Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 6 October 2004
122 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the findings of the report by CentreCare and the Dublin Citizens Information Service, Creating Crisis: the Impact of Rent Supplement Restrictions, which show that cuts in the rent supplement have created severe hardship for many persons; if he will reverse these cutbacks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23470/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra124 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs further to the recent announcements by Government about rent supplement, the effect these changes have had on the persons on the ground; the instructions he has issued to health boards in relation to rent supplements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23465/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 122 and 124 together.
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards, provides for a weekly or monthly supplement of rent to eligible people in the State whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation needs. Although the scheme is intended to address short-term income maintenance needs, the numbers accessing it in recent years have grown substantially and the length of time people spend on the scheme has increased. Consequently, a number of changes to the rent supplement scheme were introduced earlier this year.
The likely impact of the changes was assessed in advance and the manner of their implementation was carefully designed to ensure that the interests of vulnerable groups such as the homeless, the elderly and the disabled are protected. The community welfare staff who administer the scheme on behalf of my Department were advised of the changes by means of a formal circular. My Department has been in regular contact with the community welfare staff before and since the introduction of the changes in January.
A working group was established under Sustaining Progress to facilitate engagement with the social partners in monitoring the impact of the changes to the scheme. The working group, which was chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, included representatives from ICTU and the community and voluntary pillars, as well as my Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The group met a number of community welfare officers as part of its work. The working group examined 498 randomly selected rent supplement applications which were refused since the measures came into effect in January 2004. The result was that they found that only 11% of refusals were because of the new measures. Many of those would in any event have been refused on other grounds. The group concluded that the new measures were not having any significant adverse impact with regard to the design of the measures, including the operation of the appropriate level of discretion by the community welfare officers. In that regard, I point out that more than 27,000 rent supplements have been awarded since the measures came into effect at the end of January 2004.
The recent report by CentreCare and the City Centre Dublin Citizens' Information Service stated that its purpose was to identify issues arising from the first six months since changes to rent supplement eligibility rules were introduced. The report was based on a survey of 51 cases where the applicant was refused rent supplement, with information relating to 40 other similar cases not included in the survey. The report does not show that the new measures are causing hardship. In some cases, rent supplements were awarded. It is also clear from the information given regarding several other cases cited that the application failed for reasons not connected with the new measures. My Department has identified several significant inaccuracies in the report and does not accept its central conclusions.
In the light of the report published by the social partners working group and the fact that more than 27,000 rent supplements have been awarded since the measures became effective, it does not appear that the changes in the supplementary welfare allowance rent schemes have created hardship. Deputies are aware that the arrangements are part of a wider programme of change whereby local authorities will progressively assume responsibility for meeting long-term housing needs, including those of people dependent on rent supplements for 18 months or longer. Those new arrangements will see local authorities put in place positive solutions for people with long-term housing needs, while the existing rent supplement scheme will continue to provide short-term income support in appropriate circumstances. The overall programme of change, particularly the greater role of the housing authorities regarding people who need rent supplements, will result in a better outcome both for the State and the individuals concerned.
The Minister obviously disputes the findings and central thrust of the report which was carried out by the department of planning and development at the Dublin Institute of Technology and launched within recent weeks. Whatever one might say regarding some of the findings, does it not indicate that large numbers of vulnerable people are experiencing hardship as a result of the cuts to the rent supplement and the operation of the revised scheme? In particular, the changes to the eligibility for rent supplement are causing people to live in undesirable housing situations. The Government has cut holes in the housing safety net by removing eligibility from many people. What alternatives do vulnerable people have in the absence of the rent supplement provision? Does the Minister agree that not enough social or affordable housing is available for such people? He says that local authorities will fill the void, but how can they do that when housing waiting lists are overloaded with those awaiting housing allocations? Is Threshold also wrong? Evidence from it shows that the groups worst affected are returning emigrants, those with a crisis pregnancy, those moving from rural areas to urban ones seeking employment, and single homeless men. Where do they fit into this picture? Is the Minister trying to tell me that today?
I know the Minister has been burdened with one of the savage 16 cuts that his predecessor put in place. This is one that will come back to haunt the Government, along with 14 others, only one of the measures having been reversed. I appeal to the Minister to reverse those savage 16 cuts when he gets the opportunity. They saved a paltry €52 million and visited tremendous difficulties on large and vulnerable sections of the community.
Are the Simon Community, Threshold, the City Centre Dublin Citizens' Information Service and CentreCare all out of touch, or might it be the Minister's Department that is out of touch?
As I said in my reply, there was a working group chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, involving the ICTU, the community and voluntary pillars and various Departments. There were meetings with community welfare officers. They examined 498 randomly selected rent supplement applicants who were refused and found that only 11% of refusals were as a result of the new measures. The group concluded that the new measures were not having any significant adverse impact with regard to the design of the scheme and especially the level of discretion that community welfare officers had.
As the Deputy knows, specific provision has been made to ensure that the interests of vulnerable groups, particularly the homeless, are fully protected in the implementation of these measures. In that context, no one with a genuine accommodation need will be made homeless as a result of the new measures. Under the Social Welfare Acts, a health board has the discretion to make a payment if, in its opinion, the circumstances of any case still warrant it. I have instructed my Department to review those 16 decisions and give me a report at the earliest possible date on how they are working and whether any hardship issues are involved. It may be that some of them need further adjustment, but I have asked for all 16 to be reviewed. That is not to say that I will necessarily make any changes to them, but I have asked for a review and a full report on each one with an assessment of the change's effect on any individuals and whether there might be another way of dealing with the issue.
There is a major conflict between the two reports from the different groups monitoring the effects of the rent supplement changes. Does the Minister think it acceptable that the Department's group met on four occasions and spoke in that time to only three community welfare officers? How could one have a proper report if that was the case? That is not a random sample of community welfare officers throughout the State. Will the Minister ensure his Department contacts the groups with which there is a conflict, namely, those which say that his report is not accurate, that their report, based on dealing with people involved, is correct, and that the cuts in rent supplement entitlement are having an effect?
Regarding the recent changes to the rent supplement which are undoubtedly having a major effect, especially with 52,000 on the housing waiting list and 1,733 social houses built last year, which means there is a major crisis, what deal has been done with local authorities? Perhaps the Minister might let me know what is happening regarding local authorities being able to rent houses from the private sector on long-term leases. What instructions have local authorities received from the Department? The Minister might not have the figures today, but I hope that he will let me know. How many local authorities have entered into private arrangements to lease houses?
That is not within the Minister's remit.
The Department of Social and Family Affairs pays the bills and instructs the local authorities.
The Deputy informs me that three community welfare officers were consulted. I cannot say whether the Deputy is right or wrong. My information is that the working group involving the ICTU, the Department of the Taoiseach and the voluntary and community pillars met several such officers, although I am not clear on the exact number. If the Deputy wishes, I can certainly check that point for him. Some 27,000 rent supplements have been awarded since the measures came into effect at the end of January 2004. I have already given the figure that the group found that 11% of refusals were because of the new measures. The rest would have been refused in any case on other eligibility grounds. On the housing front, I will endeavour to seek out that information for the Deputy.
