Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I accept that but the split of 80% and 20% is not, by any standards, reasonable for the work done by local authorities.

The private rented sector has exploded because of the so-called building boom, with an ensuing crash, and there is now a staggering number of people in private rented accommodation. Standards vary enormously, with some excellent landlords interested in their tenants and their well-being and who do everything above board, but there are also serious cowboys. There are people of my age who decided to buy one or as many as ten houses, and they contributed to the boom and bust, driving up prices but using the properties as rentals. In some cases, these people have gone missing and cannot repay the banks, leaving tenants in properties with all kinds of problems and issues not being dealt with.

We need proper legislation and an organisation with teeth, vision and passion to deal with the issues. This matter mainly affects ordinary, struggling, working families with a noble objective of having a roof over their heads. These people are willing, ready and able, with the support of social welfare and rent supplements, to rent a decent house with a decent standard of living. It is a noble entitlement and I believe a constitutional right. There are rogue landlords in many areas as well as the many good landlords. We were told mediation, when established in 2004, would speed up dispute resolution but I do not believe it has done so. It may have happened in some instances but in general I am not happy with the PRTB. It should be disbanded, with a reinvigorating new body in its place.

I am a member of voluntary housing committee, with long-standing involvement in the building of such houses. With voluntary and co-operative schemes, there are two different groups in the sector. There are 300 or 400 small voluntary groups; I am a member of one which has 17 units. There is a voluntary board running that process, meeting the requirements of legislation and housing people who could not find housing through the county council or others. We are ensuring ongoing satisfaction with living standards, etc., and I pay tribute to the lay people on that board. This organisation sourced architectural services, planning and funding necessary to house people. It is one of the most satisfactory aspects of public involvement to which I have been party. There are many groups like that.

There are also a dozen big organisations such as Respond! and Foscadh that do good work but in the past ten years, with the building boom, they have lost touch with the voluntary groups I spoke about. They became massive organisations with big turnover and a large staff. Some of them became developers in their own right. Everything is not rosy in the garden and there are many issues and barriers for tenants. In my case, a tenant can telephone me or any other board member to raise an issue. One would find it sometimes difficult to connect with liaison officers from Respond! and Foscadh. People may be moved into houses amid great excitement but some estates were never finished. Some people are begging to get out of these estates but they cannot.

I am not saying we should throw the baby out with the bath water. The voluntary sector has made an enormous contribution, with the likes of Respond! doing much other work with social developments. Nevertheless, we should be careful. It is difficult to deal with delicate issues in any legislation but we must consider the smaller groups as well as the bigger groups. The existing legislation contains too much legal jargon. I speak as chairman of small board but also on behalf of tenants and landlords who cannot understand the complexity of the current legislation. Why can we not have something simple that works and why should we pile on extra legislation that people do not understand? People are intimidated by these laws, even when they want to challenge them.

I know the Minister of State has a hard job in a difficult area, particularly with the current depression in the market. Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, the 2004 legislation has failed miserably with its use of the PRTB and the different manifestations of problems in dispute resolution and mediation, etc. This boils down to money. One does not mind paying if there is resolution but what happens when the process goes around in circles and there is a lack of engagement? It can be too legalistic, meaning people must engage experienced lawyers to get advice. With the voluntary sector being brought into this process, we will not be able to deal with it. I am on a voluntary board of lay people, most of whom are older than I am, as we started this process in 1996. We are very proud of what we have achieved, with a high standard of housing, very good tenants and a good relationship all around. We do not want to have to deal with this new process.

The volunteer spirit of engagement, which was illustrated by Fr. Harry Bohan and the people who started Respond! has evolved. The ordinary groups represented by the Irish Council for Social Housing - of which I was a board member for a number of years - are not able, willing or ready to deal with these issues. I am not saying we want to avoid responsibilities or that we will disobey the law, as that will not happen. If the process becomes legalistic, with much red tape and form filling, it will become more intimidating for volunteers. We are talking about busy people who have challenges arising from sickness, unemployment or failing businesses; they are good people and I salute their good work. Nevertheless, they will not be able to handle the extra requirements and will have no interest in it. That is a personal belief. These people have seen how the PRTB has worked since 2004, including its failures.

We are to abolish or amalgamate local councils, which provided local contacts. We have seen what has happened with the SUSI body that is handling third level education grants. There must be local contact and we should not abandon a system in order to send the process to a centralised location. It will become too bureaucratic and intimidating for the ordinary people to deal with it.

Before the Minister of State does anything else, I ask her to consult with representatives of voluntary bodies such as the Irish Council for Social Housing. She has done this already. The council is mainly made up of smaller groups. I did not like how the bigger groups operated within the council over a number of years; they came from all over the world, including England and Northern Ireland. They got their way and became all powerful. They had staff to attend meetings, including retired Department officials who knew the system. There is nothing wrong with that but the balance shifted away from the smaller groups or the companies limited by guarantee. These smaller groups were still housing people with good satisfaction rates. That council became skewed.

Across the board we seem to be taking away the possibility for people to help themselves with the aid of volunteers.

Everything is becoming too bureaucratic and we are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

See this speech in context