I thank Deputy Brennan for raising this important issue. He is in an unusual position in that he is a TD who represents two different counties in a new constituency. I wish him the best of luck and congratulate him on his election. The Deputy highlighted an issue with regard to discrepancies between different counties. These schemes are constantly under review and we will certainly consider amending them, if necessary, perhaps at a municipal district level. If a degree of flexibility is needed, I will ask the Department to see if there is anything that can be done. I will explain how we arrived at the limits. Once a household is deemed eligible for social housing support, it is a matter for the local authority to examine the suite of social housing supports available, including the housing assistance payment scheme, to determine the most appropriate form of social housing support for that household in the administrative area of that local authority. A key principle of the housing assistance payment is that eligible households source their own accommodation in the private rented market. The accommodation should be within the prescribed maximum HAP rent limits, which are based on household size and the rental market within the area concerned. Maximum rent limits for HAP were set for each housing authority area in 2016. This is where the current limits come from. This was done in conjunction with the Department of Social Protection. In reviewing rent limits, the Department worked closely with the Department of Social Protection and monitored data gathered from the Residential Tenancies Board and the HAP shared services centre. In prescribing these limits, household size and prevailing rents in the relevant areas are taken into consideration. I guess that is done on a county-wide basis. The issue the Deputy raised is more localised as some counties are big and there are different population sizes in each county. Each local authority has statutory discretion to agree to a HAP payment above the prescribed maximum rent limit. In July 2022, this discretion level was increased to 35% and local authorities were given the option to extend the couple’s rate to single person households. Up to 50% discretion can be provided in the case of homeless households in the Dublin region. It is a matter for the local authority to determine whether, and to what extent, the application of the flexibility is warranted. At the end of quarter 4 2024, the number of households being supported by HAP in Wicklow County Council was 1,352 and in Wexford County Council it was 1,108. In Wicklow, 48% of households were benefiting from additional flexibility and were receiving an average discretionary increase above rent limits of just over 22%. In Wexford, there was more use of the discretionary increase available to the local authority, with an average of 64% of households benefiting from the additional flexibility, at an average rate of discretionary payment of almost 27%. It is not feasible to extend the established rent limits of one local authority area into bordering areas. However, where appropriate, the HAP scheme allows for interauthority movement to facilitate the movement of HAP households from one local authority area to another in cases where a tenant wishes to access rented accommodation, with HAP support, in another local authority area, subject to certain conditions. As the Deputy can see, there is a level of discretion available and this was reflected in what he said. Wexford County Council has availed of that discretion to a greater extent. In 64% of cases, it has used that discretion whereas in Wicklow, the figure is only 48%. That reflects the Deputy's point about a discrepancy between the two counties. There is still scope for Wicklow County Council to avail of that discretion more regularly and reduce the gap between the two counties. However, I take the Deputy's point on board. There are discrepancies between areas that are a couple of miles apart. I will certainly have the Department look at this but, as is clear from my response, there is a limit to what we can do.

Sentiment score: 0.23

It is a matter for each local authority to determine what level of support is appropriate for each HAP tenancy within its area, including whether and to what extent the application of a discretionary increase above rent limits is warranted. In doing so, it is the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that tenancies are sustainable. They are advised not to provide HAP support to tenancies where the household would not be in a position to meet the rental cost sought. I am very conscious of the pressures in the private rental market and my Department continues to keep the operation of the HAP scheme under review. My Department is conscious that the scheme has the potential to have a detrimental inflationary impact on the wider rental market, including for those households not receiving HAP support. As such, any changes to the prescribed rent limits in any given local authority can only be taken after detailed and comprehensive consideration. If amendments are proposed to the caps on a county-by-county basis, it would require further research similar to what was done in collaboration with the Department of Social Protection. I accept Deputy Brennan's point that there are discrepancies within a close geographical area, and that in one case the difference is €600. I reiterate that 35% is a large margin of discretion. There is considerable flexibility within that and I urge local authorities to use it. On the bigger question as to whether rent limits for HAP can be set outside of a county-by-county basis, which is the way we assess them at the moment, I will bring that back to the Department. The current position is that it would be very difficult to do so but I will see if there is something that can be done. I thank the Deputy again for raising this matter. The best way we can reduce rents and get people into homes is through the provision of housing. That is key, as the Deputy noted.

Sentiment score: 0.18