Nicky McFadden (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, to the House. I welcome the Bill and the majority of its provisions, especially in respect of anti-social behaviour, the rental accommodation scheme and incremental purchase. However, I share the disappointment of my colleagues in regard to the omission of homelessness, a matter to which I shall return.

Having recently been a member of a local authority I can testify that anti-social behaviour is the single biggest heartache for a local authority and elected members. How does a local authority support people who are trying to live their lives beside neighbours who have no regard and no respect for local authority housing? I share Senator Ellis's sentiments that people must be made responsible for the maintenance of local authority housing. I acknowledge the research done by the Oireachtas Library in putting together a document on the Bill which is easy to understand.

While the State is absolved from any obligation to house people who have been engaged in anti-social behaviour and can evict them, it does not happen very often. I understand there is an obligation to look after children. I represent a number of local authority housing associations and residents associations which are afflicted by people who are wrecking their houses and the whole neighbourhood. The Health Service Executive can refuse to pay rent supplement but I do not know if this ever happens. In my estimation it does not. If people are moved from a local authority house they approach the HSE and get rent supplement. They then move into a private estate and proceed to carry on with the same anti-social behaviour.

The local authority of which I was a member is not building as many houses as heretofore. More people are getting rent allowance and moving into established old housing estates and proceeding to destroy them.

I welcome the provision in the Bill which deals with people who misuse or sell drugs. That is the kernel of anti-social behaviour in housing estates. I shall take the issue of those who inhabit our local authority housing estate a little further. I question whether it is the tenant who is in receipt of the contract from the local authority, the hangers-on or the people the tenant invites into the house who cause the trouble and the anti-social behaviour. I am disappointed the Bill does not address that issue. In my experience — since 1999 I have been a member of a local authority — it is the bad behaviour and evil in some of the partners who live in our local authority houses, who are not meant to be there, that cause all the trouble, especially in the area of drug dealing. The Bill provides for people who misuse or sell drugs but not people who take drugs. Users of drugs are high and irrational and they are the people who cause the trouble.

I shall relate an incident that took place on a confirmation day. The ice-cream van drove into a housing estate and the children were queuing up for ice-cream in their finery. A man who was high on drugs was brandishing a knife. He was not meant to be living in the housing estate in question but I and everybody else knew he was there. That is an area that needs to be seriously addressed. Senator Ellis said that an inspector should check out the condition of houses and how they are maintained. It is equally important that an inspector call and see who is residing and who is meant to reside in houses owned by the local authority.

The other area about which I am concerned in regard to anti-social behaviour is passing the buck — the local authority passing the buck to the Garda, the Garda passing it back to the local authority — with the result that the tenant is obliged to adhere to the tenant handbook and falls between two stools. Nobody takes responsibility. I welcome the Bill but is provisions must be implemented.

The rental accommodation scheme is a good scheme given that there is not as much land in urban areas to build as many houses as heretofore. However, I am disappointed at the uptake of the scheme, some of the reasons for which were mentioned by the Minister of State. Why do landlords not get involved in this scheme? The tripartite issue regarding maintenance is serious, as are the problems surrounding non-tax compliant landlords and tenants being concerned about security of tenure as opposed to getting a local authority house. Enticements could be given to landlords. A number of landlords with whom I deal who would like to rent to local authority tenants are not aware of the existence of the rental accommodation scheme. There would be a better uptake of the scheme if more people knew about it, especially in this climate.

There is a need for more joined-up thinking between the local authority and the HSE on the matter of rent allowance. I would like clarification on this matter. In my local authority if one receives rent allowance for 18 months one is entitled to avail of the RAS. The Bill does not mention it and I wonder if it is a national policy. The Bill states that the rental supplement scheme is a short-term scheme. However, that is a contradiction, if we expect those who wish to take up the RAS to be on the supplement for 18 months. That will not work, especially considering that there is so little local authority housing available. It is a disincentive to the RAS and might be one of the reasons people are not taking it up.

I welcome the re-sale of properties as an aspect of the Bill. People are now able to sell their houses and re-mortgage them.

My colleague, Senator Hannigan, raised a point about single men. There is a changing dynamic in society and men who move out of the family home and wish to have access to their children need accommodation. There is no provision in this Bill for single men. I have raised this point at local authority level but we must provide such housing on a national scale.

With regard to anti-social behaviour, entire housing estates can become run down and disturbed because of a number of individuals. The Minister of State referred to the issue of "residualisation" in his document. I find that term very interesting. It is not something I had heard of before but I understand that it is a process whereby a number of people move out of a neighbourhood because it is no longer desirable. I have first-hand experience of this. It happens when local authorities and private landlords neither care for nor respect the dynamic of the families they put into a housing estate. A way to avoid "residualisation" is to put in place community resources, amenities and services for families to help them to live together. This is not happening. The only way people may be encouraged to live in harmony, and that anti-social behaviour may be abolished in "bad" estates where planning is not to the level we want, is to put in resources and community workers. That is the only way to solve the problem.

I am appalled to see that the people who most need our support do not feature in this document. The most vulnerable in society are those who have nowhere to live. We have just come from a Simon Community launch and therefore this failure of inclusion is outrageous. There are at least 5,000 homeless people in our society and I cannot see how we can progress the issue if we do not even mention them in the Bill.