Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Members - at least 25 - who have contributed to this debate. As usual, there was great passion and knowledge about housing provision.

Deputy Browne suggested there was not enough time for the debate. We did not guillotine it, however, and every Member who wished to speak on it was given the opportunity to do so. There were some interesting suggestions such as the use of bonds, building social housing off the State’s balance sheet and bringing back schemes that worked in the past. I will examine all of these. Other points were made about housing supply which is not strictly related to the Bill. Some Members opposite claimed we were re-announcing stimulus packages, etc. The package announced this week is new, not a re-announcement. It will provide an extra €20 million for new builds, €20 million for restoring empty local authority housing and €10 million for dealing with homeless people and families, a total of €50 million.

On the termination of local authority tenancies, we needed to respond to the court’s decision that we needed to bring the legislation in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. I agree with Deputies Crowe, Heydon and Ó Fearghaíl on the need for a multi-agency approach to anti-social behaviour by local authority tenants. Deputies Clare Daly, Stanley, Maureen O’Sullivan, Dowds, Naughten and Heydon raised the issue of anti-social behaviour and private-rented accommodation. Side by side with this legislation, there is a Bill going through which will amend the Private Residential Tenancies Board and how it deals with anti-social behaviour in privately rented houses.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan spoke about a particular investigation which revealed the poor quality of private-rented accommodation in Dublin. To be fair to private landlords, that was a targeted examination of a particular part of Dublin where we felt there was an issue in the standard of accommodation on offer. It would not be fair to say that it was a reflection of all private-rented accommodation in the Dublin area.

Regarding excluding orders in respect of anti-social behaviour and their application, concern was expressed that these should not just apply in respect of a person's home but more particularly to the area in which they are carrying on the anti-social behaviour. Deputy Catherine Byrne and Deputy Calleary raised this issue. As well as prohibiting a respondent from entering or being in a particular house, the existing excluding order legislation allows a court to prohibit a respondent from entering or being in the vicinity of any specified area containing at least one local authority house. Section 19(4)(c) of the Bill extends this prohibition to cover a specified place or area where there is at least one local authority house. Therefore, it can be used if people go into another area and cause problems.

Concern was expressed by Deputies Catherine Byrne and Calleary that the application of excluding orders should not just apply in respect of a person’s home but more particularly to the area in which they are carrying out their anti-social behaviour. As well as prohibiting a respondent from entering or being in a particular house, the existing excluding order legislation allows a court to prohibit a respondent in the vicinity of any specified area containing at least one local authority house. Section 19(4)(c) extends this prohibition to cover a specified place or area where there is at least one local authority house. It can be used if anti-social tenants are causing problems in other areas.

Deputies Broughan and Shortall raised the issue of excluding orders being used against minors under the Bill. My Department is liaising with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs on this.

The two parties in government are in favour of a tenant-purchase scheme. It will provide an opportunity for tenants who have put down long-term roots in a community to purchase their accommodation. We also want to ensure, however, there is a fair return to the local authority and that tenants are not put into financial difficulties by being offered a tenant-purchase they cannot afford. If someone makes a profit on a subsequent sale of a house they bought out from a tenant-purchase scheme, the State can clawback some of that.

Some Members suggested using the proceeds of a tenant-purchase scheme to build more housing units. This is provided for under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. Deputy Kitt asked what properties would be excluded under the scheme. Regulations will be introduced on the exact operation of the scheme which will outline the excluded properties. For example, it will include dwellings designed for elderly persons, affordable housing and properties shared in a building. There is already an incremental purchase scheme for flats. Some Members claimed it is not operating very well. If it is necessary to amend it, we can examine it in the context of this legislation.

There were a couple of issues raised around the resources of housing assistance payment, HAP, the business plan and how exactly it will work, and whether it will be affordable. It is a commitment in the programme for Government and we have put quite a lot of preparatory work into getting it to this stage, both in my Department and in working with the Department of Social Protection. That work is continuing also with the housing authorities. It includes the design of the necessary IT and business process solutions that are required to facilitate the implementation.

The HAP is essentially new business for local authorities, with consequent decisions required as to how best to deliver the service in the local government sector. In that context, and in the context of the wider local government reform agenda, Limerick City and County Council, as the lead local authority on the implementation of the HAP, has prepared a business case examining a number of options for service deliver, ranging from a devolved model delivering most of the service in each local authority to a centrally shared model of service delivery, and this is being given careful consideration in all quarters to ensure that we provide a sound delivery mechanism for local authorities to succeed in the roll-out of the HAP. The piloting has begun in Limerick. It will roll-out in six further local authorities this year, beginning in July, and then, gradually, in the local authorities. This gives us an opportunity to learn as we go along, from what is happening now in Limerick and what will happen in six other local authorities, so that we will be able to develop it and ensure that it will work properly. It is a significant change, in terms of new business for local authorities and bringing over all of those who are currently on long-term rent supplement into the local authority system.

There were a number of other points raised with regard to the housing assistance payment. I want to touch on one or two, particularly the issue of separated persons because that has been brought up by a number of Members. I direct the attention of Members to section 46 which provides for a number of amendments to section 20 of the Housing Act 2009. Subsection (2)(e) of that section deals with the case of households seeking social housing support whose qualification for housing support under section 20 of the 2009 Act cannot be determined because the household member who is separated but not residing in the family home still has an interest in that home. This amendment will allow that where the household member would otherwise qualify for housing support, the housing authority may determine the person qualified for support in the form of the HAP or the RAS. This determination will be reviewed at certain intervals and when the interest of the separated household member in the family home has been resolved, if that person then qualifies for social housing support his or her time in the RAS or the HAP will be reckonable if that person or household applies to transfer to another form of social housing support. That is a question many Members raised in various contexts. We can clarify that as we go along with the legislation, but we have taken the opportunity to address that issue in the legislation.

There was also an issue around the responsibility for the house or apartment. In terms of the landlord's responsibilities, they will be covered under the PRTB. Under section 43(6) a housing authority will be empowered, amongst other matters, to refuse to provide or to cease providing housing assistance in respect of a qualified or benefiting household where the authority considers and has evidence that any household member is or has been engaged in anti-social behaviour. That is how that relationship will work.

I refer to the direct deduction of local authority rents. In the debate, there has been some strong support for that and some concern expressed about it. At the end of 2011, the extent of the accumulated rent arrears across all housing authorities was €53.25 million. There is clearly a problem with rent owed to local authorities. The system we are putting in place will transfer upwards of 60,000 households from rent supplement to HAP and we want to ensure that we can do that in a smooth way that will work for everybody. The mandatory rental deduction facility will ensure that households do not fall into arrears and do not have the problem of considerable arrears that they then have to try to pay back. That is the purpose of the measure.

For the purposes of clarification, it is my intention that those on the HAP will be eligible to transfer into local authority tenancies and it will not mean that they will never be able to get a tenancy. That is my clear intention. It is also important to note that the rent contribution that a HAP recipient will pay to the local authority will be calculated in accordance with that authority's differential rent scheme, which is, as the House will be aware, an income-based rental scheme. All in all, that is a fair system, both to the local authorities and to the tenants, and will, I hope, address issues around tenants falling into arrears.

From the point of view of the current system of rent supplement, many Members referred to the fact that sometimes the tenant is paid directly and does not pay the money to the landlord. In the system here, as Deputy Joe O'Reilly pointed out, there will be a safeguard for landlords as well in so far as they will get a monthly payment, it will be the entire payment and it will come from the local authority which will have taken the tenant's portion and will pass on the whole payment to the landlord. There have been fears suggested, and I am aware there is a problem with landlords pulling out of rent supplement and the RAS, but there is a security for the landlords in this which, I hope, will encourage them to become involved, or if they have been involved in rent supplement to remain involved in the HAP.

There were a number of issues raised and I hope I have addressed some of them, at least the ones that are directly related to the three elements of the Bill. We will have opportunities for further debate at Committee and Report Stages and I look forward to that discussion.

See this speech in context