Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. When this House debated the housing crisis a number of weeks ago, we highlighted some of the major issues that public representatives are trying to address and solve. Much of what is in this Bill is very positive, but some of it will not solve the issues in question. There are over 90,000 people on the housing list. The high cost of rent is preventing local authorities from taking on houses under the rental accommodation scheme. Landlords are simply refusing to engage with local authorities on that scheme because they can get more money on the commercial market. The Dublin Region Homeless Executive has pointed out that homelessness has increased by 200% over the last 12 months. We are facing an unprecedented crisis. We need to address it quickly. There seems to have been a sort of drift within the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in terms of how it intends to address this issue.

As I have said, I welcome some elements of this Bill such as the tenancy warning issue and the revised procedure to recover possession. A tenant who engages in anti-social behaviour, refuses to pay the rent or causes undue hardship to his or her neighbours and the people in the community deserves to be penalised. While it is right for such a person to get an initial warning and a second chance, if he or she continues on the same track he or she ultimately deserves to have his or her house repossessed. This Bill also seeks to enhance the administrative functions associated with the rental accommodation scheme and the new housing assistance payment system. I hope that will ensure there is greater efficiency within the system. We are all in favour of greater efficiencies.

I have an issue with mandatory reductions at source. It is another example of a payment being taken away from local post offices. Many tenants in local authority houses pay their rent through the post office after they have collected their weekly old age pensions or social welfare payments. This service is moving away at a time when the State should be supporting the critical service that the post office provides in our communities. I accept that if people have built up significant arrears and are not prepared to pay their rent on a weekly basis, it definitely needs to be deducted at source. Given that most people are law-abiding citizens who pay their dues on a weekly basis, I do not know whether there is a need for this provision.

I welcome the tenant purchase scheme. I think it is very positive. It was suspended for the last 12 months or more. Many people would like to buy out their own houses when they are in a position to do so. If they have lived in the house for many years, it is likely that they have invested in it to renovate and upgrade it and would now like to own it. It is only right and proper that a new scheme has come into place. However, I remain worried that it might discriminate against people whose only income is social welfare. The Minister of State is aware that I have previously highlighted my concerns with regard to people who have been living in these houses for a long period of time and built up a track record of paying their rent. In some instances, their mortgage repayments could be similar to the differential rent. I suggest that discretion should be exercised in such cases.

In a case where a disabled person receives a disability payment and his or her carer receives a carer's allowance, there might be an income of €450 or €460 per week, which is similar to the income of a person on the minimum wage. However while a person on the minimum wage might be able to take out a loan and buy his or her house, a person on social welfare cannot. It is discriminatory against people on social welfare and when I spoke recently I asked the Minister of State to explore the point. When the rent and mortgage payments are at the same level, tenant purchase should be accommodated.

Does the legislation deal with the serious issue of the anomaly regarding separated couples? When one member of a couple moves out of the family home, his or her name may remain on the title deed because a separation agreement to legally remove it from the title deed is unaffordable. Although such a person might not be able to provide a home for himself or herself, he or she is unable to access social housing because his or her name remains on the title deed. I could cite cases from my constituency, as many other colleagues could, in which the woman had no choice but to get out of her house due to domestic abuse and lives in a refuge because she cannot get onto the local authority housing list. In one case, the husband suffered from profound psychological problems and the wife, having stayed with him for many years trying to help him, could no longer stay, moved out of the family home and is unable to get onto the housing list or get any help or support such as rent allowance. This must be addressed.

The major issue is the absence of proper and meaningful investment in the provision of local authority houses. The investment level has collapsed in recent years and nothing has been done to address it. Hopefully, the tenant purchase scheme will leverage money and enable local authorities to reinvest it in upgrading existing stock or building new stock. It is not there, and it must be addressed radically. We should support the Part 5 concept and I hope development happens. I believe in the Part 5 concept because it is socially inclusive and does not segregate people without the means to provide homes for themselves into one particular area or housing estate. Housing should be mixed, as it is far better from a social perspective and I would like it to be progressed.

I would appreciate if the Minister of State would re-examine the issue of separated families. We should re-examine the discriminatory criteria of the new tenant purchase schemes. We should consider enabling voluntary housing bodies and giving them the necessary legislative framework to raise capital to build new units to provide for the thousands of people on housing lists across all constituencies who have no opportunity to get housing any time in the near future. Has the Minister any plans to deal with private landlords who do not wish to engage with local authorities or local authorities which are not engaging with landlords regarding long-term leases? In my constituency one could count the properties with long-term leases on the fingers of two hands. What plans does the Minister of State have to deal with the issue? There is nothing in the Bill that will deal with it.

See this speech in context