Dominic Hannigan (Labour)

I thank Senator Buttimer.

I welcome the Minister of State and this Bill which is important legislation that can go a long way towards helping people in need of housing. The legislation deals with some principal themes, including anti-social behaviour, the rental accommodation scheme and the incremental purchase scheme. It contains many provisions, including how a housing service is defined, housing service plans, needs assessment, allocation schemes and anti-social strategies. I signal now that we will table some amendments on Committee Stage but will do so in a positive manner. We hope they will be taken on board to try to improve the legislation and I hope my comments are helpful in that respect.

I welcome the contents of the housing service plan, in particular those sections dealing with social segregation and how we need to ensure that people from different backgrounds are catered for within the plan. It is good to see that the Bill calls for a mix of dwelling types to ensure there is a sufficient supply of housing for those wanting it.

Senator Dan Boyle mentioned the absence of a reference to homelessness in the Bill and said that he hopes to see that corrected by way of amendment on Committee Stage. I was glad to hear that because it is clear that there is a real problem with single males and homelessness. There is also a dearth of one-bedroom apartments in local authority provided housing. We need to ensure this is addressed through the housing plan.

I am also glad to see the housing service plan will be produced within six months of the county development plan, which is eminently sensible. However, I ask that the legislation be tightened as regards consultation. Section 16 calls for the housing authority to send a copy of the draft plan to various agencies and authorities. That needs to be stronger and we need to tighten the wording to ensure there is more consultation than simply sending something, waiting to get comments back and then responding to them. I would like local authorities to work much more closely with the relevant agencies.

The housing action programme is very welcome, but who is responsible for its delivery? Is it the county manager, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Minister for Finance? A programme is not worth a bucket of rainwater unless it is fully costed and funded. It is unfair on councillors, housing officials and people on the housing list to be told a programme of works is coming down the line only for the funding to disappear. Can I have clarity on who is responsible for ensuring the funding is in place?

The most recent assessment of homelessness shows there are more than 3,000 homeless people in Ireland and more than 43,000 households on local authority waiting lists. I am aware of the impact of this in my area. In Meath there are in excess of 2,000 people on the waiting lists and I regularly get telephone calls from people throughout the county who have been waiting years for housing. Some of them are in housing that is inadequate or needs refurbishment, but the council does not have the money to deal with the situation. It is clear, therefore, that we need a costed and fully funded programme of works.

I would like more information with regard to assessment of needs. Section 20(1) refers to a household as "2 or more persons who, in the opinion of the housing authority concerned, have a reasonable requirement to live together". However, section 20(4)(a) mentions "a household comprising one person". What is a household? Is it one person or two or more? Can the Minister of State also explain "reasonable requirement to live together"? I suggest one person's definition of a reasonable requirement to live together would be very different from another's. We need to provide a firmer definition here.

The Bill should consider also what constitutes acceptable housing. I know of an estate in County Meath, Alverno Heights, where little work has been done by way of refurbishment in more than 30 years. The people there have been promised year after year that refurbishment works will be carried out, but the Government is dragging its feet with regard to expenditure. Senator Brady, who has significant experience in these matters, asked whether it is the management of local authorities that is responsible for some estates being run down. It is probably because they do not get the funding from the Department to ensure these older estates can be refurbished. Will the Minister of State explain what he understands by social housing support? Does he consider renting a house from the private sector to be social housing support?

The Minister of State mentioned the relevance of Towards 2016. That document states the Department will provide 60,000 households between 2006 and 2009. Current output levels show that at 25,000, we are far short of that, more than 40% short. The result is we have a significant number of households in need of housing because of the failure of the Government to implement its policies contained within Towards 2016.

There is a way around this. There are 10,000 flats or apartments available which gives scope for an imaginative solution. The Department could work with the housing agencies to take those apartments off the market and kill two birds with one stone. First, it would reduce housing supply and kick-start the property market and also reduce housing lists by up to 10,000 households. Perhaps this is something the Minister of State should consider.

The Bill also refers to anti-social behaviour. It is a good idea to introduce additional legislation in this area. Some councils have adopted anti-social behaviour strategies. I spoke to the anti-social behaviour officer in County Meath yesterday. Meath took on board best practice worldwide and introduced a strategy a number of years ago and by being proactive in that respect, it has managed to make some inroads into anti-social behaviour. The Minister of State was correct in saying that anti-social behaviour in estates disrupts the lives of householders and has the potential to destabilise communities. We have all seen at first hand how people are harassed and intimidated in their estates and, sometimes, their homes. A nationwide anti-social behaviour strategy is timely and, it is to be hoped, helpful. What plans are there for an appeals process for people who are served with an anti-social behaviour order? It is only fair we should have an independent appeals process to provide transparency. Will the Minister of State consider that?

The Labour Party may table some amendments relating to incremental purchase arrangements. I have some questions regarding how easy it would be for a single person who started off buying a one-bedroom apartment but then started a family with a partner to move off the scheme and sell the apartment and buy another. What kind of clawback would be involved? Perhaps this will be clarified later. We welcome the Bill in principle as it has positive proposals. However, we will table some amendments in a spirit of improving the legislation.