Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleagues, Deputies Michael McGrath and Barry Cowen, for placing this motion before the House. I wish to echo Deputy McGrath's comments about hoping to have a reasonable discussion on this issue over the next two evenings.

I reiterate much of what Deputy McGrath said about the new guidelines that have been published in the last hour. I have particular concerns about those who want to trade up and move into larger houses that meet the needs of their families. If these people were able to place their smaller houses, which were previously known as starter houses, on the market, other people could get a foothold on the property market. Current property values, regardless of how quickly they are rising, mean that gathering a 20% deposit will be unattainable for many people. It will be very difficult for many people who are still in negative equity and want to move on to a new property to put a deposit together for a larger house. The specific isolating of such buyers is particularly strange because it is to be presumed that they have shown an ability to repay their mortgages over some time. If they have young families and are in a position to get a mortgage, presumably they can pass the sustainability tests that have been put in place by the financial institutions.

I have a general fear, based on my first interpretation of these guidelines, that they will lead to a glut of houses coming onto the market. I am concerned that many people who would otherwise have taken advantage - in a good way - of the increasing property prices, been freed from negative equity and moved on to the next stage of housing might not be able to do so now, or might delay doing so. They will certainly be delayed in doing so. That will deprive them of the opportunity to move on from their starter houses and deprive other individuals of the opportunity to move into those houses. I hope this serious concern will be clarified.

Rent supplement, which is mentioned in the amendment to be proposed by the Government, is one of the areas in which greater flexibility needs to be given. It is clear that the one-size-fits-all approach to rent supplement is not working. There are multiple rental markets around the country. There is one market in the centre of the city of Dublin, another market in the suburbs of Dublin, another market in large towns and cities and other markets in rural areas. The rent supplement model is constrained at the moment in terms of addressing that issue. This is causing serious problems.

The rights of tenants, particularly local authority tenants, is an issue. We have all dealt with cases after being contacted by local authority tenants who have genuine grievances about the condition or state of their houses. In the last year, I have noticed that local authorities are increasingly coming back and saying they have no money for refurbishments and repairs. Tenants in the private rental sector have agreements with their landlords. They have the Private Residential Tenancies Board on their side if they are trying to get repairs done but their landlords are unwilling to do them. It seems we cannot provide for the same thing in the case of local authority tenants.

My local municipal district, which used to be known as a town council, has said it has no funds for repairs to heating systems etc. It is keeping its repair funds for emergencies. In the past couple of weeks, I have been in houses in which the heating systems are not working and the residents are freezing cold. No money is available to repair these systems or to put in the necessary insulation. The contradiction is that this estate is shared with one of the social housing companies, which has done all the necessary repairs to its houses. One person's house might be fully adapted, but the house next door might not be because it is a local authority house. Some sort of consistency needs to be brought in there. Some sort of rights should be given to local authority tenants.

I would like to mention a scheme to which the Tánaiste referred during the Order of Business last week. It kind of got lost in the debate. The needs of tenants whose houses are being sold from under them by landlords who are selling out under bank instruction also need to be looked at. I am sure all Deputies have dealt with cases in which no notice was given to tenants who were literally told to get out. That cannot be allowed to happen. If there is a scheme in this area, the Tánaiste and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government need to promote it and show people where their rights are in this situation. This is particularly relevant because all the commentators are saying there will be a particular focus on the buy-to-let sector in 2015 as the banks are restructuring. There is the potential for a glut of buy-to-let houses to come on the market. This would place the tenants who are living in them in a very compromised situation.

I pay particular tribute to housing companies like Clúid and Respond, as I always do during housing debates. They have always been very good in my dealings with them. They bring a certain element of professionalism and a no-nonsense approach to these matters. They do not put up with tenants who, for whatever reason, abuse their tenancies or the estates they are in. That is what we need across the system. Perhaps there are some cases in which balls get dropped, but the housing companies are quicker to respond to developing situations, particularly around anti-social behaviour etc. That is to be welcomed. I would like that to be rolled out across the system.

I am forever talking about silos in government, particularly in the permanent government. Given that we have tens of thousands of unfinished houses, the shells of many of which are finished, and we have hundreds of thousands of people on housing waiting lists, it is absolutely ridiculous that somebody cannot come up with a way of matching the two. Any elected Member of this House who has any kind of sense would be in favour of a scheme that would involve the completion of houses that are in the control of NAMA or the State-owned banks. Such a scheme would create employment and give a craft to people who are without employment. Former construction workers continue to constitute the largest group of unemployed people. Completed developments under a scheme of this nature would give homes to families and individuals. It seems that we put people through every possible hoop. NAMA seems to be putting every possible block in the way of the establishment of a scheme like this.

It is necessary to reiterate the reason we cannot do this.

The State controls the property or the financial interests therein. Surely it is in the State's interests to use that property for homeless citizens and those who have been on housing lists for seven, eight, nine, ten or more years. Opportunities are available. There will be issues with the housing being away from urban centres, facilities and so on, but dealing with those will not take much resolve compared with what it will cost to build all of the houses promised by the Government or with the effort that will be required to knock heads together and knock sense into the various blockages in the system. The Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, has expressed a willingness to do this. I wish him well and hope he brings some urgency to the work, as it has been lacking for a number of years.

The Government has laid out ambitious plans. Now that we are one month in, we will see whether they are being met when the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government or the Minister of State with responsibility for housing provides an update on the current situation. Construction of rural social housing will recommence this year. This is welcome, as many families do not want to live in a town but have had no option in recent years.

Greater consistency needs to be brought to the various housing schemes, for example, housing aid for older persons and the housing adaptation grant. My local authority in Mayo runs the schemes well. Unlike some other areas, the waiting lists in Mayo are in the months rather than years. Schemes like these encourage smaller builders and trades people to maintain their skills and sustain employment.

The party opposite made a great thing of hammering builders for many years. Now it seems to want to embrace and love them again. Let us see action. If the Government is to reach the point of building 35,000 housing units, it must deal with the shortage of apprentice bricklayers, carpenters, joiners, plumbers, etc. We need to make an investment in the education system this year so that we do no end up reaching the targets only to find that the price of labour has once again eliminated many people from the housing market.

I thank Deputies Michael McGrath and Cowen for allowing us the opportunity to discuss this matter. I hope that the Minister or some Ministers of State from the Department will attend tomorrow so as to provide the House an update on the current position of the plans, particularly now that the attention that homelessness received at the beginning of the year has moved elsewhere. The problem is still there. People are still on the streets and others are still on the housing lists.

See this speech in context