Marie Moloney (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate her on introducing substantial housing legislation that was badly needed. I have been pressing for HAP for many years because it gives people an opportunity to return to work without having to worry about losing their rent allowance payments. However, I have a number of concerns and observations that I wish to raise with the Minister of State.

If someone is to be evicted from a house because of anti-social behaviour, the ten-day period is too short. There should be at least 15 working days. I am doing a bit of house renovating and had to pack up a great deal of stuff. I would hate to have to move out of the house and have sworn never to do so again having done just that much. There is a lot of work involved in moving out of a house.

Beyond that concern, the issue will invariably go to the District Court, where a judge will either agree or disagree that the eviction can take place, before being appealed to the Circuit Court. This process takes at least six months, during which time no rent is paid despite people still being in the house. They are being evicted for a reason, be it anti-social behaviour or not paying their rent.

The law strengthens the local authority's power to act, but what then? If people are evicted, they will inevitably end up being helped by the HSE because they have nowhere else to go and will be considered homeless. The HSE will simply revert to the local authority, point to the homeless people and tell it to help them. The HSE could make the case that, due to the use of drugs or alcohol, the people in question were not responsible for their actions. The issue is open ended.

HAP, the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, and leasing are the only game in town. Landlords do not need to produce birth certificates or tax clearance certificates or undertake radon tests. If one comes from a place like Kerry, where radon levels are high, it should be obligatory for a landlord to produce a radon test before a council rents a house from him or her.

I am afraid the following provision might be a little bit discriminatory towards people with disabilities. Due to the fact that this is the only game in town, local authorities cannot carry out adaptations to a privately owned house. What I mean is that if a person with a disability wants to go on HAP, RAS or whatever, he or she cannot get adaptations done to a house because local authorities are precluded from enhancing the value of a privately owned house. That is something we might look at.

Section 16 refers to abandonment of houses due to ill health "or otherwise" which is very open to interpretation. The provision should be more specific, because anything can be included under "otherwise". We know of cases in which people have closed up their houses and gone to the Netherlands for six months. Does that situation qualify as "otherwise"? Is that acceptable? The provision needs to be tightened up.

With regard to tenant purchase, the legislation dates back three years. What happens if people were in arrears and have caught up with their payments now? In that case, going back over the years might be open to challenge. For example, people might say the provision had just come in and nobody told them. Would it be better to state that a person will be eligible for the tenant purchase scheme if he or she keeps up payments for the next three years?

At the moment we have a housing crisis and, therefore, people who are being offered a house should be given just one refusal, not two. In a housing crisis people should take the houses offered. If they are badly in need of a house then they will take one or another. To refuse it twice and still be eligible for the scheme is not suitable when there is a housing crisis.

The Cathaoirleach is looking at me so I shall mention one last thing. The HAP will go to local authorities. Will resources to cover the administrative cost of putting the HAP in place for local authorities? The work will be transferred from the Department of Social Protection, thus creating a whole new workload for the housing department. Will the housing department be able to cope with the workload if it does not have the staff resources to deal with it?