Ivana Bacik (Independent)

Like previous speakers, I welcome the Minister of State to the House and express a broad welcome for the Bill and for the aim it expresses, which is to improve housing services and their delivery. I am sure all of us would be in agreement with the need to do that. However, there is an element of missed opportunity about this Bill and a number of areas in which the provisions of it could usefully be strengthened to provide a substantial improvement in the quality of housing services and in their delivery to individuals and families. That is the aspect I want to address in the short time available on this Second Stage debate and I welcome the opportunity to do so.

I am grateful to people from the Make Room initiative, which is run by four of the NGOs providing services to homeless persons, namely, Focus Ireland, Threshold, the Simon Community and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, for the information supplied. I am also grateful to the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas which supplied a useful briefing paper on the Bill.

Unfortunately, there is an absence of provision for homelessness in the Bill, an aspect on which Senator Coffey touched. It is a missed opportunity in that this Bill could have provided an opportunity to place the Government's own homeless action plans on a statutory footing. It presented an opportunity also to provide a better statutory definition of "homelessness". Many front-line service providers would say there is a difficulty with current definitions of "homelessness" and with what appears to be an under-assessment of the numbers of persons experiencing homelessness. The assessment of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government conducted in 2005 concluded that there were 3,031 people experiencing homelessness but again that appears to be an under-assessment in that the NGOs providing services have not seen a drop in people using their services. They are of the view that the 2002 figures, which were higher — more than 5,500 — may be a more accurate representation of homelessness.

In addition, there is a difficulty with the definition in that perhaps it does not include those who are in short-term rental accommodation. There is a European-wide definition of "homelessness" that has been suggested that would include persons experiencing inadequate or insecure accommodation such as, for example, victims or survivors of domestic violence. We need to examine that. Although the Bill is very much about improving services, including to persons experiencing homelessness, regrettably there is not included in it a provision for a statutory basis for homeless action plans, or a definition of "homelessness".

Turning to what is included in the Bill, section 19 deals with social housing provisions, which I welcome. The section deals with the provision of social housing support and gives power to housing authorities to provide, facilitate or manage such provision. There are some important and welcome aspects of the section, in particular subsection (4), which obliges housing authorities to have regard to the need to counteract undue segregation between persons of different social backgrounds when they are providing housing services. It also obliges housing authorities to ensure a mix of dwelling types and classes of tenure. It is important that is done in any urban centre. There is a broad welcome for that. I have a concern, however, about what may be a shift in direction within section 19 towards a more general power to provide social housing support and away from a focus on the actual provision of social housing and the building and construction of new social housing units. Senator Coffey mentioned we had already seen a drop-off in the completion of social housing units prior to these times of economic crises we are now experiencing. It is a real concern that local authorities might be examining other types of support when they should be providing the most secure form of tenure to families and households, that is, the social housing provision itself.

There is a radical proposal which, interestingly, would be facilitated by section 19 because subsection (3) permits housing authorities to purchase dwellings or sites to convert buildings or refurbish dwellings. The figures from the Central Statistics Office on the number of vacant housing units in the State indicate that there is a potential opportunity for local authorities to buy up unsold private units of which, apparently, there are 10,000 across Dublin, and to refurbish them or make them suitable to meet the needs of the thousands of families still on housing waiting lists. The 2005 figures suggest there are 43,000 households still on local authority housing waiting lists and for those people it is important there is still direct social housing provision and not just other forms of support. A concern regarding section 19 is that there appears to be a shift in emphasis away from actual provision of housing and towards different forms of support, some of which may fill short-term needs of households but may not be adequate in the long term.

The rental accommodation scheme, RAS, which other speakers have also addressed, is covered in sections 24 and 25. While RAS was an important initiative, and it is welcome that it is being given this secure statutory footing, I might have a concern that it would be expanded upon and developed as an alternative to the provision of social housing. RAS may not meet the long-term needs of the most vulnerable families and households.

From a reading of a summary of the regulatory impact assessment conducted by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in terms of the take-up of RAS in the four years since it was introduced in 2004, I note that the take-up of it has been slow and that the RIA identified barriers to take-up of the scheme. Those barriers would be of great concern because they include the poor quality of private rented accommodation. Any of us who spent time renting in this city or any other areas throughout the State will know that is a real issue. There is serious disparity in conditions in private rented accommodation, not just in old accommodation but some new apartments have been built to very poor standards. It also identified the unwillingness of certain landlords to join RAS and also a shortage of supply of particular types of accommodation at reasonable rent level. It is clear there are difficulties with RAS and it may not be enough to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people. I do not see in this Bill an answer to those difficulties and barriers to the take-up of RAS.

A previous Minister of State at the Department, and current Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, indicated that a value for money and policy review of RAS was under way and was due for completion in April of this year. Apparently, however, this review has not yet been completed. It would be useful to see what that review reveals in order that we might try to assess how best RAS can be developed.

Section 22 again represents a missed opportunity. The section, which is important and welcome, refers to the allocation schemes of housing authorities in the context of meeting housing needs and requires those authorities to make such schemes and determine criteria and priority for persons applying for housing or the allocation of dwellings. My difficulty is that the section still leaves housing authorities with undue discretion regarding the criteria to be adopted. Anyone with experience of campaigning and knocking on people's doors will be aware that the criteria applied by local authorities in determining housing need and in allocating housing are a real concern for many individuals. In circumstances where inconsistencies exist and where different criteria are used, there are real concerns with regard to selectivity and unfairness.

The procedure for allocating housing in Northern Ireland was changed as a result of concerns in respect of there being too much selectivity. The experience in that jurisdiction and across different local authorities in this country shows the need for a single allocation scheme based on universal, objectively assessed criteria for allocating housing.

An issue also arises regarding the method used to collect data on housing need. At present, local authorities collect and collate such data separately. The Garda used to gather data relating to crime but in recent years it was recognised that it would be much more appropriate if the Central Statistics Office, CSO, became the agency responsible for doing so. The latter has been done and represents a huge improvement for people who work in the area of criminal justice because they can be more confident about the figures provided. In that context, there is an argument for using the CSO rather than local authorities to gather data relating to housing need, particularly because there is too much room for discrepancy and difference among the criteria used. It is possible that discriminatory criteria are being applied and different methods of selection used. This leads to perceptions of, if not actual, unfairness in respect of housing allocation.

The Bill does not improve on the current position and the inconsistencies attaching thereto. It is welcome that housing authorities will be required to make allocation schemes. However, the legislation is not sufficiently prescriptive regarding the criteria that should apply in the context of those schemes. There is still a need for universal criteria to be applied.

Previous speakers referred to anti-social behaviour, which is the subject of an important provision contained in section 34. As a criminal law practitioner, I am somewhat alarmed by this section. The criminal law provisions relating to anti-social behaviour orders, ASBOs, were introduced with much fanfare by a previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and have proved to be ineffectual in practice in the context of addressing the real problems and genuine traumas caused by anti-social behaviour to individuals in different communities. We must be wary of how we might best legislate in order to deal with such behaviour. This is an extremely difficult matter for housing authorities.

I welcome the requirement in section 34 whereby local authorities must adopt schemes as to how anti-social behaviour will be dealt with. It is helpful that criteria relating to how such behaviour will be tackled will be set down. I would like greater emphasis on early intervention and prevention to ensure that matters do not come to a head in circumstances where eviction is ultimately required. While local authorities should have effective powers to allow them to deal with anti-social behaviour, a difficulty arises because eviction means that the problem is merely being passed on and that innocent people can be hurt if an entire family is evicted as a result of the behaviour of one member. I look forward to reviewing this provision in more detail on Committee Stage.

As already stated, there is an element of missed opportunity about the Bill. However, that is not to take away from the welcome improvements it will deliver. As we debate the legislation, it would be nice to think that amendments which would help to improve the delivery of services to people with housing needs might be accepted. I would welcome it if amendments that provide for a rights-based definition of homelessness were taken on board. Such amendments could be based on the broader criteria adopted by different voluntary agencies across Europe.

I would also welcome further clarification regarding the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. There is, for example, a suggestion that more power might be given to the Private Residential Tenancies Board, which oversees the activities of landlords. Weaknesses relating to the board have been identified. Addressing these might perhaps be another day's work but provisions could be included in the Bill in order to strengthen the board's powers. The issues to which I referred earlier, particularly the universal selection criteria, could be dealt with more adequately in the Bill.

There has been much discussion of regulation, particularly in the context of the financial markets. Equally, however, there is a need to discuss such regulation as it relates to housing services. The Bill should contain provisions regarding the regulation not only of State providers — the local authorities — but also of the voluntary agencies which provide housing services. I referred earlier to a universal set of criteria for the allocation of housing and this could also apply to agencies such as the Simon Community which are providing housing on a voluntary basis. The agencies are in favour of the use of such criteria. There can be no argument that the consistency of services would be improved and that matters would be much fairer if a single set of criteria that would — regardless of whether a person is seeking housing in Dublin or Dingle — apply across the board were introduced.

I welcome the Bill and I ask the Minister of State to consider the points I and my colleagues have raised. I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage.