John Ellis (Fianna Fail)

The Bill gives us an opportunity to consider local authority housing, social housing and all the types of housing other than private housing. However, on private housing, we all know that some people are now finding themselves in serious difficulty with regard to mortgages. There might be a case to be made to allow some of these mortgages come within the ambit of local authority or social housing parameters. This might allow people stay in their homes rather than allow the building societies or banks repossess them and sell them on thereby landing those people on the local authority lists.

There has been enormous progress with housing in recent years. However with progress comes problems. The biggest problem is anti-social behaviour in some of our housing estates. It is sad to think that people can make life hell for their neighbours without being accountable. In a private estate anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated too long. However, it has become a problem on local authority housing estates. It has even become a problem in smaller estates in small towns. We need to consider ways to deal with people involved in anti-social behaviour. If we take them to court we know what will happen — they will be reprimanded by the judge, walk out the door and get up to the same anti-social behaviour within weeks.

I do not know what measures we could take to frighten people involved in anti-social behaviour. We do not have the right nor would it be appropriate to throw people on the side of the road. However, in some cases the way those people have reacted to their neighbours might warrant something as serious as that. We need to ascertain what we can do. The Bill goes some way in trying to strengthen the hands of local authorities regarding anti-social behaviour. However, anti-social behaviour has various effects. Older people sometimes feel very threatened if they live in OPDs on council estates and they regularly attend our clinics to tell us they feel intimidated. On the other hand older people should not be ghettoised and put into areas with only other older people. We need to work to get the right balance.

The size of housing estates should be considered, as should the mix of people living in them. Certain housing estates in towns have been turned into ghettoes by the local authority because of the tenants they put into them. In brand new estates officially opened by a Minister everybody seems quite happy when the tenants go into the new houses. However, if one were to look at the lawns three years later one would find 20% of them in a mess, 20% of them reasonably maintained and the remaining 60% maintained to a first-class standard. It is wrong that people should be allowed to abuse public housing. While the Bill refers to maintenance, it should be mandatory for the local authority to build a maintenance cost into the tenancy agreements, which should be collected as part of the rent. Those who maintain their houses to a proper standard should qualify for a refund of that maintenance charge.

It is terrible that a person's house can be destroyed by the people who live next door. If one person maintains his or her house to the highest standard it can be very disheartening if the house next door is not maintained. We are all aware of houses that have been handed over by the local authority in first-class condition — brand new in some cases — fully decorated and fully fitted out with the assistance of the State at some level and some 12 or 18 months later the doors are hanging loose having been kicked in and there is graffiti on the walls. Something needs to be done to prevent such social misbehaviour in public housing. Anything the Minister of State can do to add to the penalties and incentives would be welcomed by people in local authority houses. I could go on about anti-social behaviour forever.

We should give considerable credit to the voluntary housing groups providing housing at a reasonable cost for people in need. We have all seen the voluntary housing sector develop and it has done a good job. However, how much further will the Government be able to go in subsidising the voluntary housing sector? It is so highly subsidised at the moment that it will not be possible to continue the same level of subsidisation in future. We need to be objective in this. It has done tremendous work in places where it has provided sheltered and other housing where the local authority was not able to do so. Senators on all sides of the House have spoken about the problems local authorities have when tenants move out. There seems to be a continual problem with regard to the delay from the time a tenant moves out to when a new tenant moves in. If a private landlord was involved the beds would not be cold before new tenants would have moved in.

The local authorities are losing considerable revenue as a result of not being able to let houses. People attending our clinics advise us of vacant local authority houses. However, on investigation it is often the case that the tenant is in a local care home and hopes to return. The tenant cannot be evicted once he or she pays the rent. However, there are cases where houses vacated by families and individuals are left for months on end with nothing done to have them let again, which is wrong.

A local authority inspector should carry out an annual check of a house to ascertain whether it is being maintained or what damage has been done. There should be some way of recovering the cost of any damage done from the tenant. It is wrong that local authorities have had to spend enormous amounts on money refurbishing houses for the same tenant who had vandalised it. In the past I saw a house where £7,000 worth of damage was caused to a house by the sitting tenant who had the audacity to approach the local authority to have it refurbished. The house had to be refurbished, otherwise the tenant would have had to move to another house with the prospect of the same problem recurring. That is going too far, but it is the only way the local authority had of dealing with the situation. Responsibility for maintenance will have to rest with tenants. There should be estate management in every estate. Everybody should be made to participate and nobody should have the right to opt out.

I wish to raise the issue of management companies, how they treat some of their tenants and how they operate but time does not permit. Some are terrible while some are very good. We could look at some of the schemes in place in, say, New York where management of a block is taken on by the tenants and, in many cases, is done much better than by a management company.

I welcome the Bill, which we could debate for a long time. There is a definite responsibility on local authority tenants to maintain houses to the highest level, otherwise there should be a formula whereby the local authority can charge them a maintenance cost to ensure the houses are properly maintained. Public money goes into them initially and they are public property.

Senator Buttimer mentioned the sale of council flats. If we go down this road again we should ensure that the clawback system is such that people do not make some of the fortunes that were made in certain areas of the city when local authority houses were resold.