Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Some 50% of the 90,000 people on the housing waiting list reside in six local authority areas - Dublin city, Fingal, South Dublin, Kildare, Cork city and Cork county. Homelessness is now emerging as a significant issue outside the capital. One solution is being proposed in the short term, but only in the Dublin area. Just this week a dozen people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness called to my office. Eleven of the 12 who called have children. When they turn up at the local authority offices they are told to find a couch somewhere. One individual is sleeping in her car. There is no solution outside the capital. I could not be more critical of the limited approach of what is being proposed. It is of course a short-term measure, and it is welcome that there is some initiative, but the fact that it is so exclusive, given that the homelessness problem is demonstrable, means that it absolutely must be revisited as a matter of urgency.

I understand that Kildare is the lead authority for the mid-Leinster region. The local authority had an allocation of €80,000 for HAP in Counties Kildare, Meath and Wicklow but ran out of money in March. There is no provision for additional staff in the local authorities to administer the HAP scheme. There will be ongoing engagement with landlords, and this will demand time. It cannot be done without staff. The staffing ratios in local authorities are very different depending on the region. I have highlighted this to the Minister on numerous occasions. Meath County Council has 620 staff for a population that is 30,000 higher than the combined population of Limerick city and Limerick county, while Limerick County Council has a staff of 1075. There is no capacity in some local authority areas, especially in areas that are encountering the most contact from people in difficulties. These local authorities do not have the staff to deal with it.

What landlord will come forward and offer his or her house for less than the market rent or the amount he or she would receive under the RAS? That is what is proposed. Landlords are pulling out of the RAS and the committee was informed about this by county managers recently. They will receive a lower amount under the HAP scheme than under the RAS. They will not participate in the RAS, but they will participate in the HAP scheme. The only positive aspect from their perspective is that they will be paid directly rather than by the tenant.

This scheme represents a fundamental shift in social policy whereby somebody will not be housed but will be given funding to rent somebody else's property. It is a short-term initiative in most cases. The rental market comprises accidental landlords who own one or two houses. Following this shift in social policy, it may well be that the standard of accommodation will be reasonable because much of the stock is modern and will be inspected, but three or four months after the inspection, somebody may have to seek a lease for another year because there tends to be a short-term approach to the leasing of private rented accommodation. The scheme will not work because landlords will not come forward. It is a dangerous change in social policy, particularly where children are involved. There will never be security about where they will go to school, live, make friends and generally be socialised. That is the big failure in this proposal. In the context of regeneration, there were failures in the past. I predict that this will be one of the greatest failures.

It is welcome that the Departments are examining alternatives in drawing down the large sums available from the EIB and pension funds. That is necessary and I would like local authorities to have an involvement. I do not mind the ramping up of the voluntary housing sector. However, security of tenure is the most important issue. People must be enabled to make homes rather than being continually on the move.

Of the 6,000 houses to be supplied this year, 3,700 are designated for the RAS. Are they being taken on or are these numbers being rolled over from last year? Are they additional houses?