David Norris (Independent)

I wish to make a few comments on this important Bill. First, I welcome the Minister back to this House, with which he was so familiar in the past and to which he paid great tribute in his speech. The first note he struck did not surprise me, given my knowledge of his character. He spoke about the human dimension of the housing situation and the financial downturn we are facing.

I will reiterate something I had been saying for a considerable number of months before this recession, which is very worrying, had its major impact. It relates to repossessions. I accept this is not directly addressed in the Bill, nor would it be appropriate for it to do so. However, if there is a steep increase in repossessions, we may find that people who are the victims in that situation will apply for the type of housing envisaged in this scheme. It is important that the Minister use his influence with his colleagues to ensure a return for the support being given to the banks by the taxpayer. The sudden recent steep increase in repossession orders, about which I have spoken over the last six months and which was noted a couple of days ago by a senior judge in court, should be drawn to the attention of the banks and it should be indicated to them that this is not a positive way for them to behave in the current economic climate.

Housing is a sensitive area and is a human need. It is important that it is addressed. The Minister referred to an investment of €2.5 billion in social and affordable housing in 2008 to meet the needs of 20,000 households. Presumably, a significant proportion of that budget has already been spent, given that this is the end of 2008. How much of it has been spent? If the remaining figure is substantial, to what extent is it protected?

There are budget cuts. Earlier, I attended a pre-budget briefing by the Carers Association. I spoke to a couple of elderly people who were concerned about matters that are relevant to this legislation. They were concerned about the possibility of the removal by local authorities of special grants for people over 70 years of age to carry out maintenance and certain running repairs on their housing. One woman mentioned the problem of broken windows. It might appear to be a small matter and not a huge economic drain, but for people who have tight budgetary margins it can be significant because they might not be able to afford to carry out those repairs. That creates a knock-on cost for the Exchequer. What will these people do about heat? If they have broken windows, the heat will escape so they will either turn up the heat and get into debt or live with the problem and end up in hospital. It would be prudent to examine these issues carefully. I hope these people will be safe.

There are some new developments with regard to assessing housing needs and matching individual needs to the housing stock available. Like many of my colleagues, I receive a number of pleas from citizens throughout the country who have problems getting the type of housing they need. Assessing the need is very important. The Minister spoke about strengthening local democracy by reinforcing the role of elected members. If possible, I hope he will elaborate on that. I would be interested to see this spelt out a little more, if possible. It could be positive but it also could be negative in that one does not want too much clientelism or people getting a house simply at the nod of a local representative. However, it is useful for a local representative to be able to bring specific needs forcibly to the attention of local authorities. I have never been a member of a local authority but have written to many around the country because really critical human circumstances, which apparently have been ignored, have been brought to my attention. It is noticeable that a letter on Oireachtas notepaper sometimes helps to ease circumstances.

Let me refer to certain circumstances I have encountered. I am not sure they are directly relevant to this Bill, except in terms of the psychology of officialdom. I have just been dealing with a case that has been resolved concerning a person who has been in the country for quite a number of years, contributed to the economy through work and applied for citizenship. The person was a victim of persecution and, tragically, has now acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The person has a wealth of letters from medical personnel and social workers stating a particular kind of accommodation is absolutely vital. One of the letters in the person's file was from a housing official who stated the authorities examined the file and decided there was no reason the person deserved the required housing. Furthermore, the official stated the case was being closed, which was astonishingly abrupt and arbitrary. We need to monitor this kind of response and ensure a certain sensitivity applies and that, where there is strong professional representation from both the social services and medical authorities, cases will not be pushed to one side brusquely by someone who does not have complete qualifications in this area. The Minister of State referred to strengthening the link between local needs and the provision of resources and consistency. This is exactly what I was talking about.

I welcome the incremental purchase acquisition scheme, which is a very good idea in that it gives people ownership. In certain circumstances, when one gets a proportion of a house, one pays one's mortgage and accepts full responsibility for the house's maintenance. Surrounding homes may not have been acquired privately and may still be in the hands of the local authority. Is the maintenance monitored for a transition period by the local authorities? It would be rather unfortunate if there were decent people who did not buy their houses, or could not afford to do so or to get a mortgage — this may now become more difficult — who had somebody next door who was not doing proper maintenance on his or her house. Is this being monitored?

The question of anti-social behaviour is really troubling. I am not sure what the solution is, nor am I sure there is one contained in the Bill. There are attempts to address it, and it is certainly not ignored, but we cannot tolerate circumstances in which a person is consistently anti-social in his or her behaviour, be it by way of drug dealing, drunken neglect of property, rowdy parties or antagonising neighbours, and has the neighbour-from-hell syndrome one sees on television programmes. What happens to such people and where do they go? If they cannot provide housing for themselves and if they make themselves impossible tenants for the local authority, is it a case of, "To hell or to Connacht"? The people are still alive and therefore one must ask how society should cope with them.