Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill. Social housing is a major issue and one which is raised weekly in my clinics in Fermoy and Mallow. Some people have spent years on the housing list and it is difficult not to be moved when one listens to their distressing stories.

This is an extensive Bill and I will focus on a small number of key areas. An evaluation of actual housing need is required as some people are on several housing lists. I presume work is being done on this legacy issue with a view to updating the list.

The shortage of two bedroom accommodation affects in particular separated men who want to contribute to their children's upbringing and care. In some cases, their former partners are working and they cannot be accommodated. This is a significant sub-group on the housing list and one which needs to be addressed.

The Bill also addresses the scourge of anti-social behaviour. Some of the points I made on this issue in 2012 remain valid. Anti-social behaviour is not the preserve of one section of society as it crosses all boundaries. The concept of a reviewer, as provided for in the Bill, should be expanded to become an assessment board. Assessment boards should incorporate local gardaí, public representatives and relevant members of the council executive. While I understand that concerns may arise about cronyism, a well structured board conducting an open process should negate such concerns. We must tackle the lack of transparency in decision making in this area.

Social housing is allocated on the basis that the beneficiaries will fit into a community and will not destroy the lives of people living around them. Garda vetting of applicants should be mandatory before housing is allocated. We are highly conscious of the right to a home and we place excessive emphasis on the rights of tenants, while underplaying their responsibilities to their communities and neighbours. It is not sufficient to have a person provide a self-assessment of his or her public order record. People who engage in anti-social behaviour remain in local authority housing estates, while their neighbours, who have not done anything wrong, feel that they must leave the estate. Many of those who visit my clinics want to leave a housing estate because of the actions of others. This is wrong. Many young people who are causing problems in residential areas never feature on lists of offenders because they do not have a criminal record. This issue needs to be addressed.

While I accept in principle the need to sell local authority housing stock because many tenants wish to buy their home, we cannot continue to sell this stock if we do not replenish it. Housing should be allocated in a flexible manner. For example, people approaching retirement may not need a three or four bedroom house or a home with stairs. For this reason, people must accept that housing will be allocated to meet their needs at certain times in their lives.

Maybe at a later stage in life, they could move into an area with accessible services which would meet their demands.

There are many unwilling landlords, those whose circumstances left them with housing stock that they cannot afford or want. Most are based outside Dublin. If we could see our way to taking these properties off these unwilling landlords, relieving them of this burden, we would have social housing stock immediately. It would also deal with the second problem of a debt overhang with which these landlords cannot deal. While some of these properties are in negative equity, when they are held by the State and rented in a progressive manner, the debt will be eventually repaid. The State has the advantage of time which the distressed householder does not. I accept this is a challenging proposal in tight economic times but these costs offset the alternative of default and subsequent welfare payments, along with dealing with the banks’ impairment issues. Such a move would immediately release housing stock. It is a good time for the State to invest in such property because those trying to move a distressed asset will not be looking for top-of-the-market prices.

There is a reticence among private landlords to take on social housing. I am a landlord myself and I understand exactly from where they are coming. We all have heard the horror stories of rented apartments destroyed by tenants with the landlord left to carry the can. In some instances, we need to protect landlords in this regard. Is there a need for the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, to become involved in arrangements where councils rent properties in the private market? The reviewer is already in place who can make findings and this arrangement sounds like duplication. I am not the best fan of the PRTB but that is for a different day.

I agree with the section that allows people to voice their concerns about anti-social behaviour by social housing tenants without fear of recrimination. However, if an oversight board was in place, this provision would not be needed. I have people attending my constituency clinic who are upset, some even suicidal, over the threatening actions of their anti-social neighbours. It is just not good enough for the State to support anti-social neighbours.

The Bill has teeth and will not allow people get away without paying a fair rent. I am not a great fan of deducting at source but I see the need to ensure rents are collected so as to be fair to all involved in social housing, particularly those who do their best to pay their rent. It is important everyone is treated equally. We need to be fair and compassionate with the rents we are charging. Some social housing tenants feel they are being charged rents that leave them with little to survive on afterwards.

Section 17 covers the death of a social housing tenant and recovery of the dwelling. We may need to be sensitive to the other occupants of a house, particularly those with children who may be going to school in the area. We must ensure fairness for occupants in such circumstances who have to move out of a house.

Overall, I am happy with the Bill’s provisions. It is obvious the Minister listened to Members’ requests. It will lead us into a mature discussion about the provision of social housing. Social housing means one does not have to own the house. It can mean a person is housed for their needs with a degree of flexibility. One’s housing needs in one’s 30s may not be the same when one is 70. As we all live longer and contribute to society for longer, flexibility in that manner will be welcome. Owning a house or a property over the past few years was very difficult because one simply could not sell if one needed to move on. Accordingly, the flexibility which was there long ago was gone.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, and her staff for their work on this Bill. It is a move in the right direction and people will recognise it addresses social housing provision. While there are criticisms of social housing from various sectors, it is one of the most important features of our democracy. This Bill moves in the right direction in providing for social housing that people deserve.

See this speech in context