2026-05-19

167. Deputy Séamus McGrath asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to outline a timeframe for the upward revision of social housing qualifying income limits. [37496/26]

I thank Deputy McGrath for raising this very important issue of the upward revision of social housing qualifying limits. As the Deputy will know, the then Minister for housing, Deputy O'Brien, increased the limits in 2023, as I recall, by about €5,000 for each of the various limits. That was to catch up with inflation and increases in social welfare payments, but time has moved on since then. We are now carrying out a review of social housing limits, what they should look like and whether we need more reform of them, other than simply increasing the limits for those who can avail of them. Last year, we delivered the most social housing in a single year in the history of the State, but we need to ensure those limits keep pace and ensure people can actually get onto those lists. Increasing the amount, which in turn will increase the numbers on the list, is not something that bothers me or has ever bothered me. We want to ensure that everyone can get a house in their local community on that spectrum, whether it is social housing, affordable housing, affordable housing supports to purchase, cost rental or people who are able to purchase without supports. We have to keep all these schemes under constant review and consideration to ensure there is not a gap appearing between various schemes. I am conscious that with affordable schemes, some local authorities are struggling, and that while we have the help to buy and shared equity schemes, if there is not a significant amount of private building going on in those local councils, it is difficult to benefit when you cannot purchase under one of those schemes. We are keeping all those schemes under constant review.

I thank the Minister and welcome his reply. As he said, the limits were last revised over three years ago, and as I understand it, they went up by €5,000 in the basic change. Unfortunately, that was not sufficient at the time, but it was a welcome increase. We certainly need to look at that group who find themselves outside the social housing qualifying limit but do not find themselves within reach of any other support scheme, whether that is cost rental, affordable purchase or any other scheme. We need to try to address the needs of that particular cohort of people - those individuals, couples and families. I also ask that this be more than just keeping in line with inflation, general growth or the need for an adjustment. This needs to be a fairly significant reform of the system. We need to try to capture as many as possible of that group who have been left behind . The Minister alluded to that in his reply, so I encourage him to be bold and brave with this, and to try to do something that will capture as many of that group who have been left behind as possible.

Given we have the time, we will go to Deputy Ó Broin for a supplementary contribution.

First, I fully agree with my committee colleague. In the Minister's consideration of this, it should not just be a question of the limit. When the Minister spoke about this at committee before, he was also looking at possibly linking the eligibility thresholds to some metric, and I have given that some thought since the committee meeting. Given that social housing is typically for a set percentage of households depending on their income, EU-SILC data, which is updated every year, could provide a useful link. In addition, I urge the Minister to look at the income disregard. We have a situation where, for example, the State awards the working family payment because it recognises that the working income of families is too low to meet an adequate standard of living, but that can then push them above the threshold. It is the same with disability allowance. We also have a larger number of working adult children forced to live at home because of the housing crisis, which can also result in families losing their position on the list. I am talking to colleagues in my own parliamentary party, and I am sure the Minister is doing likewise, who are having constituents removed off the list and they have no other option. This is something we would be keen to work with the Minister on, but it is quite urgent.

I thank both Deputies for their contributions. Deputy Ó Broin is correct; I said we were going to look at whether there were any other mechanisms. I agree that while there is a call for increasing the limits, and understandably so as welfare payments increase, inflation increases or society changes, it ends up with this question as to when the Minister will increase the limits and it is up to the Minister to do so. That is not the ideal way to do these things at all. It is not reflective and it needs to be more agile. There need to be more reflective, year-on-year changes. It is something I am looking at. The review is going to go a little bit deeper than simply the limits, and the Deputy is correct in that it needs to go beyond this. I assure both Deputies that I am very carefully examining these limits. It may be a question of increasing them in the short term while we look at a wider assessment of how we get to those limits and when they would be increased. We are carrying out that review and it will be completed this year. We will try to do it as quickly as possible.

I again thank the Minister for that. I am encouraged by his words. I ask that this happen as quickly as possible. If a broader review is required, the Minister might increase the limits initially while that review is undertaken, because as public representatives we are all dealing with people who are on very low incomes but find themselves outside the limits. It is a disincentive to work; that is the reality of the situation. If people find themselves pulling back on their working hours, their working week and so on so that they stay within the limits, that is not good enough at a time when we need everybody engaging in employment to the best of their ability. This is currently a disincentive for people to work or to gain additional employment and so on. People do not want to find themselves in that position; that is my experience. They want to be able to fully engage in employment while also qualifying for social housing. As a State, that is what we should be doing, and it is what we did decades ago. People were working and still qualified for social housing. We need to go back to that model. I welcome the Minister's words here this evening but I emphasise the urgency of this. It needs to happen.

I will carry out this review as quickly as possible, or certainly the initial one on the limits, and then we can look at a deeper review. On the disregards, one of the agencies did an assessment of these and they were quite inconsistent across the various local authorities as to what is or is not allowed as a disregard, which can lead to significant variations in who can or cannot get onto a list. The Deputy is 100% right; we do not want anybody having to give up work or to cut back on hours. Unfortunately, this can happen when people try to stay on a housing list because that is their housing solution, and the quality of social homes being provided is very high. As I said, we are keeping an open mind, but I am actively working on this.

We have time for one more question. Given that Deputy Sheehan turned up to chair the Chamber, he is now getting Question No. 187.

I am well off script at this point.

I think so, as is Deputy Sheehan. We will be all right.