Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This issue concerns a couple who do not wish to be publicly identified so I will refer to them as Mary and Tom. Mary was a lone parent with three children, who are now aged seven, two and nine months. She had been renting a home privately in my constituency for €1,200, for which she was in receipt of a rent allowance of €999 per month. On 7 April, she married Tom. Because Tom is in full-time employment, the couple immediately lost their rent allowance. Tom's income, however, is quite low, €505 per week, which is clearly not sufficient to pay €300 rent a week while maintaining a family of five on the balance.

The couple notified the community welfare officer of their new circumstances after their wedding and were informed that they no longer qualify for rent allowance because one of them was in full-time employment. They subsequently notified their landlord that the rent allowance would be discontinued and the landlord has issued them with notice to quit, effective from next Thursday.

They are on the local authority housing list and inquired as to their prospects of a local authority house. They are placed 199 on a list which has some 4,000 applicants on it. The council stated that it could not offer them housing at this stage and that they would be waiting for some time. It advised them to make contact with the homeless persons unit. The homeless persons unit informed them that it could possibly provide them with emergency accommodation from Thursday but the family would have to be separated as it could not access accommodation to house them as a family.

Recently, on behalf of the Labour Party, I proposed a motion calling for the replacement of the rent allowance system with a new form of housing support which would be related to income and would not discriminate between those in work and those in receipt of social welfare. I pointed out during the debate that the existing rent allowance system creates a massive poverty trap, acts as a disincentive to work and discriminates against working families. The Government voted down that motion. Now I have this case in my constituency and I would like the Minister to address a number of questions.

How is this family to be housed from next Thursday? They will lose their private rented accommodation, will not have housing from the local authority, will not have rent allowance to pay rent and the best the homeless persons unit can do is to send the husband and son in one direction and the wife and daughters in the another direction — back to the workhouse. Will the family get some form of assistance towards paying their rent to resolve this problem? The community welfare officer cannot do anything about it. I have spoken to the superintendent community welfare officer and his hands are tied. The regulations explicitly state that if someone is in full-time employment, he cannot get the rent allowance.

There is a question mark over the constitutionality of the situation. The Constitution protects marriage but here a person marries and loses an entitlement she previously had and will now lose her home. This case highlights the need to reform the rent allowance scheme and provide for the housing needs of low-income working families. This case requires urgent action to deal with the housing needs of this family which will become critical next Thursday.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, provides for the payment of rent supplement to eligible people whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs.

Under standard assessment rules, rent supplements are calculated to ensure that an eligible person, after the payment of rent, has an income equal to the rate of basic supplementary welfare allowance appropriate to his or her family circumstances, less a minimum contribution, currently €13, which each recipient is required to pay from his or her resources. Where a person has an additional income as a result of participation on a training course or in part-time employment, the standard means test now provides for a weekly disregard of up to €60 per week of additional income, with half of any additional income between €60 and €90 also disregarded for means assessment purposes. For those participating in approved training courses, any lunch or travel allowances paid may also be disregarded. In addition, certain training courses now provide a child care allowance to participants on certain courses. The 2006 budget provided that these child care allowances are to be treated in the same manner as a lunch or travel allowance and disregarded.

With the exception of those participating in approved employment schemes, people engaged in full-time remunerative employment are excluded from receiving assistance under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. This requirement is set out in the Social Welfare Act and has been a feature of the scheme since it was established in 1977. In recent years, this provision had been bypassed by the practice of applications being made by the spouse or partner of a person in full-time employment.

In the 2004 budget, measures were introduced to give effect to the original intention that the supplementary welfare allowance should not be paid in households with full-time open market employment. Paying a rent supplement to working households clearly goes beyond the income support objective of the rent supplement scheme and into the areas of housing provision and wage subsidisation.

The Health Service Executive has been contacted concerning this case and has advised that the person concerned had been in receipt of rent supplement of €999.90 per month. As part of a routine review, the executive requested details of income and tenancy from the person concerned. The executive suspended payment of rent supplement when the details were not forthcoming from the person concerned.

The community welfare officer subsequently discovered that the person concerned had been married in April 2006. Following further investigation, it came to light that the husband of the person concerned is in full-time remunerative employment. The executive has further advised that the person concerned would not have an entitlement to rent supplement from the date of her marriage as, under social welfare legislation, a person may not receive rent supplement if that person or his or her spouse or partner is engaged in full-time employment.

The executive has further advised that any arrears due to the person concerned for the period prior to her marriage would be payable upon receipt of the outstanding documentation. It is open to the person concerned to appeal the decision to the designated appeals officer within the Health Service Executive.