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

I explained on Committee Stage that these amendments duplicate a power already provided through the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 to housing authorities and the Minister. Section 22 of that Act provides that a housing authority can determine the order of priority in which it makes allocations to individual households in accordance with its allocation scheme. Subsection (5) allows the housing authority, having regard to any regulations made by the Minister in that regard, to reserve dwellings available for allocation in its area, in respect of particular classes of household, forms of tenure or households transferring from other forms of social housing support. The making of an allocation scheme is a reserved function of the authority. In providing for specific allocations and prioritising for same it is important to have regard to those in greatest need and in respect of vulnerable groups but also to avoid measures that would have unintended consequences for the different categories of need.

Section 22(16) provides that the Minister may direct a housing authority to amend an allocation scheme in the manner specified by him or her and that the housing authority must comply with that direction. If I believe there is a robust case for the prioritisation of any particular class of household above another in the context of the allocation of social housing support by a housing authority I will use the power given to me under section 22(16). However, I do not believe that is appropriate in the two particular cases provided for in these amendments, namely, that people on RAS who have been responsible be given priority over the type of person referred to by Deputy Boyd Barrett or tenants in relation to unaffordable rent levels because people in RAS are on differential rent. I do not get the point about unaffordable rent levels. Obviously, people who are evicted are a priority because they are homeless. That is the position in relation to the specific amendments.

I would like to address some of the broader issues raised. I did not ask Deputies why they had not raised the issue in relation to RAS before now rather what I said was that the matter had not been raised during the Second Stage debate. It has been suggested that not all councils have transfer lists. Deputy Catherine Murphy said that no such list exists in Kildare County Council. Under section 22(3) of the 2009 Act, all councils are required to have a transfer policy. As with all social housing tenants and, as will be the case with HAP recipients, HAP households who wish to do so will be able to access other local authority housing options through the transfer system. I have always said that people will be able to transfer. I have not said they will remain on the waiting list but that they will be able to transfer into local authority housing, whereby they can apply to transfer from HAP to local authority housing or approved housing body, AHB, housing.

As I said previously in discussions on amendment No. 19, I am proposing that a robust transfer policy, which would afford HAP recipients and other social housing tenants equal opportunities to access other forms of social housing support, including incremental purchase schemes, will be a central part of a local authority's allocation policy going forward. This will be done under provisions already in place under section 22 of the 2009 Act. This list, while being a transfer list, will reflect the specific priority of the previous position held by a household on the main waiting list within the authority area in which they are resident. The principle will be that the reasonable expectations of households should be preserved. They will, therefore, be placed on a transfer list with no less favourable terms than if they had remained on the main housing waiting list. I hope that is clear because I know Deputies are seeking clarity.

See this speech in context