Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 6 in my name has been ruled out of order as have amendments Nos. 8 and 9. I wish to speak to the principle of the three amendments in the context of section 21 because I do not want to come back in later and delay proceedings.

This is an issue about which I am very passionate. There are a substantial number of vacant properties around the country in circumstances where older people have gone into long-term nursing home case. I estimate that approximately 4,500 homes are left empty every year because people go into long-term nursing home care. In the region of 400 of those are rented out. This means that more than 4,000 homes are being left vacant each year. Once a home is vacant, by the time it has gone through the whole process, namely, probate and being sold and refurbished, there is, on average, a six-year timeline. As a result, up to 25,000 homes could potentially be locked out of the system at any one time. These are homes in established communities where broadband is available, they are close to schools and the necessary infrastructure is already in place. At the height of a housing crisis, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever not to treat the rental income from a family home in these circumstances in the same way as it is treated by the Department of Social Protection.

There is a perverse system laid out in the existing legislation whereby if such a home is rented out, a person will pay for it three times. The capital value of that asset is paid for at 7.5% for the first three years. On top of that, the rental income is considered a source of income and 80% of that is calculated as means. If that rental income is lodged into the older person's bank account, that is considered capital on deposit and charged at 7.5% as well. People are paying three times for a single asset when that kind of property is rented out. The Department of Social Protection has a system for dealing with capital assets. It either takes the capital value of the asset or the income that is generated from that asset into account, but not both. In the situation to which I refer, both are taken into account. This acts as an artificial barrier to the renting out of the homes in question.

I listened intently to some of the comments made by the Minister of State. I have spoken to her privately on this matter and explained that I am not looking for special treatment. All I am seeking is equity in the context of the system. I know the argument has been made by some people in the Department of Health that an older person may be forced into a nursing home in the circumstances we are discussing because the family may want to rent out the property. There is no significant financial incentive for a family to do that. The incentive is that it ensures that the house will not require the substantial maintenance that would be required in the case of a vacant property. There are many families who would love to see their former family homes providing accommodation for, perhaps, some of their relatives or neighbours.

It is disingenuous to say that an older person could be forced into long-term nursing home care. As the Minister knows, under the fair deal scheme, a person can only be deemed eligible to require long-term nursing home care on the basis of an independent medical assessment. Unless the Minister is suggesting that an independent medical assessment is flawed, then that safety net is already there. This is a safety net which, believe it or not, is not present in the social welfare system and this has not caused a problem up to now.

I am looking for equitable treatment in the context of the renting out of these properties. I am not seeking preferential treatment. I want the properties in questions to be treated in the same way as they would be by the Department of Social Protection. If the latter happens, there would no longer be a barrier to the renting out of these 25,000 or so family homes in established communities throughout the country at a time when we are in the midst of a housing crisis.

I raised this issue with the Taoiseach in the Dáil on 5 May. He informed me that the Departments of Health and Housing, Local Government and Heritage are working together on developing the policy on the treatment of rental income and have agreed a process that is in train. It seems that, in principle, the Government has accepted the argument I have been putting forward and that this committee put forward in the previous Dáil at pre-legislative scrutiny stage, when it clearly stated that this anomaly needed to be addressed. It seems, however, that we are not going to do it now and that we will do it at some point down the road. It took approximately three years to get the Government to decide to bring forward the Bill. It has taken a further three years for it to be published. If it takes six years for this anomaly to be addressed, there will be more than 150,000 homes locked out of the housing market while we consider a solution to this problem.

That is not good enough. It is abhorrent when we are in the middle of a housing crisis. If the Minister of State cannot accept my amendments, I plead with and urge her to come back on Report Stage with a constructive amendment to deal equitably with this problem.