Housing Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Lawlor

I pointed out that this Bill should and will have a major impact on future housing policy. As one representing a constituency where there is tremendous pressure as a result of building of housing plus future likely need I feel this Bill will go a long way towards addressing the issues confronting the housing area. Deputy Quinn has spoken at some length on the matter and has put forward his party's viewpoint and a number of criticisms the bulk of which I reject. In my experience of housing policy in the past ten to 15 years there has been far too much negative criticism. It is frustrating to hear a continual flow of negative criticism against housing policy starting with Dublin city where the most expensive local authority housing probably in Europe and worldwide has seen the rebuilding of Dorset Street, the South Quay, the north inner city, Clanbrassil Street and the Coombe, all high quality brick-fronted, local authority residential development. In regard to the satellite towns, the continual criticism of these rapidly growing areas vis-à-vis the growth of housing is misinformed and very unhelpful.

In the inner city with its overcrowded, inadequate, unhealthy housing, the only positive practical solution to the problem was the major development of the new satellite towns two of which I have the duty and honour to represent. A number of uninformed commentators who probably do not know Tallaght and have not toured it extensively criticise it continually. That is unhelpful and unwarranted. Again, the quality and quantity of local authority housing stock there in one of the finest amenity areas in the Dublin region, the foothills of the Dublin mountains, is excellent. The planning cycle to provide the rest of the facilities has been slower than we would have wished, but factors independent of the planning cycle have not allowed the very substantial build-up to get the facilities and amenities these areas need so badly. However, the quality of the housing there is excellent and criticism of the peripheral social problems of unemployment, etc., levelled at these new satellite towns does nothing for the confidence the new communities there are endeavouring to instil into their areas and shows lack of knowledge of the subject.

Consecutive Governments in many years have had a generous and elaborate local authority housing programme which was necessary and justified. We had a substantial backlog to clear and we appear now in the greater Dublin area to have cracked the major problem. I agree that Deputy Quinn outlined that the list may increase substantially again and I ask the Minister to look in great detail at aspects of future housing policy. At the moment we are in a retrenchment period. We have spent millions on local authority housing. There is a vast landbank for local authority housing in my constituency and in some cases substantial infrastructural investment is not being utilised. These are areas of future housing policy that the Minister must address. The untapped resources in the Dublin region must be studied in great detail and as we are at the moment reviewing future plans for Dublin city and county the opportune time for that is now. This legislation coming forward is very relevant to other major issues being addressed and should allow a coherent revision of housing policy to emerge. I urge the Minister to address the situation in Dublin and I make one plea to him before I conclude.

The Minister is familiar with the situation in Dublin to which Deputy De Rossa referred recently when speaking on the Order of Business regarding housing. In my constituency are two sets of local authority tenants. People on one side of the road are paying their repayments or rents to Dublin Corporation who are responsible for that housing stock. On the other side of the road people are paying to Dublin County Council. There is duplication and triplication. Deputy Gay Mitchell will be very familiar with it. The corporation have enough to do to represent and look after their own area. Vast numbers of their former residents are now residing in the county, yet they have some oblique, arm's length responsibility to those people. The council have not full responsibility because it reverts to the corporation and an understandable but undesirable position has developed which must now be addressed.

The priority was to crack the housing list and get on with the job of providing necessary housing. Now that is stabilised we must look at the administration and operation of housing policy as it is relevant to the greater Dublin area. Because of financial constraints, the theoretical restructuring of local government in Dublin has not emerged. We can appreciate the Minister's difficulties in that area. However, I ask that this aspect of the housing cycle be addressed as follows.

I ask the Minister to consider transferring the Dublin Corporation owned local authority housing to the responsibility of Dublin County Council who then would have direct, everyday responsibility of looking after those homes, collecting the rents and maintaining the estates. The overhang of unfinished estates and lack of taking in charge of estates owned by the corporation in the county is unacceptable. It is understandable that the elected members of the corporation are not familiar with the details of these problems because they are not in their constituencies or electoral areas and therefore, they are not consulted by and do not meet the people concerned. We in the county are relating back to City Hall even though we have no direct function or input into the workings of City Hall. This position has emerged because of the tremendous growth in the past ten to 15 years. Those matters can now be fine-tuned. There is a lot of duplication involved in housing maintenance and in administration. Often we have two teams administering from different locations looking after the same problem. There is little point in tightening the lid on some of the inefficiencies and squeezing back on housing allocations, which is desirable, if we do not improve the service. Deputy Boland, when chairman of Dublin County Council, fought hard to get some order into this. At the time Dublin Corporation was the biggest house-builder in the county.

The increase in the number of houses has caused many problems for local authorities and I should like to ask the Minister to address the housing policy at the first available opportunity. I welcome the Bill but I would like to see more statistical information available concerning the homeless. I do not meet many homeless people but housing is the biggest issue any public representative has to deal with at constituency level. It is possible that the county is more fortunate than the city in that we do not have to face the same type of problems that the city has. However, we should have the capacity to help the homeless. There are many service facilities available in the county and the potential for more houses. If there is a crisis in regard to the less fortunate members of our society we should be innovative enough to address it. We have addressed many other thorny problems such as that relating to travelling families and the county has had the capacity to absorb a lot of growth in recent years. Houses have been provided for all classes of people and if the problem of the homeless cannot be dealt with in the city the county should be asked to play its part.

As a society we should assist those who deserve help. If we do not do so, we will be failing miserably. We have heard a lot of talk about the need for this legislation and there has been criticism of it. We have been told that it does not go far enough and that a lot of money will be needed to implement its provisions. Those issues will have to be addressed immediately because those affected do not have time on their side. I hope the legislation will be given a speedy passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas and that we will see progress on this front. I look forward to local authorities being able to do something tangible for the less fortunate in our society. I should like to commend the Minister, and his officials, on bringing the Bill forward. I hope it will be on the Statute Book within a short time.

Mr. Gregory

I welcome any legislation that draws attention to the problems of housing, particularly the problem of housing in my constituency, Dublin Central. I can safely say that apart from unemployment in my constituency housing is the biggest single social issue. The Minister has been complimented by many Deputies, including the last speaker, for bringing forward the Bill and I am sure it is well deserved but in my view there are two specific reasons why the Bill is before the House. The first reason is the campaign that has been waged by Senator Brendan Ryan and his colleagues in the Simon Community. There is no doubt that some sections would not have been included in the Bill were it not for that campaign. Senator Brendan Ryan, and the Simon Community, should be congratulated. They may find certain shortcomings in the Bill but I am sure they will welcome it.

The second reason the Bill is before the House is a more serious one from my point of view. I see it as an attempt to fill a vacuum, as a cover-up for the absence of Government policy in the area of housing. I should like to draw attention to some statistics to support that view. Since the Government took office they have dismantled the housing programmes of all local authorities, specifically in Dublin. I should like to refer to the housing capital allocation between 1982 and 1988. In 1982, the housing capital allocation to Dublin Corporation was £76 million; it was reduced to £70 million in 1983 and in 1988 it was £4.4 million. That allocation was not to build new houses but to complete schemes begun last year. In other words, Dublin Corporation have not been provided with any money to build new houses in the city centre. Does the Minister envisage that the Government will continue with this policy? Has the Minister decided not to build any more local authority houses in the city centre?

The Minister may tell us that the housing waiting list of Dublin Corporation has been reduced in recent years and I do not deny that. It has been reduced from an unacceptably high level to a level that continues to be unacceptable to me. I should like to quote details from the current housing waiting list of Dublin Corporation which I received from the housing allocation officer of the corporation, Mr. O'Sullivan. The number of applicants on the waiting list is 2,819 and of that figure 574 are senior citizens. I understand that 2,245 families are on the waiting list and that there are 100 single persons on it. That is unacceptable. I must stress that I am referring to the need to build houses within the city limits and not dealing with Tallaght, Clondalkin and so on, although I accept that those areas have been overbuilt. In my view, there is a need for facilities in those areas and not additional houses. There are vast areas of the inner city, in particular the Sheriff Street area, where there is a desperate need for housing.

The housing list I have quoted only conveys half the story. There is also the transfer list. Thousands of families live in overcrowded, substandard conditions in corporation flats. Many families live in one-bedroomed flats and do not have bathrooms or proper washing facilities. According to the figures issued by the transfer officer of Dublin Corporation, there are 2,256 families in the inner city on the transfer list who are seeking accommodation that will meet their needs. Of those 2,256 applicants, 421 are senior citizens. Between the housing list and the transfer list there are almost 1,000 senior citizens in Dublin who are looking for adequate accommodation and there are in the region of 5,000 families looking for proper and adequate accommodation.

It is in that context that the current policy of the Fianna Fáil Government is simply inexplicable. If this policy continues, in the next three or four years a situation will develop similar to that which developed in the sixties when there was a housing emergency in Dublin and when people took to the streets, marched and demanded a proper local authority housing policy. I have no doubt that that situation will develop in the next few years if the current housing policy of the Government continues. It is appropriate when a Housing Bill is before the Dáil that we should be told precisely what the housing policy of the Government is. Do they intend to continue to refuse the local authorities any finance to provide badly-needed houses?

The Minister may well say that the new emphasis will be on refurbishment. There are in the region of 1,270 flats in the Dublin city area which have no bathrooms and no proper washing facilities whatever. That sort of statistic is almost incredible in 1988, but it is the official statistic from Dublin Corporation. Families are living in one-bedroomed and two-bedroomed flats with no bathrooms and no modern washing facilities. The Minister has started a programme of refurbishment on the north side of Dublin which, if it gets off the ground this year, will mean that eight flats in St. Mary's Mansions in Seáan McDermott Street will be refurbished. I would take this opportunity to ask the Minister to check with the officials in his Department to see what is holding up even that tiny but badly-needed pilot scheme in St. Mary's Mansions. The corporation submitted plans some time ago and there seems to be some difficulty in even approving that small scheme in that very depressed and very disadvantaged area.

I hope the Minister might find it appropriate, when responding to this Bill, to announce a programme for the complete refurbishment of all 1,200 of those flats throughout Dublin city so that proper washing facilities would be provided for the people who are unfortunate enough to live there. That is something that is long overdue. It should have been done many years ago. A small start has been made — any start is to be welcomed — but I hope that a programme will be announced that all of these flats will be refurbished within a particular period.

The opening statement of the Minister of State last week was that this Housing Bill is a major social measure. I am not too sure what is meant by that. I do not see anything major in it. The Minister was complimented last week by the Deputies who represent the Ballymun area. I would love to be in a position, as a Deputy representing the Sheriff Street area, to be equally complimentary to the Minister but for the moment at least I cannot be so because I am not clear on what the Minister intends to do in Sheriff Street. Much more importantly, nobody who lives in Sheriff Street is clear either. The people there are very anxious to know precisely what the Minister intends to do. Despite all the hype, the talk and the hoped for development in the Customs House site, just over a wall from the Sheriff Street flats complex, in the last year in Sheriff Street the living conditions have deteriorated to an almost unbearable and certainly unlivable condition. Whatever hope the people there may have had when they heard of developments in the Customs House Docks site and when they saw new inner city houses being built in Seville Place and other areas, they have lost virtually any hope they had in the last year. They have heard a great deal in the press about the possibilities that would present themselves but they have seen and heard nothing from the Minister.

I wonder would the Minister take the opportunity today to let us know what he intends to do about the deplorable living conditions in the Sheriff Sreet flats complex. Does he intend to do what the people there have expressed in a very democratic and almost unanimous way, that is, to demolish the flats on a phased basis and rehouse the people who have lived here since the flats were built and who lived in cottages on the site before they were built? Does the Minister intend to rehouse those people in the North Wall area? If so, what steps have his Department taken to bring that about? Or does the Minister intend to sweep those people out of that area and, as some of the more cynical people who have watched the scene there would say, bring in the yuppie element and get rid of the traditional people who have their roots in that area? I do not believe the Minister would envisage doing such a thing, but it is important that he publicly state what his intention is and what steps he is taking to bring about a solution to the deplorable problem that exists there. The longer Sheriff Street is left as it is, it will become, day by day, a social time bomb. I do not think any Minister — I am sure the present Minister included — would want that situation to continue much longer. As a local representative for that area, I have to take any opportunity I get, and this is one, to highlight their plight and to call on the Minister to respond to it quickly.

I know that a working group from the Department, Dublin Corporation and the Custom House Authority have been examining this matter for at least six months, if not 12 months. Some time ago I questioned some of those people and they said they were getting close to a recommendation. I do not know whether that recommendation has gone to the Minister. All I know is that he has not made any announcement on the matter. I am not sure if the Minister knows what he is going to do in that area. I am saying as clearly as I possibly can that action is required and if the Minister does not take action I have no doubt that the people who live in that area will be forced to do so in their own way. I get some hope from the statements that I have heard from the Deputies who represent the Ballymun area. The Minister has been very active as regards that area and has responded to the needs there. I hope that his next priority will be the Sheriff Street area and that he will turn to that priority now.

One of the points made last week is common to many corporation flat complexes and defeats the whole new policy of refurbishment, that is, that, at a time when the Government and the Minister are talking about the need for refurbishment of flat complexes in Dublin city, the allocation that is made available to the corporation for the maintenance of flats schemes has been drastically cut, more than halved, in the last year or two. How can one proceed with a programme of refurbishment for the older flats while drastically cutting the maintenance allocation for the more modern flats? By the time the older flats are refurbished the more modern flats will need refurbishment because of a lack of maintenance. What is spoken about on the one hand and the reality of cutbacks on the other does not make sense. This is something which the Minister, who might not be as familiar with life in inner city flats as some of us, might spend a little time on to see what can be done to speed up the refurbishment programme and to provide a proper maintenance programme for the many thousands of tenants who live in the flat complexes in the city and elsewhere.

I have already paid a compliment to the Simon Community and to Senator Brendan Ryan for their campaign to bring this Bill before the House and it is only right to look at their comments on the Bill. In a document written by Brian Harvey they state:

The 1988 Bill does not impose any duty on local authorities to provide accommodation for the homeless, and the absence of this is its most serious omission. At best, the effectiveness of the legislation in ensuring that the homeless will receive help will depend on the willingness of individual local authorities to take positive steps and on the Minister introducing suitable regulations. At worst, a local authority may choose to do very little for the homeless or it may pass the buck on to local voluntary organisations. The Housing Bill is thus an enabling measure rather than a Bill which gives homeless people a right to housing.

In conclusion, Brian Harvey states:

If passed, the Bill will mean the homeless will be considered an essential element in local authority housing policy. Two objectives of those who have campaigned for change will be achieved: the definition of a homeless person and the identification of the responsible public authority. But the absence of a duty on the local authority will give a new lease of life to the uncaring or irresponsible housing authority.

The homeless Bill will mean homeless people on the streets long after this particular manifestation of poverty could and should have been swept away; it will mean homeless people unsheltered and unhoused when they could have been provided with accommodation. This is the real tragedy of the Housing Bill: that is why it has to be changed.

I wish to comment on the sentence: "the absence of a duty on the local authority will give a new lease of life to the uncaring or irresponsible housing authority". Having been involved with Dublin Corporation housing department for the past ten years, I can safely say they are not an uncaring or irresponsible housing authority; if anything, they are the opposite. They fulfil their task with the greatest of care and a sense of responsibility and sensitivity to homeless people and the people on their housing list. I do not feel that will be a major problem with Dublin Corporation, but what will be a major problem is the passing of this legislation without any allocation of resources to the corporation to provide the accommodation required. How can they respond to the needs of the homeless and to the needs of the people on their housing and transfer lists if they do not have any accommodation?

It has been said — and there is a great deal of truth in it — that the only policy that is providing vacancies for the corporation is that of the present Government which encourages emigration. It appears to me from watching developments in Dublin that the one contributory factor that is providing accommodation for the homeless is the emigration of families. If that is the position, and I am certain it is, it is a disgrace.

While I agree with the Simon Community that there should be a duty on the housing authority to house homeless people, there must be a duty on the Minister and the Government to ensure that the housing authority have the resources to provide accommodation for people on their housing list. For all the reasons I have mentioned, that is not happening.

From replies to questions I put to the Minister, I know he is of the view that there may be many empty houses and flats in Dublin city and that until they are inhabited he cannot see the logic of building new houses. I went to the corporation and got an analysis of the vacancies in the city area. These vacancies exist largely in three flat complexes. The first is in Ballymun, where there are many empty flats which are not in a habitable condition and where a major refurbishment programme is required. The second is in Sheriff Street, which I have already dealt with, and which appears to be in limbo. Nobody knows, particularly the people who live there, what the future holds for them. The third is in a complex on the south side which is undergoing a major programme of refurbishment, St. Teresa's Gardens. The problem there is being dealt with at least, and once the refurbishment programme is completed there will be no empty flats there. There are no vacant houses in Dublin city. Therefore there is no argument for not building new houses.

There is the problem of empty houses in the county areas, such as in Tallaght. The last speaker referred to this — and his solution to that problem is probably the best one — but I am talking about the Dublin city area, and there are no empty houses in the Dublin Corporation area. There is a very long list of schemes — I am sure it is available to the Minister so I will not go through them now — which have been before the Department of the Environment for the building of new houses in derelict sites in Dublin city for more than two years. They have not been approved.

More than most, I welcome the building of the new inner city houses over the last five to ten years, but the number of houses being built on the north side is just a drop in the ocean. From listening to the last Government speaker one would get the impression that that programme had been completed. It was merely started. Half the north side of the city is still derelict and these sites are in the ownership of Dublin Corporation. Plans for building houses on those derelict sites by the corporation have been with the Minister for the past two years, but have not been approved.

If the Minister has a commitment to do something about the housing position in Dublin and is to play a real part in resolving this problem, rather than introducing this type of a Bill, which we are told is a social measure, it would be more practical if he were to do two things: first, speed up the refurbishment programme of the substandard flats; and, second, continue, not dismantle, the inner city house building programme.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. I intervene merely to advise him that he now has three minutes left of the time allotted to him.

Mr. Gregory

I was not aware that I was restricted in time, but I thank you for reminding me. Let me make one or two further points. I compliment all previous Governments, Fianna Fáil and Coalition, on their inner city housing programmes. One of the schemes brought in by the last Government, which was one of the best schemes ever introduced but which has been criticised here, largely by Deputy De Rossa, was the £5,000 grant scheme. It was criticised on the basis that the people who were most able in particular areas availed of that scheme and left that community, which suffered as a result of their departure. Yet, in the same contribution last week Deputy De Rossa stated that it was not his policy, that he did not believe that it was right, to force people to go to areas which were not of their choosing. I think that he was talking about people who wanted to live in a particular community in the centre of Dublin, for example, who he felt should not have to go to a house in Tallaght, or elsewhere.

It seems totally illogical to hold that viewpoint and at the same time say that if you live in a particular area and a scheme is introduced which allows you for the first time — as the £5,000 grant scheme did for very many people — to buy a house of your own in an area of your own choosing, that you should not be able to avail of such a scheme. To condemn people who merely have not sufficient financial backing to buy their own homes to live in an area where they are not happy is unacceptable. I fail to understand the logic of the criticism made against that scheme. It gave thousands of families an opportunity that they never thought possible to bridge the gap between the funds that they could put together and what was required to buy a house of their own choosing. Also, it provided more vacancies to Dublin Corporation than at any time in their entire history for people on the housing list. If any scheme should be brought back it is that scheme and it is mentioned in the Bill before us. It was a major benefit to many families and many others were sorely disappointed when it was abolished and they missed out on the opportunity to do what everybody should have a right to do, to have a home in an area of their own choosing. I support the viewpoint — and it seems the major criticism of the people who sought to bring about this Bill — that there should be a duty on a housing authority to provide accommodation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would now conclude.

Mr. Gregory

I shall finish on this point, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please do, Deputy. Your time is up.

Mr. Gregory

There should be a legal obligation on a housing authority to provide accommodation for a homeless person or a homeless family. With that legal obligation must go the absolutely essential requirement that the necessary resources be made available to that local authority to allow them to fulfil that obligation. I regret that that obligation is not included in this Bill. It would be very simple for the Minister at this stage to include it. It would not cause the problems that he is advised it would cause. These have been dealt with by other speakers and as my time is used up I shall not repeat those arguments. He could have another look at that matter on Committee Stage and I hope that he will.

Mr. Begley

Certainly, I welcome the Bill and support the very strong point made by Deputy Gregory just now. It puts the whole Bill in question. Will the Minister provide the necessary finances to implement this Bill? If one is to gauge from the attitude of the present Government to local authority housing in general, one would have to say rather cynically that this Bill is just a public relations exercise. For the record, I shall mention information received in answer to Parliamentary Question No. 129 which I put down to the Minister for the Environment on Tuesday, 3 May 1988 asking for statistical information regarding housing in County Kerry. I was informed that there was a drop, which was most alarming, from £7,800,000 in 1983 to £1,588,000 in 1988. If that is to be the guideline or the criterion of the Minister, one would have to take this Bill as a public relations exercise. The Minister must get down to the real truth of the matter and provide the necessary resources to allow the local authorities to implement the legislation. I am quite sure that he had an input into the Bill. It is full of pious platitudes and vague generalities. Even though those who worked on the Bill mean well, if the finance is not put up front the Bill will be put one the shelf to gather dust as the years go by.

With regard to the situation in County Kerry, I would urge the Minister, perhaps on Committee Stage, when moneys might become available if somebody in the country strikes gold, to give a more positive role to our many voluntary organisations. I hope that I am not leaving any organisation out, but would mention three specifically, the St. Vincent de Paul Society as far as rural Ireland is concerned, the Samaritans and the Simon Community. Those people have provided a voluntary back-up service for years and their work has never been recognised. Perhaps one could drop an occasional note to the local housing authority pointing out certain facts to them in this regard, but these people should have recognition. I urge the Minister, if at all possible, that they be given some advisory role in the implementation of this Bill, if moneys become available. Down through the years those organisations, and others that I am quite sure are active in the city but that I do not know much about, have played a very positive role. In the darkness of night and at the breaking of dawn, these people are out there, helping, advising and taking people into shelter.

I am seriously concerned that resources might not be made available. In County Kerry there are over 600 people on the housing list. As we will only be able to build something in the region of 70 houses this year, in comparison with other years when the number went up to 200, and 300 in one particular year, it is the least well-off who will suffer. The people who are more eloquent and can present their case that bit better will get priority. The homeless people, those that the Minister in his heart wants to look after, will fall by the wayside. Much criticism has been made of local authorities with regard to the housing of itinerants. In County Kerry we can say we have another all-Ireland, because we have only two Kerry families on the road. Because of the lure of the road they wanted to get out, even though they were very happily situated in housing provided by the local authority. This is an achievement and I would have to pay tribute to the county manager and our social workers in County Kerry. Homeless people will suffer. The Minister has power and in the very near future there are great things in store for him. They say he will be the new Minister for Finance——

Mr. Flynn

Is that all Deputy Begley is predicting for my future?

Mr. Begley

I did not know that the Taoiseach had other things on his mind but perhaps he is about to step down.

Mr. Flynn

What about the Presidency?

Mr. Begley

I know nothing would be too high for the Minister.

Mr. Flynn

What about the US Presidency?

Mr. Begley

The Minister would fill that position most admirably. He has as much neck as any man who came out of Connacht. However, I must get back to more mundane matters. The Minister should bear in mind that abolishing the grants means that people in local authority houses will suffer. Many of them own their homes but they will be put to the pin of their collar to keep up the repayments on their loans from financial institutions. When local authority houses become dilapidated and shabby there will be no incentive to repair them. Perhaps the Minister will consider introducing an incentive for local authority tenants who acquired their homes through the vesting scheme to enable them to maintain them.

Deputy Gregory was quite right to say that managers in different housing authorities are responsible. Local authority members have no say in allocating houses but sometimes the information they are able to give to the managers can be invaluable to the county manager when he is making a decision. However, the manager's hands will be tied if the back-up services, particularly for the homeless, are not there. If houses are built the necessary services must also be there, particularly water and sewerage. Due to the new clampdown by the Department of the Environment there is no money for water or sewerage schemes. There is no point in building houses if there are no back-up services. The Minister should give priority to small schemes to accommodate the people about whom he is so concerned. Recently, there was much ballyhoo by the Government about the redevelopment of urban designated areas and there were special incentives in this regard. What about the small towns and villages that did not come under the umbrella of the Minister's novel idea?

Some people never look beyond Dublin, but other small towns would be delighted if there was urban renewal in their areas. This could apply to Dingle, Listowel, Caherciveen, Castlebar, Claremorris, Ballina and many other places. If there are derelict sites in these areas and their owners are not making an effort to improve them, they could be taken over for housing. Recently, local authorities put compulsory purchase orders on the owners of such derelict sites and that is a very good idea. However, there is no point in acquiring these sites if the necessary back-up is not available to finish the job.

If local authorities in small villages and towns put a proper case to the Minister regarding derelict sites, the necessary back-up should be given. I have no doubt that the Department of the Environment housing inspectors are conscientious civil servants and that they could earmark certain funds for these projects to clean up our towns and to tidy our villages. The Minister knows enough about rural areas to know that there are many such sites in every area.

Homeless people have been used for public relations exercises down through the years. However, when a genuine effort is being made by county managers to house them many of the PR people run for cover. The Minister must give power to the county managers to make a decision, because if they cannot implement the legislation the Bill is useless. Will the Minister say how much money he will allocate for this project? There is a shortfall of finance in every local authority at the moment. There are 600 people on the waiting list for housing in County Kerry and I do not know what the number is in other counties. It is only a matter of time before thousands of people will be homeless.

If the local authorities do not look after people who are looking for homes I foresee stormy times ahead and many protest marches. There will be a reason for all this discontent because the Minister cannot tell local authorities to build houses without providing money to do so. Where will all the young married couples live? They are in mobile homes and caravans at present. Unlike Pontius Pilate, the Minister cannot wash his hands of the problem and say that we will look after them in time. The allocation to County Kerry in 1983 was nearly £8 million but this year that figure has dropped to £1.5 million. Each local authority is facing a crisis and those living in mobile homes and caravans hope there will be a house available to them in one and a half years or three years down the road. The Minister should stand up and tell us squarely and honestly that he wants local authorities to get out of housing altogether. That is the reality and the Minister should be big enough to say it. Perhaps that was his intention when introducing that lovely new scheme which enables local authorities to sell off houses to their tenants but that is only a short term answer — a very short term answer. If funds such as reconstruction grants and so on are not provided to maintain homes in a proper state of repair, we will have terrible problems in five years time.

The Minister should direct county managers to write to everybody on a housing list to say that due to financial constraints no house is going to be built for them for at least ten years. We cannot have 600 people in County Kerry and thousands of others in towns and cities around the country hoping the Minister is going to change his mind. He is not going to do that. He is doing exactly the same as the British Prime Minister is doing in Britain — getting the local authorities out of housing altogether. Should the Minister tell us he is going to do away with local authority housing? Perhaps that would be a more honest approach. While this is a tremendous Bill it appears that it only amounts to a public relations exercise on the backs of the poor. That is all it will amount to if the Minister does not provide the funds to implement it.

Senator Brendan Ryan as well as a number of Deputies in this House, particularly Deputy Kemmy, have been very vocal about the needs of the homeless. The Minister must face up to his obligations but I do not think he is going to do so. He has said that bigger things lie ahead for him, that he is only passing through and that in a short space of time the bells will ring and he will be going to the Park for a different portfolio. When the history books come to be written they will show that it was Deputy Padraig Flynn, while he was Minister for the Environment, who introduced the Homeless Persons Bill, but in years to come Deputy Flynn will say he was not Minister when he wanted to implement it, he was moved on. He should not try to cod us in this House. It is only when the Minister is prepared to give a solemn undertaking that he is going to put more money up front that I will believe him, as will a good many more.

The Minister has been given a golden opportunity in this Bill to do something about run-down housing estates. In section 12 he has outlined a scheme for remedial works to local authority houses but this will be of no use unless he is prepared to say to the local authorities that he will give them £200,000 specifically to refurbish local authority houses. Already, the walls and the timber railings around doors are beginning to deteriorate in many of those houses and they look terrible when they begin to rot. The ball is at the feet of the Minister. I hope for his sake he provides the necessary funds and that, he will not say in years to come that while he introduced the legislation he was not the Minister for the Environment when he wanted it to be implemented.

Mr. Kemmy

Like all other speakers, I would like to say that I welcome this Bill. It is a belated measure. It does not go far enough but in so far as it goes it is a good measure. Other speakers referred to the tremendous work which has been done in this area by Senator Brendan Ryan and Brian Harvey of the Simon Community and the Simon Community itself to make us more aware and conscious of the problems facing homeless people. I, too, acknowledge the work which has been done by Senator Brendan Ryan and the Simon Community in this area. I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous work which has been done by Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy and Focus Point who, equally, have been trying to make us more aware of our obligations as public representatives in this area.

I do not know whether the Minister received in the post this week a copy of a document produced by Focus Point and Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy outlining some criticisms of the Bill, but if he has not received a copy I will send him one. I will not quote at length from this document but merely try to summarise for the Minister the six main criticisms outlined by Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy and Focus Point. First, the Bill empowers local authorities to do something about the plight of the homeless but does not legally oblige them to do so. In other words, it does not put any legal obligation on them to do so. Second, it fails to give full and clear recognition to the voluntary and co-operative housing sector. Third, its definition of homelessness is not broad enough. Fourth, housing need assessment does not include important categories of people, for instance, young people leaving care. Fifth, the assessment of housing needs is not due to be undertaken on a regular basis: in other words, it is too loose and too irregular. Sixth, housing authorities will not be obliged to carry out an estimate of housing requirements in their area.

In the past we have adopted an out-ofsight out-of-mind attitude to the homeless in our society. I admit it is a difficult and unpleasant duty for the Government, the Minister and the community to tackle the problem but it is one we cannot shirk or run away from. In recent months I have received many letters from religious bodies and individual religious persons who pointed out my obligations as a public representative in respect of the homeless. Mind you, I do not object to anyone writing to me to put pressure on me as a public representative to face up to my obligations in this respect because we have to learn to live with that kind of pressure. Most of the letters I received were from nuns. I also received letters from priests and brothers, many in my own constituency of Limerick East. I would point out to those nuns, priests and brothers who wrote to me that there is also an obligation on them to look at themselves.

If we take a close look at many of the religious orders in this country we will find that they are living in palatial houses and in lovely, spacious surroundings. The same is true of cardinals, archbishops and bishops, and indeed parish priests. While it is good that they should write to me — and I suppose being a socialist I should stand up and be counted on these issues — perhaps they should look at the mote in their own eye also. They, too, are under an obligation to tackle this problem of homeless people. I have no money or property but perhaps I could scatter my largesse among the community. Some of those who have written to me, some of the religious orders, are wealthy people even though many of them have taken a vow of poverty. I would not want anyone to go around like Matt Talbot living on herring soup and giving the herring to the cat. I would not live in that kind of world at all. They are living in conditions which are far from being poverty-stricken. They also have an obligation to tackle the problem of homeless people. It is an indictment of all of us — Governments, public representatives, the community at large, including religious people — that there should be anybody homeless in our society. It is a grave reflection on all of us.

The problem will not disappear but rather will intensify as society becomes more competitive, as more people become unemployed with resultant increasing poverty in society. Many people homeless at present are people who found it impossible to survive in this competitive society; they could be described as casualties of the competitive society. It appears to me from my dealings with them that many could not keep up with the pressures on them. It is wrong that people should be abandoned or feel unwanted in our society. We must make every effort to find a place for them, in every sense of the word, in our society. It is also wrong that some people should have two, three and four houses — some politicians included — while others have no home at all. This is to be condemned totally.

I hope the Minister and Government will address themselves to the defects of this Bill as have been outlined by a number of bodies, such as the Simon Community, Focus Point and individual Members who have spoken about them. I hope the Minister will be big enough to take on board some of the very valuable suggestions made. I hope he will see fit to amend the Bill in order to give expression to those suggestions.

There are a number of key points I should like to make in relation to housing vis-à-vis the provisions of this Bill. The once-off sale on a tenant/purchase basis of local authority houses is an attractive proposition to many people. It allows houses to be offered to people at half their market value, less £2,000 in most cases. I estimate that approximately one-third of the housing stock of local authorities will be sold before 31 December next. That amounts to large number of houses being sold in one fell swoop. We should remember that the sale of such a large number of local authority dwellings has other implications. For example, it means there will be one-third fewer houses available for homeless people. I do not blame people for not looking a gift horse in the mouth. Most local authority tenants woud be sufficiently astute to avail of the provisions of that house purchase scheme and I would not condemn them for doing so. However, we should remember the problems that will be encountered thereafter in relation to local authority housing stocks, something which cannot be escaped.

Deputy Begley referred to the urban renewal programme in designated areas. In addition to private development in Dublin, Cork and Limerick, it is important that there be local in-fill schemes of public housing. For far too long old people have been sent to outlying areas, to housing estates on the peripheries of our cities. Such people are very vulnerable in such areas. Many of them have been attacked, robbed and suffered from being alienated in such areas. I contend that old people should be brought back to the inner city areas, those areas being rebuilt from their present derelict condition. I am thinking particularly of central city areas in Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Unfortunately, Limerick city has a very bad image in this respect, with the central areas lying derelict, being pock-marked by ruined, derelict buildings which would be ideal sites for small, in-fill housing estates. Unfortunately, the emphasis has been on private development. In the absence of private housing there is no reason priority should not be given to the building of public housing, especially for older people, in central city areas.

I contend such a programme would have a three-fold objective. First, it would give our cities a better image; second, it would enable older people to be brought back into the inner cities from outlying housing estates, leaving them feeling more secure and giving life and expression to urban renewal; and, third, it would give employment to building-construction workers. It is a bad thing to turn our backs on our long heritage of building skills. We should remember the vast emigration of our workforce, including apprentices, general operatives, craftsmen and others. We can ill afford to have such people engaged on house building developments in Britain, the Continent and illegally in the United States.

The strange thing about housing in Limerick is that three years ago there was a target drawn up for the building of 350 houses annually. Yet this year there were only three dwellings built by Limerick Corporation, which is a disgrace on the part of any local authority. In fairness, I should say that the Minister has given priority to the refurnishing of houses in St. Mary's Park. Funds have been provided and the work is now proceeding. While the refurbishment of those houses in St. Mary's Park, built in 1935, is taking place, some hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage is being done to the flats at Ballynanty and the Hyde Road. No later than Monday last approximately £50,000 worth of damage was done by young vandals who gutted flats in the Hyde Road shops complex.

I have spoken about this matter at council level. The Garda say it is very difficult to prevent such vandalism. These vandals go to the flats, pull out such things as boilers, cylinders, timber and other fittings. Their actions have devastated whole areas of the city. The Garda come sometimes, when asked, but say they cannot do much about it, that such people are too nimble, have too many escape hatches. I do not believe that at all; that is engaging in the politics of despair. On the one hand, the Minister is spending some hundreds of thousands of pounds in another part of the city on the refurbishment of old houses while, on the other, the same amount is being wasted elsewhere on destruction and vandalism. We are using our Army and police force for the protection of money being moved between banks. One sees daily security vans, squad cars and so on lined up on the streets of Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Yet those young hooligans can pull apart our homes and flats with impunity while the Garda say they can do nothing about it.

As a democrat, a person with some intelligence and experience of life, I reject that attitude totally. Surely we are paying our Army and police force to protect us and our property? I contend that public property and money are as important as the private property and money. While the Garda give priority, in Limerick anyway, to the protection of public property, it is not being done in an even-handed manner. I would invite the Minister to send an official of his Department to Limerick to see what is happening there at present. It would be unreasonable of me to make a rash statement like that unless I could stand over it. I can tell the Minister that the local fire brigade were called perhaps 20 times within the last two weeks to the flats in the Hyde Road shops complex, sometimes being battered and pelted by mobs of these young vandals, resulting in their having to leave the scene. Even though they had worked valiantly to contain fires in those buildings, one would think one was in the South Bronx area of New York, so scary and frightening are these experiences. Again, I contend that it is engaging in the politics of despair to allow the wilful squandering of public money in that fashion. If the Minister would send an official from his Department to Limerick I would undertake to accompany him and let him see what is happening there. It is a matter of grave public concern and scandal. There is no reason we cannot give priority to the housing of old people in the inner city areas of Dublin, Cork and Limerick.

I might refer to the provisions of section 13 with regard to itinerants. Many people would like the problems appertaining to itinerants and their settlement to disappear also, but the sad reality is that they will not. It should be remembered that the itinerant population is increasing, unlike that of the settled community. Therefore, their problems will be intensified also. There was a court case involving Limerick Corporation in recent weeks, the judgment in respect of which will have implications for all local authorities. That judgment contended that itinerants cannot be moved from temporary or unofficial halting sites unless one has an alternative settled site to offer them or one made available to them in advance. That should be noted by everybody in this House because we have to deal with the problem.

In the past the Minister was very generous in providing capital grants for local authorities so that they could lay out sites for travelling people. Unfortunately because of pressures at local level and because local representatives were not strong enough to stand up to some of those pressures, the money has gone abegging almost every year. Limerick is no exception and I do not want to be mealy-mouted about this either. During the past 20 or 30 years Limerick people have complained constantly about the 22 unofficial halting sites in the city. I always say to these people that we will have an increasing number of unofficial halting sites unless we have official sites to replace them. That should be said loudly and clearly not alone in Limerick but elsewhere as well.

In the past the Department have been very good in that respect, better than local authorities in trying to make us aware of our obligations towards the travelling community in the provision of sites and so on. I have seen many television programmes on this subject and I have visited some of the sites. Provision has been made for a site in Nenagh, for example which can cater for six to eight caravans, and much good work has been done in Tallaght. There is no reason those prototypes cannot be copied by other areas. I welcome that aspect of the Bill even though it does not go far enough. It does not push local authorities to go further than they are willing to go in that respect. By and large, this is a good Bill. I want to be positive about the good aspects of it. I hope that the Minister will take account of some of the points made by me and other speakers which I believe will improve the Bill.

Mr. M. Brennan

I congratulate the Minister on bringing this very good Bill before the House. I should like to refer in particular to the voluntary housing schemes. Recently the Minister approved money for the allocation of 19 houses in Carrownanty, Ballymote. These voluntary housing schemes are tremendous. The St. Vincent de Paul Society in Ballymote deserve much credit for raising money for voluntary housing schemes. We have all heard of cases where the houses of elderly people living in rural Ireland have been broken into by greedy, violent and ruthless thugs. The voluntary housing schemes are helping to bring people into towns like Tubbercurry and Ballymote. Two years ago the St. Vincent de Paul Society built six houses for elderly people in Tubbercurry, and great credit is due to that voluntary organisation for raising money and organising the building of those houses. I would encourage these voluntary housing schemes, and I thank the Minister for making the necessary funds available for these schemes because they are of tremendous value to the people of those areas. I ask the Minister to ensure that there are no cutbacks in the provision of old people's homes. We must look after elderly people, and the building of old people's homes in any village or town is a step in the right direction.

I congratulate the Minister on the tenant purchase scheme which was introduced recently. It is a very good scheme whereby over 40 per cent is taken off the value of a local authority house before it is offered for sale to a tenant. That gives everybody a chance to own their own homes. People should be encouraged to own their own homes and this scheme will ensure that they can do that. It is a very good scheme and again I congratulate the Minister on introducing it.

I also ask the Minister to make the necessary funds available for temporary housing accommodation for the homeless. I believe this Bill will do just that. Many people are practically homeless and county councils have to provide mobile homes or caravans to house these people. The reason I came into the House today was to encourage the building of old people's homes and the continuance of the voluntary housing schemes for elderly people. Finance should be made available to these people who have lived most of their lives in rural areas but who now want to move into towns and villages.

Miss Quill

In common with previous speakers I too welcome the Housing Bill, 1988. It is an important document in so far as it contains a number of measures that are long overdue, especially the measures in relation to the housing of the homeless. It is important also in that it affords an opportunity to have a comprehensive debate on housing legislation and related matters at this stage in the lifetime of the present Dáil.

The Bill has been described by the Minister as a major social measure. This is a description that will be difficult to defend. A social measure it certainly is but a major social measure it is not at this stage, though it may very well become one if all the amendments that have been proposed on the floor of the House are taken on board and stitched into the Bill before it finally becomes law. Much of the material in the Bill ought properly to be set out in the form of a White Paper on housing. I urge the Minister to set about preparing a White Paper on all matters of housing as a matter of extreme urgency.

Far too many unco-ordinated, well-intentioned but poorly planned measures in relation to housing policy have taken place in recent years. One such example was the £5,000 surrender grant for local authority tenants who were prepared to hand back their houses to local authorities and house themselves in the private sector. I have no doubt that this was a very well-intentioned measure but with the benefit of hindsight we must now admit that it left a horrendous legacy for local authorities in every part of the country. At its inception it was widely welcomed by all right-minded people who support the principle of encouraging in every way those who wish to house themselves but because no provision was made for the after effects of the exodus that resulted in city areas, local authorities are left with a very severe legacy to cope with.

Because of the absence of proper overall planning and the absence of resources at local authority level, no provision was made for the quick repair and reoccupation of the houses that were vacated under that scheme. The result of this is that in the cities there are vast estates with scores of vacant houses lying idle waiting to be reoccupied. Moreover the overall appearance of many of these estates has deteriorated rapidly. As well as that there was the unprepared for result of a disintegration in community life especially in new housing estates on the verges of cities where community life was just beginning to burgeon and where families were just about to get settled in schools, to relate to one another and to form a natural community. Suddenly all of that was disrupted because of this scheme, which was well-intentioned but whose implications were not properly seen through. That is why I am asking the Minister not to allow this Dáil to pass without bringing before us a White Paper setting out in a co-ordinated and integrated fashion the direction in which housing policy must go in the next five to ten years so as to ensure that we will introduce a series of ad hoc measures that might solve one problem but might lead to another problem almost equally serious.

In relation to the elements of the Bill which deal with homelessness, proper legislation is long overdue. In common with other speakers, I pay tribute to Senator Brendan Ryan and others who brought this legislation before the Seanad and who helped in no small way to bring us to the point where we are considering the Minister's Bill this morning. It is no harm to remind ourselves that in this respect we lag far behind other countries, countries which speak much less stridently than we about their Christianity. In matters of official provision for the homeless we have fallen sadly behind, and that is to our shame. Our recognition of this must lend urgency to implementing the provisions of this Bill as quickly as possible. Indeed, if it were not for the work of the Simon Community, religious orders and other voluntary bodies in our cities, many of the homeless would continue to live as outcasts.

While I welcome the proposals in this Bill, they are too modest a response to the problem of homelessness on the scale on which it now exists. Unless the amendments tabled by the Progressive Democrats and by other Opposition Members like Deputy Tony Gregory, who spoke here this morning, are adopted, the Bill will fall far short of meeting its stated objectives. The greatest weakness is the failure to put a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide housing for the homeless. This must be remedied.

What is being proposed here does little more than give legislative recognition to what is already happening in many local authority areas. In Cork city, for example, the local authorities have over the years assisted religious orders by putting in place day centres and night shelters for homeless mothers and children. They do that with great effect in conjunction with the efforts of the Good Shepherd Sisters in Sunday's Well, for example. Cork Corporation also work in close co-operation with the gallant schoolboys of Share, who have over the years provided excellent accommodation for elderly people in Cork city. This is being done by Cork Corporation in advance of this legislation. Unfortunately, it is not being done with equal dedication in other areas and it will not be done at all unless this legislation is given teeth and unless a definite legislative obligation is put on local authorities. We know from experience that some local authorities at certain times will respond to appeals and will go out of their way to help the homeless while others will not. Cork city, to their credit, have on their own housed a number of homeless people; but the efforts being made are not enough and they fall far short of what is needed now and what will be needed in the future, having regard to current trends in society. Now is the time to put fairly squarely on the shoulders of local authorities the obligation to provide houses.

I agree that local authorities on their own cannot meet all the needs of the homeless person. The provision of a unit of accommodation is only a beginning to putting homeless people into homes and helping them to surmount the difficulties that led to their being homeless in the first instance. But it is the first and most essential precondition. The natural body to meet that precondition is the local authority. The obligation to do so must be put firmly on their shoulders. Having done that in law, the resources must then be provided to enable them to honour the law. That will be our first amendment to the Bill and we see it as being a necessary precondition to making the Bill work.

There are other changes we would like to make. We would like to compile a list of homeless persons in every local authority area. It is necessary for local authority members and management to know exactly the number of homeless persons in their area if they are to plan properly to house those people. In this respect I welcome the provision in section 2 which sets out a definition of homelessness. It is a positive step in the direction of enabling us to identify clearly in law who is homeless and who is eligible to be housed under the new law. During the course of section 2, however, the Bill says that the number of homeless people and the needs of the homeless will be reviewed "from time to time". That is too vague. We need to put a time limit on "from time to time".

We should put an obligation on the local authorities to review this matter on a yearly basis so that they would approach this in a systematic way and would review progress at the end of any given year. This should not be just an aspiration that local authorities would have but would fail to honour. There must be an obligation to review progress every year. If that is done, and if other local bodies can be mobilised to rally around the objectives of this Bill, we will go a long way towards meeting what we want to do in this House. The health boards must play their part. There is no doubt that people who have been homeless for a short time need assistance in a number of ways to enable them to fit into the sort of community that comes from living in a home and which will enable them to reap the benefits of not being homeless any longer. We must call on the resources of the health boards and get a commitment from them that they will work closely with the local authorities in the area of community care to deal with the urgent problem of homelessness.

We must acknowledge in every way we can the great work being done by voluntary bodies in this area. Without the ongoing work of voluntary bodies we would not be in a position in this country to achieve our objectives even with this new law in place. I pay tribute to the work being done by voluntary bodies. Tribute has also been paid by Deputy Brennan and other who spoke before me in this House. To these voluntary organisations I say: "Carry on with your good work. Work closely with local authorities, health boards and other Government agencies, because it is only by a combined effort, by all of us on the ground, that this challenge can be met effectively". If that is done I have no doubt that the problems of the homeless can be tackled effectively and the Minister, and all of us in this Dáil, will have something to be proud of before this Dáil comes to an end.

We have ample experience of what has happened in other countries in relation to homeless persons. We received statistics from England only two days ago. Because of the kind of law they have put in place the problem of homelessness is on the increase in England. The problem of homelessness is on the increase in almost every country in the world at present and that is due to a combination of factors very much beyond our control. Part of the reason may well be that people are taken out of institutions before a proper system of community care has been put in place. That is one reason you will find people sleeping in subways, in railway stations and in telephone kiosks around the cities of the world. We are not as bad as that in Ireland. We do not want to go in that direction. Because we have the opportunity to put this legislation in place and to make it work, please God we will never arrive at that situation. These are the welcome aspects of this Bill and I have no doubt that the Minister is serious about making this Bill work and that he will take on board the amendments that have been put in place.

That brings me back to my initial argument regarding the need for a proper White Paper on housing. I gave one example already of a housing programme which was well-intentioned but had very bad spin-off effects. There are a number of others I could mention that have been taken on board over the years. Many new houses have been built thus creating new satellite towns to the neglect of inner city areas where the services were in place, where the physical fabric of a community was in place and where schools, libraries and all other ancillary facilities were available. Yet, we let that part of our housing fabric deteriorate to the point where in many cases it has now become almost derelict and unoccupied. That was bad and costly planning. It has cost the taxpayers of this country a lot of money. In many cases it has not given a great return in terms of community satisfaction, happiness and neighbourliness in estates. Certainly, it has not helped the vitality of the inner city, and that must be redressed. Inner city development and urban renewal is an area into which resources will have to be put, and put very systematically, in our housing programme in the years ahead.

Equally, there are areas in our housing programmes that never seem to be addressed fully in terms of eligibility for housing under local authority schemes. We have framed our policies around the belief that every family consists of two parents and three children and the model for housing has become the three-bedroomed house with all the other rooms stitched in. For years and years single persons and childless couples have been left out of the housing programmes altogether. No provision has been made for them and few places have been found for them in local authority housing schemes. This cannot continue. That is something that must be remedied and should be addressed in the context of a White Paper.

There is also the problem of the elderly and the vulnerability of elderly people which was mentioned with great effect by Deputy Brennan. That is something for which provision must be made in the context of future housing programmes. One way or another we have an opportunity now to put together a comprehensive plan. That must be put in the form of a White Paper so that we can ensure that programmes do not go off on a tangent in conflict with one another as happened so frequently in the past. From here on, all our housing programmes must take place against a background of an overall view of where we ought to be going and in tune with a properly planned integrated and co-ordinated White Paper plan. I should like to say to the Minister that before his term of office is up — and I hope that will not be for a long time, even though there were predictions made by Deputy Begley that he was taking to more exalted fields——

Mr. Flynn

More exotic places.

Miss Quill

I can assure the Minister that with his talents there is no place that would bear greater fruit than to stay with housing and to provide for the young, the families, the old, the sick and the homeless and to put in place the kind of plan from which they would all benefit and which would lead to greater human happiness in families and greater community development. That is a task that any Minister would relish and I have no doubt that he will. There are a number of other points which need to be made.

There are two final points I wish to make. First, do not allow this opportunity to pass without putting an obligation on local authorities to house the homeless. That is the key to meeting all the Minister's objectives. Second, put in place a White Paper setting out all our housing needs and the ways and means by which these needs can be met. What is happening in a number of our housing estates leaves a great deal to be desired. In many cases it is leading to a lack of confidence in the manner in which we manage our local authority housing estates. I will give one example. There are a large number of vacant houses which can be seen around the estates of our cities. People look at these houses, potential rent earners, vacant week after week, month after month. If they were in occupation moneys would be coming into the local authorities and with those moneys the local authorities would be in a position to carry out badly needed repairs. It is a vicious circle. The local authorities will argue that they do not have the money to carry out the repairs. Because they do not have the money to carry out the repairs the houses are vacant and therefore no money is coming in. I would ask the Minister to get some device to solve that problem.

As a Cork Deputy I pay tribute to the Minister in that he has put up a good deal of additional money for the refurbishment of the system-built houses which were erected in the sixties as a crash programme to house a number of people. That is much appreciated. That programme is proceeding with great effect. It will make a great difference to the housing needs of the people of Cork and to the general perception that people have of housing programmes, housing authorities and of Ministers in general. Perhaps the Minister could see his way to putting more money into accelerating that programme. This is the kind of work that makes good economic sense. The houses which are now being bricked up are being sought after and are occupied very quickly. They are potential rent earners in the community. As well as making good social and good community sense, that programme is also making a good deal of economic sense. I pay tribute to the Minister for his contribution to that programme.

Mr. Foley

I would like to join with the previous speakers in congratulating the Minister on his excellent Bill. It affords us an opportunity to discuss housing in this House. At the outset, I wish to compliment the Minister on his new tenant purchase scheme which he introduced some months ago. It is already proving to be a very attractive proposition throughout the country. It gives most of our local authority tenants an opportunity for the first time, to purchase their house on a reasonable basis because the price will be based on market value. There are attractive discounts of up to 40 per cent for a house built in the last 10 years and 50 per cent prior to that. He also mentioned remedial works, and this is very worthwhile.

For many years the local housing programme was directed at the provision of new accommodation with little if any attention being given to the need to modernise and improve the existing rented stock, and that affected most local authorities, in particular Kerry County Council. In recent years, however, the easing of the pressure on demand for new construction has allowed additional resources to be provided for improvements to the existing stock. In this way the State's investment in local authority housing can be protected and the loss of dwellings through the rented housing stock can be prevented. In 1988 the allocation for this scheme has again been increased. It is now £10 million compared with an expenditure of £7 million in 1987.

I thank the Minister for his programme regarding urban renewal which, again, will create worthwhile employment. Already in Tralee, my home town, we have a new conference centre which will improve and supplement the economy of Tralee and the surrounding area. Many other developments are taking place under that urban renewal scheme.

I would like to deal with homelessness, a problem generally hidden in Ireland. People who wander the streets seem to merge into the background. I have often passed people, particularly in Dublin, who seem to be treated as if they are not there at all. People who are obviously drunk, either slumped on steps or in a doorway, are ignored. People who are badly dressed, who smell, who beg for the price of a pint or a cup of tea are usually not noticed at all. When I talk to some of these people I find they are no different in their hopes and fears from anyone else except that their fears and disappointments far outweigh their hopes. Give them a little respect and for a while that can make a world of difference. There is usually no problem in thinking of something to say; all one needs to do is listen.

Who listen on the streets? Many of these people find coping very difficult. Many drink and may simply compound a psychiatric problem, depression or family problems. Some have places to go to but cannot cope on their own or with their home environment. They may have families who still care about them but who cannot cope with them. Some may have families who do not care or who are embarrassed by them. For somebody in psychiatric care without follow-up or home, a hostel may be the only place to go but it is no substitute for proper rehabilitation. People who work in hostels are mainly volunteers not trained to deal with problems of alcoholism, family breakdown, pressure or bereavement. A homeless person may have been in the armed forces and after years in an institutional system cannot cope with retirement on discharge.

The Minister stated that the basic response by local authorities to the needs of the homeless remains the direct provision of accommodation but there will always be a limit to the accommodation available to a local authority. The powers of local authorities to deal with the homeless need, therefore, to be expanded so that the smaller local authorities in particular who have very limited housing and very few vacancies can meet the needs of the homeless. I welcome the powers provided in section 10 of the Bill. They include a new power for housing authorities to secure accommodation for a homeless person with a voluntary housing organisation and to pay that organisation in respect of that accommodation so provided. In addition, housing authorities will be able to provide assistance, including finance, to a homeless person in order that that person may secure accommodation. Finally, a housing authority will be able to rent accommodation or lodgings for a homeless person.

I welcome section 5 of the Bill which will provide an updated basis for development of the voluntary housing movement which can play an important role in meeting social housing needs. As in many other countries, voluntary housing was the first organised response here in the 19th century to the appalling housing conditions of the poor. However, the scale of the housing problem facing this country in its early years was such that the State through the local authorities began to see a greater role in meeting social housing needs. For many years the potential and the need for an additional arm of social housing were lost sight of in the mistaken belief that the State could solve all these housing problems. There is no doubt that local authorities are playing a major role at this moment, but I ask the Minister to seek the co-operation of the various health boards who have to an extent been co-operative but now due to limited finance are not in the same position as they were heretofore.

I welcome the Housing Bill, 1988, of which eight sections relate to the homeless. It is gratifying to see the vagrancy law repealed. I know the Minister will see this Bill through. I suggest to him that the definition of a homeless person in section 2 be widened to include people threatened with homelessness, people living in hostels, women facing violence in the home and travellers who cannot part legally. I ask that in section 9 local authorities be required to make an assessment of the needs of the homeless within a year and thereafter annually. I seek in section 10 that local authorities be not only empowered to help the homeless but be required, even compelled, to do so. Under this section a local authority may exercise their power while inquiries are being made as to whether a person is homeless. This is weaker than in the 1985 Bill which required arrangements to be made during the interim period.

All provision for the homeless should be of a minimum standard and responsibility for such should be vested in the local authorities who should report annually on their progress in housing the homeless. I know the Minister will see these points. He has concern for the homeless and for housing in general. Again, I congratulate him on the Bill and wish him every success with it.

Mr. Taylor

The first aspect of this Bill I want to comment on is the £5,000 surrender grant scheme that applied in respect of local authority houses and the apparent strange method by which we are conducting our business in this House through the Departments. The Minister pointed out in his speech: "Although now terminated, expenditure continues to arise under the £5,000 surrender grant scheme". Later he said: "These schemes are being given statutory backing by sections 3 and 4 of the Bill". I would like to pose the question here, what exactly are we about? We are in here today giving statutory backing to a scheme which applied for a considerable period and which has already terminated. Now, when the scheme has terminated, at this stage, is the time that in this House we are giving statutory backing to the scheme.

What are we about here? The time to give statutory backing to a scheme is before it starts. The scheme ought to be debated here in this House and approved by this House before the scheme comes in. That is a reflection on the previous Coalition Government as well as on this Government; it is a reflection on our system. For the life of me I do not understand how substantial sums of public funds have been paid out for the past couple of years without statutory backing. Who is paying out these moneys and on what basis are these moneys being paid out if there was no statutory backing for it? Now, at the end of the day, at the end of the scheme, we find in a Bill a provision that statutory backing should be given for it.

There is something radically wrong here. I thought the Comptroller and Auditor General saw to it that moneys were not paid out unless there was statutory backing for it. This is a very dangerous precedent and I wonder where else it may be repeated. Is it the Sir Humphreys who are organising things on this basis of just shoving a scheme on ahead and never mind whether Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann give statutory backing to it or debate it? Is that where the real Government is taking place? That is dangerous in any democratic country and we should have greater clarification and amplification about it. If that £5,000 surrender scheme had been debated in advance in this House it might not have been implemented at all. Dáil Éireann when they teased it out might have come to a view about that scheme.

I do not doubt that the Minister for the Environment of the day was well intentioned and meant well when he introduced the £5,000 surrender grant scheme, but I am not alone in saying, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, what many independent observers have said, that it was not a good scheme at all in that it wreaked havoc in many local authority estates, certainly on the outskirts of Dublin in my constituency and, no doubt, in many others up and down the country. No doubt it benefited a few individual people in their personal capacity, but we have to look at the social aspects of housing, which is the thrust of this Bill, to, see whether a scheme is a good one and worth while.

The psychological effects on many of the tenants in local authority housing estates in my constituency were nothing short of disastrous because only those who were in employment could avail of the scheme. Many of those who availed of the scheme left the area. They were the people who were needed to organise activities in the estates and weld them into good and viable communities. As a result of the scheme there has been a high concentration of unemployed people in such estates. It is only now that many of those areas are beginning to recover from that body blow inflicted on them. The scheme should never have been introduced and I regret that the House did not have an opportunity to debate it. It is ridiculous to think that when the scheme is almost at an end the statutory backing is being sought for it in the House.

I should like to comment on the new sales scheme. The Minister has said that under this scheme local authority houses will be sold to tenants for the open market value. I do not think that is right. It is not a fair description of the scheme. I should like to suggest some variations to the Minister. Under the scheme the open market price will be determined, ultimately, by the local authority and that body will have the final say — in other words, it will not be the open market price but the price determined by the local authority. We are talking about two different things. What the Minister is doing is giving to local authorities the right to fix the price of the house. The local authority will say to a tenant that the price they decide is the open market value and it will not do the tenant any good to disagree with it because a tenant will not have any opportunity to do anything about the price under the scheme. A tenant may submit a valuation from a valuer and the local authority may take that into account. The local authority may refer the matter to the Commissioner of Valuations who may have something to say about it, but at the end of the day it will be the local authority who will decide on the price. They may say to tenants "That is the open market price and, whether it is or not, you can take it or leave it". That is not right or fair.

If the sale price is to be the open market value as decided by a local authority then a purchasing tenant who disagrees strongly with the price should be permitted to refer the matter to an independent arbitrator to decide between the open market value suggested by the tenant and the price fixed by the local authority. When disputes in regard to price arise it is not left to one party or another to have the final say, an independent person is called in to fix the correct price. That essential element is lacking in the Minister's scheme, but it is not too late to do something about it. There is no reason why we should not establish an independent arbitration procedure to decide on the price of houses in dispute. If all else fails, the Minister should ask the Commissioner of Valuations, acting independently, to fix the open market value of houses in dispute.

Some local authorities may have an inflated view of the market price and they may not take into account special factors that may apply to a particular region that would lead to a lowering of the price. Local authority houses in some areas are virtually unsaleable and if a purchaser could be found would command a low price; but I cannot see local authorities accepting such a price or taking relevant factors into consideration. I can see them insisting on a price that will not bear any realistic relation to the open market value. If we are to have sales based on an open market value the Minister should provide for appeals to an independent arbitrator.

The system of qualification has some unfair elements about it. A qualified person will be a tenant as at 1 January 1988. Many people, after being years on local authority housing waiting lists, were allocated houses after 1 January. It is unfair to disqualify such people. The scheme will throw up many anomalies. People who bought their houses under previous schemes may have paid a price that bore no relation to the open market value of the house. Many people signed up a couple of years ago to buy local authority houses for £30,000 or £35,000 and the market value of such houses today may be £15,000. Under the new scheme identical houses will be sold off for £15,000, or a little more. That will mean that some unfortunate families who bought their houses two years ago will have for the next 30 years to pay on a mortgage based on a purchase price of £30,000 or £35,000 while their next door neighbour who avails of the new scheme will be carrying a mortgage of £15,000 or £16,000. That is not right and the Minister should not stand over it.

I should like to ask the Minister to consider this and give relief to those unfortunate people who through no fault of their own find themselves in that unenviable position. Provision ought to be made for those people to surrender their mortgage under the old scheme and, if they so wish, to purchase under the new scheme at the correct open market value of the house as independently fixed. Otherwise, I can see very considerable aggravation developing among people who find themselves in that kind of situation.

Another problem will arise with the Minister's scheme. The Minister provides that the local authority is to have no liability under this scheme to put the house in proper condition or to carry out any repairs to it before the sale goes through. The purchase price will take account of the condition of the house as it is. At first sight that might appear to be a very fair and reasonable proposition, but there is a difficulty. Many of these houses have appreciable structural problems. It might be rotting windows, dampness, no adequate heating system, a substantial roof problem or a combination of problems and it would cost, say, £4,000 to put the house into a proper, liveable condition, fit for reasonable human habitation. The Minister says "That is alright. We will reduce the price of the house for you by £4,000 to take account of the fact that those structural items need attention". The problem is: how will the tenant purchaser in such a case get the £4,000 to carry out these structural works? The local authority tenants who would be buying out their houses would not have the financial resources necessary to put the houses into proper structural condition. There is a fairly large number of people in this category that I am talking about. It will not be possible for the tenant to raise the £4,000 or £5,000 and therefore it means that, in effect, he will be buying a house that is inadequate and structurally unsatisfactory. It puts him in a very difficult and awkward position. If he avails of the scheme he will find himself in a house for which he would need £5,000 to put into proper condition and he has no hope of raising that money to get the house into reasonable condition. This is a real problem under the Minister's scheme and something ought to be done about it at this early stage.

I would ask the Minister to consider seriously that in a case where essential structural repairs are necessary to a house it should be possible to provide the amount required for that purpose as an additional loan apart from the loan for the actual house. That money could be spent on putting the house into proper and reasonable condition. Otherwise, such a tenant will be in an impossible situation. He will be in an impossible situation even if he decides not to avail of the scheme because the local authorities, certainly in the Dublin area, have never been well geared to carry out major works of that nature and in the present situation are even less so. It is no secret that the number of people employed by the corporation is reduced and reducing and that the resources available to the local authorities to carry our essential repairs, even on day-to-day matters, are reducing by the week. A very small number of dedicated workers of the local authorities are doing wonderful work, and I pay tribute to them, but they are fighting off the tide of repairs which they cannot cope with because the necessary manpower and resources are not available to them. The question of housing that needs structural work will have to be addressed if this scheme is to be a success. It will have to be addressed also in the case of people who do not take up the scheme.

The interest rate proposed is 9¼ per cent. That is too high. Interest rates have come down appreciably since the scheme was first introduced. A figure of 9¼ per cent is too high and the Minister should consider it in the light of interest rates as they are at present and as they are forecast. That figure ought to be revised downwards.

Local authority rents are far too high under the present schemes. The Coalition Government, and it is no credit to them, so organised their affairs in their closing years that very substantial increases occurred in local authority rents. The Fianna Fáil Party at the time involved themselves in very heavy criticism of the Government of the day for introducing these rent increases, which caused serious hardship for many people. One would have thought that, given the first opportunity on taking office, they would have reversed that position to implement the criticisms they were heaping on the last Government. But did they do anything like that? No, it was quite the reverse.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is there anything about it in the Bill?

Mr. Taylor

Yes, the whole subject of housing is in the Bill. The Minister introduced the Bill by saying that this Housing Bill is a major social measure. This is a measure that deals with housing, with local authorities and with the broad general subject of housing and rents. What I am saying is well within the ambit of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not see the word "rents" in the Bill but, however, I will allow the Deputy a passing reference to them.

Mr. Taylor

Did the Fianna Fáil Government do what they preached when in Opposition? Did they tackle this question of local authority rents which had been increased in many cases by 100 per cent or more? Not at all. They quite happily, and with some enthusiasm, not only adopted and took under their own wing the increase in rent that had taken place at that time but brought in their own further rent increase of £1.50 a week. It is interesting to note that there has not been much publicity about that increase. There was plenty of agitation about the previous one. The adoption of the Coalition's rent increase, coupled with the Fianna Fáil one on top of that, has made matters extremely difficult for many local authority tenants. I put forward the general proposition that the methods of assessment and the rents in general for local authority tenants are too high. The question of a reduction in those rents should be seriously considered by the Government.

One of the strange ironies in the field of rents in general, not only local authority rents although it applies there also, is evident when one compares the position of tenants paying rent with that of purchasers of houses. Purchasers of houses find themselves in a much more favourable position from an income tax point of view. One of the strange anomalies that has never been addressed realistically is that people who make mortgage repayments when purchasing their houses are allowed income tax relief on the interest on the repayments whereas local authority tenants and indeed any other tenants, with perhaps one or two minor exceptions, get no such concession. Local authority tenants should be given some income tax concession on the rents they pay. Many local authority tenants pay quite high rents. It is totally unfair that those rents should have no income tax allowance whatsoever whereas a person buying his house, presumably in a stronger financial position and who will own his house at the end of the day, is favoured with an income tax concession. This is one of those strange anomalies in our system under which the strong are favoured and the weak are penalised.

I heard Deputy Gregory talking about Dublin Corporation and saying they were doing a fine job as a housing authority. They certainly do a fine job in many respects, but I must highlight some of their shortcomings as a housing authority. It is no secret that Dublin Corporation are a major housing developer in County Dublin, but I am afraid their record in County Dublin has not been as good as it appears to be in their functional area of Dublin city. When they build houses in County Dublin it appears their responsibility ends there. They build the houses, move the people from central Dublin to Tallaght, Clondalkin and places like that, and that is it. They have no further responsibility for those people. I believe their obligation should go further. They should have, and should accept, an obligation to provide the amenities in these outlying areas — community halls, meeting rooms and so on. When we approach Dublin Corporation in this respect they are not quick to accept responsibility for the provision of these amenities. I know their resources have been cut back, like everybody else's, and that at the end of the day the responsibility falls on the Minister. But, as I said, when the corporation provide so many local authority houses in County Dublin they should be involved with the county council to a greater extent in providing basic facilities than they have done heretofore.

Previous speakers referred to the level of vacant houses. That has been a problem: but it is a lessening problem, in part due to the economic policies of this Government which are advising so many people to leave our shores. If employment was provided for these people they would be occupying those houses; but, regrettably, we see no sign of that. Therefore, let us not wonder why we have the problem of vacant houses.

I want to say a brief word about travellers. We hear a lot of talk about the resettlement of travellers by local authorities, and excellent work has been done in many areas towards that end, but it is very far from adequate. My feeling is that there is a lack of real will on the part of many local authorities to tackle effectively the problem of providing appropriate accommodation for travellers — be they hard stands to start with or group housing or whatever at a later stage. Since I first became involved in political life in 1969 I have watched this problem and noticed that not much change has occurred in all that time.

For example, in the Dublin County Council area there are many travellers on unauthorised sites. The county council brought in a plan which they adopted before the last local election. This plan would have provided a number of sites and made appreciable inroads into the problem; but, unfortunately, after the local elections that policy was reversed under some hare brained scheme introduced by the Fianna Fáil members on Dublin County Council saying that on every estate they would have a site for four or five travelling families.

The Minister for the Environment will have to take a much more interventionist role in providing much-needed housing accommodation and stands for the travelling community. I do not think at this stage we can leave it solely within the realm of the local authorities. That has been tried and has been only a partial success. Much more needs to be done and an intervention at ministerial or Government level is essential if we are to make any serious and realistic inroads into solving this very human problem.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Flanagan, and he has five minutes.

Mr. Flanagan

I realise time is at a premium but a comment by Deputy Foley prompted me to come into the Chamber to contribute to this debate. He congratulated the Minister for the trojan work he has done by way of capital allocation for housing in various parts of County Kerry. I wonder if I am living in the same country as Deputy Foley when it comes to capital allocations for housing, because in County Laois there will be no local authority housing starts in 1988. This is very regrettable when one considers the trojan work which has been done by all Governments in tackling the very lengthy housing lists over the past ten or 15 years. It is sad that there will be no new starts this year.

All sides of the House are prepared to give this Bill a cautious welcome, because it contains a number of positive approaches towards solving our housing problems. I am concerned that the Bill does not go far enough in that it does not place an obligation on local authorities to accommodate people who are in desperate need of housing. There are a number of questions we must put to the Minister. How does he propose to deal with a local authority who say they cannot house the homeless, or who decide that there is not an onus on them to tackle this problem? In my view, the Bill lacks teeth because it does not oblige local authorities to take action in this area. Perhaps we might consider addressing this problem on Committee Stage.

Over the years it appears the policy in the Department has been that we should build, build and build again, and look after our housing stock. Success was based on the number of houses built in any area. It is time for us to look at the needs of the community rather than think in terms of housing numbers. I would like to see greater emphasis on maisonettes in housing estates or on the periphery of local authority housing estate. There is no need for a single person or a married couple without a family to be given a local authority house with three or four bedrooms. That is a waste and everyone will agree this aspect must be tackled. The social acceptability of the maisonette, the small one-bedroomed house, is that it is more than sufficient to meet the needs of many people in our community.

In times of stringent cutbacks, greater emphasis must be placed on the concept of the rural cottage. Again, in capital allocations for housing, where they have not been drastically cut, we see emphasis being placed on urban housing to such an extent that rural cottages are becoming a thing of the past. In my own constituency people have been on housing lists for rural cottages for something like eight or nine years. The Minister, and certainly the junior Minister who represents the same area, understand this problem. I would ask them to take the necessary action.

The Minister made reference to the need to tackle the problem of itinerants. Time will not permit me to elaborate on that, but I hope on Committee Stage we will be able to tease out the various problems. There are certain difficulties in so far as the courts will not take action to move on itinerants from parking in an arbitrary manner on the roadside. They have put the onus firmly back on the Government. I would like greater moves made towards expanding the number of halting sites and, indeed, housing facilities for the itinerants, that local authorities could work in tandem with the social facilities available through the health boards, as mentioned by the Minister.

It is a question of funding. If we must accept the fact that we cannot possibly have the same amount of funding this year and next year as in the past, I should like greater use made of the paltry resources in the Department of the Environment to ensure that there will be no waste. We must look at the amount of money spent by local authorities on repairs. A move could be made to take out of the ambit of the local authority responsibility for each and every item of repair. From that point of view, the tenant purchase scheme is a good one. It is just a matter of monitoring how many tenants will take advantage of that scheme. I am sorry that I have not sufficient time to go into the Bill in greater detail. I am prepared to give it a cautious welcome and hope the Minister will address at the earliest opportunity the very real problems that exist.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

First, I should like to thank all the Members who contributed to this debate on Second Stage for the considered way in which they approached the subject. They raised so many issues it would be impossible to deal even with a minimum number in the time available to me. At the same time, I should like to make reference to some of the matters raised and perhaps specific items can be dealt with on Committee Stage.

The welcome has been general and that is appreciated by me considering that it has taken quite some time for this legislation to come before the House. That is a good Bill. It deals effectively with many of the problems that have arisen in so far as matters related to housing are concerned. It also deals with many items other than homelessness. Many of those items were neglected on Second Stage because the matter of greatest concern to those who contributed was the question of homelessness. However, it must be remembered that other matters are dealt with also and are of considerable importance in the whole question of housing.

The Bill takes note of the changes that have occurred in housing circumstances. We have changes in population, in family structures, in social and economic structures and they must be reflected in the way in which housing legislation is contemplated. We also must take due notice of the fact that there is a large diminution in the demand for housing. It is incumbent upon me, as Minister, to see to it that we make the most efficient use of our existing housing stock and that is what is proposed. That is why increased moneys are being made available in support of the remedial schemes that have been applied to many of the older blocks of apartments and some of the low-cost housing that was started many years ago and now needs to have much money spent on it to bring it back to a habitable condition.

We will make more efficient use of the existing housing stock. I am a great believer in having new ideas with regard to the design of housing schemes and planning for the special needs of special types of people and special groups in society. I make no apology at all for the termination of some of the bad schemes which were in place when I came into office. Some of them have been referred to by some Deputies who are shedding no tears for the termination. Some new items have been introduced which have helped out enormously, for instance, new arrangements for SDA funding and, in particular, the new tenant purchase scheme which has received a general welcome from everybody who spoke about it here.

Many suggestions were made and it appears there will be some amendments tabled concerning matters raised on the Bill. I shall give consideration to any amendments that are put down and I welcome the input of any Deputy who feels it necessary to put such amendments down for discussion at a later stage.

I welcome the broad support that Deputy Boland gave to this legislation and to the basic thrust of the Government's approach to the problem of homelessness. That is not the only item dealt with in this legislation, but it seems to have triggered off most of the comments at this stage. Deputy Boland was quite generous in his welcome for the additional resources we have been able to commit to the provision of voluntary housing accommodation for the homeless. I was taken by the Deputy's honesty in recognising the difficulties posed by a statutory obligation such as contained in the 1985 Bill. He expressed regret that in his period of office more resources could not have been channelled to the voluntary housing organisations, as the Government are now doing. Many references were made to the question of the statutory obligation and if I get an opportunity I shall deal with that at greater length, but I must deal with it on Committee Stage.

We should finally put to bed the whole question of the background developments regarding the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill of 1985. On 19 March, 1983 Senator Brendan Ryan introduced his Bill which included a statutory obligation on housing authorities to secure accommodation for homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness. I was taken by Deputy Quinn's long contribution on Second Stage and his discreet and muted reference to the shambles in the Seanad during the debate on the legislation introduced by Senator Ryan. It will be remembered that on 9 November 1983 quite some time after Senator Brendan Ryan introduced the Bill in the Seanad, the Government decided to oppose its Second Reading, tabling an amendment to Senator Ryan's motion. The Government amendment at that time could not be moved because the Labour Party refused to support it and the then Minister of State, Deputy Quinn, gave an undertaking that he would introduce as soon as possible legislation to define clearly the question of homelessness and what constituted being homeless.

Senator Ryan's Bill, even though it was unacceptable to the Government, could not be defeated in the Seanad and it passed Second Stage in July 1985, some time after its introduction. The then Minister for the Environment — Deputy Kavanagh, a party colleague of Deputy Quinn — subsequently introduced a Housing Bill in 1985, about two years after it had been promised in the Seanad by Deputy Quinn. The Second Stage debate began in December 1985 and resumed in January 1986. It finally passed Second Stage in November 1986. This is the legislation which had been talked about years before that. There was Labour Party involvement in Government, Labour Party spokesmen on housing and a Labour Party Minister for the Environment and they failed to get the matter dealt with.

Mr. Quinn

That is not true.

Mr. Flynn

The Bill lapsed on the dissolution of the 24th Dáil without reaching Committee Stage. Therefore, it ill behoves Deputy Quinn to criticise as inadequate the serious and positive approach of this Government to the problems of the homeless when the Government on whose behalf he professed to give this undertaking in the Seanad so long ago failed to have their own Bill enacted in the period between the date of its undertaking and the dissolution of the Dáil in January 1987. Deputy Quinn makes a good case when arguing on the Opposition benches, but he had a great chance to do something when he was dealing with this matter. He did not even have to deal with a partner in Government from the other side; he could have dealt with his own party, a member of which was in the position which I now hold. But, collectively, they failed to deliver the goods on something about which they had been preaching far too much. I have yet to hear any explanation from Deputy Quinn as to why the Bill promised in 1983 and published in 1985 could not have been enacted before 1987. His contribution to the Bill was predictable.

It might be helpful to sketch briefly, for the benefit of some Deputies, the more enlightened statistics on local authority housing. I had not intended to do this but I must reply to Deputy Taylor and others. Rental income in 1987 was estimated at £51 million from local authority lettings or just 70 per cent of the cost of maintenance and management of our rented housing stock. The average rent of local authority dwellings is just over £8 per week. The cost of providing a new local authority dwelling is somewhere between £71 and £75 per week. I take some exception to Deputy Taylor casting aspersions on the Government by saying that there is not enough money for maintenance and so on when he should recognise that there was a shortfall last year, between rental, maintenance and management expenses, of £32 million. At the end of last year some 1,700 local authority houses were vacant. I accept that some vacancies are obviously unavoidable; and many Deputies will know from their own experience that the problem of vacant and vandalised local authority houses has increased in recent years. Dublin Corporation have about 650 dwellings which they regard as unlettable due to vandalism.

The number of unoccupied dwellings and those vandalised over the past number of years should be a matter of considerable concern. There is no argument — except in very special cases of special categories in special locations — for spending large sums of money building new schemes when there are so many unoccupied houses available. I request general support in the House for a way of dealing with that before we build new housing schemes and leave the old houses to be vandalised. That is not the way forward.

Mr. Quinn

I agree.

Mr. Flynn

There are many provisions in the legislation dealing with homelessness. I will refer to them now because, if I do not, it will be said that I dodged the issue. Section 2 says that a person shall be regarded by a housing authority as being homeless for the purposes of this Act if there is no accommodation available which, in the opinion of the authority, he, together with any other person who normally resides with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him, can reasonably occupy or remain in occupation of, or if he is living in a hospital, county home, night shelter or other such institution and is so living because he has no accommodation of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), and the is, in the opinion of the authority, unable to provide accommodation from his own resources.

Simon hostels are regarded as night shelters and there is no difficulty in regard to the definition. It can certainly be expanded, but I have gone as far as it could be reasonably expected of me, in so far as the resources available to me are concerned, in dealing with the question of homelessness.

Under section 9 homeless persons will have to be specifically taken into account in assessing housing needs. This is a big advance and should be welcomed here. An assessment will have to be carried out within one year of the commencement of the legislation and further assessments will be on the direction of the Minister. There are certain elements in the legislation where the Minister can, where he feels that a local authority is not complying with the word or the spirit of this legislation, step in and direct them accordingly. That will apply to other Ministers for the Environment when I am long gone. The power is being put in to enable any Minister to move in a particular direction if he is not satisfied that fair play is being given to the homeless in so far as the sections of the Bill are concerned.

Housing authorities will have to give notice of the making of an assessment to adjoining housing authorities, health boards and bodies concerned with the provision of accommodation, shelter or welfare. I regard that as important, it was left out of housing legislation in the past and there did not seem to be co-ordination between the other agencies such as health boards and so on. This will enable those bodies to bring to the attention of the housing authority the person in need of housing accommodation and he will then be considered for inclusion in the assessment. That is a vital element of this legislation. Section 10 goes further because it will empower housing authorities to make arrangements with voluntary bodies for the provision of accommodation for homeless persons and to provide assistance, including financial assistance, to homeless persons. If necessary, they can rent accommodation, arrange lodgings or contribute to the cost of such accommodation or lodgings. I have gone quite some distance — perhaps even further than what was contemplated on a previous occasion — to take on board all the possibilities where local authorities might need to activate themselves to deal with instances of homelessness.

There is a provision for the recoupment of all or part of housing authority expenses under section 10 and a provision of £400,000 has been made available this year to cater for that purpose in 1988. I have provided money to deal with every single element of housing that I contemplated or undertook since I became Minister. The money element was always talked about and money was always provided, as it is under the provisions of section 10 of this Bill.

Under section 11 housing authorities will be empowered to set aside some of their accommodation for homeless persons. As far as I am concerned, this is a big breakthrough and this provision is being specifically introduced so as to ensure that local authorities cannot dodge their responsibilities in dealing with the homeless. They will have to set aside some of their accommodation for homeless persons. Once again, if the Minister is not satisfied that the local authorities are not taking their responsibilities seriously in this regard he can direct a housing authority to amend their scheme. First of all, they will have to set aside some of their accommodation for homeless persons and if they are not providing accommodation from their available housing stock the Minister can direct them to amend their scheme. This power could be used to ensure that a local authority makes adequate provision for the homeless.

I regret that I cannot spend more time in dealing with this legislation. It is fundamental legislation and there is some fundamental thinking behind it. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to put on record the reason why I cannot recommend a statutory obligation being put on the local authorities. I do not believe that it is the right way in which to proceed. A very solid and convincing case could be made in support of my position and perhaps I will get the opportunity on Committee Stage to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Boland

The Minister said that he has made moneys available for all housing matters. I asked the Minister in my Second Stage contribution to indicate to the House the number of new housing starts he has sanctioned during 1988 for the cities of Galway, Limerick, Cork, Waterford, Dublin city and county. I think the Minister forgot to refer to that in his reply.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Minister has taken note of the fact that he is presumed to have forgotten but he cannot recollect now because we have gone beyond the time allowed.

Mr. Flynn

I have taken a copious note of everything that has been said but let me correct one of the things which has been said. I was not here to move this Bill, and my Minister of State did so. It was unfair and a little unkind to suggest that I was walking away from it. I was on official Government business in another location and I was back to hear most of the debate. This was not conceded by any of those who subsequently spoke.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 9 Jun 1988

Housing Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Jun 1988