Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Housing (Amendment) Bill 2013. I welcome the fact that the saner and more sanguine Minister in the Department, the Minister of State, is always rolled out to deal with the tricky issues, rather than the senior Minister, or Big Phil, as I call him. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd is often here to do this and I look forward to working with him on the Bill.

The Government wants to enact the Bill quickly in order to remove an obstacle to the harmonisation of local authority rents as part of a series of social housing reform measures provided for in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. Early enactment of this Bill will enable the new rent system to be introduced from 1 January 2014. The harmonisation of the rents is also an essential measure paving the way to the introduction of the housing assistance scheme, which will transfer responsibility for long-term rent supplement recipients from the Department of Social Protection to the local authorities. I welcome that as it is long overdue. I have often said the HSE should not have anything to do with this as it has enough to do in managing its own area. It should be the function of the local authorities to deal with housing.

I come from the voluntary housing sector and I am chairperson of a group which built 14 houses with a number of committed and courageous volunteers. This project is one of the most satisfying and gratifying projects in which I have ever been involved. We later added three further houses to the original 14 for people with special needs. While I am not around a lot to deal with the project, the volunteers do a tremendous job and we have a wonderful relationship with the tenants, who have come from all over the world. Some were exiled abroad and came home to live in their native county. Others were not even remotely associated with Newcastle or Tipperary, but they are as happy as Larry in their houses. It is sad to see so many problems related to housing. I was a board member of the Irish Council for Social Housing for a good number of years and I commend the work that was done by that council. I cannot remember the name of the former chairman, but he was a wonderful man and there is a wonderful staff there under the leadership of the CEO, Donal McManus.

There were approximately 300 smaller housing groups in the country but, as happened with everything else during the Celtic tiger era, bigger groups wanted to come on board. Like vultures, they could not get enough money from the Department and could not build enough houses. They were developers who wanted to get into the voluntary sector. These were home-grown companies, but then others came in from overseas. These set up in various areas, but they did not have the same enthusiasm, passion, sentiment or intent as local voluntary housing associations which were setting up homes for people who needed them in their own communities. These new groups were out to make money and to take over everything. They almost ruined the smaller organisations. These people were not volunteers but were working full-time at this. When I was involved and attending meetings, those on the boards were ordinary people who were volunteers, but these new people were full-time business people who would arrive at board meetings with their briefcases and with all the facts and figures. They were whizz-kids and sometimes had people seconded from the Department on their boards. They professionalised the situation, but not always for the better and often for the worse.

I have often heard Deputy Bernard J. Durkan and others criticise the voluntary housing sector, but I always defend it. There is certainly room for criticism now, because some of the companies that became involved have left a bit of a mess behind them. I am aware of a situation in my county in which Foscadh Housing Association is demanding property tax from tenants and taking it from their rent. Deputy Seamus Healy referred to the fact that some county managers have suggested they will increase rents. I understand the Minister has given a derogation for this year to all voluntary housing schemes. How dare these people take property tax from the rent? How dare they act like this? They are acting worse than any landlord and are treating people with disdain and discourtesy. Sometimes the estates in question are unfinished. The one for which Foscadh is responsible is unfinished. It would fit these people better to finish the estates and then have them taken over by the council if necessary rather than threaten and intimidate people to collect this money. I suggest they are collecting it illegally, because it is not due or payable until January.

It is a pity because a great deal of good work has been done and is being done in the voluntary sector. The Celtic tiger brought more trouble than gifts to the country. As these companies were not making enough in the private sector, they decided to move in on this area also.

I welcome the new legislation for local authority rents, as set out in section 31 of the 2009 Act. It differs from the existing legislation, as set out in section 58 of the 1966 Act, in a number of respects. The making of a rents scheme is now a reserved function of the housing authority. This gives the elected council a role in determining the authority's rents policy. Cuirim fíor-fáilte roimh an méid sin. This is very good. Elected members need more powers, as they deal with this area on a daily basis. Like Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and every other Deputy in the House, I deal with these issues every day. It is only right that council members should have a say. That provision definitely has to be warmly welcomed. As many have said, rents have increased. It is sad that the local government building programme has been abandoned.

I find it very difficult to contrast two statements made on a continuous basis. I refer to the Government's five point plan, on the one hand - I do not know how many plans there are in the programme for Government - and its support for small business and job creation, on the other. Jobs were always available for small and not so small builders when houses were being built by local authorities.

The slashing of the moneys available for disabled person's grants and housing adaptation grants has been mentioned. It is total nonsense because it destroys jobs, small self-employed business people and sole traders. When they employ tradespeople to do these works with them, they pay their tax, rates and insurance, etc. They spend money in the economy. The denial of small aids to those who need them is even worse. I refer to people who could live at home if their houses were adapted, for example, with the installation of a shower or special bathroom. If we can keep them out of nursing homes and hospitals, they will be happier and healthier. They want to be in their own family environments. The lack of joined-up thinking in this regard on the part of the HSE, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the housing agencies is totally counter-productive.

As Deputy Seamus Healy mentioned, an allocation of €3.1 million was available in south Tipperary in 2012. I compliment officials in South Tipperary County Council who are working under the guidance of Mr. Aidan Fennessey and his staff. I refer to the occupational therapists, for example. When people apply for a grant, they are put in touch with the selected contractors on the council's list, but the grant never covers the cost of the work in full. People have to put their hands in their own pockets also. That is not bad either. One does not appreciate things if one gets everything for nothing. If something has to be paid for, that is okay, as long as it is within reason. The allocation in south Tipperary was slashed to €1.8 million this year, although there was a huge overhang from last year. I do not know how it will manage this year as a result. It stopped receiving applications in March, less than three months into the year. It was not even allowed to keep anything back for emergency cases. When a person falls and breaks a hip or there is some other emergency, he or she is told to wait until 2014 before he or she can make an application. That is very unsatisfactory and counter-productive. It is wrong and should be changed. There should be an emergency fund. In some cases, a house could be adapted for €2,000, €3,000 or €4,000. A bathroom could be adapted or steps could be built for a small amount of money. That would allow people to recuperate at home and return to normality.

Local authorities are not building houses. Until recently, they were building houses with baths in them. At the same time, we were giving millions to local authorities every year for the conversion of bathrooms. They were installing walk-in showers, for example. What thinking does that demonstrate on the part of the Department or the architects who were designing houses? We are all getting older and know that as we go along, it will get harder to get into a bath. That applies even to those of us who have not yet reached our 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. I cannot understand why the local authorities did not have a policy of installing level-access facilities such as walk-in showers. Many people have to apply for grants to have these works done as they get older. They and their families might have to look for grants, for the support of public representatives, for doctors' letters or visits from occupational therapists. The saga can take two or three years. There is a cost associated with the removal of baths, which might not even be in the house. I have seen houses in which bathroom windows cannot be opened without having to stand in or reach over the bath. Windows have to be opened, especially in bathrooms. I condemn out of hand the architects who designed these bathrooms, those who signed off on such designs and those in the Department who accepted the tenders and designs.

There are many questions to be answered about architects' designs. Even in our heyday when we had money, I could never understand why the design used when a scheme of five or six houses was built in a village could not be used again two years later when five or six houses were needed in another village. In cases where there was the same demand for housing a new set of architects was asked to compile a new set of drawings and designs. I am sure the design could have been adapted if the footprint of the site was too small. It was a racket. Architects got money they should not have received. It was a waste of the Department's money. I am saying this as a person who worked in the voluntary sector and did all of this work. We had to employ architects and get the site. We had to fight for planning permission. We had to pass all of the tests, rightly so, and the Department got value for money. We are maintaining the stock and looking after the tenants. We should, therefore, start supporting local development once more. Since the end of the Celtic tiger, people have started to volunteer again. I salute those in many communities who are ready, able and willing to participate. We also had to hire a builder and had to have our snagging list. We had to hold meetings and apply to have places taken in charge. We dealt with it all. It was not very easy, but we did it.

A similar scheme was built in my sister or brother community in the other half of the parish. I refer to a lovely scheme in Ballymacarbry, County Waterford, which was opened by President McAleese in one of the last events of her Presidency. It was provided by people who had volunteered in the same way and the same architects were involved. We gave them a small hand and some encouragement. I salute those involved. As I said, when the Government used to do this, different architects were involved and a different design was needed for every scheme. I do not know why that was the case.

I would like to speak about high rents and valuations. We all deal with variations in rents on a daily basis, as Deputy Seamus Healy said. If I do not meet the people who come about rents, the staff in my office meet them. I hope the new policy under the Bill will deal with such cases, as the position is not very fair. It seems to be unjust also. In fairness to the officials in the local authorities, I have found them to be helpful in dealing with many issues in the housing sector. They cannot operate with their hands behind their backs and cannot operate with slashed budgets. Such reductions have a knock-on effect. They are human also. They have to listen to the pleas of families, read the letters from doctors and deal with the representations of public representatives. They would prefer to get the work done than to refuse people.

The RAS has been mentioned. Everything has moved to the RAS because no houses are being built or bought. It is a pity that no fund is available for the purchase of property because exceptional value is available. People who are living in single cottages in the country come to my clinic on a weekly basis because they want to move out of these lovely homes. They want to know whether the council will buy their houses and plots of land. The council has received many applications from people who want to live in the areas in question. Exceptional value for money is available as a result. It is a shame that the council does not have the funds to buy these houses.

Everything is down to the RAS, which is a good scheme and I am not going to knock it. I salute Mr. Seán Lonergan and Mr. Michael Fitzgerald who run the scheme for South Tipperary County Council. They receive great co-operation as they organise it and many good landlords are dealing with them. However, there are some rogue landlords also. When the deal is signed and the tenant accepts it for ten or 20 years, these rogue landlords abandon the tenant and fail to do any maintenance works, etc. It is not fair and it damages the entire system. However, that is not how the good landlords operate. The RAS has been an effective scheme and I would not like to see it become the Government's only means of sourcing local authority housing. It involves the acquisition of parts of housing estates.

I would like to speak about the Part V planning scheme under which local authorities obtained some houses to sell at a lower cost. It was belatedly introduced.

They were successful schemes. While I admit it came very late in the day when most of the mad development had already taken place, and the bad developers would not engage with it, it was an effort nonetheless. I am disappointed the Bill does not consider something along the lines of what happens in England when developers want to build. No doubt that will happen again in this country, and the sooner the better for all of us, although it should not happen in the mad way it happened previously. Planning must play a huge role in this regard.

There should be community gain. I made submissions to the last county development plan in my area seeking that no schemes of houses containing more than 30 houses would be considered in rural villages and small towns. A developer wanted to build 200 houses in my village. We held him up for nearly two and a half years while we sought a community plot for a playground and a crèche, and the next thing he got planning permission for 99 houses, which was far too many. The village had a local authority estate of 32 houses built in the 1970s, another beautiful estate of 17 houses, and another estate of 34 houses, which was the type of development we could handle. We had worked with a good developer, and we now have a community house and all the facilities. However, this latest developer did not know who we were. He flew down in a helicopter and saw the field, and when it was pictured in The Irish Timesa few months later it was in flood. Despite that, he had a sign up on the wall which read "Houses for sale". They must have been some kind of water homes or maybe he thought he was in Venice. In any case, he got his planning permission for 99 houses and he has now gone missing. We have got the site and the council has co-operated.

There should be stipulations in this Bill and future Bills to ensure there is community gain. With the turning of the sod, when the houses are being built, it should be ensured that playgrounds and community facilities such as sports halls are part of the plan. A group from Finland visited my area recently and I understand they visited Dublin and Deputy Wall's constituency also. They came to look at the wasteland that was left after the Celtic tiger, and they could not believe it when they saw houses built in the middle of nowhere with no facilities - no shop, church, hall, school or anything else. These are now what are described as ghost estates and the State has to pick up the cost of fencing them and making them secure.

There should be community gain in the Bill. I do not know if the Minister can accept amendments, but he should. I am not knocking developers, because we need developers. However, developers got rich and there were many developers who, if they did not get rich, did okay, employed people and paid their taxes, rates and everything else. They worked with the communities, as we worked with Newcastle Construction in our village. I was able to show the people from Finland how we got a site and the support we needed for a playground, how we got the community house through the council and how we got different supports from one developer. On the other hand, another developer treated us with disdain and contempt, and when he left he told me we could do what we liked with the land as he was off to Poland. I told him we would put sheep back on the land as there had always been sheep there. This is the damage that greed did.

The legislation must be in place for the local authorities, when granting planning permission, to allow for community gain in regard to any of these developments. We have learned costly lessons with the ghettos we have created and the mess left behind. I am surprised there is no cognisance of this in the Bill.

See this speech in context