Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I welcome this Bill. When we consider the number of housing-related Bills we have had over the last three or four decades we might expect that the end product would update the many shortfalls exposed in a practical manner as a result of this Bill. Unfortunately I cannot see much improvement in many areas, welcome though many of the Bill's provisions are.

Given that the Minister of State is a rural Deputy, I am astonished that there is not one mention of rural housing in the Bill. We have concentrated on the problems and difficulties we have in urban and city locations, and these are many, but there is not a single reference to the provision of rural housing. The difficulty with that, as the Minister of State knows, is that people from rural families on housing lists must, in the main, return to an urban environment to be housed. People from rural communities going into urban situations can cause problems, and they encounter difficulties when they move there.

With regard to the cost factor, very often somebody from a rural background in need of housing may have a site available. This normally might be made available for a nominal amount and provide very competitive prices, albeit for once-off housing development. There is a lack of competitiveness in terms of price per unit for a rural house in a once-off housing development as against those in large estates.

We have a Green Party Minister with overall responsibility for the environment but I have not seen anywhere in the Bill, and I am open to correction on this, any emphasis on a new response in terms of the need for greener energy measures, either through design or density. There is no facility to highlight the green agenda. Is it not important to have some indication that there could be a diversification away from the standard house design to include solar panels, the need for very high standards of insulation, communal heating systems and so on? There was an opportunity to modernise the Bill in that area but, unfortunately, it is lacking in that regard.

I refer to the question of design. The Minister of State may have been a member of a local authority when a former Member, Bobby Molloy, as Minister with responsibility for the environment, allowed for the construction of large estates and the houses did not have chimneys. Where those houses still exist they are a monument to his Ministry.

That would be funny if it were not for the fact that we continue to design and construct houses that do not have a back door. I visited an estate recently and a tenant told me that they had to bring their fuel through the hall door, down a narrow hallway, out through the kitchen and into the back garden. There is a responsibility to have standards in design. That area must be monitored but it appears there is no monitoring of any kind in terms of design standards. Is it a case of wanting to put as many houses as possible into those areas and doing them as cheaply as possible? That creates serious problems for the future because even the most careful tenants in many of those houses find that certain furniture fittings, the heating, flooring, insulation or whatever are inadequate and immediately seek to have repairs done, which results in additional expenditure on those houses. That should not be necessary if proper standards were adhered to.

I do not know whether it is the responsibility of local authorities to appoint architects and design teams for large housing estates or if this is done centrally but most people would say that when they go into a large housing estate and see a repetition of the same design, standards, elevations and so on, it lacks a community element from the outset. There is nothing that would encourage even the most enthusiastic community minded people to want to belong to that community and be proud to live in it. It would be irresponsible to suggest that a young couple or family in need that gets a house from a local authority are not delighted with it but when the other difficulties to which I referred arise, the community spirit that should be engendered is not there.

It is penny pinching in the extreme that local authorities are not provided with the funding to appoint liaison officers who would liaise between council housing sections and the tenants in the various authorities. They do not have to be available day and night but if there was a presence, even on a periodic basis, they could knock on the tenants' doors and ask if there is anything they want or if they can follow up on anything for them. There is a breakdown in that regard. There is no point in presenting a key to a new tenant, letting them close the door and the council walking away and saying they are finished with them and that is another one off the list. That is not good enough. The Minister of State said he does not have the funding to provide for what I would call liaison officers to represent the local authority housing section but if they were appointed it would at least eliminate the many difficulties that may arise in the future.

There have been approximately 12 or 14 housing Bills over the years. New phenomena arise all the time and the one that was raised by numerous speakers is the question of anti-social behaviour. We cannot blame the housing authority personnel, the director of housing and the housing officers, for this. Like many previous speakers I want to pay a special tribute to the housing section of Galway County Council under its director and officers for the excellent way in which they deliver the resources and the housing within the county and rural areas in County Galway. Traditionally, they have been exemplary. I am sure Members representing other counties would say the same about their areas but for a large county like Galway, and the great number of houses it provides for many families throughout the county, Galway County Council must be complimented.

Having said that, many difficulties present themselves to those people and some of them are dealt with in the Bill. Section 62 of the 1966 Bill must be amended as a matter of urgency and incorporated in this Bill and I will outline my reason for saying that. There is a frustration on the part of directors of services in housing throughout the country because of the inadequacies of their powers to go into court in cases where there is identifiable anti-social behaviour. The tenants responsible for that anti-social behaviour cannot be taken to task quickly and evicted from their housing because when the council goes to court there is such a proliferation of laws that somebody will bring up one of them in court.

It is equally important that there are support services available for tenants who are experiencing difficulties. I am not suggesting we eliminate those but where there is identifiable and blatant anti-social behaviour, the hands of the housing directors and those responsible within local authorities are tied because they cannot move quickly enough with the current systems to evict those people.

We are talking about local authority housing but I want to refer to the private rental scheme where the Health Service Executive is providing rent allowance on an ongoing basis to people who are behaving in an anti-social manner. Private landlords are also hampered in the way they can deal with the problem. The best way the problem could be dealt with is by withdrawing the rent supplement but that does not happen. I accept it is a drastic step but drastic circumstances require such measures. There is an urgent need to give the necessary powers to the local authorities and involve all the agencies involved. Deputy O'Rourke mentioned the joint policing services earlier and the important role they have played, particularly in small towns, with regard to co-operating with local authorities to eliminate some of the difficulties that arise.

Another provision in the Bill which struck me is the section which refers to a timeframe within which the matter has to be dealt. Initially it is eight weeks, then four weeks and some other number of weeks before, at last, the final report is available to the Minister. The important thing is there is no indication, as far as I can see from the conditions here, where there is an onus on the local authority or Department to highlight and advertise the conditions in this Bill.

I do not know if the consultation period and facilities to bring groups together are adequate or what ideas the Minister has for the future to highlight existing estates and future developments, or where councils intend to build or provide housing. Therein lies a major difficulty. I checked in my local authority as to the landbank available to the council. Unfortunately, the landbank has been eliminated. That is not to say there is inadequate housing for the many people on a waiting list.

There was a time when local authorities had landbanks. There were difficulties and one could retort by arguing that if a local authority had a large stretch of land it would create a ghetto. That is not what I mean and it does not have to be the case. With proper design, density requirements and provision of facilities integrated into such developments we could have very solid communities from social housing. The spread of such houses, within the conditions of this Bill, is very welcome, whether it is affordable housing, other rented accommodation or the eventual purchase of houses. The Minister of State may be able to address the matter of landbanks in a future reply.

I remind the Minister of State that local authorities, the Government and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have never been presented with such a golden opportunity. Throughout the country there is an oversupply of houses, which are wonderful, constructed to the highest standards and available at good prices. There is a hesitancy on the part of councils to buy those houses. It is important to note that these estates, in the main, are already completed and landscaped, and have in place all the required services, which we would not normally associate with council houses for a long period of time after tenants have moved in.

There always have been difficulties in parts of the country where there has been a shortfall in resources and money for the provision of basic services such as lighting, open spaces and playgrounds. If the Minister of State lets this opportunity go without including these factors it will be remiss of him.

On the issue of the timescale, I emphasise to the Minister the importance of having open consultation with all interested groups, other agencies such as the HSE and the Garda Síochána and housing and community groups throughout the country, who are all willing to participate. Many people say public meetings will be held and there will be horrific statements about various groups. That is not what I have in mind. If a proper presentation is delivered and a explanation is given of what is involved in this Bill, the questions and difficulties which now exist could be very easily and readily eliminated.

I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the timeframes he mentioned for the plans he has devised. A time of four weeks to describe housing circumstances in writing and a period of six months is mentioned for another situation.

I wish to raise the issue of the 1966 Act. The Minister of State should make it clear that when directors of housing in local authorities have to go to court, they can do so and adequately make the case regarding a person brought before the court on a matter of anti-social behaviour, and that the person will be dealt with adequately, sufficiently and fairly.

One section of the Bill concerns the provision of caravan sites. They have led to very serious problems and difficulties and have given local authorities and officials a very bad name when halting sites are provided with no services. There may be running water but it is cold. There are no washing facilities, communal or otherwise. When a Minister allows that we are asking for trouble. Difficulties have arisen in many areas. The Traveller community will be discontented when there is a failure to provide adequate or reasonable facilities. We commit a very serious error by not providing adequate facilities.

If the Minister of State proposes to allow local authorities to provide such facilities in the future, no tenant, no matter what the urgency, should be allowed into a site until adequate facilities are in place and there is constant monitoring by a liaison officer. If funding is not provided for this more problems will be generated down the line.

See this speech in context