Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the Senators who contributed to this wide-ranging informed debate. Many Members addressed the general issue of housing supply. I accept absolutely that the Bill does not do a great deal about housing supply. I agree that we need to increase the supply of houses. I certainly intend to fight for any money that is available in terms of addressing that whole issue. There are broader issues around the supply in the private sector. In the past two stimulus packages, some 33% in one and 25% in the other package went to social housing supply. We were able to announce albeit a relatively small mainstream housing construction programme this year. I intend to continue to fight for that.

A point strongly made by a number of Senators was that housing should not be a commodity, and should not be a means of making money. Housing is about homes and that must be the centre of our policy across the board. I agree with these general points. A number of other general issues were raised that may not be specifically covered in the Bill.

The role of this legislation is not to supply housing but to make law on housing. Three particular issues in regard to housing needed to be addressed in the legislation. We have had a long debate on the issue of rent supplement, which was envisaged as a short-term measure but in effect has become a tool in the long-term supply of housing. There is a poverty trap. I will address the specific case highlighted by Senator Healy Eames. If one goes on the HAP scheme, one will pay a differential rent, in other words one pays rent in accordance with one's income. One will not lose the social housing support. That gets rid of the poverty trap of somebody losing all of their rent support when they go on the HAP scheme. That is one of the fundamental reasons that we are introducing the housing assistance payment scheme so that we get rid of the poverty trap. There will still be a short-term rent supplement scheme under the Department of Social Protection in line with the original intention of rent supplement which was to be a short-term payment when somebody could not meet their own housing needs through losing a job. There will be a short-term rent supplement payment under the Department of Social Protection in which the client will not undergo an assessment of housing need. That provision will be retained.

I will deal with specific issues raised about the Bill rather than some of the more general issues. Senator Mac Conghail raised the issue around standards. That is dealt with in section 39(1) which states, "it is a condition of the provision of housing assistance to a household in respect of a dwelling that the housing authority concerned is satisfied that the dwelling complies with standards prescribed under section 18 of the Act of 1992."

Senator Kelly raised the issue of anti-social behaviour in instances where those engaged in anti-social behaviour are doing so in other areas where they do not live. The Bill makes provision for exclusion orders that relate to other places other than where those engaged in anti-social behaviour live. There was a wide debate on the issue of anti-social behaviour and the need for proportionality. Some Senators believe strongly that there are measures in the Bill to address anti-social behaviour and that tenants can be evicted for anti-social behaviour or excluded from certain places. If one person is causing problems in a particular area, that one member of a household can be excluded from the area but it does not mean the whole household has to lose their home. There was a lacunae and Senator Naughton described the legal case where section 62 of the Housing Act 1966 was struck down. What we now have is a fair procedure whereby if a tenant is disputing the reason that he or she is being evicted, he or she has the right to fair procedure. That was the issue under the human rights convention that needed to be addressed. It restores the ability of local authorities to evict if the situation warrants it. We all know of situations where whole neighbourhoods are destroyed by one individual or a family. It is restoring the right of the person who believes he or she is being wrongly accused to defend himself or herself and have proper representation.

Senator Landy wanted me to restate the position on the rights of a person availing of the HAP scheme to access a local authority house. Let me repeat what I said, namely, the transfer list will reflect the specific priority or previous position that household had on the previous waiting list within the authority area in which they are resident. The principle will be that the reasonable expectation of households should be preserved. They will therefore be placed on a transfer list with no less favourable terms than if they had remained on the main housing waiting list. I will use my powers under this legislation and under section 22 of the 2009 Act to require every local authority to provide access to the transfer list to households which transfer into HAP and also - to address a point raised by some people - to reserve a proportion of allocations for households on the transfer list. One Senator said that in some cases there are no transfer lists. Under housing legislation, all local authorities are obliged to have a transfer policy. Senator Sheahan was concerned that the local authorities should have more local autonomy in by-laws and so on. The local authority sets the scheme of letting priorities but within national policy.

O'Keeffe, Susan.

Therefore, on national policy, I can direct, but there is a certain degree of flexibility for local authorities also.

On the other point the Senator made about people wrecking houses and so on, local authorities have an obligation to manage their stock appropriately and well and to maintain it. I do not believe we should take all of these responsibilities away from them. They have rights and obligations and many Senators argued for more powers for them in many cases. Again, it is a matter of getting the balance right.

Senator Cáit Keane asked specifically about the pilot schemes. The first is ongoing in Limerick and I am obviously familiar with it. There will be a mix of six local authorities included in the next phase, including one in the Dublin area. There will be a mix of urban and rural local authorities and we intend to learn from the pilot schemes. The programme will then be spread to the rest of the country.

In regard to homelessness, there is also a proposal to have a pilot scheme. The Dublin local authorities, in particular, are very interested in piloting the HAP scheme among the homeless population. Many Senators referred to the importance of addressing the issue of homelessness, rightly so, while several Senators referred to the Government's implementation plan, under which a new scheme is being rolled out to encourage prevention. Part of it concerns people who are at risk of losing a private rented property because of the rent cap, rising rent and so on. There is a protocol in the four Dublin local authorities whereby they will have a process aimed at prevention. For example, they will have flexibility with regard to the rent cap if somebody is in danger of losing his or her home. This provision is particularly geared towards families where the rent cap is a particular issue. There is also a telephone line, while Threshold is involved.

In the Dublin area 80 new emergency accommodation beds will be coming on stream. The big thing we are trying to do with the implementation plan is to move people who are inappropriately in emergency accommodation to supported housing - a home of their own in which they will have the relevant supports they need. Thiss is a central part of the plan to deal with homelessness.

I am a little bemused by Fianna Fail suggesting that, somehow or other, we suddenly have this crisis and that we should be doing huge things to tackle it. In the Celtic tiger years - 2007 and 2008 - the numbers sleeping rough actually reached a peak. The housing waiting lists were building all the time and during the boom there was very little social housing construction. We inherited the problem. However, I am not saying we do not have responsibilities; of course, we do and we have to address the problem. I was interested in the comment of Senators Paul Bradford and Sean D. Barrett that this was a very serious matter for the Cabinet. I sit at the Cabinet table because I am Minister of State with responsibility for housing, holding the housing and planning portfolio and the Senators made an interesting point.

Senator Feargal Quinn talked about learning from our European neighbours in the use of timberframe houses and so on. We have a number of proposals on the types of housing that might be quicker to bring on board. In fact, a Dutch person I know gave me a newspaper that I could not read because it was in Dutch, but it contained an article on this issue. We will look at all issues. We particularly need to learn from our European neighbours in having a more stable private rented sector whereby people will have security, an issue raised by several Senators. We are looking at the issue of rent control, while the Private Residential Tenancies Board is conducting a study to see whether this would be feasible within Ireland. Certainly, we need greater stability.

We are not privatising housing provision. I assert a very strong commitment to the role of local authorities and that of approved housing bodies in the delivery of housing. However, the reality is that there are over 70,000 people in receipt of rent supplement. They are in a poverty trap and will lose rental support if they obtain significant work. We cannot just ignore them while we are in the process of trying to build capital moneys and other ways of securing significant funding to deliver social housing. We have to address their issues, which is why we are introducing the housing assistance payment. It is a significant reform which will make a very big difference to them, including the person referred to by Senator Fidelma Healy Eames who wanted to go out to work but was afraid of losing their housing support.

Senator Marie Moloney raised the issue of adaptations for people with disabilities. The reason the grants are not available is that, in effect, one would be adding value to a privately owned house from which the person concerned might have to move very quickly. However, in the limited amount of money available for social housing, we have prioritised people with disabilities. I have allocated money to local authorities specifically to house people with disabilities. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and I have spoken specifically about addressing their needs. Nonetheless, the other side of the coin is that somebody with a disability would be adding value to the house. We have to find some way of securing it for a longer term. For example, long-term leasing was referred to. If there was long-term security, it might be possible to consider making the grant available. I would certainly be willing to look at that matter.

The number of refusals was mentioned. A view expressed was that only one refusal should be allowed, whereas it was said in the Dáil that there should be three. We have to make a judgment on that issue to see what is the appropriate number before a person moves down to the bottom of the list. On the one hand, people should not be offered something not in their area of choice. On the other, if they are genuinely offered something in their area of choice and refuse twice, it is fair, as they are depriving somebody else of an opportunity if they keep refusing.

The issue of NAMA units was raised. The commitment was that there would be 2,000 units during the lifetime of the Government. It is correct to say approximately 4,000 have been offered by NAMA. It is partly about having them in the right places to address the need identified. There are still unfinished estates and houses available in parts of the country in which simply there is no need for housing; therefore, it would not make sense for the local authorities in these areas to take the NAMA units offered, particularly as they do not get them free and have to pay for them with Government funding. We want to obtain more units. As the housing market and the nature of those in need of housing have changed somewhat and we now have more families than before, some of the units that might have been considered unsuitable may well be suitable now. I have, therefore, asked local authorities to see if any of the NAMA units offered might now be suitable for use as social housing.

We want to make sure there is social integration. In this context, Senator Paul Bradford and others referred to social mix. We do not want social segregation. That did not work in the past and in our policy on housing we want to make sure there is a social mix.

The last time we had a debate on housing in the House Senator John Kelly asked if a person in the RAS who found a job in another local authority area could transfer to a similar house in that area. I said I would look at the issue. We are considering whether this needs to be done by way of a direction to local authorities.

It is an issue for people who have to move because of their jobs or other reasons.