Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The introduction of systems that will ensure rental contributions due from tenants on social welfare are paid directly to the housing authority is central to the implementation of the housing assistance payment, HAP. At the end of 2011 the extent of the accumulated rent arrears across all housing authorities was €53.25 million. By the end of 2012 the figure had risen to €56.4 million. Deputy Ó Snodaigh in particular referred to the fact that the majority of tenants do pay their rent. It is a differential scheme so it is based on income. It is not fair to those people who pay their rent that others on the same income with the same family circumstances are not be obliged to pay their rent. Some arrears have been written off as bad debts but the problem is very serious and must be addressed.

The effect of the proposed provisions is to meet a person's housing need on a continuous basis by providing a mandatory rental deduction facility whereby a person does not fall into arrears, which would have the effect of reducing financial liability for local authorities for rent arrears. Where a mandatory direct deduction facility is not available, this would also have serious consequences in allowing arrears to develop in the context of creating a poverty trap for the households concerned. In one of Deputy Boyd Barrett’s examples he said the man of the house was not paying the rent but the rest of the people in the house thought he was and therefore they fell into arrears. That would not happen in the case of direct deduction because the money would be deducted at source and the rent would be paid.

In reply to Deputy Coppinger who has just left the Chamber, it is important to note that the Office of the Attorney General has agreed with the principle of a mandatory deduction of rents. We did get legal advice. The requirement for accommodation is a basic human need. The office has further advised of no legal impediment to deducting a rental payment at source for the provision of social housing support and in making the tenant or HAP recipient pay the full rent amount on the basis that it is the tenant who enters a binding contract on the provision of support and therefore has a legal obligation with respect to the payment of rent. The same advice also stated that there is no legal requirement to have a limit in place as to the amount to be deducted. There is a clear basis in law that housing is addressing a basic human need and it is perfectly legal to deduct at source.

In terms of arrears we also have been advised that there is no legal impediment to the deduction of rent arrears. In response to Deputy Catherine Murphy’s question, the 15% includes the social welfare overpayment so it will not be 15% plus, it will be a maximum of 15%. The scheme is designed to be realistic rather than punitive in terms of representing what a householder can reasonably be expected to pay.

In respect of amendments Nos. 39 and 42, in so far as they provide for the Minister for Social Protection to notify the tenant of the authority's request for a deduction in respect of rent or rent arrears, the Minister for Social Protection will facilitate the request for the deduction of rent and-or rent arrears from a social welfare payment on receipt of the instruction from the housing authority. As the information will already have been provided to the customer by the housing authority, it would not be necessary or administratively efficient for a further notification to issue from the Department of Social Protection.

In respect of amendment No. 41, as previously advised on Committee Stage, 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. As I indicated, the 15% is the overall amount that can be taken. The 15% ceiling was set in consultation with the Attorney General's office as a realistic rather than a punitive limit on the deductions concerned and is considered to be the appropriate limit on deductions that would avoid the social welfare recipient falling into destitution. That is the basis for deductions at source. I have probably addressed the various issues - the debate ranged more widely – in terms of what the amendments contain.

See this speech in context