Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the changes introduced by the Minister. They are very timely. The old limits, which were set in 2011, belonged to a totally different world. Over the years, when I asked when these changes would take place, I got the tired old answer that the matter was being studied. For those who were suffering under incredibly low thresholds, being told that the system was being looked at did not give much satisfaction. I am glad the Minister just went and did the simple thing. I often think that, in politics, we have an infinite ability nowadays to make the simple things complicated and to leave people who need something hanging on and not able to get it. Under the previous limits, I encountered the absolutely ridiculous situation in my constituency of people with big families whose sole income came from the Department of Social Protection - there might have been a carer's allowance thrown in for a child with a disability but the sole income was from the Department - being over the income threshold. I know of one family who moved from County Galway to Galway city, where they were just under the threshold because a different band applied. The rents at the edge of Galway city are no different from those just into the county area. The Minister made a welcome move in giving Galway county two jumps. He moved it from band 3 to band 2 and then gave the same general rise that was given across the country. That rose the income limit by €10,000. I welcome that.

The decision made is very welcome and timely. It is simple but it is a big improvement for those who come into our offices looking to get on the housing list. Of course, the system is afraid of encouraging demand. However, demand can only be encouraged among people who need a house. Most people who have the opportunity to buy a house would do so in preference to getting a local authority house because then it is theirs and they can do what they want with it. I do not believe there are too many people seeking to get on a housing list who are otherwise able to buy a house. It is a spurious argument. It is interesting that, up to 2011, there was no income limit at all in some local authority areas. If people said they needed to, they could go on the list. This is fascinating. It would be very interesting to look at whether the demand was absolutely enormous in those counties or whether they did not have an income limit because the demand was not big and because home ownership was more affordable in those counties because lots of people were able to build on their own sites.

The next point I will make in the few minutes I have is that we are great at getting experts and academics to look at things. I am not against that if the second part of the process is followed. No matter how many degrees he or she has or how scholarly he or she is, someone who is far removed from an issue will take an academic approach to life and is very likely to come up with a scheme that is based on what he or she perceives to be the way in which people should act. However, we all know from our constituency clinics that the way people actually act in this world is much more varied and complex and is not necessarily the way people should theoretically act. We all have experience of people in very similar circumstances coming to us. Whether they own their house or are looking to get a local authority house and no matter what their life circumstances are, you will find that different people handle money very differently. Some people can make money go much further. Some people on very modest incomes could aspire to own a home and, if given the money, could get a loan for a house and pay it back. Such people did in the past when things were a bit easier. There are other people who might have a higher income but who would never be able to handle that for one reason or another. I am not making any moral judgments. I am saying that this is what you find. Life is complex and the theoretical models people create often do not match the realities of people's lives. The income limits should be set in a way that allows for an overlap up to the threshold at which people can get a loan to buy a house. Let us be honest about it, some people on quite reasonable incomes find it very difficult to get even the State loans from the local authorities. These are hard-working people.

It is possible to find out by practice the level at which the vast majority of people can get a loan. This becomes one threshold. The people beneath that level would be eligible for local authority housing. It cannot be that the cut-off level is that of the most parsimonious, the most careful, the most prudent or the most whatever. It is necessary to take a much more nuanced view.

I also think that sometimes changes are made and the system thinks it has come up with great ideas. The first bad idea was the housing assistance payment, HAP. If people are now eligible for permanent local authority housing, then they are also eligible for HAP. If the limit is raised for one, it is also immediately raised for the other. This has consequences. It does not allow for much social nuance in the way the old system did, where we had the social welfare system paying the mortgage or rental supplement. That system was completely independent of eligibility for housing and was done on a different type of means assessment. The two systems were not inexplicably linked and the accusation could not be levelled that private rents were being increased. One of the problems we all know about concerning the HAP system is that it is a great rent inflator. The landlord gains but not the tenant. They are just chasing each other around. Money is then being put into pockets way above the differential rents to try to make up the difference. This is a very flawed system.

The answer to all of this, of course, is to build more houses. It is very simple. One other major change, though, would be to bring the limits down. By being very fussy about eligibility, we have stopped working people being eligible for local authority houses. We have reduced the social mix in housing estates. In my constituency, certainly, the only people eligible are those who are unemployed. We therefore get issues regarding the public perception of social housing, which was not as prevalent in the past, if we go back to the time between the 1930s and the 1960s, when most people who would have been in social housing were working people with jobs. I would like to see many more integrated estates, and raising the income limits is key to achieving this aim. People who make the jump from being dependent on welfare into work should not be immediately cut off.

To come to a parochial point, regarding a big issue in Galway, when people apply to Galway City Council for housing, a choice of areas is allowed where people would like to live. There is Galway city east and Galway city west, but it is also possible to put down the county area as a choice. This is the area of Galway County Council. When people apply for housing to that local authority, they can put down areas in the county, but also those in the city. I have yet, however, to see anybody on the city list getting a house in the county and, even more so, it is highly unlikely that anybody on the county list will get a house in the city, because there is huge pressure on housing there. After about five, six, seven, eight or even nine years, the people who put down the option, in good faith, of the city and then county, thinking they would be assessed and considered in the county, equal to everybody else who was same length of time on the list, find they are not really being considered at all by the local authority with which they are not registered.

These people are then on the horns of a dilemma. If, for example, they change from the city list to the county list, which would not be as long and they might be more likely to get a house, they then find they have to go back to the end of the queue. I have contacted the Department, because this policy is Department-driven. It was part of its great amalgamation plan, regarding the two local authorities in Galway, that they wanted this area to stretch from the River Suck in Ballinasloe all the way west out to Clifden, Inishbofin and Ballyconneely. This is halfway across the country and more. It is time the Department resolved this issue and said that people on the city or county list should be considered equally for their earlier preference, regardless of which list they are on.

As we said several elections ago, a lot has been done in the past two years, but nothing was done in the previous nine years except regression. A lot has been done and there is a lot more to do. Until everybody has the opportunity to get permanent, secure tenancies, we cannot rest on our laurels.

See this speech in context