Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 1999

Vol. 511 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Local Authority Housing.

I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to raise this matter. I tabled a parliamentary question on this matter yesterday but, unfortunately, because of time constraints, I could not respond to the points raised in the Minister of State's reply.

I appreciate that the Minister of State cannot intervene in individual housing cases, nor do I expect that he would do so. I also want to answer a point he made yesterday. The Minister said that I should contact Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in respect of the issues I have raised. I assure the Minister that I would not bring them to the floor of this House unless I had made numerous representations, written and by telephone, without much success. The Minister can ensure that the local authority applies the letting priorities scheme in accordance with the scheme approved by him and his Department. This is what I am asking.

I will highlight the manner in which gross overcrowding points are applied. I will repeat the examples I gave yesterday. A widow with a 14 year old son and a 19 year old daughter living in a one bedroom flat does not get any points for gross overcrowding or for her daughter because she is now over 18. What that has to do with housing conditions is beyond me. I raised this matter with the local authority with no success.

The next case I mentioned was that of a mother and daughter in her early 20s. The mother was evicted from the house she had rented for a number of years because her rent, as is common in my area, was increased from £400 per month to £800. She fought the case in both the District Court and the Circuit Court. She then had to move in with her son and daughter in law and their baby, who live in a two bedroom house. Points are not given for the daughter because she is now in her early 20s, despite the fact that this lady has been on the housing list for eight to ten years. When she went on the housing list, her daughter was in her early teens. Neither are gross overcrowding points being given despite the fact that they are sleeping the same bedroom as the grandchild and her daughter shares the bed with the grandchild. The answer I got to my query was that it was not the proper use of accommodation. In a two bedroom house? Simple overcrowding points but no gross overcrowding points were given. In that case, if the person had been given the correct points, she would be at the top of the list.

In the third case a divorced mother and her daughter, aged 17, are sleeping on a mattress in the sitting room because the bedrooms are full. The local authority refuses to give gross overcrowding points because it says the sleeping area is adequate given the measurements of the room. Since when are people expected to live in the sitting room on a mattress on the floor? By the same logic, if a person lives in the back yard, they will not get gross overcrowding points because the yard is too big.

These are matters which are subject to a letting priority scheme which should be the business of the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Minister of the day.

Will the Minister in his reply say if he thinks it is reasonable that there should be a cessation of points when a child reaches 18 because that then reduces the number of points a person has, despite the fact that the child is still living with the applicant? It has nothing to do with housing conditions.

In his reply yesterday, the Minister stated that it is ten years since the explanatory notes and guidelines were issued by his Department for housing authorities. I respectfully suggest that after ten years it is time those guidelines were updated and that the Department pays attention to how the letting priority schemes are being worked by the local authorities, particularly by the environmental health officers who carry out the inspections.

I recognise that it is a matter for the local authority members to draw up a letting priority scheme but my understanding, confirmed by the Minister's reply, is that each time it is altered, it requires his and the Department's approval. I have been a public representative for 25 years and never in that time have I witnessed worse housing conditions in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council area. It is extraordinary that in a local authority area where there is no programme to deal with a list of 1,800 people, there is no land available and people are left on the housing list while stricter application of the scheme is applied by the local authority.

I would like the Minister to respond to the points I have made rather than give an overall statement from the Department. I do not expect him to intervene in any particular case, I am only asking for fair play so that people who are living in appalling conditions are given the points they should get and that we cut out this nonsense. Will he give me an assurance, given that / am highlighting these cases, that he will examine the housing situation in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown housing authority?

The question asked by the Deputy was as follows:

To ask the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the way in which he ensures that housing authorities adhere to the letting priorities schemes approved by this Department, and his views on whether it is appropriate that housing authority does not allocate gross overcrowding points to a family who have to sleep on the living room floor due to the fact that there is no space available in the bedrooms.

In the reply to the Question, I informed the Deputy that each housing authority is responsible for making a scheme of letting priorities to govern the letting of tenancies in its houses. Not all local authorities use the points system, although it is the one that is used by this authority. I am not familiar with its operation – it has never been used by any of the housing authorities of which I have been a member or which are in my constituency.

It happens that way in Dublin.

The making or amendment of a scheme is a reserved function of the elected members of the authority under section 11 of the Housing Act, 1988, and is subject to the approval of the Minister to ensure the scheme is in accordance with statutory requirements and that all categories of need are covered by the scheme. This scheme was adopted by the elected members of the authority.

Explanatory notes and guidelines were issued to housing authorities in 1989 on the making of such schemes. These advised housing authorities that it should be the aim of a scheme to promote equality of opportunity in getting access to local authority housing based on relative housing needs. Subject to compliance with section 11 and regard being had to the guidelines, it is a matter for each housing authority to determine the detailed criteria to be included in its scheme.

The determination of priority in the allocation of a local authority house is a matter for the local authority in accordance with its scheme of letting priorities and I am precluded by statute from intervening in a way that might be construed as directing the letting of a house to a particular individual.

My Department does not monitor or police how local authorities allocate tenancies in individual cases, nor would it be appropriate to do so as it would undermine the statutory responsibility of the local authority in this important regard. Moreover, I am statutorily barred from intervening to secure the allocation of local authority accommodation in any particular case.

It is not, therefore, appropriate for me to intervene in any of the individual cases raised by the Deputy. Such instances should be taken up with the local authority—

They have been.

—and at the highest management level if this is considered necessary by the Deputy. It is not the case that I wish to be unhelpful to the Deputy in pursuing these matters but it remains statutorily my role as Minister to concentrate on the overall broader policy issues and not to attempt to second guess the judgment of the local authority which is, or at least should be, in possession of all the relevant facts in any individual case.

I was given that answer last night.

Yes, and the Deputy repeated the question tonight.

I asked specific questions.

The Deputy raised the same questions and gave the same facts as he did yesterday.

I hope I was more generous when I was a Minister.

I am anxious to help but I have a statutory position. The Deputy has been a Minister and fully understands my role and that I am statutorily barred from interfering.

I asked the Minister to check that the scheme is being applied in the manner approved by his Department.

I cannot get involved in individual cases. If I could, with 39,000 people on the waiting lists for local authority houses, there would be 39,000 questions every day.

I just asked the Minister of State to ensure that the scheme is applied on the grounds under which it was approved.

This is the reality. It applies on the ground in the local authority area. I do not want the Deputy to feel that I am not anxious to help. The law is there and he must well understand it. Raising the matter here will not resolve it.

The Minister of State is telling me to get in touch with the local authority. Look at these files.

I mentioned it despite the fact that I have not a statutory role in this. I pointed out to the Deputy yesterday that if he wished to give me details of the case—

I just gave them to the Minister of State.

Deputy Barrett, please allow the Minister of State to conclude.

How can I have any information? I do not want names mentioned in the House.

I have no information. I have hypothetical cases.

Is it fair that somebody must sleep on a mattress in a living room?

The Minister of State should draw his remarks to a conclusion.

The Deputy should raise that with those who have a statutory responsibility in this matter. He is taking the easy way out by coming into the House and raising the issue with me when he is aware that I have no role in the matter.

I suggest that the Minister of State and the Deputy have a word outside the House.

That is an unfair comment.

Top
Share