asked the Minister for the Environment if his attention has been drawn to the severe hardship imposed on tenants of Limerick Corporation by the recent increases in rents and if he will make a statement on the matter.

38.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he will outline the reasons for the abolition of the rents concession to social welfare recipients whereby they are now assessed in full for rent purposes on their benefits.

39.

asked the Minister for the Environment if his attention has been drawn to the grave hardship being caused to social welfare recipients due to the recent changes in the differential rent scheme; and, if so, the steps he proposes to take to alleviate this unfair financial burden on the most needy sections of the community.

40.

asked the Minister for the Environment if his attention has been drawn to the rent increases of up to several hundred per cent, being charged to social welfare recipients due to recent changes in the differential rent scheme; and the steps he proposes to take to compensate these most needy sections of the community.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 37 to 40, inclusive, together.

I am not aware that severe hardship has been imposed on tenants of Limerick Corporation, or indeed of any other local authority, following the introduction of the 1980 national rents scheme. The scheme is fair and equitable to all categories of tenants and is so designed that no tenant is required to pay a rent which he cannot reasonably afford.

In so far as the assessment for rent purposes of incomes of social welfare recipients is concerned, certain anomalies occurred in previous schemes due to the differing methods of assessing social welfare assistance payments, benefit payments and pensions—some were assessed at 50 per cent while others were assessed at 100 per cent. To obviate these anomalies, all basic income is now being assessed at the full rate. However, to offset the effects of rent increases which this procedure would entail, particularly in the lower income groups, I have made substantial increases in the assessable incomes to which the rent fractions apply and also in the graded scale of allowances for principal earners while at the same time I have reduced from one-twelfth to one-twentieth the rent fraction at the lowest band of the graded scale. It should be noted that in cases of genuine hardship it is open to local authorities to accept from a tenant for a specified period a lesser sum for rent than that required under the scheme.

Will the Minister of State tell the House if the intention of the Department to assess the benefits of social welfare recipients in full for rent purposes was communicated to the Minister for Finance in advance of the budget?

I have not that information.

Will the Minister of State tell the House whether he, on behalf of the Government, considers the income level of social welfare recipients as adequate to meet the cost of living?

That is a separate question and does not arise here.

I am not the Minister for Social Welfare. Perhaps the Deputy should address a question to that Minister.

I am trying to establish if the decision which fundamentally changes the way rent is assessed was done in conjunction with any other Department. Is it in order to ask that question? In his reply the Minister indicated it was fair and equitable. Will he state if the National Association of Tenants' Organisations with whom he has had consultations have indicated that they consider the new rent scheme to be fair and equitable?

I have not received any letter from them stating it is unfair.

Does the Minister accept the statements in the questions that there have been rent increases of several hundred per cent in specific cases.

Nobody is being asked to pay more than they are able to pay on their income. I should like to point out that this year the subsidy on local authority housing paid for by the taxpayers will be £65 million.

That does not arise on this question either.

In view of the certainty of the Minister that there is no undue hardship on people, will he tell us how many tenants are involved?

I have not that information.

I will call Deputy Quinn for a final supplementary question. Deputy Keating has had four or five supplementary questions.

Four questions are being taken together.

Is it the case that the Minister of State, who is normally forthcoming with information, has not got any information in this case? In that event how could he reasonably conclude that there is no hardship when he does not know how many people are affected?

I am satisfied that the new rent scheme is satisfactory. I have not received any complaints about it.

Is the Minister, his Department or anybody in the Custom House aware that the impact of the new rents scheme which is a national rents scheme is that some rents have been increased by as much as 700 per cent?

Rents are revised in line with income.

Perhaps the acoustics are not the best, I asked the Minister if either he or anybody in the Custom House were aware when they drew up this scheme that in some cases the effect would be to increase by 700 per cent the basic rent for certain local authority dwellings?

When we drew up this scheme we had to bear in mind who was going to pay and we had to take into consideration, with the finances available to us, what was the best thing to do. I am satisfied with the scheme and I have had no complaints.

Question No. 41. We must move on.

Why was the previous formula changed?

To up-date this and bring it into line.

Question No. 41.

Deputies, please.

What does bringing it into line mean?