David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the positive elements in the Bill, most notably the measures on anti-social behaviour. There ought to be strong sanctions for those who engage in anti-social behaviour, be it in a local authority housing estate or rented accommodation attracting the rent supplement or any subsidy from the State. If they are involved in very extreme forms of anti-social behaviour, which unfortunately is characteristic of a small minority of tenants, there should be sanctions to project the majority living in the affected areas.

It was said earlier that we all have constituents who come to us with problems. Often, when people seek transfers it is because they are victims of anti-social behaviour. The solution is to deal with the people causing the problems rather than having to take good families out of housing estates. Local authorities do not address this and people are left in circumstances in which they have to put up with the anti-social behaviour of others. Any move to deal with this will have my full support.

Senator Tom Sheahan referred to exceptions rather than the norm in respect of some of the examples he gave. I would imagine that very few social houses have 141 BMWs outside the door. There are very few examples from my city of Waterford. Having made representations for people who need genuine works carried out in their homes, I realise it is very difficult to achieve this because the budgets of local authorities have been cut. The housing maintenance budgets have been cut and it is much more difficult to get the council to move on anything. Therefore, if there are councils that repair homes three times because of damage caused by tenants, it should not happen. What the Senator described is an exception. It is certainly not the norm in the part of the country in which I live.

There are significant elements of the Bill that I oppose. In the second week of this Seanad's term we had a debate on housing, during which I made the point that there has been an unfortunate drift in recent years away from social housing and towards the privatisation of social housing. It is increasingly becoming the norm that the vast majority of people's housing needs are being met through the private rental sector, be it through the rent supplement, the RAS or the new HAP scheme. In reality, we are subsidising landlords and people in private accommodation, and the people who are benefiting most are the private landlords.

I agree with Senator Healy Eames that everybody has a right to and should have a home. The problem for many people in the private rental sector is that they do not have a choice. They want to have a permanent home. They want a place to call home, be it a social house or otherwise. They do not want to have to move their children around every five or ten years. Unfortunately, an increasing number of people are being locked into circumstances in which they have no choice but to move every now and again because of the way social housing has developed and the privatisation of social housing. People should have a choice. There should be a balance between where we were ten or 15 years ago, when we exclusively built social housing estates, thereby causing problems, and today, when we do not build any social housing. We do not even purchase social housing any more to any great degree, yet the vast majority of people's needs are now being met through the private rental sector. There has to be a balance.

There was a time when the local authorities and voluntary associations engaged in building social housing. Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 deals with the integration of social and private housing in new builds. All of this building has dried up. Few houses are being built by the voluntary sector and the local authorities are building practically none at all. Part V housing has completely dried up because the private sector is not building at all. There is an increasing demand for social housing but yet the vast majority of people's housing needs are being met by the private rented sector. For a large number of people this is not by choice but because it is the only option available to them. I think we must look at choice and ensure that people who want to own their own home or live in a place they call their home, even if it is social housing, can do so. People want a place where they can anchor their family and become part of a community instead of having to uproot and leave their house because of the system that is in place. I do not agree with that system. We are also spending hundreds of millions of euro every year subsiding people in private housing estates. The real winners are not those who occupy the houses but the private landlords who are making a great deal of money. With respect, it is the landlords who are driving the BMWs, not the tenants in the houses.

I do not like the concept of a housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme. I see it as a continuation of what I would argue is the privatisation of social housing. I do not like the fact that if one is living in a house under this scheme, one is deemed to be adequately housed and taken off the housing list. I know the Minister of State states that one can apply for a transfer, but if the procedures in Waterford city and county council are anything to go by, it is almost impossible to get a transfer at this time. There are very few cases of people being transferred unless there is a real medical need or the person has a disability. Due to cutback it is very difficult to get a transfer. It might be different in other part of the country but that is the case in the area I come from.