ask the Minister to please adhere to the suggestion in this amendment.
We have about 80 amendments left and some members have meetings to attend at 12.30 p.m. If we deal with them as efficiently as we have done up to now we will be finished before 12.30 p.m. I will take a final comment from Deputy Boyd Barrett and then hear from the Minister. We will then decide on the amendment.
I take the point that there are many amendments to get through but this is a key one. I agree, as I am sure does almost everybody here, that streamlining areas under the local authority makes sense. There are many positive aspects to that move but suggesting that an interim or temporary solution is permanent and that being in a HAP arrangement is the same as getting a council house is wrong. Tenants do not see it that way. Objectively, that is not the case because the tenant is dealing with a private landlord. A private landlord can pull out of the arrangement or may not maintain the house to the same standard required of a local authority. I have some advice for anybody in a HAP or RAS scheme. They should take photographs of the inside of the house as soon as they move in because in two or three years' time they may find that the landlord will blame them for problems in the house which are to do with their failure to maintain the house. Those are serious issues that have arisen. The Minister should probably include in the Bill that it shall be deemed an interim form of social housing but it must be distinguished from getting a council house because it is not the same. There will be murder if people are taken off the housing list.
I said on Second Stage that people will be eligible for a transfer into a local house from the housing assistance payment, HAP. Each local authority has allocation schemes in this regard. Already, if a person is in council housing which is inappropriate, he or she can be transferred to more suitable accommodation. Therefore, these people will be eligible to be transferred into a local authority house. I know we have been accused of massaging figures, but that is not the purpose of this. The purpose is to bring everything under the one system of the local authority, where people who need housing support get it.
We can ensure we have accurate figure in terms of where people are and the type of accommodation they are in. I am not trying to massage figures. What I am trying to do is to bring about a more integrated system in regard to social housing support. People will be eligible to transfer into a local authority house.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36
Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister of State explain this for me? This section has to do with people in shared accommodation. Will the Minister of State explain what exactly is being done in this section, as it is unclear to me?
This has to do with where people share a house and qualify for partial assistance as they are not considered to be one household. There are some, but not many, situations where this happens but they qualify separately for support.
Does that mean it is like a house share?
Yes, it is where they currently qualify separately for rent supplement. It might, for example, be two or more single women who have their individual space but share some parts of the house. This provision is to provide for a process that already exists in the context of rent supplement.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 37
Amendment No. 23 is consequential on amendment No. 24 and both amendments will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 48, line 12, after “may” to insert “, subject to subsection (3),”.
These two amendments are linked. Amendment No. 23 is a technical amendment that will allow for amendment No. 24. This amendment tempers the demand driven element of the new housing assistance payment to take account of affordability, from the perspective of the Exchequer. It provides that a housing authority must take steps to ensure that payments under HAP in any year do not exceed the amount made available to the authority for that purpose. We must act responsibly in introducing this scheme. The amendments will ensure the Exchequer is not faced with annual bills for HAP it cannot meet within the financial allocations for the year.
This appears to restrict HAP to the levels of rent caps available currently. In the parts of the country where there are large waiting lists, this renders this scheme redundant, because it is essentially impossible to acquire housing at the limits set by the Department of Social Protection. That Department is in denial that this is the situation. Every one of us here today must deal with homeless people, families and children. As the Minister of State said, there are no rent caps, but she is now going to set limits. The RAS scheme did not work, on the basis of a limit of 92% of market rents, yet it is expected this scheme will work on substantially less. I do not see how it can work.
I accept there must be limits from the point of view of the Exchequer, but the limits are unrealistic as is the timeline for the review. The review should be annual, if there is to be annual budgeting for this. I do not believe the scheme has the flexibility to make it work. All this proves is that there is no cheap solution when we store up a housing crisis like the one we have. The problem is we are counting only one consequence, namely, the cost of the provision of houses. We are certainly not counting the cost of the damage being done to families, and children in particular.
I would like to underline that point. The rent caps do not work in large parts of this city and in other large urban centres. Currently, local authorities are breaching the caps, but they are denying that right to individuals in receipt of rent allowance. The council housing departments know the rent caps are unworkable and they are being forced into private arrangements with private landlords who say they are upping rents or pulling out of the RAS scheme. Therefore, local authorities are breaching caps and must do so to avoid evicting people in RAS schemes who are deemed to be housed. They do this because they have a duty of care to them. This is an issue we must address. What is the duty of care in a HAP or RAS scheme? The local authorities are breaching the caps because they know the caps are unworkable, yet the Minister of State seems to be stitching caps into the legislation. This will not work.
If the logic of this is to ensure that we do not have a runaway train in terms of costs for housing, let me point out that it is costing us more to put people up in hotels than to breach the rent caps or, in the long term, build a council house. I heard from an official in the housing department in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown that it costs €800 a week to put somebody in a hotel. This amounts to €3,200 a month, while the rent cap for that person is €975. This is crazy.
I agree in general with local authorities taking over the responsibility for rent supplement in the form of the HAP. However, once again we are moving to a system where the tenant or person receiving the assistance must source the accommodation and the local authority will have no role in sourcing places. Will Minister of State clarify this? It seems to me that this is no different from what existed already. If people wanted rent supplement, they had to source accommodation themselves. Therefore, while the provision of assistance is being passed over to the local authorities, we are once again putting tenants in a position where they must chase after landlords. This is an impossible situation. Surely, local authorities should play some role in leveraging pressure in the context of getting accommodation. At least, it should have a list or some mechanism to source accommodation. This is the problem I see with this.
The specific wording of this provision does not stitch us into current rent caps. The reference to a cap is not to rent caps but to the overall availability of funding for the scheme. One of the officials here with me today is from the Department of Social Protection, which has commenced a rent review which will be completed in time to feed into the budgetary process. That review will be there for us in the context of decisions being made this year.
I will make a brief comment in regard to the cost of hotels and other such accommodation.
A protocol is being worked on by the Dublin authorities and the Department of Social Protection on the provision of flexibility where a family or individual is in danger of losing a home due to rent caps. The protocol will be announced in approximately two weeks. A process is being put in place to address the issue of people being made homeless and having to go into hotels due to rent caps. The information will be in the public arena soon.
On the general issue of the availability of funds, it will be a learning process as this is gradually rolled out. We intend to learn from it. There are amendments proposed on reporting and monitoring. We intend to use this as a learning phase and to monitor carefully what is happening in Limerick and in respect of the subsequent phases with the six other local authorities. We will see what the take-up is and what property is available, etc. We will learn whatever we can. If it turns out that there is a lack of accommodation, it will put more pressure on whoever is in government to provide more social housing. It will point out the growing dependence on the private sector to provide housing over very many years. Deputies all feel very strongly that we should be providing more social housing and I would like to provide more also. It will have to feed into the process as time goes on to see what is cost-effective for the public purse, what the demands and pressures are and how the scheme beds into the system we already have in place.
The specific amendment relates to a general obligation to stay within available resources. It does not say, however, that it must be the rent limits as they currently exist or will exist at the end of the year following the review.
One of the things that is not counted in terms of the rent caps, which one must be acutely aware of, is that there is significant topping up taking place. The amount that people are paying for rent is being understated where they are making arrangements with landlords to pay extra. I do not know anyone in my area who is not paying additional amounts under the table, to the point where some of them are going hungry. There has always been flexibility within the rent caps for very special cases. I know of a young woman with very premature twins who is homeless. Those babies are homeless and due to go home to I do not know where. They are in intensive care and their case was put to the Department of Social Protection, which relaxed the rent cap by €50 per month. There is nothing I can find that comes anywhere close. There are hundreds of euro in the difference for any accommodation that can be found. If that is not a serious situation and cannot be regarded as an exception, I have no confidence that the limit being imposed on the Minister of State by the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will be workable.
I heard on the grapevine that the Limerick phase is not going terribly well, but we shall see. I take the point the Minister of State makes about creating pressure in respect of the long-term solution, which is council housing.
The more I think about this, the more I want to object. The Minister of State says this does not fix us to the rent caps. If there is flexibility and local authorities exercise it, they will just exhaust their budgets at a certain point and have to turn people away. This is happening. I was talking to Wicklow County Council yesterday about a particular woman who has a severely autistic child. She was in a hotel which kicked her and the child out - probably because it is coming to the summer holidays. She is now out on the street. She went to the local authority on Friday and whoever she was dealing with just said, "Sorry, we have nothing for you." I rang the senior housing official and said "You have an obligation to this woman. She has a severely autistic child." She said "Sorry; the budget has run out. I agree with you and am sympathetic, but the budget is gone." She said there was nothing to give this woman. I do not know where the woman is today and will have to talk to her later. She is out on the street with a child who has severe special needs. That is the problem. Therefore, the legislation should provide that housing needs must be met, not that a local authority must work within certain financial parameters. It is the wrong way around.
I must come back to section 37(2)(a), which provides that a household shall source the dwelling in respect of which it seeks housing assistance. This is a major problem for families unless there is some help from the public authorities, which the Minister of State says must work within existing resources. The reality is that we have had homeless people lugging children around trying to find places. They need help to do this. If there is no role for local authorities in approaching landlords or providing a mechanism to approach them, a huge burden is placed on people.
As Deputy Catherine Murphy said, people are certainly topping up on rent supplements across the board. It is quite common. When we introduce HAP, how many people will fall by the wayside? I worry that we will have an issue in terms of what funding will be provided by the local authorities. Some tenants will certainly try to talk to landlords to top up, which is something we want to avoid. Unless there are rent controls, which the Minister of State has said she is looking at, whether they are tied to the cost of living or some other mechanism, we will continue to come back to this.
None of us wants topping up to happen, as it impoverishes people. The Department of Social Protection asks, if there are false declarations, that they be reported to departmental representatives, who will discuss the circumstances of any case. The point Deputies are really raising is that people cannot find accommodation. Households sourcing accommodation themselves is the norm with regard to rent supplement. However, local authorities can assist and do in many cases. They have homeless units and so on. The voluntary housing associations, including Focus Ireland, often assist also. I accept that there is a problem with supply. It is a given.
Regarding people who are homeless or at risk of becoming so, I spoke already about the arrangement being set up with regard to flexibility. One of the reasons we are implementing the homeless policy is that we want people who are in emergency accommodation to be able to move into homes. That will make space for urgent cases. The tradition has been that people have stayed in what is intended to be short-term accommodation for long periods of time. Home, where they have support, that is what we are trying to achieve in the policy.
We seem to be straying into more general areas and I am conscious of the time.
I will put the amendment.
I would like to see a few Fine Gael Deputies here. I am very tempted to call a vote.
The Deputy can call a voice vote. There is a funeral.
We have a bloated Government, yet we have four members of the Opposition, two Labour Party members and nobody from the Fine Gael Party.
There is a specific reason that this is the case this morning. Deputy Bannon came in briefly to tell me that the funeral of Deputy Ray Butler's mother is taking place as we speak.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 48, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(3) In providing housing assistance to a qualified household in accordance with subsection (1), a housing authority shall ensure that, in respect of the financial year concerned, the aggregate of the authority’s payments of such assistance does not exceed the moneys made available to the authority for that purpose in that year from the Vote for Environment, Community and Local Government in the Estimates for Public Services (within the meaning of section 17(1) (inserted by the Ministers and
Secretaries (Amendment) Act 2013) of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 2011).”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Question, "That section 37, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
SECTION 38
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister explain the logic of this provision? My priority and I suspect the priority of all members is the people who are being housed. It is proposed in section 38 that the local authority does not have an obligation to the landlord and that seems to fly in the face of the Minister's comments on preventing arrears through direct deduction. If the policy is to avoid top up payments to the landlord because the balance over and above the rent support will be deducted from people, does it not follow that the rent owed to landlords will not arise?
As I understand the scheme, and it seems to make the RAS scheme permanent, the local authority will pay the rent to the landlord, so how can it not be obliged to pay the rent?
Under this section the local authority will not have a legal obligation but there will be an administrative provision for the payment of the rent. The Private Residential Tenancies Board is the arbiter between the landlord and the tenant.
If that is the case, I do not understand the reason for this section as I do not see its logic. What is the reason for the provisions of the section?
I think it is purely a legal provision because of the legal obligations. The local authority is paying the rent on behalf of the tenant but the relationship is between the landlord and the tenant.
I do not wish to labour the point, but let me flag it as an issue for Report Stage.
I will try to clarify it better on Report Stage.
I think the landlord is coming down on the tenant for various reasons, whereas I think the landlord should be relating to the local authority. There is a grey and blurry area about the relationships between the tenant, landlord and local authority. This seems to feed into that uncertainty.
We will deal with that on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 39
Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."
I have a problem with this section, which I wish to flag. The local authority has up to eight months to inspect the dwelling once somebody enters into an agreement with the landlord. Following the inspection by the local authority, if the dwelling is found not to meet the needs of the tenant or is unsatisfactory, then the person has to find another property. It seems that people will remain in unsatisfactory arrangements because there is nowhere for them to go and that they would be supported by the housing assistance payment programme.
I do not know how the Minister will deal with the situation because what is at issue is that the State does not have control of the houses that will come into the scheme.
I will raise this issue on Report Stage.
We wanted to give some time so that people would not be held up in getting a property because they had to wait for the local authority to inspect it. We need to prescribe the length of time and we will try to keep it as short as possible.
I think we will manage to deal with Deputy Murphy's amendment before she goes to her meeting.
I wish to flag an issue on section 39(3)(b) and (c). I think issues around 'the duty of care' are very serious. If a landlord pulls out of an arrangement with a local authority, what obligation does the local authority have to the tenant? Is it the same obligation, which I think it should be? Under section 39(3)(b) "the household is residing in the dwelling, the housing authority may provide, or continue to provide, housing assistance ... ". It becomes "maybe" but not definitely. I have come across cases already and we will come across more cases where the landlord will pull out of these arrangements. Then a very serious question arises about the duty of care and where the person stands in relation to other people on the housing list. I think the provision runs the risk of making a mockery of the housing list because the local authority will suddenly have people to house as a matter of priority. This is happening already and will happen more was we move in this direction.
Deputy, may I clarify that issue on Report Stage in view of the time constraints?
Question put and agreed to.
Section 40 agreed to.
SECTION 41
Amendment No. 25 in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy was ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
That really underlines exactly the point I was making on amendment No. 24. If what I propose in amendment No. 25 is to be a charge on the State, that confirms there is no mechanism for a review during the year. The local authority will have one allocation and irrespective of how much it varies from the rents in the area, there is no capacity to amend it. If there is fewer than 10% of the properties in an area available under HAP, one will see that.
I note that point Deputy.
I wish to make the same point.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Question, "That section 41 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
SECTION 42
Question proposed: "That section 42 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to clarify how the portion of the rent that is paid by the tenant to the local authority under the HAP scheme is determined. Is it done in exactly the same way the local authorities deal with income in allocating a council house?
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 43 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 56, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“Review of certain decisions
46. (1) Other than in respect of decisions on a review under this section, the Minister may prescribe one or more than one class of decision made by a housing authority under this Part (in this section referred to as a “prescribed decision”) to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies where a household does not agree with a prescribed decision made by a housing authority under this Part.
(3) A household that does not agree with a prescribed decision made by a housing authority under this Part may request a housing authority in writing (in this section referred to as a “review request”) to review the decision.
(4) A review request shall?—
(a) outline the grounds upon which the household disputes the prescribed decision and be accompanied by any relevant supporting documents, and
(b) state whether a member of the household wishes to make oral representations to the housing authority as part of the review.
(5) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a review request shall be received by the housing authority within 8 working days from the issuing of the prescribed decision to the household.
(b) The Minister may prescribe the types of extenuating circumstances as a consequence of which the period of 8 working days referred to in paragraph (a) may, at the discretion of the housing authority concerned and upon being satisfied that any such circumstance does apply, be extended upon application by or on behalf of the household for such period as decided by the housing authority, but any such further period so decided shall not, taken together with the 8 working days from the issuing of the prescribed decision concerned, exceed 16 working days from such issue.
(6) On receipt of a valid review request, the chief executive of the local authority concerned shall appoint as the reviewer of the prescribed decision concerned an officer or employee of a local authority who was not involved in the making of the prescribed decision and who is senior in rank to the officer or employee who made that decision.
(7) The reviewer shall review the prescribed decision as if the matter were being decided for the first time and on the basis of the information available to him or her.
(8) A reviewer may make such enquiries and meet with any person, including the household requesting the review, that he or she considers appropriate to meet in the circumstances.
(9) Except where the reviewer and the household otherwise agree in writing, the reviewer shall make a decision on the review within 10 working days of his or her appointment or, where?—
(a) the household wishes to make oral representations to the reviewer, or
(b) the reviewer wishes to meet the household or a household member as part of the review, within 20 working days of his or her appointment.
(10) A decision on a review request by a household shall?—
(a) confirm the prescribed decision in its original terms,
(b) where appropriate, vary the prescribed decision in specified terms, or
(c) annul the prescribed decision and, where appropriate, make an alternative decision, and shall state the reasons for doing so and the housing authority shall send a copy in writing of the reviewer’s decision and reasons to the household.
(11) Any variation to a prescribed decision proposed by the reviewer under subsection (10)(b), other than to correct any clerical error of a non-material nature, shall not be made without first giving the household an opportunity to comment or make representations on such a variation.
(12) A household that has made a review request may, at any time before the review is completed, notify the housing authority in writing that they are withdrawing the review request but any such withdrawal is subject to subsection (13).
(13) A reviewer may, notwithstanding the withdrawal of a review by the household and where the reviewer is satisfied that it is in order to do so, continue the review under this section as if the withdrawal had not been made and the housing authority shall notify the household in writing accordingly.
(14) Where, in a review under this section, a member of An Garda Síochána or an officer of a housing authority states that he or she believes that a person is or has been engaged in anti-social behaviour then, if the reviewer believes that there are reasonable grounds for such belief, the reviewer may accept that statement as evidence of such anti-social behaviour.
(15) In a review of a tenancy warning under this section, the housing authority concerned and the reviewer shall have due regard to protecting the identity of persons informing the authority or reviewer of anti-social behaviour in circumstances where, in the opinion of the authority or the reviewer, not to do so?—
(a) could render those persons or persons associated with them liable to violence, threat or fear as a consequence of so informing, or
(b) might otherwise have prevented those persons from so informing because of such violence, threat or fear.”.
The amendment is proposed to fulfil a commitment to provide a formal review process in respect of certain decisions relating to the operation of the HAP. The review process proposed is based on that provided for in section 10 in respect of the review of tenancy warnings. The proposals for review are made in recognition of the fact that housing authorities have, on request, operated for many years without statutory underpinning their own procedures for internal review of their decisions. The Department of Social Protection also has statutory review and appeal procedures for its rent supplement scheme, parts of which are being taken over by the HAP.
The amendment proposes the insertion of a new section in Part IV relating to the HAP which will provide that, on request by a HAP recipient or applicant, a housing authority will undertake a review of a HAP decision made by a housing authority affected the household that is in a class of decisions prescribed as being reviewable under the section. A review request must normally be made within eight working days of the decision, outlining the grounds for the request and indicating whether the household or a member of the household wishes to make oral representations to the housing authority. Provision is made for the extension of the period for making the review request in extenuating circumstances, but, in any case, this would not exceed 16 working days from the date of the decision.
The chief executive officer of the local authority will appoint a local authority official who was not involved in the original decision and is senior to the official who made the decision to carry out the review. The reviewer will review the decision as if the matter were being decided for the first time and on the basis of the information available to him or her at the time of the review. The reviewer will normally have to decide on the review request within ten working days or, if the process involves meeting the household concerned, within 20 working days. He or she may decide to confirm, vary or annul the original decision, giving reasons, as appropriate. A tenant may withdraw the review request, but the reviewer may nonetheless continue with it where he or she considers it appropriate to do so.
I can outline the kind of HAP decision I am minded to prescribe as reviewable under the section, but I will not do so in the interests of time.
Asking for a review of a decision made by the local authority and then saying that if a person challenges it, the official who will carry out the review will be more senior in the same department is fair enough as a first step. I do not cast aspersions on officials in any housing department, but let us be honest. They are all in the same department; they all know each other and there are discussions about this and that person and so on; therefore, there must be another level of appeal on these matters where those reviewing decisions are genuinely and thoroughly independent of the housing department or the local authority. While the amendment is reasonable, it does not go far enough. We all know there can be difficult, heated and complex disputes.
The Ombudsman's office is available in these circumstances also.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 46
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 57, to delete lines 6 to 20 and substitute the following:
“ “(5A) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a household in receipt of social housing support shall cease to be eligible for such support where?—
(i) in the preceding 3 years, the household or a household member was in arrears of rent, rent contributions, charges, fees or any other moneys due and owing to a housing authority or an approved body for an accumulated period of 12 weeks or more in respect of a dwelling or site to which Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Act of 2009 relate, and
(ii) the household or the member concerned has not entered into rescheduling arrangements with the housing authority or approved body concerned for the payment of such arrears, or, having entered into such arrangements, has not, in the opinion of the authority or body, substantially complied with their terms.
(b) The failure of a household or household member to substantially comply with the terms of rescheduling arrangements shall be disregarded in any case where the housing authority or approved body concerned is satisfied that the failure was due to circumstances outside the control of such household or household member.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 57, line 36, to delete "subsection."," and substitute the following:
"subsection.
(c) In this subsection 'specified form of social housing support' means social housing support of a kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (d) of section 19(2).",".
The amendment to section 46(2)(f) is necessary to insert a definition of "specified form of social housing support" in the proposed new section 20(5)(b) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. The proposed subsection refers to a specified form of social housing support, but neither that subsection nor any other provision in section 20 specifies a form of social housing support for the purposes of the enactment. The amendment specifies local authority and approved housing and dwellings, the subject of rental accommodation availability agreements, as forms of social housing support for the purposes of section 20(5)(b). The effect of this is that a household on a waiting list for housing that refuses two reasonable offers of these forms of social housing support in a prescribed period will be suspended from the list for a period to be prescribed.
Amendment agreed to.
We will move to amendment No. 29.
The Chairman is proceeding to finish this Stage, but I have tabled amendments and notified the clerk to the committee yesterday that we had to attend a meeting at 12.30 p.m. which would last half an hour. I have no option but to attend that meeting.
I have no difficulty in suspending the sitting.
Sitting suspended at 12.25 p.m. and resumed at 1 p.m.
Deputy Kevin Humphreys took the Chair.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 58, to delete lines 3 to 6 and substitute the following:
“ “(2) (a) In this section references to rent include a rent contribution payable by a tenant under a Chapter 4 tenancy agreement.
(b) In this section, other than subsection (6)(h), references to rent include a rent contribution payable under section 42 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 by a tenant who is a member of a qualified household within the meaning of section 33 of that Act.”.”.
This amendment is necessary to update, with one exception, references to rent in section 31 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 to include references to rent contributions payable by tenants who are members of households benefiting from housing assistance. The one exception is the reference to rent in section 31(6)(h). The latter is a new subsection which is being inserted by amendment No. 51 and it will provide for the matters to which housing authorities shall have regard in determining rent and other charges during a transitional period for existing local authority tenants only. As all HAP recipients paying rent contributions to housing authorities under section 31 of the 2009 Act will be new entrants to the scheme, no transitional arrangements will be necessary for them. As a result, section 31(6)(h) will not apply to them.
Does that mean there could be increases or that they might be treated differently or anything of that nature?
No. It is purely to provide for transitional arrangements in respect of the proposed new rent schemes that will gradually be put in place. There will be a three-year period - up to 2017 - during which those schemes must be introduced. The change in respect of HAP recipients will happen immediately. Regardless of the local authority areas in which they reside, in future, one-person households in receipt of basic social welfare payments will all pay the same amount in rent. The change will be immediate in respect of HAP tenants but there will be a gradual transition in respect of council tenants. Does that make sense?
Yes. Sometimes provisions of this nature appear innocuous and it is only when they are implemented that difficulties begin to arise.
The purpose of the amendment is to make provision for a transitional period during which the new rent schemes will be gradually introduced. In some instances, people are paying below what is going to be the standard for particular types of household while, in others, they are paying above that amount.
I do not have a problem with that.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 47 and 48 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 59, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“49. (1) The Minister shall, six months after the coming into operation of this Part, cause a review to be conducted which shall assess the effectiveness of the measures contained in this Part under the following categories:
(a) the net effect on the numbers of families waiting for accommodation to be provided to them by a housing authority in each local authority area;
(b) the net number of individuals and families who are on the emergency accommodation waiting lists in their respective areas;
(c) the number of local authority staff required by each housing authority for the optimal administration of the measures under this Part;
(d) the funding required from the Central Fund or the local government fund for the optimal delivery of the measures under this Part.
(2) The Minister shall compile the data and analysis undertaken under subsection (1) into a report which shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and transmitted to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, or its successor Committee.”.
This amendment is designed to allow for some form of reporting mechanism whereby the Dáil would have some level of oversight. In other words, it would not be just a case of concluding our deliberations on this legislation and then forgetting about it. The amendment makes provision for a report to be laid before both Houses.
There are governance structures in place which detail how the housing assistance payment project is to be managed, including in the context of development, implementation and monitoring. Detailed business processes within which the roll-out of the scheme must operate have been developed. It is intended to review the pilot phase by the end of 2014. Said review will involve consideration of additional legislative provision, as appropriate, and will have regard to all operational aspects of the scheme, including implementation by local authorities and the overall costs associated with delivery. I would be happy to commit to sending the committee a progress report at the end of the year and to returning to discuss that report with members. We intend to have a reporting mechanism, and I will also be reporting back to Cabinet in respect of the operation of the scheme. There will also be a memo to Government.
I am not a member of the committee.
We would never exclude the Deputy from anything.
On implementation, fault lines are already apparent, as I said on Second Stage. There are wide variations throughout the country in the context of the positioning of local authority staff. To highlight the worst-case scenario, Meath County Council has a staff of 620 but is responsible for 20,000 more people than the combined authorities in Limerick, which have a total of 1,075 staff between them. Implementing this scheme will be quite a labour-intensive exercise and provision has not been made to transfer staff from the Department of Social Protection. I know this because I asked the relevant Minister and that is what I was told. From the point of view of logistics, it will not be possible to implement the scheme in the absence of sufficient staff. That is a major fault line. The authorities that are going to experience the most pressure are those in Dublin, Kildare and Cork.
There is a greater staff ratio on the western seaboard. It is essential that the Minister of State will have the ability to deal with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government regarding this embargo because it is a crude instrument. I would flag immediately that there will be a problem in the absence of that being dealt with.
I have a problem with the mandatory reduction of rent at source to deal with arrears. That should not be imposed on people. It could be considered where there was prolonged non-payment of rent, appropriate warnings given and arbitration methods exhausted but I have always been opposed to going after people's social welfare payments or through their pay packets, so to speak, which seems to be suggested in this section. I would have problems with that.
We will be addressing that at a later stage but-----
We will address that. Does Deputy Murphy wish to withdraw the amendment in light of what the Minister said?
If there is to be a report to the committee I will withdraw it but I think-----
We are working with the County and City Management Agency with regard to the business case and I presume issues of staffing will arise in that context. We will learn from the roll-out this year in terms of those operational issues. We will come back to the Deputy on that.
The Minister of State would accept that it cannot be done without staffing.
It depends on where there is an adequate number of staff in various places but I will revert to the committee and we can discuss it at year end when we have a better picture.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Can we move on? Amendment No. 31 proposes inserting a new section. Amendments Nos. 32, 48 and 49 are related and may be discussed with amendment No. 31. I call the Minister to move amendment No. 31.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 59, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“Definition ( Part 5 )
49. In this Part “Act of 2005” means the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.”.
These are four linked amendments with amendment No. 48 being the substantive amendment. That amendment inserts a new section 50 into the Bill making a range of amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 that are required as a result of the introduction of the new housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme.
Subsection (1) of the proposed new section 50 of the Bill amends section 196 of the 2005 Social Welfare Act as a consequence of the provision in Part 5 of the Bill for the introduction of mandatory direct deduction of rental of rental contributions due to housing authorities from the welfare payments of local authority tenants and tenants of HAP-assisted dwellings. The amendment to section 196 of the 2005 Act will ensure that persons cannot, as a result of meeting their social rent liability, rent or rent arrears through direct deductions from their social welfare payment, claim supplementary welfare allowance as a consequence of meeting this cost.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new section 50 of the Bill amends section 198 of the 2005 Social Welfare Act. Section 198(3F) provides for the entry points for rent supplement. Paragraph (a) of that enactment currently provides that those who qualify for social housing support have an entitlement to rent supplement. The proposed amendment provides that where HAP is in place in a local authority area for the class of household that has been prescribed under section 48 of the Bill, of which the rent supplement applicant is a member, those customers will no longer have an entitlement to rent supplement but instead must be accommodated under the HAP scheme. If HAP is not in place in a given local authority area, and HAP is being introduced on a phased basis, qualifying for social housing support will continue to be an entry point to rent supplement.
Rent supplement will always continue to be paid to clients already in the private rented sector but who, generally because of a loss of income through unemployment, require short-term income support to pay their rent. Rent supplement will therefore over time return to its original intention of being a short-term payment.
The amendment at subsection (3FA) will remove entry to the rent supplement scheme for persons with long-term housing needs who have been deemed by a housing authority to be qualified for social housing support under a social housing assessment pursuant to section 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2009. This amendment will also remove entry to the rent supplement scheme for persons residing in homeless accommodation or in an institution for periods of at least six of the previous 12 months where these categories of household have been deemed qualified by a housing authority for social housing support within the previous 12 month period.
Subsection (3F) is amended to clarify that access to rent supplement is closed to those deemed to be qualified for social housing support by a housing authority but that this closure is dependent on the local authority concerned being specified in regulations to apply Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2014. By inserting "subject to subsection (3FB)", the legislation allows for the fact that HAP will be phased in across local authorities in stages.
Subsection (3F)(a) is to be inserted after subsection (3F) as a transitional measure to protect existing rent supplement recipients in local authority areas when HAP is available. This provision is to protect those who change address or who leave rent supplement for short periods, for example, to take up employment or educational opportunities.
Subsection (3FC) stipulates that rent supplement will be closed to those who have been residing in homeless accommodation or an institution for a prescribed period if they have been assessed as being qualified for social housing under a social housing assessment pursuant to section 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009
Subsection (3) of the proposed new section 50 of the Bill inserts new subsections (3G) and (3H) into section 198 of the 2005 Act. To facilitate the transition of long-term rent supplement recipients to the housing assistance payment, it is necessary to prescribe the duration a person is on rent supplement before they are required to apply to a local authority for social housing support. As a consequence of a housing needs assessment, this period will be prescribed in secondary legislation and will be agreed by both the Department of Social Protection and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.
Subsection (3G) has been inserted to allow a designated person in the Department of Social Protection insist, after a prescribed period, that a rent supplement recipient applies for a housing needs assessment and provides proof of the application within a six week period. Sub-paragraph (3G)(a)(iii) confirms that if this proof of application is not received, ongoing entitlement to rent supplement will cease.
Sub-paragraph (3G)(a)(ii) has been inserted to allow a designated person to give a further six weeks, a total of 12, to a rent supplement recipient to provide proof of a housing needs assessment application if they deem it justified. If the proof is not received within this further six weeks period, sub-paragraph 3G(a)(ii) allows for the cessation of the rent supplement.
Subsection (3G)(b) is necessary to allow for the cessation of a rent supplement payment if the relevant housing authority informs the designated person that a rent supplement recipient has not provided, within the allotted timescale, additional information requested by them to properly carry out a housing needs assessment. I am sorry, Chairman. I have a little more detail.
I think the Minister of State has confused us enough.
Subsection (3H) proposed to be inserted into section 198 of the 2005 Social Welfare Act provides for the circumstances in which a rent supplement recipient who is a member of a household now deemed qualified for social housing support will cease to have an entitlement to rent supplement.
Subsection (3H)(a) states that a member of a household already in receipt of social housing support will cease to have an entitlement to rent supplement.
Subsection (3H)(b) provides that a member of a household who qualifies for social housing support but has deliberately done something or failed to do something that has resulted in the offer of HAP not being taken up, will cease to have an entitlement to rent supplement. Subsection (3H)(c) states that a member of a household who has refused two reasonable offers of social housing will become ineligible for social housing support by virtue of the operation of section 20(5B) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, as inserted by section 46(2)(f) of this Bill, and will cease to have an entitlement to rent supplement.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new section 50 of the Bill amends section 290A of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 relating to the household budget facility operated by An Post on behalf of the Department of Social Protection. It provides housing authority tenants with the facility to deduct rent directly from their weekly social welfare payments. Currently, some 34,800 housing authority tenants use household budgeting to pay their rent. In the short term the household budget facility will support housing authorities in the collection of rents from social welfare recipients during the early roll out of HAP. The Department of Social Protection has committed to developing a direct deduction facility in respect of social rents and it would be intended that a deduction system developed for rent and rent arrears would operate in a somewhat similar basis to that operated by the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection for the deduction of the property tax.
Engagement between both Departments and the Local Government Management Agency is ongoing regarding the necessary systems and supports in this development. The amendments to section 290A of the 2005 Social Welfare Consolidation Act will ensure that the household budget facility will be available to HAP beneficiaries for the payment of their rent contributions to the housing authority.
Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 49 are technical consequential amendments to the substantive amendment No. 48. They essentially provide for a single definition of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 for the purposes of Part 5 of the Bill rather than defining the 2005 Act separately in individual sections of that Part. I hope that is somewhat clear.
Clear as mud. There is a lot of detail in that response that needs to be examined.
I have a concern, although it may be covered in the detail of the Bill. People who are homeless, particularly those on the streets, often have difficulty in navigating the elaborate bureaucracy and processes that must be gone through in order to get into the system. I am worried about the axe that falls if people do not take certain actions within a specified period to ensure they are in receipt of the HAP in the crossover period from the RAS to the HAP. If the onus is on the homeless person to ensure he or she is transferred, this is a cruel instrument of which many may fall foul because of literacy problems or their general plight. I need to examine the detail, but I urge the Minister of State to think about this. We may find that many will be told they are off the system because they did not comply with requirements and will not receive any rent allowance because they did not move correctly into the HAP scheme.
Another issue I would like to mention may not be covered in the detail of the Bill. People on the street often have great difficulty in providing an address. I am aware of a number of cases in which people who have offered the address of a sister or a brother have problems because this is not acceptable. For example, a guy in Dún Laoghaire who is from the town has a bad drug problem but is trying to kick drugs. There is no place for him in Bentley House, the homeless accommodation centre in Dún Laoghaire. As a result, he is sent into town to find accommodation, but he will not go because there are people with a chronic drug problem in the accommodation and he thinks he will have no chance of getting off drugs if he goes there. If he was provided with accommodation in Dún Laoghaire, he believes he would be okay. Faced with the option of going to Cedar House, he says he would rather sleep on the street, but the Department of Social Protection will not accept this. It states that if he does not stay in Cedar House, it will not accept his claim. These issues need to be examined in order that we do not have an unfair and rigid system under which people will be axed and told that if they do not carry out a certain action, they will be off the system. While I do not know how we can legislate for this issue, I wanted to flag it. I will study the Bill in more detail.
If I heard correctly, rent supplement will continue to be paid in the absence of the availability of another payment. Clearly, only one payment will be made. The Minister of State has also pointed out that there will be a significant change in regard to community welfare offices. Will the rent unit still be there? The Minister of State also suggested that following the changes, a housing needs assessment may not be needed in advance of receiving rent assistance. Will she clarify this?
On social welfare payments, in some parts of the country arrangements are made for people who find themselves homeless. However, in places where there has never been a traditional pattern of homelessness, these arrangements have not followed. In my area, for example, a homeless person will not be provided with accommodation. If we send the person to a place such as Ballyfermot, he or she will be sent back to Kildare. The people concerned do not even have money to pay bus fares. The lack of connections on this issue is disturbing. We must try to develop a uniform arrangement for the whole country. If local authorities have a responsibility to direct people or set up a system with the Department of Social Protection, it must be done in a way that is simple and cost effective for those who find themselves in that position. This is a problem that is emerging.
I wish to clarify one point. I assume that people in receipt of the HAP are on the housing list. We have encountered problems where people lost their homes and ended up in receipt of rent supplement but were not included in the housing list. Is it intended to rectify this? There is a similar problem where people have become homeless and ended up sleeping rough. However, they have not been put on the priority homeless list. The Minister of State may not have encountered this, but it has been a problem and we need clarity on it, particularly in view of the future role of local authorities.
Before the Minister of State responds, I remind members and officials to turn off their phones because there is significant interference with the transmission of the debate.
We must have a clear system whereby a person is either in receipt of the HAP or rent supplement. The Department of Social Protection will retain discretionary powers to provide for exceptional cases. If for some reason a person appears to be falling through the cracks, it will still be able to provide a supplementary welfare type support which will be adequate to meet his or her housing need. In other words, we will not leave people in Limbo.
Deputy Catherine Murphy asked about people who crossed from one area into another. There is an issue in that regard, particularly in counties like hers in which services provided in Dublin are not provided. I doubt that we can cover that issue in this legislation, but we need to look at it in the general context of homelessness and access to housing.
Deputy Dessie Ellis asked whether if people were on a social housing list if they were in receipt of the HAP. Generally, they have been assessed for the provision of social housing. However, there are and will be cases in which people will not necessarily have to undergo an assessment for social housing, particularly where rent supplement is only required in the short term. Short-term rent supplement will continue to be available for some, for example, for persons who lose their jobs.
I sought clarity on persons who were homeless but not on a homeless priority list. This has been a huge problem. The people concerned move from place to place but are not considered for inclusion in the homeless priority list. Perhaps the Minister of State has not encountered this issue, but it is happening in Dublin.
Under the previous system account should have been taken of them in some way, but if it is the case-----
It does not. They are in no man's land. The issue must be addressed.
I will raise it with one of the local authorities. The people concerned should be included in the system.
It is not happening. It is clear that Dublin City Council operates a system that does not include them.
This issue is not within the scope of the Bill, but I will make inquiries.
I understand that.
To respond to Deputy Catherine Murphy, the rent unit of the Department of Social Protection is still there.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 49
I move amendment No 32:
In page 59, to delete line 7.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 47, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 59, to delete lines 8 to 16 and substitute the following:
“ “net scheme payments” means the amount payable weekly under a scheme to a relevant recipient by the Minister for Social Protection after—
(a) any deductions for the purposes referred to in section 341(7) of the Act of 2005, and
(b) the deduction of any amounts required to be deducted by an order of a court, and, in the case of deductions in respect of —
(i) rent, includes any amount specified in columns (2) to (8) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 2005 or columns (2) to (8) of Part 1 of Schedule 4 to that Act, or
(ii) rent arrears, excludes any amount specified in columns (3) to (8) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 2005 or columns (3) to (8) of Part 1 of Schedule 4 to that Act;”.
These 14 amendments relate to section 49 of the Bill, which provides for the introduction of the mandatory direct deduction of rental contributions due to housing authorities from the welfare payments of local authority tenants and tenants of HAP assisted dwellings. The amendments have been drafted in consultation with the Minister for Social Protection and will streamline the legislative provision for direct deduction to bring it into line with the legislative and operational requirements of the Department of Social Protection and tighten up appropriate references to social welfare legislation.
Amendment No. 31 replaces the definition of "net scheme payments" in the Bill. The revised definition defines net scheme payments as the amount payable to a person under a social welfare scheme after any deductions have been made in respect of social welfare overpayments and-or as required under an order of the court. The revised definition also provides clarity on the social welfare payments and amounts from which rent or rent arrears may be deducted, including the personal social welfare rate, allowances for qualified adults and dependent children and other appropriate allowances.
Amendment No. 34 defines "weekly rate" in section 49 and is consequential on the acceptance of amendment No. 41 which defines that term in subsection (4) in the manner provided for in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005. The effect of the two amendments is to transfer the definition of "weekly rate" to a subsection dealing specifically with rent arrears thereby avoiding any suggestion that rent deductions will be similarly confined.
Amendment Nos. 35 and 36 are minor amendments which will require that upon making a rent related deduction from a social welfare payment in accordance with a request from a housing authority, the Minister for Social Protection shall, as soon as is practicable, notify that authority that the deduction or partial deduction has been made. This provision will standardise provisions in the Bill relating the function of the Minister for Social Protection in notifying the housing authority of deductions made or not made in accordance with section 49. The amendments are linked to amendment No. 46 which provides access for housing authorities to information held by the Minister for Social Protection as to why rent related deductions might not have been fully made from social welfare payments.
Amendment No. 37 is a minor amendment to section 49(3)(c) which is necessary to take account of systems limitations in the Department of Social Protection which cannot automatically provide the amount of social welfare overpayment being deducted by the Department and for how long that will continue. As amended, subsection (3) will require that the Minister for Social Protection notify the authority concerned that a deduction has not been made. As with the previous two amendments, amendment No. 37 is linked to amendment No. 46 providing access for housing authorities to information that would allow them to assess the level and extent of overpayments in this regard.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are linked technical amendments which delete the reference to an end date for a rent arrears deduction to take account of the new subsection (6) which it is proposed to insert in section 49 by way of amendment No. 45. The new subsection (6) deals comprehensively with the circumstances in which a housing authority request for a rent related deduction will cease to have effect.
Amendment No. 41 defines the term "weekly rate" in subsection (4) in the manner provided for in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 and, in effect, replaces the definition of that term in section 49(1), which is proposed to be deleted by way of amendment No. 34. The effect of the two amendments is to transfer the definition of "weekly rate" to a subsection dealing specifically with rent arrears, thereby avoiding any suggestion that rent deductions will be similarly confined.
Amendments No. 42 and 44 are minor amendments which will require that upon making a deduction in respect of rent arrears from social welfare payments in accordance with a request made by a housing authority, the Minister for Social Protection shall as soon as practicable notify the authority that the full deduction, partial deduction or no deduction has been made. This provision will standardise provisions in the Bill relating to the function of the Minister for Social Protection in notifying the housing authority of deductions made or not made in accordance with section 49. The amendments are linked to amendment No. 46 which provides access for housing authorities to information held by the Minister for Social Protection as to why rent related deductions might not have been fully made from social welfare payments.
Amendment No. 43 deletes paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 49(5) of the Bill as published. Section 49(5)(b) of the Bill mirrors a corresponding provision in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 in respect of deductions relating to social welfare overpayments and would allow the Minister for Social Protection to deduct rent arrears in excess of 15% of the personal rate where the social welfare recipient consented to the deduction. I have reviewed the provision in consultation with the Minister for Social Protection and decided to delete it on the basis that it could place the social welfare recipient at risk of destitution.
Amendment No. 45 proposes to insert a new subsection (6) into section 49 dealing comprehensively with the circumstances in which a housing authority request for a rent related deduction will cease to have effect. This will occur either when the housing authority terminates the request or submits a new request in respect of the same social welfare recipient or on the second anniversary of the start date specified in the request. Ultimately, the amendment will avoid the possibility of a deduction continuing to be made indefinitely through the failure of a housing authority to terminate or replace the deduction request.
Amendment No. 46, to which I have already referred provides that where the Minister for Social Protection is required to notify a housing authority of the amount of a deduction in respect of rent or rent arrears which has not been made, the Minister will enable the authority concerned to access relevant information on the deduction in the manner and for a period to be agreed between the Minister for Social Protection and me.
Amendment No. 47 proposes to amend section 49(11) to reflect the fact that the effluxion of time is only one reason for which the Minister for Social Protection may not be able to duly pay the balance of net scheme payments to a relevant recipient. If made, the amendment will allow the provision to apply regardless of the particular circumstances in which the balance of net scheme payments is not paid duly out to a relevant recipient.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept Deputy Catherine Murphy's amendment No. 40 as the ceiling in the Bill of 15% of the weekly personal rate of a social welfare recipient for deductions in respect of social welfare overpayments and rent arrears is the same as the ceiling for recovery of social welfare overpayments only in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005.
To speak to amendment No. 40, 15% represents a sizeable amount of money and would impact very harshly on families with children in circumstances in which the social welfare payment for dependent children is small anyway. It would bring back a lone parent with one child to the basic social welfare rate applying to an individual.
There is a bit of a paradox here. I remember being contacted about the property tax by a person who asked if the Department of Social Protection could deduct it, which would be a cheaper way to pay. The person would not have to pay the monthly amount in the post office if that were the case. The answer from the Department of Social Protection was that it could not do that as it would bring the person below the supplementary welfare rate deemed necessary for that person to live. It was the basic minimum rate on which a person could live.
This could have the effect of drawing people below the supplementary welfare rate. I draw attention in particular to the fact that it will be families with children who are worst impacted. In the circumstances, 15% is a large amount of money in addition to the rent persons would also be paying. That was my thinking in formulating the amendment.
I have always been opposed to the idea of a mandatory deduction of rent at source to deal with arrears. However, if it was a very serious case where an eviction was taking place and appropriate warnings and arbitration had been provided for and exhausted, taking a percentage from a social welfare payment would be an option. It should be a last resort given that people are struggling and there are many reasons they do not pay their rent and find themselves in serious trouble at the last minute. The principle of the State taking money from people's wages or social welfare payments is wrong. It is something I will be looking at in a further amendment.
We removed a proposed provision whereby with the person's consent the Department could go over 15%. We have, therefore, recognised that we do not want to put people into poverty. Under the social welfare code, the Department of Social Protection can take 15% to recover money that it is owed. We are mirroring that in the Bill.
To clarify for Deputy Murphy, it is 15% of the personal rate, not 15% of the total including the portion for the children. It is just the personal rate. In practice, the maximum deduction that could be made for social welfare overpayment and rent arrears under the ceiling varies from €27.90 per week for a person on supplementary welfare allowance to €34.55 per week for a person in receipt of a contributory State pension. They are the lower and upper social welfare payments that currently exist. The 15% ceiling was set in consultation with the Attorney General's office as a realistic rather than a punitive limit on the deduction concerned.
We are talking about households on low incomes and taking money back from them, but the reality is that these new HAP rents will be set on the basis of income. The intention is, first, that people would not fall into arrears. However, while nobody wishes to take extra money from people on social welfare, the reality is that where people owe money there must be some mechanism to deal with that. Fifteen percent is the standard percentage used under the social welfare legislation as well.
The Department of Social Protection will not deduct property tax on the basis that it would put somebody below the supplementary welfare rate, because that would be deemed as the minimum necessary to live on, but at the same time the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government will deduct amounts of up to 15%.
The Department of Social Protection does it in respect of back money that is owed. There must be some mechanism if the person-----
I was talking about the amount. I think 15% is punitive.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 59, lines 35 and 36, and in page 60, lines 1 and 2, to delete all words from and including “Protection;” in line 35 down to and including “be.” in line 2 and substitute “Protection.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 60, line 16, after “concerned” to insert “and that Minister shall, as soon as practicable, notify the housing authority concerned accordingly”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 60, line 21, after “payments” to insert the following:
“and that Minister shall, as soon as practicable, notify the housing authority concerned of the amount so deducted”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 60, lines 25 to 27, to delete all words from and including “accordingly” in line 25 down to and including “continue” in line 27 and substitute “that the requested deduction has not been made”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 60, line 39, to delete “and the end date”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 61, line 2, to delete “from the start date to the end date” and substitute “from the start date”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 61, line 8, to delete “15 per cent” and substitute “5 per cent”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 61, line 8, after “rate” to insert “(within the meaning provided for by section 341(7B) of the Act of 2005)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 61, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(b) The Minister for Social Protection shall, as soon as practicable, notify the housing authority concerned of the amount of rent arrears deducted under paragraph (a).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 61, to delete lines 10 to 29.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 61, lines 40 to 42, to delete all words from and including “accordingly,” in line 40 down to and including “continue” in line 42 and substitute “that the requested deduction has not been made”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 61, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
“(6) A request by a housing authority under subsection (2) or (4) shall cease to have effect on whichever of the following events first occurs:
(a) receipt by the Minister for Social Protection of notice from the authority terminating the request;
(b) receipt by the Minister for Social Protection of a new request from the authority under the same subsection relating to the same relevant recipient;
(c) the second anniversary of the start date specified in the request.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 62, to delete lines 8 to 15 and substitute the following:
“(7) (a) Where the Minister for Social Protection is required under this section to notify a housing authority of the amount of a deduction in respect of rent or rent arrears or that a requested deduction has not been made, that requirement shall be satisfied if that Minister has, in respect of the authority to be notified, enabled the authority to have access to the information concerned in a manner that is agreed by the Minister and the Minister for Social Protection.
(b) An agreement between the Minister and the Minister for Social Protection for the purposes of paragraph (a)—
(i) shall include the period within which such information will be made accessible to the local authority concerned, after the deduction was made or after the date the deduction due has not been made, and
(ii) may include a time limit or a reference to the occurrence of one or more than one event after which the Minister for Social Protection is not required to make that information available to the local authority concerned in accordance with this subsection.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 63, line 7, to delete “has not been duly paid out because of the effluxion of time” and substitute “is not, for whatever reason, duly paid to that recipient”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 63, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
“Amendments to Act of 2005
50. (1) The Act of 2005 is amended in section 196 by inserting the following after subsection (2):
“(3) A person who is in receipt of any benefit, assistance or supplement under this Act from which a deduction is being made in respect of payment of rent or rent arrears under section 49 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 shall not be entitled to claim for supplementary welfare allowance under this section in respect of the monies so deducted.”,
(2) The Act of 2005 is amended in section 198—
(a) in subsection (3F), by substituting “Subject to subsection (3FB), a person shall not be entitled to a payment” for “A person shall not be entitled to a payment”, and
(b) by inserting the following after subsection (3F):
“(3FA) Subject to subsection (3FB), a person shall not be entitled to a payment referred to in subsection (3) unless, and subject to subsection (3H), on the making of the application, a designated person is satisfied that the person is a bona fide tenant, and—
(a) subject to subsection (3G) where applicable, was in receipt of a payment referred to in subsection (3) in respect of another tenancy immediately before the making of the application or was in receipt of the payment within a specified period as prescribed,
(b) has been residing, for the period that is prescribed, in rented accommodation in respect of which—
(i) there was at the commencement of the tenancy, an expectation that, in so far as was reasonable in all the circumstances, the person could pay the rent into the future, and
(ii) the person was in a position to pay the rent at the commencement of the tenancy, and subsequent to the commencement of the tenancy the person has experienced a substantial change in his or her circumstances and is unable to pay the rent and such change in circumstances has not been caused by that person, or
(c) has been residing, for the period that is prescribed—
(i) in accommodation for homeless persons as provided under section 10 of the Housing Act 1988, or
(ii) in an institution, except where the household of which the person is a member is determined to be qualified for social housing support by a housing authority under a social housing assessment pursuant to section 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.
(3FB)(a) Subsection (3F) shall apply, where appropriate, except in respect of a case to which paragraph (b) relates.
(b) Subsection (3FA) shall apply to a person where—
(i) regulations made under section 47 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 provide that a specified housing authority shall apply Part 4 of that Act in respect of a specified class of household, and
(ii) he or she is a member of a household within such a class of household and the specified authority is the housing authority for the household for the purposes of Part 4 of that Act.”.
(3) The Act of 2005 is amended in section 198 by inserting the following after subsection (3F):
“(3G)(a)(i) A person in receipt of a payment under subsection (3) in respect of a continuous period that is not shorter than a prescribed period shall—
(I) on being requested to do so in writing by a designated person, apply to the housing authority concerned for social housing support for his or her household and, as a consequence, for a social housing assessment to be carried out under section 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, and
(II) subject to subparagraph (ii), within 6 weeks of that request by a designated person, provide to the designated person confirmation that the household has forwarded a duly completed application form for social housing support to that authority for the purpose of a social housing assessment being so carried out.
(ii) The designated person may, where he or she is satisfied that an extension of time is justified in a particular case, extend the period referred to in subparagraph (i)(II) for a further period that shall not, in any case, exceed 6 weeks.
(iii) Where a person to whom subparagraph (i) applies fails to duly provide the confirmation in accordance with subparagraph (i)(II) or with that subparagraph and subparagraph (ii), then he or she shall cease to be entitled to a payment under subsection (3) when the period referred to in subparagraph (i)(II) or subparagraph (ii), as the case may be, has expired.
(b) A person in receipt of a payment under subsection (3) shall cease to be entitled to such a payment where a housing authority notifies the Minister that the household of which the person is a member has failed to duly supply to the authority additional information that the authority requested for the purposes of verifying information, for the purposes of a social housing assessment under section 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, that relates to the household’s application for social housing support.
(3H) A person in receipt of a payment under subsection (3) shall cease to be entitled to such a payment where a housing authority determines that the household of which the person is a member is qualified for social housing support and the authority notifies the Minister that—
(a) social housing support is being provided to that household,
(b) housing assistance under Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 is an appropriate form of support for that household and the household has done or failed to do anything in consequence of which the household has not taken up that form of social housing support, or
(c) by virtue of the operation of section 20(5B) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, the household is ineligible for social housing support for a period prescribed under that enactment.
(4) The Act of 2005 is amended in section 290A—
(a) by substituting the following for subsection (1):
“290A. (1) This section applies to a beneficiary who is—
(a) a tenant of a housing body, or
(b) a tenant of a dwelling that is the subject of housing assistance under section 37 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, and who is entitled to a benefit prescribed under this section.”,
(b) by substituting the following for subsection (4):
“(4) A deduction and payment made pursuant to this section shall cease—
(a) where the beneficiary—
(i) ceases, upon his or her death or otherwise, to be a tenant of a housing body,
(ii) ceases, upon his or her death or otherwise, to be a tenant of a dwelling that is the subject of housing assistance under section 37 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, or
(iii) otherwise ceases to be entitled to a benefit prescribed under this section,
or
(b) where such deduction and payment are discontinued in accordance with this section.”,
and
(c) in subsection (7), by substituting “as amended by the Local Government Reform Act 2014” for “amended by section 8 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 64, lines 20 and 21, to delete “Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005” and substitute “Act of 2005”.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 51.
Amendments Nos. 50 to 52, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 65, to delete line 2.
These amendments are linked and provide for necessary amendments to section 51 of the Bill, which in turn amends section 31 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. The published Bill already provides for certain amendments to section 31, rent schemes and charges, of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. The additional amendments required now arise from the transitional arrangements decided upon for the introduction of local authority rent charging under section 31 of the 2009 Act and the consequent need for bespoke arrangements for charging rent contributions on HAP beneficiaries during the transition period for section 31 local authority rent charging.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are technical amendments which are consequential on and allow for the making of the substantive amendment, No. 52. The latter amendment provides for the insertion of two amendments in section 51 of the Bill to make necessary substantive amendments to section 31 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. A new paragraph (h) is inserted into section 31(6) of the 2009 Act empowering the Minister to prescribe that among the matters to be included in a rent scheme is the manner in which a housing authority shall determine rent and charges for local authority and rental accommodation scheme dwellings under section 31 and the considerations to be taken into account for that purpose during a transitional period that will expire on a prescribed date falling not later than two years after the rent charging provision of section 31 comes into operation. Under the proposed paragraph (h), in determining section 31 rents during the transitional period, housing authorities will have to have regard to the other provisions of regulations under section 31 and any ministerial guidance issued to them in the manner under section 5 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.
A new subsection 6(a) is also inserted into section 31 of the 2009 Act empowering the Minister in respect of the transitional period for section 31 rents payable by local authority and RAS tenants to prescribe the rent contributions payable to a housing authority on behalf of a household in receipt of housing assistance, having regard to the composition, financial circumstances and ability to pay of the household.
The introduction in this Bill of a transitional period for section 31 rents for local authority and RAS tenants will put back the introduction of section 31 rent charging, which was originally expected to take place on 1 January 2015 after the elected members of each housing authority would have made their first rent scheme under section 31. I now expect that housing authorities will start to charge rents under section 31 from 1 July 2015. This necessitates the extension of the period of a transitional rent arrangement for tenants of housing authorities that were amalgamated or dissolved on 1 June, as was provided for in paragraph 14(4) of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Reform Act 2014. This transitional arrangement provides that former tenants of these councils will pay rent to their successor authorities at the rates of their dissolved authorities until the section 31 rent scheme comes into operation on 1 January 2015. Amendment No. 52 will extend that transitional arrangement until 30 June 2015, the day before housing authorities begin to charge rents under section 31 of the 2009 Act.
Basically, these deal with the transitional period for the new rent scheme.
Amendment No. 52 is included in this group. Deputy Cowen has tabled an amendment regarding people on RAS.
That is a different amendment to be dealt with later.
I will discuss it then.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 65, line 7, to delete “subsection (3).”.” and substitute the following:
“subsection (3).”,
and
(c) by substituting the following for paragraph (g) of subsection (6):
“(g) the waiving of rent and other charges, in whole or in part, on a temporary basis, in case of financial hardship;
(h) subject to subsection (6A), the manner in which a housing authority shall, having regard to—
(i) financial circumstances of households and their ability to pay rent,
(ii) the other provisions of regulations made under this subsection, and
(iii) any guidance issued in the matter under section 5,
determine rent and charges under this section during a transitional period that will expire on a date prescribed by the Minister, which date shall not be later than 2 years after the date subsection (3) comes into operation.”,
and
(d) by inserting the following after subsection (6):
“(6A) The Minister may, having regard to the composition, financial circumstances and ability to pay rent of a qualified household in receipt of housing assistance under Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, prescribe the rent contribution that will be payable to a housing authority by a tenant who is a member of that household during the transitional period referred to in paragraph (h) of subsection (6).”.”.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 65, after line 7, to insert the following:
“Amendment of Local Government Reform Act 2014
52. Schedule 4 to the Local Government Reform Act 2014 is amended in paragraph 14(4) by substituting “30 June 2015” for “31 December 2014”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 55 form a composite proposal and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 65, after line 7, to insert the following:
“Amendment of Housing Finance Agency Act 1981
53. The Housing Finance Agency Act 1981 is amended—
(a) in section 4(2)(c) by inserting the following subparagraph after subparagraph (ii):
“(iii) to the Local Government Management Agency, to be used by it for the purpose of the performance of its functions,”,
and
(b) in section 5 by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (c):
“(ca) the Local Government Management Agency, to be used by it for the purpose of the performance of its functions,”.”.
Amendment No. 53 inserts two new provisions into sections 4 and 5 of the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981, providing for lending by the Housing Finance Agency to the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA. The LGMA is a central resource for the local government sector, providing, procuring and co-ordinating a range of support and shared services which are most appropriately and efficiently delivered at national level. Shared services are identified in the public service reform plan as an important opportunity to make further savings in local government administrative costs through streamlining and improving service delivery. The establishment of these shared services and provision of these efficiencies require initial financing, and this amendment provides a legislative basis for lending by the HFA to the LGMA should it be required. The LGMA is funded by a levy on each local authority and this levy will include a contribution to the shared services programme, thus ensuring the repayment of the loans concerned.
Amendment No. 55, which is linked to amendment No. 53, amends the Long Title of the Bill to cover the amendment of the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 65, after line 7, to insert the following:
“Provision of housing units
52. In the provision of housing units, a local authority shall give priority to persons that have been responsible tenants in leased accommodation under the Rental Accommodation Scheme.”.
I tabled this amendment as a safeguard in the event of the Minister not accepting the earlier amendment that deals with people being taken off housing lists.
It is proposed that those with lease agreements be considered for vacancies in the existing housing stock. As would be expected, these people have a proven track record in the maintenance and upkeep of the home which was leased to them. Based on recent trends, there is the prospect that lease agreements will not be renewed because of the rent caps. My amendment proposes that tenants who have availed of leased accommodation under the RAS be considered for casual vacancies in the housing stock as they arise by virtue of their proven track record in adhering to lease agreements.
At the time the RAS was introduced, a commitment was given that people would be housed and the lease would roll over, or they would get a local authority house. It seems that commitment was never lived up to. What has happened is that many who availed of accommodation under RAS have ended up homeless, which is absolutely scandalous. They are left sitting in no-man's-land. I understand that the agreement at the time was that people who availed of RAS would be taken off the housing list from 2011. People who had been on the housing list for ten years or more now find that they must go back and start all over again. That does not make sense. There must be a provision to prioritise the people who availed of RAS. It needs to be made clear that people who availed of RAS were told that they would have permanent accommodation but now they find that is not the case. I do not think that is acceptable.
I have a problem with the wording of Deputy Cowen's amendment, which states: "a local authority shall give priority to persons that have been responsible tenants in leased accommodation". By all means the local authority can consider their application, but giving them priority is a problem in so far as local authorities are entitled to make their own allocation schemes. Under section 22 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, a housing authority can determine the order of priority in which it makes allocations to individual households in accordance with its allocation scheme. Section 22(5) allows the housing authority, having regard to any regulations made by the Minister in that regard, to reserve dwellings available for allocation in its area in respect of particular classes of household, forms of tenure, and households transferring from other forms of social housing support. The making of an allocation scheme is a reserved function of the local authority. In providing for specific allocations and prioritising for same, it is important to have regard to those vulnerable groups that are in greatest need but also to avoid measures that would have unintended consequences for the different categories of need.
My concern about accepting Deputy Cowen's proposal is that those who have availed of RAS would get priority and that would have the effect of constraining the local authority in terms of applying its own allocation scheme. One may well be giving priority to people who have a lesser need than other people who are looking for housing. I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment.
At the time the RAS was introduced, a commitment was given to people on the housing list that were they to accept accommodation under the scheme they would be taken off the housing list, but on the basis that they would have a place and would either get another RAS if the RAS disappeared or get local authority housing. Now these people are faced with a terrible situation if, for example, they suddenly find that their landlord wants to sell up, even though he or she is a RAS landlord, and they cannot find other accommodation under the scheme. How do we deal with that situation? We must prioritise the housing needs of these people.
Would the Minister of State consider alternative wording, such as "due and weighted consideration" based on the systems in place in the local authority?
Perhaps we can have a look at alternate wording. I cannot accept the amendment as it stands, because it states that priority would have to be given to "responsible tenants". How does one determine who is a "responsible tenant"?
There should be due weight attached to the people who fall into that category in the local systems that exist. Most local authorities have a points system.
I am loath to constrain the local authorities in the allocation of houses, because one of the functions of local authorities is to make an allocation scheme in accordance with general policy.
I know the point the Deputy is making that if the RAS tenancy falls through, the local authority has a certain obligation to these people. However, to specify that they must be given priority-----
Could it be worded in terms of putting them back on the housing list and dating it back to the time when they first went on the housing list? People who availed of housing under RAS had to have been on the housing list for at least three years to be eligible for RAS in the first place. They would have been a long time on the housing list. There may be a way of giving them a position on the list.
There appear to be different arrangements depending on the local authority area. Obviously the local authorities are entitled to make their own schemes for letting priorities.
I am dealing with a situation in which a person surrendered a three-bedroom house in favour of a one-bedroom apartment under RAS. The landlord has now pulled out of the RAS scheme and finding substitute accommodation under RAS is proving impossible. That person would never have surrendered a three-bedroom local authority house if he or she thought that by doing so he or she would be put in a vulnerable position, yet the local authority benefited from that. The Minister states that acceptance of the amendment would change the policy. I need to give more thought to what is proposed.
There has been a change in policy. In cases in which people are homeless, the local authorities have been told now that these people must get first priority. In that scenario, the scheme of letting priorities goes out the window. The Department, in that instance, has changed the allocation scheme based on homelessness. It cannot be said that local authorities are not being dictated to on their housing allocation schemes, albeit in a different sense by the Department.
The Minister has certain powers of direction, but the question is whether we want to direct that this group gets first priority. I am loath to be too prescriptive in directing local authorities on their letting schemes, because that is one of their powers.
I do not know if there is a wording that would be agreeable to all members that would address the issue in this amendment - that people on the rental accommodation scheme may find themselves in a situation in which they do not have alternative accommodation if the RAS arrangement falls down. I cannot accept the specific wording of this amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 5, line 11, after “payments,” to insert “to amend the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
The amendments must be tabled for Report Stage before Friday. That is a tight schedule for many members.
The Deputy can take that up with the Bills Office. He should be entitled to four working days to table amendments.
Bill reported with amendments.