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

I will reply to each amendment individually as they are quite detailed. The effect of section 53 is to meet a person's housing need on a continuous basis by providing a mandatory rental deduction facility whereby the person does not fall into arrears, which would also have the effect of reducing financial liability for local authorities for rent arrears. Where a mandatory direct deduction facility was not available this would have serious consequences for a household in allowing arrears to develop in the context of creating a poverty trap for the households concerned and potentially jeopardising the ongoing availability of their accommodation.

In addition, the introduction of systems that will ensure that rental contributions due from tenants who are on social welfare are paid directly to the housing authority is central to the successful implementation of HAP. In recent years the extent of rental arrears from social housing tenants has been rising. At the end of 2011 the extent of the accumulated rent arrears across all housing authorities was €53.25 million. At the end of 2012 this figure had risen to €56.4 million. Notwithstanding local authorities writing off an element of these arrears each year as bad debts, it is clear that the problems associated with arrears are increasing year on year which makes it critical that systems are put in place to avoid even greater levels of rent arrears.

It is important to note that both my Department and the Department of Social Protection have engaged jointly with the Attorney General on this matter. The Office of the Attorney General has agreed with the principle of a mandatory deduction of rents, specifically where the customer's social welfare payment may be reduced below the statutory minimum on the basis that the requirement for accommodation is a basic human need. The same advice also stated that there is no legal requirement to have a limit in place as to the amount to be deducted from a social welfare payment provided the tenant recipient is aware of the deduction and the deduction is calculated in accordance with the local authorities differential rent scheme. The Office of the Attorney General has further advised of no legal impediment to deducting a rental payment at source for the provision of social housing support and or to making the tenant HAP recipient pay the full rent amount on the basis that the tenant is entering a binding contract on the provision of support and therefore has a legal obligation with respect to the payment of rent.

It is very much evident that a clear basis exists for the deduction of local authority rent from social welfare payments by virtue of the fact it meets one of a customer's basic needs, which is contemplated within the current statutory minimum. In terms of arrears, we have also been advised that there is no legal impediment to the deduction of rent arrears from a social welfare payment, provided the local authority is satisfied that the rent arrears deduction, particularly where combined with a Department of Social Protection, DSP, deduction of overpayments, will not reduce a tenant to the point where he or she does not have sufficient means. That is an important point.

The amount of rent arrears to be deducted will be limited in a manner similar to social welfare overpayments, namely, a maximum of 15% of the personal rate will apply. This is designed to be realistic rather than punitive in terms of representing what a householder can reasonably be expected to pay. We are very conscious that we are dealing with people who have very limited income and we do not want to take more than 15% of the personal rate as this is the current practice in the Department of Social Protection.

In terms of reporting, as I indicated in my response to amendment No. 33, it is intended that extensive monitoring will be carried out in respect of all operational aspects for the HAP scheme, including the direct deduction facility. It is expected that periodic reports will be made available to the Government and the relevant Oireachtas committees for consideration.

On amendments Nos. 35 and 38, 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 this information will have already 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. The customer will already know.

In respect of amendment No. 37, as I have advised Deputies in the Dáil, I cannot accept this amendment. 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. The 15% ceiling was set in consultation with the Attorney General's office as a realistic limit, rather than a punitive limit, on the deductions concerned. It is considered to be the appropriate limit on deductions to avoid the social welfare recipient falling into destitution. "Destitution" is a terrible word but this provision seeks to ensure that people do not have too much money taken. In practice, the maximum deduction that could be made for social welfare overpayments and rent arrears under the 15% ceiling varies from €27.90 for a person on supplementary welfare allowance to €34.55 per week for a person in receipt of a contributory State pension. The combined deduction of social welfare overpayments and rent arrears will not exceed a total maximum of 15% of the personal rate of social welfare payment and this will afford the necessary protection to customers.

The combined effect of rent arrears and any overpayments will still only be 15%. It is not the case that one can take 15% for one purpose and take more for another, the combined amount is 15%.

I hope that addresses the various issues. I know this is a difficult issue because we are speaking about people on very limited incomes. One of the Deputies in the Dáil told a story about a husband and wife and their family in his constituency. His wife certainly believed that he was paying the rent, but in fact he was not and they got notice of owing a very large amount of money. Under the provisions of the Bill that situation will not arise. While I know it is difficult, it is important to have a system whereby people do not fall into serious rent arrears and therefore put their whole family under stress. In the balance of things, I think it is appropriate that we do this.