Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There has been progress with the NAMA properties. Local authorities have said that some of the NAMA properties were unsuitable but we have asked them to look at them again because times have changed and there is a different type of person who needs housing. In the past that person might have thought certain properties were unsuitable but he or she may think otherwise now. We have asked the local authorities to look at those properties again to see if any of them might be suitable. For example, families are becoming homeless now, which was not so prevalent in the past.

A discrepancy in the way local authorities treat vacant units is precisely why I met the directors of services for housing. I made it very clear to them that leaving empty properties for longer periods will not be tolerated in the future, that they will have to report back to me and that we intend to ensure we get an improvement in the way these things are done. Local authorities have a certain delegated responsibility. Most Senators want a local authority to be responsible for the maintenance of its housing stock. In terms of driving efficiency and making sure best practice prevails, I am determined, as Minister of State with responsibility in this area, to ensure that happens. I have already started the process and intend to keep it monitored to make sure it does happen.

I shall respond specifically to Senator Reilly's amendment. Responsibility for ongoing and cyclical maintenance programmes for all local authority stock is a matter for each housing authority in the context of availability of their own resources. Housing authorities have had delegated sanction to use their internal capital receipts for housing purposes since 1 January 2007, subject to certain terms and conditions. I am not minded to change that arrangement at this time.

Notwithstanding the general principle of delegated function that I am keen to preserve, it is unclear from the amendment proposed whether the Senator is referring to private houses repossessed by a local authority as the lender, or houses repossessed by the local authority that were originally sold under tenant purchase or incremental purchase arrangements. In whichever case this was aimed at, the amendment proposed by the Senator is very prescriptive in terms of defining timelines for housing authorities in respect of certain actions, some of which may be impossible for the housing authority to comply with. The extent of refurbishment works required for a property should be the measure that determines the timeline as to when the property might be available for reallocation to a new tenant. This is somewhat reflected in the Senator's text but it does not take account of the availability, or lack thereof, of resources to finance the refurbishment works. In some cases where these works are extensive funding may be required from my Department which may not fit in with the timelines set out in the proposed amendment.

I also cannot accept the arbitrary procurement requirements that this would impose on housing authorities. Almost all housing authorities have frameworks in place, under the new centralised local authority office for procurement, for small retrofitting jobs. This would negate the need for the usual tendering arrangements that this provision would now impose on housing authorities, with the possible outcome of delaying the making of minor refurbishment works.

Finally, I would find it difficult to provide in legislation for a situation where a repossessed house would be treated differently to any other housing in the possession of the housing authority. We have referred generally to voids. This amendment specifically refers to the repossession of a dwelling but we have had a wider discussion on empty houses generally. In view of this I cannot accept the amendments for the reasons I have outlined.