Aideen Hayden (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State and pay tribute to the former Minister of State, Deputy Willie Penrose. While I am at it, I also pay tribute to previous Ministers of State, Bobby Molloy, Michael Finneran and Noel Ahern. We all agree that housing policy is incremental and does not just fall from the sky. Good things have been done in the last ten or 15 years which, although we are going through bad times, we must acknowledge.

I broadly welcome the Government's approach of tenant neutrality. For too long we rewarded home ownership and council housing provision. Council tenants had the same rights as those who owned their own homes, through tenant purchase schemes, differential rent and security of tenure, while a swathe of others were left out of the circle, particularly single, unmarried and poor people. The broad approach of tenant neutrality marks a positive departure from the previous policy under which there was over-emphasis on home ownership.

I have a lot to put to the Minister of State whom many consider is living in interesting times. The figure of 100,000 seems to pop up a lot. There are now almost 100,000 in mortgage arrears, 100,000 on the housing waiting list and 100,000 in receipt of rent supplement. One of the dangers mentioned by the Minister of State about the pro-cyclical nature of housing policy is that the contrary is also true, there must be an anti-cyclical approach, when appropriate. I am concerned that housing values dropped by 18% in the last CSO figures and that the figure for the construction sector has dropped to under 5%, which is regarded as particularly unhealthy in a developed country. We, therefore, run the risk of repeating the mistakes of the 1930s and 1960s and finding ourselves with a housing deficit in a short space of time.

The regulation of the voluntary housing sector and placing more emphasis on it is to be welcomed, but we must move quickly to regulate it. The Minister of State said this process was under way, but the lack of regulation is impacting on the sector's access to finance.

I am concerned about the transfer of the dispute resolution machinery to the PRTB. It is progressing at a very slow rate. It has been put to me that there is a bureaucratic unwillingness to bring the sector within the ambit of the PRTB, something the Minister of State might deal with. The Supreme Court's decision in the Donegan case also suggests we must act quickly to put in place an independent dispute resolution process between local authorities and their tenants.

Too much emphasis has been put on distressed mortgages as a financial rather than a housing issue. A mortgage-to-rent scheme has been put in place, but there are few situations where it will be applicable. I am concerned we have not seen more movement on the Keane report, particularly the suggestion in respect of shared equity based on incremental purchase, which is provided for in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. It is a variation on the idea of split mortgages, but it will be more relevant for more people. We run the risk of finding people in a position where their homes will be repossessed once insolvency legislation is in place. Are we ready to deal with the number at risk of homelessness when this happens?

There have been unhelpful comments from the Governor of the Central Bank recently indicating there should be large-scale repossessions of these properties. It has been indicated that 20% to 25% of AIB's buy-to-let mortgage book is in arrears. That creates a significant problem, as these are not large-scale developers. The Department of Social Protection's statistics show 58% of rent supplement landlords own only one property. We are talking about the person who lives next door. These are not people with deep pockets and we run the risk of completely destabilising that market.

Could we have a separate debate on social housing? The future of social housing schemes should be given more consideration, as we have a lot to discuss today.

The Minister of State did not mention homelessness. I thank Senator Jillian van Turnhout for bringing up the issue. The housing first approach has been prioritised in the programme for Government. In the review of homeless services in the Dublin region it is indicated that there are 900 people employed in the sector to deal with just over 2,677 homeless people, of whom only 90 moved into permanent independent living accommodation in the previous six months. We must re-evaluate how we fund homeless services and particularly section 10. We are incentivising the provision of emergency accommodation rather than dealing with the issue of prevention and moving on. The Minister of State has highlighted this point on a number of occasions.

I am glad the programme for Government is unequivocal that a tenancy deposit protection scheme will be established to put an end to disputes over the return of deposits. It is the most common issue in the private rented sector in which there are twice as many people living as in social housing. Almost 40% of the market comprises rent supplement tenants, and an additional 10% to 20% comprises the working poor on very low incomes. We are, therefore, talking about the loss of anything from €600 to €1,000 for individuals, which is important.

The proposal in the Bill to double the fines for those who withhold deposits will not work for two reasons. When a determination is given by the PRTB, it is not adhered to. There is a culture of non-compliance and a doubling of the fines will not be any more successful. Second, I have serious concerns that the PRTB is not enforcing its determination orders. This sends a message that the law is meaningless. I am concerned about the total lack of clarity on which decisions will be enforced. It has come to my attention that decisions in deposit cases are not being enforced.

Similarly, standards and regulations are not being upheld by local authorities, about which I am seriously concerned. I do not believe the matter can be rectified other than through a certification system under which landlords would have to certify their properties were fit to rent. A person cannot walk into a restaurant without there being a certificate on the wall indicating it is fit to eat in. We should not be putting people in homes that are not fit to live in.

I welcome the transfer of the rent supplement scheme to local authorities. It is a critical departure from the way we have tackled the issue of housing to date. As far back as 2006, 70% of those in receipt of rent supplement had been in receipt of it for over one year, while 55% had been in receipt of it for more than two years. People are in the rental sector as a long-term housing solution. From my own experience, when people have the opportunity to work and pay differential rent, they will work. However, the current system is stacked against those who wish to return to the workplace. The sooner the change is implemented, the quicker we will see a real improvement in people's lives and their capacity to return to work.

I wish the Minister of State well in her brief which is an interesting one at a critical time. I thank her for coming before us. I would appreciate it if a specific debate on the future of social housing schemes was held.