Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Jan 1986

Vol. 363 No. 2

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Before reporting progress I had given this Bill an unqualified welcome because it contains some very positive provisions. It is the first time in the history of this State that the term "homeless" has been defined. Also it is the first time that each local authority must take responsibility for the homeless people within its area.

The Minister urged Members to give the provisions of the Bill due consideration. The 166 Members of this House who are also members of local authorities, together with the Minister and Departmental officials, have a wealth of experience and expertise between them. Hopefully, we can bring forward a Bill that will meet the requirements of housing generally. I feel certain the Minister will give consideration to and take cognisance of the various proposals and amendments which Members may advance so that ultimately a more rounded and equitable Bill will result. I am glad he issued that invitation to Members to participate fully and no doubt they will.

I would urge the Minister to give due consideration to the views expressed by the Simon Community, an organisation that has rendered great service to the homeless over the years. They must have a wealth of information and knowledge about the problems obtaining in this area. If they have misgivings about certain provisions of this Bill then it would behove us to take them in tandem and, if at all possible, accommodate them, likewise any held by the St. Vincent De Paul Society, the itinerant settlement committees and all others who have been dealing with the problems of the homeless, the disabled, the aged and so on. All of them have a worthwhile contribution to make to the formulation of this Bill together with local authorities and elected representatives. As a consequence of the deliberations of all of these groups I feel confident a Bill will emerge that will meet the needs of the homeless and those seeking housing.

I had been speaking briefly on section 8, urging greater co-operation between the various housing authorities, not only in urban areas within a local authority but also between the various local authorities themselves. I was advocating greater reciprocal arrangements between these housing authorities. This would mean that if a person residing in one area, for reasons of transfer of employment or otherwise, must move to another, that person would be accommodated. Indeed, we might extend that provision somewhat further. I have no doubt that that provision will be forthcoming, just as in the case of social welfare benefits, where there is a reciprocal arrangement for the payment of such benefits between member states of the EC. If not in the short term at least in the long term, I feel confident that some such arrangements will emerge whereby people wishing to transfer from one state to another will be facilitated, that member states will make some payment in lieu of rehousing, in lieu of houses that have been left vacant in one state, their occupants having taken up residence in another. However, perhaps that is looking a little too far forward. I would settle for greater co-operation and understanding in mutual transfers at the moment between urban and county councils and various county council areas.

Section 9(2)(g) and (h) deals with the provision of houses for the elderly, disabled and handicapped. Unfortunately, much is left to be desired in this regard especially in the planning and design of these houses. Most of the residents of them are senior citizens in their sixties or seventies or even older. I urge that a prototype house be designed by our architects. Surely it would not be beyond the capability of our design team of architects to design and plan a house suitable for the elderly, disabled and handicapped. I have in mind doing away with steps and the introduction of ramps and suitable handrails and supportive facilities to enable the elderly, disabled and handicapped to go about their houses. I know senior citizens in my area who reside in senior cititens' houses and in each house is a conventional bathtub. These people have never used their bath facility. They are afraid they might slip in the bath and injure themselves and modesty prevents them from seeking a person to assist them when bathing or showering, so they have gone without using this facility. These are little points that would make the houses more acceptable and beneficial to the type of people whom we aim to rehouse.

Section 13 of the Bill makes provision for sites for travelling people. I know this is a very vexed, emotive question. Generally, people are in favour of rehousing itinerants provided they are rehoused far away from those people's own private residences. We can all come up with the most spectacular and loveliest of sites for rehousing itinerants, but invariably these sites are well removed from our private dwelling houses. Local authorities need a great deal of diplomacy to reconcile the needs of travelling people — who live in atrocious and appalling conditions, especially the young people — with a duty to the settled community. Many a person has put life savings into the purchase or erection of his own private dwelling house, and it would be an injustice to such people if an itinerant halting place was placed alongside them. Whether we agree with it or not, we know that the value of land and houses adjacent to these halting sites has been reduced immeasurably. Therefore, any housing authority must take the balance between doing justice to those people who need rehousing and to the settled community who have a right in law and in justice and are entitled to the enjoyment and pleasures of their house, the privacy of their home and the maintenance and value of their property if they have sites for sale. Here the work of social workers who can assess the families who are in need of rehousing and are prepared to be rehoused and to accept the normal living conditions and social graces of the settled community is invaluable.

I suggest that halting sites to be established should be small sites capable of holding five or six families at the outset. A site should be well managed and discipline should be within it as far as possible and a fulltime overseer should be employed to see that it is properly regulated and managed. All necessary services should be supplied, particularly a full scavenging service. Voluntary bodies could be encouraged to participate in playing an active role in the maintenance and upholding of proper standards. Only along this road can we eventually make any dent in the huge number of itinerant families and travelling families who wish to be rehoused, who wish genuinely to participate in the settled community in a housing estate or in a halting site. With the co-operation of voluntary bodies many of the problems there could be avoided.

Great credit must go to the national resettlement committee and the programme they have embarked on. I have a list here of all the local authorities who have participated in providing housing and halting site accommodation for travellers and in the various schemes. The health and social welfare services are making provision for the service of the travelling community. I hope that the general impetus of this will be maintained. It is encouraging that the Department will cover up to 100 per cent of the cost of these sites and the cost of rehousing itinerant families.

Section 12 of the Bill deals with reconstructing houses in need of reconstruction. I have in mind in this case houses normally termed low cost houses build by the National Housing Agency. In section 12 (2) of the Bill the Minister gives authority to reconstruct houses "which are in need of reconstruction by reason of defects in construction or design or of deterioration due to age". Each county has what I have referred to as low cost housing or NHA houses, and South Tipperary is no exception to that. I ask the Minister and the Minister of State here present to have a serious look at this type of reconstruction to find out whether we are throwing good money after bad. These houses have been a disaster. They were built when Deputy Molloy was Minister for Local Government, and the design, shape and type of house are not suitable to our climatic conditions. They had no solid fuel heating system. They were supposed to be heated by electricity. At that time the price of a domestic unit of electricity was in the region of 0.7p. It has gone to at least ten times that amount. Now the bulk of these houses are without this heating system, and without solid fuel heaters the residents must rely on gas heaters which in themselves are a danger from a fire hazard point of view and I am told that, rather than doing away with condensation, they increase the incidence of condensation.

Flat type roofs are not suitable for Irish conditions. As well as houses, schools, libraries and other public buildings have been build with this type of roof which has proved a disaster and many have had to be replaced. I urge the Minister of State and his officials to discourage the building of such roofs.

It is becoming evident that many contractors are unable to build chimneys which do not smoke. This is the case in Tipperary town, where they often need replacing. I would ask the Minister of State to have his officials check these out. With regard to these low cost houses one must remember the enormous cost to the health boards in terms of medical cards and tenants suffering from bronchial, asthmatic and other chest ailments. This must result also in a huge amount of officials' time being taken up in processing cases of people who wish to vacate these houses. I hope that this type of house will never again be built here. Certainly, the experience in South Tipperary proved that they are not at all suitable.

Perhaps it might be better to take down these houses on a phased basis and replace them section by section rather than pump extra money into trying to restore them. If they are to be restored it is absolutely essential that they include solid concrete walls and have solid fuel cookers installed and that an A-type roof be placed on each of these flat roofs. The services are on hand for the replacement of these houses — sewerage systems, site servicing such as electricity, water, telephones, roads and pathways. I understand the moneys are quite generous — 80 per cent of the reconstruction grants, I am told. I wonder could that money be better used in the long term by the replacement of these houses in toto rather than by reconstruction and the addition of missing items.

Section 26 states:

The City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, is hereby amended by the insertion in section 2 of the following subsection after subsection (9):

"(10) An emergency situation for the purposes of subsection (9) of this section shall be deemed to exist where, in the opinion of the manager, the works concerned are urgent and necessary (having regard to personal health, public health and safety considerations) in order to provide a reasonable standard of accommodation for any person.".

I urge that this power be used very sparingly by all city or county managers and that they take into their confidence the elected representatives of their councils, to get their goodwill. If it can be shown that works are essential there would be full backing of the council members who are always very reasonable and will accept the managers' advice in such cases. They should not use the whip hand or bulldoze any work through against the wishes of the elected representatives.

There are two other points I should like to raise, one being specifically about loans. Many couples, unfortunately, find themselves in financial difficulties at present through unemployment or redundancy and indeed, not alone young couples but many in their early fifties with varied commitments such as commitments in relation to the education of their families. Through no fault of their own they cannot meet their obligations with regard to mortgage repayments and other loan repayments. Inability to meet these commitments puts pressures on the families and sometimes leads to desertion and separation. At the moment local authorities cannot do anything in these cases as the limits of repayment are laid down by statute. Perhaps the Minister could encourage the extension of the lending period to enable the overcoming of this, it is hoped, short period of upset for people who up to now have met their commitments.

I ask the Minister of State to have a sympathetic look at the increasing number of these cases and instruct the county managers and those responsible for handling the loans to call in each applicant, decide on the merits of each case and work out a suitable arrangement over a period of time in order to avoid undue pressure on the families concerned. That would mean that the lending authority would get back some part of the loan. Otherwise, the county councils would have to seek repossession in the courts, with all the attendant downstream evils.

With regard to any new housing estate, the density of buildings should be reduced. In Dublin and other areas a too high density has led to many problems, including vandalism. Our planners, architects and designers should learn from past experience, resulting in more attractive, brighter housing estates, especially for the young people of our community. With the prospects of employment not being great in the short term, there should be playing fields and open amenity areas for boys and girls for sporting activities. Often many houses are clamped together with no such facilities. It should be mandatory that in proportion to a certain number of houses there should also be a leisure amenity area. This would reduce vandalism as the young people would be able to use constructively and not destructively the leisure time which they undoubtedly will have in the future.

These are some thoughts on this very worthwhile Bill. There are fine, positive features in it. I hope that the views expressed by myself and other Members will be taken on board. If it is not possible to include them in this Bill, perhaps the basis would be set for future thinking on housing. Among the 166 Members of this House there is a great reservoir of talent, experience and expertise which it would be a pity not to draw on or tap to ensure that we will have a housing programme suited to our needs and, above all, adaptable by the local housing authorities and encouraged by each local authority member to be implemented in full. I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill, which I hope will be one of many to improve the lot of the homeless and others who need accommodation.

I give a general welcome to the Bill and congratulate the Minister and his officials on its introduction. I particularly congratulate Senator Brendan Ryan on the work he has done in the Seanad to promote the cause of the homeless. People generally do not know of the difficulties from which the homeless suffer. I was amazed when I read documentation from the Galway Simon Community in regard to their problems in Galway and throughout the country. Last year there were 3,000 homeless people, sleeping rough and from information I got from the Simon Community I can tell the House that those people are living in squalor and discomfort, some of them sleeping rough in cars, in back streets and in dirty alleyways. The Simon information tells us of five young boys sleeping rough on a riverbank and of an old woman sleeping in an alleyway. This must naturally lead to bad health, crime and psychiatric problems.

The Simon Community have made a pre-budget submission to the Minister for Finance concerning the homeless. I read an article in The Irish Press on 4 January which stated clearly the need for resources to provide proper aid for those without homes. If this is not done the 3,000 people known to be sleeping rough will increase. Therefore, next week in his budget the Minister will have to make an effort to reduce the level of need among such people, many of whom have to pay for flats or other inadequate accommodation. Much of their supplementary allowances are taken up in that way. I hope the Minister for Finance will consider sympathetically the submission of the Simon Community.

First of all, I will comment on the quality of our local authority housing. We have improved them remarkably, particularly the design, but we must look at some of our older houses in which, for instance, solid fuel ranges were not provided, or proper bathrooms or toilet facilities. This lack causes severe hardships among large families who have to pay massive ESB bills for heating and cooking. Galway County Council have sent a recommendation to the Department to provide ranges in 300 houses throughout the county. Ballinasloe UDC have asked the Department to sanction loan finance to provide bathrooms and toilets in one estate in the town in which basic facilities are lacking.

There is provision in the Bill for care for the travelling community. Many of the travellers who have been allocated houses are without toilets or bathrooms and they have to spend a large proportion of their earnings on the provision of cooking and heating facilities. I should like to spend some time dealing with the problems of those people. For instance, the Department provide a 100 per cent grant towards payment of social workers among travellers in houses and halting sites, but the Bill does not provide for such a grant towards the employment of caretakers or supervisors in housing estates and at halting sites. The Minister should listen to recommendations by local authorities that such caretakers would be treated in the same way as social workers.

All public representatives hear complaints from people living in housing estates and social workers say they are not able to cope with this type of problem, that it is more a matter for a full time caretaker or supervisor. I would like to see a type of community development programme in each housing estate where travelling families would be allocated houses.

Halting sites provided in the past were too big. I would prefer to have halting sites confined to a maximum of five families and a number of such sites in each local authority area. Erecting halting sites for 15 or 20 families did not work because too many people tended to congregate in a small area. I recommend accommodation for a maximum of five, particularly if the Minister intends giving county managers emergency powers in regard to such sites.

One problem which relates to housing — it is not the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment — is the insistence of the Department of Social Welfare on homeless people or those of no fixed abode travelling to a specific local exchange for unemployment benefit. I accept that the thinking behind the directive in that regard is to prevent abuse of the system but I am aware of homeless people in some parts of County Galway who must travel up to 25 miles to an exchange to collect their benefits. What is happening over the years is that such people move their caravans adjacent to the town where the employment exchange is located. Why is it that the Department of Social Welfare insist on homeless people travelling a long distance to employment exchanges? At times of bad weather those people will move to the local town thereby causing a problem for the local authority. It makes sense to permit such people to sign on at their local Garda station like all other citizens who are unemployed and available for work.

I have given details to the Department of Social Welfare of a man and his two daughters who must travel 25 miles each way once a week to an employment exchange. That family left a housing estate because they were unable to settle down. It was their first time to be housed. I am sure the Minister is aware of people in similar circumstances who should be entitled to sign on at the local Garda station.

The Minister has outlined the type of incentives he has given to the construction industry particularly in regard to housing. He was kind enough to send us details of the achievements by his Department since December 1982. He told us of his decision to increase new house grants, a decision we all welcomed, but the manner in which that grant was increased caused some controversy not only in regard to the starting date but also because the grant was delayed due to the increase in the rate of VAT from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. We were told that the increase in the grant to £750 would offset the amount of the VAT increase and later it was increased to a total of £2,000. The Construction Industry Federation have stated that the extra grant does not offset the VAT increase. It is their view that the VAT increased has added £1,800 to the average cost of a private house. They have also pointed out that the decision to increase the VAT rate has meant that 5,000 people lost their jobs in the construction industry. I hope that decision in last year's budget will be reversed next week and I call on the Minister for Finance to do that. It is adding to the cost of housing.

I had hoped that the decision to increase the amount of the grant would be accompanied by a decision to pay the grant in instalments. People often have difficulty when they have half of their house completed and would benefit if part of the grant was paid to them at that stage. House costs are increasing daily and the Minister should consider paying half of the amount of the grant when the roof is completed.

There is a lot of confusion about floor area limits. I am glad the Minister clarified the position in a memorandum before Christmas. We now have a clear definition of a garage, an attic and a basement, but unfortunately in previous years people were not clear about those definitions. They were told that they are in excess of the floor area limits and did not qualify for a grant. To refuse a person a grant because he was six square feet over the area limit was appalling. That person may have been confused about what was permissible.

One of the achievements mentioned by the Minister was in regard to the work of the Housing Finance Agency. I dealt with the activities of that agency when the Minister came to the House for more money for its activities. I welcome the fact that more money has been made available because in Dublin and other counties the local authorities were running short of funds. Demand for loans from that agency has increased because of the decision to allocate a grant of £5,000 to those who vacate local authority houses. However, I suggest to the Minister that the loan limit should be set at £27,000, the figure which applies only in special category cases now. The income limits should also be increased. Many people are hoping that the amount of SDA loans will be increased in the budget next week and that the Minister for Finance will increase the income limits for such loans. That scheme has been a great success.

There is duplication in regard to schemes for housing the elderly. There is a scheme operated by the health boards and local authorities operate an essential repairs scheme. Most people in that category are applying for both and it is obviously duplication of resources if they are being referred from one to the other. All schemes for the elderly should be under one aegis and indeed more money should be provided for the elderly because the work carried on over the last few years has been very successful. It is of great benefit for an old person to know that he or she does not have to get a contractor to do the work, that all this will be done by the health board who will appoint a contractor to do essential repairs.

Grants for the disabled were increased under the home improvement grants and good work has been done in that area. However, disabled people find it hard to understand why they cannot get an extra grant for building a specially adapted new house. If they are under the floor area limits they will get a maximum grant of only £2,000. I am sure the Minister agrees that it costs a lot of money to build a new house for a disabled person and that they should get more assistance.

A number of sections in the Bill have caused concern. The Simon Community have said that section 2 is a bit vague and perhaps the Minister will clarify the intentionality clause mentioned. Section 11 (2) (b) mentions people who deliberately depress their housing conditions in order to improve their prospects of obtaining a house. I wonder how a housing inspector could prove that. Perhaps some people would go so far as to depress their housing conditions but a housing officer would find it hard to establish that. I spoke earlier about families who might have to leave a house because of difficulties in an estate. Could they look for a transfer or would they have to go back on the housing list.?

Section 4 mentions the extra grant of £5,000 for members of the Defence Forces. In this context I should like to mention members of the Garda who have been fighting a battle with the Department of Justice in regard to buying their own houses. They have a conciliation and arbitration scheme to work out how houses could be bought by gardaí who find it difficult to get housing in small towns. Section 5 deals with the recouping to local authorities of loans assistance and charges. I should like to see the rural housing organisation included because they are a non-profit body as described in the Bill. They provide very good housing at a reasonable cost throughout the west and mid-west. I have already covered section 6 which deals with caretakers and supervisors who are essential in any type of accommodation for homeless people or travellers.

Section 8 deals with housing. I appeal to the Minister to initiate a crash programme for houses in rural areas. I know that the record of local authorities is very good as is that of the Department in regard to public housing. However, there has been neglect in rural areas and no small schemes have been provided. There are not enough grants for isolated houses for families who have a site. The Minister should also ask local authorities to build four-bedroomed houses because three-bedroomed houses tend to get overcrowded and people then look for grants to extend them. Local authorities own many serviced sites which they should advertise for building purposes. People in towns have great difficulty in getting a site and perhaps local authorities could help in that regard.

Section 26 gives a manager powers in an emergency to go over the heads of local councillors and I am opposed to that provision. I have already stated that halting sites should be small and I tried to impress that on the Minister. Deputy Griffin said that he hoped that the manager would not use this except on very rare occasions but the section is there and people are concerned about it. If every political party believes that local councillors should have more powers and more authority given to them they must realise that this section is in conflict with that kind of thinking. If every local authority had a housing committee to deal with the question of travellers or the homeless I am sure they would be able to get smaller sites which could be identified more readily than one big site. That would solve some of the problems and there would not be any need for this section.

The report by the construction industry for 1984-85 mentioned the type of incentives given to the housing industry, the increase in loans and the increase in income limits for SDA loans. They mentioned the £5,000 subsidy for local authority tenants to buy houses, the increase in the new house grant to £2,000, the removal of the clawback of stock relief and tax incentives for refurbishment. There were about six points they welcomed in the history of this Government but naturally there were more than six on the debit side and they were very critical of them. I have already mentioned one — the increase in VAT from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. This has had an effect on the price of houses and employment in the housing industry. They also referred to the cut in the public capital programme, the abolition of the wet time scheme, the virtual abolition of section 23 incentives from April 1984, the reduction in mortgage interest relief, the introduction of a residential property tax and the increase of PRSI for employers. One item they feel very strongly about is the planning and development charges which are causing serious problems especially where people have to reapply for planning permission.

The Deputy may make only a passing reference.

The planning charges are unfair to the development and construction industry and the Minister should look at cases where people have to reapply because the local authorities keep all the development fees.

In conclusion, I welcome the general provisions of this Bill. This Bill deals with categories of people, the homeless and travellers in particular. I welcome what the Minister and other Deputies have said about it. The Minister spoke about grants for refurbishing houses under the new house improvement grant scheme but I would like him to look at the problems people face when they have to put down the name of a contractor when applying for a grant. I do not see why the Department will not accept an application form without the name of the contractor because it takes time for people to get tenders and quotations for the work which needs to be done. As Deputies we do not speak often enough about the homeless, the travellers and the aged and I am glad this framework is being established to ensure that local authorities have a housing programme for these people.

This Bill has been welcomed by all. When it was introduced in the previous session the Minister outlined the main purposes of the Bill — to revise and update the statutory framework, to entrust the housing authorities with additional responsibilities and powers and to provide backing for grant subsidies and so on. He also included a number of amendments to the housing quota. This Bill is breaking new ground because it is trying to provide for people who up to now have not been housed in accordance with the law.

A great deal of what is in the Bill is already the practice in many local authorities. Most of the good work done by local authorities has been included in this Bill. Representatives of voluntary bodies have spoken very favourably about the positive features of the Bill. They particularly welcome the first attempt to provide a legislative framework for the homeless. This is a positive and constructive development on which the Minister and the Government are to be congratulated.

People concerned with the homeless, the Simon Community, have put a great deal of work into this area. They, too, welcome this Bill and point out the pleasing features in it but they have some reservations. They are concerned about the definition of "homeless" and other aspects of the responsibilities which will now fall on county managers. They are particularly concerned about the use of terminology which they claim has been borrowed from British legislation. In particular they are disturbed by the use of "independent living". I have regard for their reservations and if the Minister can facilitate them by coming up with some other wording it would be very much appreciated.

As a member of a local authority I have found that the county manager and the councillors who review the allocation of houses give a sympathetic hearing to people who are in great need of housing. I believe local authorities have been successful in this area for a number of years. Many of the grey problems which were highlighted from time to time have been eliminated. Nevertheless, as has been shown in statistics published recently, there has been a growing number of homeless people. In my office in Ennis the number of single people who come looking for local authority accommodation has increased enormously in the last three or four years.

The problem facing the local authorities will be the limitations imposed on them by this Bill. I appeal to the Minister to examine the criticisms made by such bodies as the Simon Community and the nuns who are closely allied with the social services. They are very concerned about the definition of "homeless" people and the effect of "independent living" or "intentional homelessness". They say the duty on the local authorities to provide housing is imprecise. They allege that this Bill allows local authorities to contract out provision to voluntary and other bodies but without guarantee of minimum standards. Some local authorities could therefore provide for the homeless in very substandard overcrowded bed-sit conditions. This should not be allowed.

I understand major amendments may not be possible but the people who asked me to make representations are anxious that we include in the definition of a homeless person the words "hostel" or "caravan" and "a person who cannot secure entry due to violence". They want a time limit of three months after which a person who is ruled to be intentionally homeless may reapply. They also want a requirement that an assessment as to whether a person is capable of independent living be made by a professional team of social workers. I know that local authorities have employees who are social workers and in my constituency those people have been of great assistance especially in the resettlement of travellers.

In Ennis we have a major halting site for travellers. It will cater for 16 families and I am sure it will be successful after considerable initial teething troubles. The difficulties were highlighted on RTE on the "Late Late Show" much to the embarrassment of some people. There was some delay in the occupation of the halting site but at present there are 11 families there comprising about 100 people. This was worked out as a result of liaison between the county manager, the local authority and the voluntary bodies. It was successful because it was a partnership but that cannot be said of this Bill which will not lead to partnership at the local level. It is my view that it will be counterproductive.

I am disappointed that the Minister considered it necessary in section 26 to amend the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955. The county manager always had power in an emergency to house people and I do not know why that matter should be highlighted now. The housing regulations could have been used rather than including the provision in the Bill. By giving the power to the county manager exclusively, are we not giving a greater power to councillors who can delay giving their approval with regard to loans? I should like the Minister to reconsider this matter. We should aim at partnership at local level. I do not think we will improve dramatically the accommodation for travelling people without the goodwill of the community, the various voluntary bodies, the local authorities and the county managers. The project in Clare has been successful because of co-operation between the parties.

A problem has arisen lately, namely, the insistence of resettlement committees that houses previously allocated to travellers should continue to be used by travelling families in the future. This causes a certain amount of stress, especially if the family vacating the premises have caused annoyance or problems. It is very difficult to get a community to accept such a continuing arrangement. More flexible arrangements should be drawn up at national level rather than at local level. The resettlement committees should consider the position that has arisen as a result of their insistence on housing a travelling family in one house in each estate. There is goodwill in the community in which I live and which I represent. We have made great strides in County Clare but, as pointed out by Deputy Kitt, the number of families has grown. There are also numbers of mobile travellers who park their vans in prominent commercial areas in Ennis. This is causing great disturbance and at times the help of the Garda Síochána is necessary to ensure that they comply with the law. The genuinely homeless person is suffering as a result.

The Minister is asking the local authorities to make an annual report but I do not know how this will work. It has been the policy of local authorities to respond to needs and when councillors bring matters to their attention they conduct an examination of the housing needs in areas. If local authorities have to submit an annual list they may overstate their case. It will also give rise to another layer of bureaucracy, thus creating difficulties for the authorities. The present system used by local authorities has worked effectively in rural areas, even though it may not work in urban areas. Housing problems in rural areas have been eliminated and at the moment there are no long waiting lists of people seeking accommodation. However, as the Simon Community have pointed out, there are difficulties for single people.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 24 January 1986.
Top
Share