John Kelly (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House again. I raised a number of these points with her in the past but will do so again now. I watched the Minister speak on a television programme last night. It was great politically to throw figures about on the number of people on the housing list but I have said consistently that the figure of 89,000 is most likely not accurate because many people on the housing list are only on it to get rent allowance. They are forced to do that. I have dealt with these people all my life and I know they do not want to be forced to go on the housing list to get rent allowance. We determine the accurate number of people on the list in need of council housing.

I refer to somebody on the rental assistance scheme living in a town such as my town of Ballaghaderreen, Castlerea or Boyle where there is no work, and no work in the service industry. If their only option is to move to a town like Galway or Athlone to get work, they cannot come off the rental assistance scheme. Having spoken to councillors into whose jurisdiction they would move I am aware they have tried to get on housing lists in those counties but they are not allowed do that. The only way they can be dealt with is if they present themselves as homeless. I explained that to officers in the community welfare service and they said that if they present to them having given up RAS accommodation they will not be granted rent allowance. Can somebody who is on RAS transfer to the housing assistance payment, HAP, to allow them acquire work in another town where work is available?

I welcome the measure in the Bill to deal with anti-social behaviour. I have seen local authority tenants engage in anti-social behaviour and it was not dealt with by local authorities. The last case I recall was a family that moved from Dublin with six young boys. They are grown up now but at the time they wrecked a house in an adjoining estate. The council's reason for not dealing with that anti-social behaviour was because it did not happen in the estate in which they were living, despite the fact that it occurred just around the corner in another estate.

Local authorities have bought houses in private developments. In my town the local authority bought six houses, three of which are now vacant because the people could not tolerate the anti-social behaviour taking place in the estate, which involved "wise-guy" children bullying other children. Parents are afraid to let their children out to play. The problem of anti-social behaviour must be tackled robustly.

On the way local authorities do their business, I know of a family who bought a house 13 years ago on the shared ownership scheme. They borrowed €60,000 for the mortgage part from the county council; the local authority share was €35,000. Thirteen years on they owe approximately €38,000 on the mortgage side, and they have another 12 years to pay off their mortgage. When the 12 years are up the local authority share that was €35,000 will be €78,000. The shared ownership scheme is a major issue. It does not make any sense. There is no way those people will be able to pay €78,000 to the local authority in 13 years time. The shared ownership scheme should be reviewed and cases such as this one dealt with because what is happening is illogical. Furthermore, this family is in arrears to the tune of €3,116 with the local authority but for genuine reasons. It was not because they were unwilling to pay or co-operate. They have engaged with the local authority on a regular basis about their rent. When they bought the house the couple was married. The man was working and she was on invalidity pension. Three years after buying the house he left. He has not paid any maintenance to the children and she has been left to try to pay the mortgage and the rent every month on an invalidity pension. Last January, she agreed with the local authority to pay €300 a month, and she has not broken that agreement. Last week she got a letter from the local authority's solicitor informing her that she has 14 days to come up with the arrears or she will lose her house. Where is the logic in that? This woman does not have the money; if she did she would not be in arrears. That issue must be addressed. I hope the Minister can do that because what she is doing in this Bill is throwing somebody out of a local authority house and making them homeless when we are trying to deal with the problem of homelessness, as well as other problems. I await the Minister's response on that.