Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 87: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his Department has responded, or intends to respond, to the Make Room campaign (details supplied) to end homelessness by 2010; and if he will respond to critiques made of programmes run by his Department that are meant to assist those who are homeless and in general seeking access to housing. [37771/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Make Room campaign makes a number of proposals relating to rent supplements which are provided under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The campaign recommends that rent caps, namely the specified limits on the amount of rent that an applicant for rent supplement may incur, be reviewed to reflect the real market cost of renting. The rent limits have, in my view, a very important role in assuring that the existence of the rent supplement scheme does not artificially increase market rents. Setting rent limits higher than are justified by the market would have a distorting effect leading to a more general rise in rent levels. This in turn would worsen the affordability of rental accommodation unnecessarily, with a particular negative impact for tenants who are not in receipt of rent supplement.

The Department is reviewing the current limits at present in order to determine what limits should apply from January 2007 onwards. The review is taking account of prevailing rent levels in the private rental sector generally, together with detailed input from the Health Service Executive which administers the scheme on the market situation within each of its operational areas.

The review includes consultation with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Private Residential Tenancies Board. In addition, a number of the voluntary agencies working in this area are being consulted including those involved in the Make Room campaign. The objective of this process is to ensure that the new rent limits reflect realistic market conditions throughout the country, and that they will continue to enable the different categories of eligible tenant households to secure and retain suitable rented accommodation to meet their respective needs.

The campaign has called for a root and branch review of the rent supplement scheme. In this regard a fundamental review of all aspects of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, including the rent supplement scheme, has recently been completed, as part of my Department's series of evaluations under the Government's expenditure review initiative. I propose to publish a report of the findings of that review shortly.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Given that the Minister has concentrated on one narrow aspect of the Make Room campaign, will he comment on the overall aim of this campaign which comprises four respected national organisations, namely, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Threshold, the Simon Community and Focus Ireland? The basis of this campaign is a political goal to end homelessness in Ireland by 2010. I can accept the Minister would argue that tackling this problem is a matter for several Departments with responsibility in the area of direct housing provision. The campaign lists six specific goals, including responding to what people need, more and better housing, support to leave homelessness, renting on a low income, proper standards on renting and tackling poverty and preventing homelessness. I argue that direct responsibility for achieving four of those six goals comes under the work of his Department, in particular the goal of tackling poverty and preventing homelessness. This campaign and these organisations request that all Government policies be poverty proofed. I was under the impression this was meant to be a goal of Government policy making as a result of partnership agreements but the making of that request by these organisations, which are involved in meeting the needs of those of our citizens who are going without basic needs such as housing, seems to indicate it is not.

In concentrating on one particular area, namely people on low income who rent, the Minister seems to have set his face against reviewing the rent caps, which according to the organisations involved need to reflect the real market cost of renting. We will have to wait and see whether his review achieves that.

The Minister might also respond to other requests made by this campaign. One request is that rent supplement be paid in advance rather than in arrears because those who choose to rent and have to rent under the rent supplement scheme are put at a disadvantage to those who have to pay money upfront. Other requests include the extension of the rent supplement scheme to people working more than 30 hours a week on a means-tested basis and a root and branch review of rent supplement scheme to ensure adequate support is in place to meet housing costs for those in social housing and private rented accommodation.

I put it to the Minister that a fairly questionable statistic or lack of statistic arose during recent questioning of a value for money report on the rent supplement scheme at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. Some 40% of all rents are paid by the State in the form of the rent supplement, but there seems to be no co-ordination in regard to many of the new apartments built under section 23 funding, which have benefited twice through tax reliefs by way of the money invested in building the apartments and rent achieved subsequently from them. There is no joined-up Government thinking between the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Finance and the Department of Social and Family Affairs to address the fact that some developers here get a treble benefit from the State, while those in need of housing are being left to one side. We see gross enrichment of developers because of the need to house many of our citizens.

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I join the Deputy in complimenting the Make Room organisation and its component organisations. I have no difficulty with their objectives and what they want to achieve. We are making good solid progress in that direction generally.

On the question of rent caps, I concentrated on the rent supplement scheme because, I suspect, the question is also tabled to other Departments and I chose to deal with the part of it that referred to my Department, namely the rent supplement scheme.

I have rehearsed the argument here for being cautious about increasing the cap. If we account for 40%, or almost that percentage, of the rental market in the State and if we set the figure too high, we will drag up rents; and if we set the figure too low, we will not do enough for the people who need our support for rent supplement. Therefore, we have to set it at a figure that is practical and almost ensure there is tension in this respect to ensure we do not drag up figures in the market. All the evidence and advice available to me suggests we must set the figure at a very practical level to prevent our being a market leader and leading the rents upwards.

The current limits are being reviewed for January next. In setting them, we will take into account the points made by the Deputy. We are examining the possibility of setting them in a much more regional sense. Rents in one area are different from those in another. We will probably fine tune them substantially around regions and take account of the type of people involved. For example, single male accommodation is a particular problem area.

The Deputy's point about linking tax relief under section 23 to the State's need in this area is an interesting idea. The Government has not approached the issue on that basis. I do know whether rent relief could be restricted as to the eventual use of a property. I doubt if we could say that one could only have a 23% tax break on a property provided it is used by a local authority or by the State. I have not considered that proposal but it is an interesting thought. Off the top of my head, it seems fraught with all sorts of legal difficulties in terms of specifying that a property must be used for that purpose. I encourage the Deputy to advance the idea to see if it can be bottomed out and whether there is any room for its progression. Tax breaks are currently available to developers for a range of properties and the State enters the market in terms of securing accommodation and constructing its own properties.