Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)

I welcome the Bill before the House. It is appropriate in that it allows us to reflect on the position of local authority housing and housing in general. I thank the housing section in Kildare County Council and Athy Town Council which I deal with on a regular basis, given that the number of people seeking housing in Kildare has been on the increase for years.

I listened to Deputy McCormack's contribution and I thank Kildare County Council for not having the same mechanism of telephone exchange that he is dealing with in Galway.

I have listened to the debate from the outset and an issue raised by speakers on both sides of the House is antisocial behaviour and how that problem can be dealt with. We can put regulations in place as long as the day is long but the problem is in implementing them.

The problem of antisocial behaviour goes back to when the first houses were allocated. The current procedure in Kildare County Council is that the council draws up a list which it gives to the environmental health officer of the Health Service Executive. He or she then travels throughout the county assessing the applications. Another meeting is held at that stage to compare files. A number of applicants are then put before the area committee of the council, which has an input at that stage. As Oireachtas Members, our only input now is in regard to letters of representation. In drawing up the list, the final part is done by the manager through the director of services, housing.

There has been a change in that regard. The original procedure was that if there were ten houses to be allocated, ten names were put forward. Comparisons could be made and information given but that is the position now. The procedure now is that there are 15 names on the list and the councillors have no part in the final say.

I understand the position in regard to emergencies. Emergencies will always arise where, unfortunately, people find themselves in need of houses due to family circumstances, a house being burned down or whatever but the one aspect that should not be interfered with is the geographical allocation of houses. The remit of the area should be examined in that regard because what often happens in many of these estates is that a sense of "them" and "us" develops and the local authority and even the residents find it difficult to establish the community activity one would want to associate with a new estate. I refer to a number of people who come to the area from a distance away. In some areas in Newbridge people from 20 or 30 miles away are allocated a house. They are taken out of their own environs and put into a totally new environ, and that creates a problem. That medium of allocation should be examined with a view to putting more thought into it.

At last week's Labour Party conference I raised a question about the development of community. Many local authorities now have a liaison officer who sets up meetings with the tenants being allocated housing to try to encourage them to establish residents associations and so on but there is not enough involvement or trust in that process to create a community within each estate. That is a problem.

Regarding the design of estates, I have raised on several occasions the issue of the green areas within estates. When a new estate is established there are those who want to see roses and other flowers growing in every part of the estate and tension is raised when a young lad goes out with a ball or a young lady goes out with a hurley or a camogie stick and the flowers are damaged. There should be a small kick-about area in every estate at the side of a number of houses or elsewhere where children can roll in muck, kick a ball or do what they like without interfering with the overall outlook of the estate. I have those in one or two areas in Kildare and it was unbelievable to see the control on the part of the children. They did not go near the flower beds or anything else. They just went to their own area where they stayed, and there was no tension in the estate. That is something that should be considered because it has a great deal of potential. Children interacting in areas like this in many instances become lifelong friends. Even when families move away, the children maintain links with the area and are involved with the area. I have raised the issue a number of times in meetings with the county manager in Kildare and I hope there will be some movement in regard to it.

The tension caused by antisocial behaviour is unbelievable. As soon as one family comes looking to move from an estate because of antisocial behaviour, three or four come forward with the same request because of the tension that has built up in the estate. Is it possible for a meeting to be held with those residents to try to defuse the situation? If three people ask to be moved out, and the Minister knows this as well as the Chairman, it is not possible to do that at the drop of a hat. Some mechanism must be put in place to try to overcome the problem. It is not possible in terms of problems with drugs or alcohol but in the ordinary run of events it should be possible for the liaison officer to try to generate a community spirit in such areas to the benefit of everyone living in the estate.

I tabled a number of questions to the Minister of State on the disabled person's grant and the house adaptation grant. I got a positive reply each time to the effect that he is going against the tide in that regard and increasing the grants. I hope the Minister will be able to honour that. I understand the current position where the Minister said there would be an increase of 8% in the overall funding. That funding has a major part to play in terms of each local authority. At the last meeting we had in Kildare, the county manager said he was committed to grants totalling €3 million. He said that apart from the €3 million he had €5 million on his books. One can see the advantage if one is able to deliver on the funding for those grants in that it will immediately provide a momentum to the building industry in each area. They may be small projects but they are all job related and cover a multiplicity of trades including bricklayers, plasterers, roofers, electricians, plumbers and so on. It is vital that we try to hold on to that. I understand the Minister is facing a battle, as is every Minister, but he has made a commitment in that regard. I hope the Minister for Finance acknowledges the effort he has made to ensure grants are made available to local authorities.

In addition to the building industry benefiting, the Minister will improve the standard of living of the most vulnerable in society, including those seeking house adaptation grants and the disabled person's grant. In general, standard of living will improve through the other grants also. I hope that after the budget next Tuesday he will be in a position to make funding available for those grants.

The Minister is putting in place a new mechanism regarding the purchases of houses, and possibly those in voluntary housing at present will be able to purchase houses outside the scheme. In many instances those in the schemes want to purchase the houses they live in because their family life revolves around them. Some of the voluntary housing schemes are superb and the tenants in them have been fighting for many years with many Ministers over this. We seem to be unable to complete the proposal. If they are removed from those places, their situation will not be improved because they have established links in these areas, their children are at school and their friends are there. In this instance the final hurdle should be cleared and people in voluntary housing should be allowed to purchase their houses. They have built the community, they are not just some group of people. We can see the community involvement when we are knocking doors.

It is a pity we are not in position to overcome that final barrier because it would be of great benefit. These are small estates of 20 to 25 houses that are ideal as communities. Instead of their being allowed to buy those houses, we are now saying that because they live there, the tenant must buy a house elsewhere. It is an error and it should be reviewed because it could be the final step in a system that has benefited many people. Even if there is a timeframe, whereby a tenant must live there for five or ten years, so be it. That finality should be offered because these people have been there since the initial stages. It is wrong to take them out and tell them they can buy the house down the road when they have built up their own communities.

Travellers also have housing needs that must be addressed. We must move on from halting sites. Travellers make their cases to me about a place for their horses and their traditions being broken by placing them in residential areas. We talked for many years about having sites to facilitate this but many Travellers are now in education and seeing a new facet of life. They do not want to break with tradition but we can develop this further. The fact that halting sites are sometimes in towns should be looked at and maybe we could rethink what we can do for them. They are doing the business themselves now, getting educated and bringing their kids to school for the betterment of the community in general. Housing needs must be looked at as part of that.

Housing lists should be transparent so people know where they are on them when they approach the local authority. The biggest problem with housing allocation is that people feel they were ahead of others on the list who have since got a house. I understand emergency allocation but I do not understand how people do not know where they are on the list. This argument goes on time and again and creates major problems for housing authorities when people claim they were on the list and were not sent word or perhaps had moved. There should be an annual list updated each year so people know their position on the list. It would make the allocation of housing easier, eliminating many of the problems.

There is a sheltered housing scheme in Athy, with ten units for senior citizens, and it is the best scheme in the country. It is immaculate and well cared for by the people who live there. It is a model for other developments because senior citizens can live in such areas with no pressure as a result of antisocial behaviour. People will be more active if they know they are secure.

The only problem I see with the RAS scheme is the lack of play areas for children in apartment complexes. I know of one area where the apartments are beside the canal and the parents are concerned. The scheme is beneficial and I support it because it allows the tenant to deal with the local authority while the local authority deals with the landlord. It is positive and wipes out all the problems about the tenant having to find the landlord to get things done. There is a need for thought about families however, with more individual units in housing estates rather than apartments where problems might arise in terms of suitability for children.

I have recently had cases of people living in shared ownership units who re-mortgaged the house and then could not repay the debt. Is there any link between the shared ownership and a person re-mortgaging to his own detriment? In one instance there was a house on a lovely estate where the person who purchased it under the shared ownership scheme re-mortgaged and now a lending agency will be taking over the house because the person cannot repay the money borrowed.

See this speech in context