Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jul 2016

Vol. 919 No. 1

Housing (Sale of Local Authority Housing) Bill 2016: Second Stage [Private Members]

Deputy Barry Cowen

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to introduce this short Bill and my colleagues, with whom I will share time, will elaborate on its contents and the reasons behind it. They have suggestions which I hope the Minister will consider when initiating a review of the tenant purchase scheme which came into effect earlier this year under the previous Government. It was welcomed at the time because we had not had one since 2012. When one considers the number who have availed of it to date, just 73, it begs the question as to its effect or the restrictive nature and conditions associated with it. It would appear they are quite evident based on the representations I have had from my constituents and from many colleagues in my party who have raised the issue of the restrictive nature of it in regard to incomes and age barriers over the last number of months. However, my colleagues will elaborate on these.

If this Bill is accepted, it will give all tenants in local authority owned social housing an opportunity to purchase their homes. It will give tenants in local authority homes acquired under Part V specifically the option to apply to seek to purchase that home. Those tenants in Part V homes were excluded from the Government’s recently introduced tenant purchase scheme under the guise of preserving mixed tenure in these developments, many of which date back to 2002. They number almost 4,000 at this stage.

A clear path to home ownership should not be the sole preserve of the private market. Owning a home is a vital asset for families and represents a positive transfer of wealth towards low income groups. Mixed tenure housing estates are a key part of the Fianna Fáil vision for strong families and stable, thriving communities. However, the exclusion of Part V houses by the Government in its tenant purchase scheme discriminates against lower income households in mixed communities.

The Bill, if accepted, will give local authority tenants the right to make a long-term investment in their community by owning their own homes. Far from depleting the social housing stock in an area, the sale of local authority homes via the tenant purchase scheme actually provides an opportunity to replenish and enhance the public housing stock anew. That is especially pertinent, considering the launch yesterday by the Minister, on behalf of the Government, of the housing strategy. The aspirations contained within the strategy seek to replenish our stock and to address the stop gaps and the failings of previous strategies and plans by seeking to do what had been originally promised. We wish that strategy well. We debated it yesterday and will continue to do so this evening when my colleagues will contribute to the debate. They will highlight not only the positive aspects within the strategy but also some of the gaps. We will seek to implore the Government to close those gaps before budget.

The tenant purchase scheme releases equity from the sale of council owned homes and removes the costs associated with the maintenance and upkeep of those homes, funding which can then be reinvested in new social housing. I would expect that any sales from tenant purchase schemes to date and into the future, including Part V, should be retained by the local authority in which the tenants reside. There should be discretionary spending within the housing departments of the local authorities to ensure adequate funds are in place to meet the maintenance demands of other housing stock - in the case of those tenants who are not in a position to seek to purchase their home at that time.

My colleagues will elaborate and will raise other issues on the Bill. I seek support for the Bill so Part V occupants can purchase their homes.

Deputy Shane Cassells

Home ownership is at the heart of this Bill, which was moved by Deputy Cowen. Owning one's home is at the very core of who we are for historical reasons, which do not need to be repeated here. The dream of owning a home has gone out of the reach of many people over the past five years. Even after the announcement of the housing strategy yesterday, there is a feature in today's Irish Independent where a young mum, Paula Saul, aged only 28, admitted that it was too late for her to ever own her own property. The article stated that although she is on the waiting list for a council house, Paula and her four-year old daughter are going down in the list of priority rather than up, when they were revaluated by the council. It took Ms Saul one year to find housing that would accept rent allowance. When the issue of home ownership is addressed today, it is people such as Paula Saul who are uppermost in my mind. Unless we broaden the opportunities for people to realise the dream of home ownership, we will see an entire generation for whom the dream will remain just a dream and no more. The headline that screamed out from the pages of the Irish Independent this morning, "I am afraid that it's already too late for me to ever own my own property", will continue for years to come.

We are trying to give people such as Paula some hope. We have to hope that the encouragement provided in the strategy published by the Minister will see a re-emergence of private construction of homes. Despite the verbal waffle of some Deputies yesterday, such that by Deputy Boyd Barrett who seems to think that storks deliver houses as a nixer to delivering babies, I fully appreciate the need for a healthy construction sector if we are ever going to see the number on housing waiting lists come down.

On top of this, there is a housing crisis for people who have the financial means to purchase a home because of the sheer lack of supply. Please God we will see a recommencement of construction and that we will then see Part V play an important part in the delivery of homes for those on council housing waiting lists. If that happens, why should those who availed of Part V homes be treated differently from those allocated council-constructed homes and not be allowed to purchase them at some stage in the future? Why should the dreams of people like Paula and her daughter be smashed by virtue of the category of home allocated to them?

I have listened to my constituency colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government with responsibility for housing, Deputy English, speak in the Chamber about the reasons people in Part V homes are not allowed to purchase them. He explained it was because of the need to maintain a mixed tenure, but he has stated that he remains open to having his mind changed, and I hope the Minister will too if a good argument is presented. The story of that young mum in today's Irish Independent is the good reason. The young mums and dads whom I and Deputy English meet in Navan, Trim, Oldcastle and Castlepollard and all over our constituency are the good reason. There will not be a mad rush to buy up all of these homes by local authority tenants just because the option exists, so why would the Minister set his face against the idea of allowing people the option to purchase their homes? There is no need to hold firm against the idea simply because it does not sit with the primary legislation. The Minister should think of the people we all meet every week in our constituency offices and allow them to dream - allow Paula and her daughter the hope of purchasing a home. The Minister should not let that headline in the Irish Independent be the mantra and the smashed dream for so many people. He should make the option of purchasing a home a reality and give those people a chance.

Deputy Pat Casey

The tenant purchase scheme introduced by the previous Government in January has received only 73 applications countrywide to date. The reason given for excluding Part V houses from the tenant purchase scheme was to ensure that the aim of Part V - that is, to have social housing stock available in private housing developments - was not diluted. If, however, the logic of that reason was followed we would not have a tenant purchase scheme at all.

There is a separate debate to be had about the sale and resulting reduction of the limited social housing stock we have, but that is for another day. What is not sensible or appropriate public policy, however, is for the Government to cherry-pick which tenants get the chance to purchase their homes while other tenants are frozen out of the possibility of owning their homes. It should be obvious that equality of treatment must be at the heart of Government policy across all areas, but particularly in respect of housing. A functioning republic is correctly assessed on equality of all citizens before the law. Public policy on housing must be transparent and fair. It should have been obvious to the previous Fine Gael Government that its tenant purchase scheme was not transparent and fair but, as it was not, Fianna Fáil will honour its duty to the people who put us here as reflected in this Bill.

There were previous versions of the tenant purchase scheme in local authority systems. In Wicklow the moneys received were known as internal capital receipts and used to fund other housing-related activities such as refurbishments. The extension of the tenant purchase scheme to all who have the capacity would increase the moneys available to local authorities to reinvest in their housing stock, so from a financial perspective also this is a no-brainer. It is a simple Bill, a one-page, equality-based proposal. I cannot for the life of me think of a single reason to oppose this Bill, even from the political perspective of the Government. Considering that this is a new Dáil with, hopefully, a more pragmatic and inclusive approach to policy formulation, I ask the Minister to convince his colleagues to support this Bill.

Deputy Jack Chambers

I am very pleased that my party colleague, Deputy Barry Cowen, has brought this important issue before the House and I am happy to speak on this Bill. Housing, as we all know, is probably the most important issue facing us at the moment. I wish the Minister well in what is a very big challenge and the plan he announced yesterday. It is important because it is an issue we all face every day in our constituency offices. Moreover, the issue of whether tenants should be allowed to purchase their own homes is becoming more widespread. If accepted, this Bill will give all tenants in local-authority-owned social homes the opportunity to buy their homes. It will give tenants in local authority homes acquired under Part V schemes the right to apply to own their own homes. This is something that people across the country want, but are deprived of doing. If people were given a Part V house, why should they be excluded because they happened to get what is now an unfortunate or unlucky allocation? We should fill that legal lacuna and grant these people an opportunity to buy their own homes. Over the past 13 years, acquisitions of social and affordable housing units under Part V amounted to almost 16,000. The majority of purchases were of affordable housing units, while social housing units accounted for 38%, including acquisitions by the approved housing bodies.

The Bill before us today will affect some 4,000 households. The rule that prevents people from purchasing their homes is a result of the new tenant purchase scheme that was introduced in January 2016 and replaced the 2012 scheme. Those in Part V schemes were unfairly excluded. Fianna Fáil believes this is a senseless bureaucratic restriction that needs to be overhauled. The idea behind this restriction is to ensure residential communities remain as mixed-tenure developments, but this does not appear to be in keeping with the aim of the scheme. Indeed, the tenant purchase scheme as it stands discriminates against lower-income households in these mixed communities by stating that it is only the right of higher-income households in mixed communities to have an opportunity to own their own homes. This is fundamentally wrong and unfair.

All Deputies in this House will agree that communities work best when people take pride in their community and locality. People are stronger when they have a place to call their own and have the opportunity to buy their own homes. Local authority tenants are an important aspect of this. For this reason, primarily, Deputies from all parties and none should support this Bill. Critics of tenant purchase schemes claim that they deplete housing stock, but the evidence shows that this is not the case. If tenant purchase schemes are operated properly and prudently, they can actually add to the housing stock. The length of tenure in a council-owned social home usually covers the entire life cycle of the household tenants. Once a family is allocated to a local authority home, it usually stays in that home until the couple or single person heading that household dies. Indeed, it is relatively rare for tenants living alone in three- and four-bedroom houses, for instance, to apply to be placed on the social housing transfer list. Furthermore, it is neither feasible nor right to encourage or force older people whose children have moved out and are living alone in two-, three- and four-bedroom council houses onto a transfer list. In my constituency, people have been restricted in this way under the current tenant purchase scheme. This is not to do with the Bill being proposed here, but there are people who want to buy their own homes who might be in a four-bedroom house but because only three bedrooms are being used the council excludes that family from purchasing their own home. There are many underlying issues in addition to what we are speaking about today which are unfair and discriminatory, including on age. If adults have moved out of a house and other family members are still working and want to purchase their own home, they should have the opportunity to do so if they can. That has to be considered in the context of the legislation introduced previously in addition to the amendment we are proposing today. Council tenants usually occupy their social homes for a period of anywhere between ten and 40 years. During this period, in practice the occupied home is taken out of the social housing stock. Whereas voluntary or co-operative housing bodies use social housing stock with existing tenants as collateral to borrow private finances, local authorities do not do this. Therefore, far from depleting the social housing stock in an area, the sale of local authority homes via tenant purchase schemes actually provides an opportunity to replenish and enhance the public housing stock.

There are other cases, such as one I saw last week, of families who received an adaptation grant for a person with a disability but have since been excluded by the council from purchasing their homes on the basis that the council wants to retain housing stock that has been upgraded through adaptation grants. The Department and the Minister need to consider why the adaptation grant is not being progressed for new housing stock tenants who cannot get the adaptation grants they want and are trying to progress. That is extremely unfair. People are being excluded on the basis of age and the natural progression of families, or because someone in the family has a disability. That is wrong.

This measure was introduced in Statutory Instrument 485 of 2015. It is punitive and unfair and it sends the wrong message. For a Government that has introduced a Minister with responsibility for disability, who sits at the Cabinet table, to exclude people with a disability from purchasing their home is wrong, unfair and needs to be reviewed, together with the issue of age discrimination and so on.

As has been mentioned, only 73 applications have been made via the new scheme. It needs to be overhauled. It has not worked and I hope the Minister reviews it.

Ultimately, the pathways to home ownership should not be the preserve of the private market. This Bill will allow thousands of families to realise their dream of home ownership.

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Simon Coveney)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:

“the Bill be deemed to be read a Second Time on 31 March 2017, to allow for—

(a) the Tenant (Incremental) Purchase Scheme to be reviewed after one year in operation, in line with the commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government. The review will commence in January 2017 and the intention is to complete it by 31 March 2017; and

(b) the opportunity, in the context of that review, to consider the proposal, as set out in the Housing (Sale of Local Authority Housing) Bill 2016, to include Part V houses for sale under the 2016 Tenant (Incremental) Purchase Scheme.”.

I thank Deputy Cowen for providing this opportunity for Members to discuss the important issue of tenant purchase of local authority housing. I have tabled an amendment to the motion, which recognises the commitment outlined in the programme for Government to review the operation of the new tenant incremental purchase scheme following the first 12 months of its operation, with the review to be completed by 31 March 2017.

The amendment also notes that the review of the scheme will provide an opportunity to fully consider all issues relating to the purchase of Part V houses. This will include, in particular, consideration of the impact the inclusion of Part V houses in the new tenant purchase scheme would have on the policy objectives of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the most appropriate management of social housing stock generally, in a time of increasing demand and stock shortages.

I fully acknowledge the importance of tenant purchase schemes in providing an opportunity for social housing tenants to become home owners and also as a means of promoting sustainable communities. The new scheme for existing local authority houses has been well received since its introduction last January and is a very good scheme. Local authorities have reported considerable interest from tenants in all areas, and this will be reflected in the activity data for the scheme during the first six months of implementation which I will be in a position to publish on the Department's website shortly.

The Housing (Sale of Local Authority Houses) Regulations 2015 set out the detailed terms and conditions of the new tenant purchase scheme for existing local authority houses, which is provided under Part 3 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014. The regulations provide for a number of specified classes of houses to be excluded from sale under the scheme. These exclusions were determined by my Department following considerable analysis undertaken during the development of the scheme. Broadly, the exclusions relate to houses which have been provided to fulfil specific policy objectives, stock that is in short supply or houses that have been provided to meet the particular needs of certain groups of households.

The exclusions include houses provided for older people; group housing which has been provided for occupation by Traveller households; and housing for people with a physical or intellectual disability transitioning from institutional care to community-based living in line with the Government policy as set out in the housing strategy for people with disabilities and the HSE document Transforming Lives. In addition, local authorities have discretion under the regulations to implement local exclusions in order to facilitate the proper management of their housing stock.

The Bill refers to Part V housing. The regulations specifically provide for the exclusion of these houses under the scheme, and there is a clear basis for this approach. Part V of the Planning and Development Act aims to deliver social housing as part of new developments and promote integration and sustainable mixed tenure communities across the country. The housing strategy which each authority is required to prepare under that Part must, among other things, encourage mixed and balanced communities in order to counteract undue social segregation.

In considering the Part V agreement in the case of a particular development, a planning authority is required to consider a number of things, including the need to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social backgrounds and the area of the authority. The authority must also consider whether the agreement will contribute effectively and efficiently to the achievement of the objectives of the housing strategy, whether it will constitute the best use of the resources available to it to ensure an adequate supply of housing, any financial implications of the agreement and its functions as a housing authority and whether the agreement is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan.

I consider that the sale of houses to tenants secured under Part V would go against the objectives of Part V, as these houses could be sold on and would no longer be available for people in need of social housing support. This would, over time, erode the original policy goals of Part V and reduce the tenure mix in relevant estates and communities. For this reason, the regulations governing the new tenant incremental purchase scheme provide that houses transferred under an agreement under Part V may not be sold by a housing authority.

Deputies will have had time to review and consider the action plan for housing and homelessness published yesterday. Accelerating delivery of housing for the private, social and rental sectors is a key priority for Government, and the plan therefore sets out practical and readily implementable actions that will increase housing supply to create a functioning and sustainable housing system.

One of the key pillars of the plan is to ensure better utilisation of our existing social housing stock in order to achieve optimum occupancy of the stock, whether social or private housing. The retention of existing Part V units and future Part V delivery is an important component of the plan and consistent with Government policy of delivering sustainable communities and the promotion of tenure diversification.

Ultimately, there is no doubt that we all want to ensure the new tenant purchase scheme is a success for tenants and the communities in which they live. That is why my Department is monitoring the implementation of the scheme very carefully in conjunction with the housing authorities. As outlined in the Government’s amendment to the motion, we will undertake a full review of the new scheme in conjunction with the CCMA and the Housing Agency. That will commence in January 2017, a year after the scheme has been in existence. I intend to have the review completed no later than 31 March 2017 and I will bring forward any changes to the terms and conditions of the scheme which are deemed appropriate based on evidence and data gathered.

As part of the review, I intend to examine, with the housing authorities, alternative options which may be available for existing tenants of Part V houses who wish to purchase a local authority house and to consider issues around the allocation of Part V houses by local authorities consistent with the terms and conditions of the tenant purchase scheme. I look forward to engaging with Deputies in regard to that review.

I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiments expressed by Members opposite in terms of trying to provide the opportunity of home ownership to everybody who wants it. We also need to balance the other pressures that we as a country face. We have a dramatic shortage of social housing in Ireland. We are trying to change the way in which we provide social housing and how communities interact, and have private and social housing next to each other.

The idea that we would, without a lot of thought and examining what the review says to us, simply allow for the sale of Part V houses which, in many ways, goes against the policy we are trying to achieve, that is, to create vibrant communities where social housing becomes a normal part of the mix in private developments and simply reduce the number of Part V houses in public ownership by allowing for the sale of them, would be contradictory. It would go against what I said yesterday about the big idea behind the rebuilding of Ireland plan, which is not only to build a lot of social houses but to ensure that they are in social-housing only housing estates and instead to try to create proper integration.

We need to weigh one objective up against the other. I am sure some individuals who have been lucky enough to get social houses in private developments want to buy out their homes and I respect that ambition but my job is to work with local authorities to make sure we have enough social houses to be able to meet the demand. If, for example, a family has moved on and one person is living in a house with four bedrooms, is it the right thing to do to sell the house to that person when we need to fill those bedrooms with people who are currently on social housing lists? The State owns those houses. We are renting them at the moment to social housing tenants and if we make a decision to sell such houses, we will have fewer houses in our stock. Until we have a system that will deliver a new social house for every social house that is sold or even two or three new houses for every one that is sold, we must think very carefully about whether we would allow for the sale of Part V units.

Let us look at the history of Part V. When it was introduced initially for all the right reasons, we allowed flexibility in order that developers could buy themselves out of the responsibility on the assumption that the money would be used to build more social housing but in many cases that did not happen. We could potentially slip into that type of flexibility again and reduce the number of social houses in new private developments by allowing their early sale. That is a potential cause for concern from a policy point of view and we want to wait until at least the end of the review period in order to make an informed decision on whether we should change the rules for Part V. That is the reason I propose the amendment to the motion.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I wish to share time with Deputies David Cullinane, Martin Kenny and Dessie Ellis. I will take four minutes and each of the other speakers will take three minutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Sinn Féin supports the principle of tenant purchase. We do so because it keeps families in local authority estates, in particular as their income increases and their ability to purchase homes increases. As the Minister indicated very clearly, that contributes to more sustainable communities with a greater income mix, which is good housing policy. However, a badly designed tenant purchase scheme can do far more damage than good. While I accept the good intentions behind the introduction of the Bill, it is important to understand the negative aspects of what is being suggested. In order to meet the housing need at any one time, the State needs a minimum of 200,000 social houses. That is not my view; it is the view of the National Economic and Social Council, NESC. What happens when one’s social housing stock falls below that is that it restricts the ability of individual local authorities to meet housing need on an ongoing basis. Waiting times grow and the ability to respond to emergency needs reduces. Currently, we have a social housing stock of just under 140,000 units and that includes the 23,000 from the approved housing bodies, so we are already well below the critical threshold of what is needed simply to meet the current need. It is simply not the case to say that once families are allocated a house, they will remain there for the duration. When one studies local authorities, it is evident that there is an ongoing level of churn as people move in and out and stock becomes available for allocation. Therefore, if one sells off houses in the wrong way or too fast and one does not replenish the stock, that creates real difficulties for those with acute housing needs.

The tenant purchase scheme that was introduced early this year is badly designed. The discounts are far too generous. It is not the case that by selling those houses, we will generate sufficient income to replenish stock. In fact, in many instances, the discount is so great that the return to the local authority would be €60,000. On average, it costs €180,000 to provide council housing in this State. Therefore, for every three tenant purchases, the stock would only be replenished by one and that is if the local authority recycles the money but given the pressure on roads and other crucial aspects of local authority expenditure, it is doubtful that the money would even be returned to housing.

It is also important to emphasise that there are other exclusions. Local authorities exclude in many cases one-bedroom and four-bedroom accommodation and adapted units for people with special needs. They do that because it is good housing policy to manage the stock appropriately. None of that is an argument against the legitimate position put forward by Fianna Fáil that people have a desire to own their own home but one must balance that against the overall management of the stock.

The other crucial point to make relates to another misunderstanding in the Bill, namely, that allowing families in large mono-tenure local authority estates to buy their homes creates an income mix. Not allowing families in private housing estates to purchase Part V units also allows one to maintain an income mix, so while they appear to be opposite policies, they produce the same objective which is a sustainable level of income mix. In Sinn Féin’s view, the 10% social housing requirement that was introduced by the previous Government is far too low. Sinn Féin introduced a Bill two weeks ago to increase it to 25% and that is not just to provide more houses but to ensure private housing estates have a greater level of mix. Sinn Féin does not support the effect of the Bill. While we support the idea of people having a right to buy their home, there are simply too many downsides.

At the Committee on Housing and Homelessness, we were part of the minority that wanted the current scheme suspended until the overall stock of social housing is brought up to the right level and then one could start a sensibly designed tenant purchase scheme, as long as the stock is replenished according as it is sold. However, having said that, we understand it is an important issue. We think it is appropriate that it is considered in the context of the Government’s review and on that basis, we will support the Government's amendments. I say very genuinely to the Deputies across the Chamber that I accept the sincerity of the proposition they have put before the House but before they rush into trying to convince the rest of us of the merits of their proposition, they should look at the impact on overall social housing stock management and the negative impact of selling off too much stock on the ability to meet the needs of those who have no home or inadequate housing because they are very real issues with which we all need to grapple.

Deputy David Cullinane

We all know that what we have at the moment in the context of housing is a perfect storm where local authority supply has dried up and the State has not been building social housing or local authority housing for some time, which has added to the crisis. We also know that Part V housing has dried up because there is no private development and even though there is a need, because of house prices at the moment, it is impossible for builders to construct houses as it would cost them more than they would get for them. All of those issues have forced people into the private rented sector and that has driven up rents, which has created the current crisis. Due to the cap on rent allowance, many families come to the Minister’s office and to the offices of the Fianna Fáil representatives and all other Members in this Chamber because they cannot get landlords to sign up to the rental allowance scheme, RAS, and the housing assistance payment, HAP, and because landlords do not take rent supplement tenants in the necessary numbers to deal with those who require social housing. That is the perfect storm we have at the moment. That is the nature of the housing crisis we are all trying to address.

I accept there has been some positive movement by the Government in recent times and while it does not go far enough, at least some action is finally being taken to address the housing crisis. In part, that is due to all parties coming together to discuss the issues, as was the case at the Committee on Housing and Homelessness that examined all of the issues. While all parties do not agree with all of the proposals, let us at least celebrate the fact we have some movement. What I do not support, however, is a move to reduce housing stock at this juncture. That would be a bad idea. A couple of weeks ago, Deputy Micheál Martin said in this House that we need to start building council houses again and yet the Bill would actively reduce the number of council houses in the State. I do not see the logic of that approach, given the crisis we have.

I do not have enough time to address the Bill in detail. When one only has three or four minutes available, one can only address the broad points. My other two colleagues will make similar points. Like Teachta Ó Broin, I agree that the Bill was introduced with the best of intentions but, unfortunately, its outworking would have the net effect of reducing the amount of social housing stock in the State at a time when we have a housing crisis and I do not think that is the solution that is required to deal with the problems faced by the people in my constituency of Waterford and elsewhere in the State.

Deputy Martin Kenny

The ability for people to buy and own their own homes as a general principle is something that I very much support. Societies in which people have home ownership are generally wealthier societies. In many other countries in which people rent for all their lives, much of the money a person makes in his or her lifetime is given to a landlord and is funnelled to the top of that society. There are very wealthy landlord classes in many countries around Europe and the middle classes end up without any equity after working all their lives. In Ireland, we have a system that is different and the opposite of that. It comes from a tradition in which many people want to own their own homes. That is very positive and is something we need to encourage and support.

I have one point to make in regard to the notion that we should allow people to purchase Part V houses. In principle, I agree with it. The problem is that we are now in a housing crisis and that has to be borne in mind. We are in a situation in which there are very few houses being built in the private sector and absolutely none being built in the public sector. When all of that is considered, we have put ourselves into this position in which a number of people in Part V houses want to buy their own home. Of course they should be able to do it. However, the problem is that in doing that, we totally deplenish the housing stock that we have. We have to recognise that that is a huge problem. This can only be done in the context of an overall review of everything that we are doing. The housing policy that was announced yesterday is a part of that. The review will be out by next March. We need to look at it in the round at that point.

The present incremental purchase scheme is not a good one. I remember the old scheme that most councils had whereby, if a person lived in a house, for every year that he or she was paying rent, he or she got 3% off the price of the house, up to 30% after ten years. It meant that most people did not set out to buy their houses until they had been there for seven, eight or perhaps even the ten years, at which stage they were very settled in the community. The present scheme means that a person can actually buy a house after living there for 12 months or two years. I do not think that is a good thing. The other issue that has to be borne in mind is that very many people who wish to buy their own houses do not have access to finance at the moment to do so. There are bigger issues here that need to be dealt with than just the purchase of Part V houses.

While I absolutely appreciate the spirit of the motion that is being put before us, I believe we need to act in an overall context of examining everything around how houses are purchased in Ireland, from the point of view of local authority houses, people who are in more working-class families and people in the lower-middle classes who want to try to buy their own home and pursue that option because they live in local authority houses. That is something we need to deal with. There are also people who just want to buy a private house and cannot do so right now because there is no access to capital anywhere. That is another big issue that we have to bear in mind. I absolutely agree with the spirit of the motion but I believe it is ill timed. It needs to come in the context of a review of the overall process and the overall plan that we are bringing forward. The Government's proposal, as set out in the amendment, to postpone looking at all of this and look at it in the round next March, or whenever the review comes to a conclusion, is the right way forward.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

The function of any government in a Western democracy is to provide for its citizens in a basic range of areas. Irish governments over the last ten years have failed at this in many regards, but none more so than in housing. The current crisis is years in the making but its origins lie in the decisions of the past and present governments not to get involved in building houses and to allow the private sector to supply the basic needs of housing. The small sop given to social housing was the provision of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which was to enable the development of mixed-tenure and sustainable communities in order that when private firms were building our estates, local authorities would have a dividend of social housing which therefore helped the wider community at large. In line with this, Part V units are excluded from the tenant purchase scheme to ensure that units delivered under this mechanism will remain available for people in need of social housing support and that the original policy goals of the legislation are not eroded over time.

The house purchase scheme just introduced allows for the main tenant, partner or spouse to purchase a property based on his or her income. This clearly discriminates against older people in particular, who will not get approval on the basis of age and future earnings. The previous scheme allowed for other members of the family in the tenancy to raise the necessary finance, which allows for a greater mix in ownership. With regard to this Bill by Fianna Fáil, it seems that we are going back in time to a situation in which social housing is left once again at the mercy of private developers. The whole premise seems strange in that a person who receives a Part V social housing unit could after a year go out and purchase it at a discount, mainly on the basis of earnings. It goes against the whole idea that initially underpinned Part V. Sinn Féin believes that any money obtained under the house purchase scheme should be ring-fenced to build further social housing and not end up in a kitty. Any sale of housing stock should be replaced one for one.

In relation to the amendment by the Minister proposing to review the tenant purchase scheme after one year in operation, it is difficult to see how one could review a tenant purchase scheme of this nature after a year. However, we are not opposed to the Government’s amendment, as it will achieve what needs to happen with regard to the original amendment. In the context of the review in one year, it shows that it is another exercise of kicking the can down the road by the Government-----

Deputy Shane Cassells

Why support it then?

Deputy Dessie Ellis

-----purely to avoid any embarrassment or conflict with its partners in government in Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Shane Cassells

Nonsense.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I do not think it is funny.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

It is, actually.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

Fianna Fáil Deputies would want to think through what they are talking about.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Ellis without interruption.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

Keep going.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

Reductions in our housing stock are something we all have to be very careful of. We have an emergency and a housing crisis, and a further reduction in our housing stock is another problem that would come back to haunt us down the road.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It is useful that we are having this discussion. I thank the Fianna Fáil Members for giving us the opportunity. I believe we need to think through issues of this kind. Everybody here supports mixed tenure and wants to see more mixed communities rather than having all of the social housing tenants in one part of a city or town and private occupiers and owners in other areas. This discussion also raises the issue of maintenance and replenishment of local authority stock. That is an important policy issue. We cannot have policies around tenant purchase in isolation, separate from the activities of local authorities in actually building and acquiring houses. I would like to see some clear guidelines in the context of the review of the tenant purchase scheme whereby local authorities would be required to consider the maintenance and replenishment of their stock in the context of their decisions about the sale of properties to tenants.

I have a bit of a problem with the specificity of what can and cannot be sold, as set out by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, although I understand some of the reasons for refusing the sale of certain categories of property. I would prefer to see the local authorities having a bit of discretion as well as responsibility in making these decisions. I hope it would give them some encouragement to be more proactive in building units and taking up opportunities that are there. For example, a provision was set out earlier this year whereby, if one were building 15 units or fewer at a value of €2 million or less, one needed only one application process with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. It was clearly designed to speed up the building of small groups of houses and apartments that local authorities could get down to building quickly. Yet, as I understand from the response to a recent parliamentary question, there has not been one single application from a local authority under that scheme. It would not be any harm at all if local authorities had to balance in some way the replenishment of their stock with the selling of their stock.

On the other hand, there are obviously the people who want to buy their own homes. That has to be put into the mix as well. It has to be a balance. That is why the exclusion of Part V units does not seem to me to be something that should be set in stone. I agree with the principle that Part V units should be saleable.

I do not think it will make a huge difference at the moment in terms of housing stock because I doubt there are very many Part V units. As the Minister said, under the Government led by Fianna Fáil, developers were allowed to pay money to local authorities instead of building houses. In most cases, that money never turned into houses for local authority tenants. Since then there has not been an awful lot built. I have not tabled too many parliamentary questions on this matter, but I wonder how many Part V houses there actually are. I doubt if there are many.

Deputy Barry Cowen

Four thousand.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

Most people who were lucky enough to get a house under Part V are probably part of a family and have other family members who have the right to stay in the house once an older person there is deceased. I therefore doubt if much of that housing stock is going back for recycling within the social housing system. It is important to have this debate and I agree with Deputy Martin Kenny that there are bigger issues surrounding this that need to be considered. In the short term, this particular measure does not make a huge difference. In that regard, I do not have any great problem with the Minister's amendment, because it is only putting it off for nine months.

There are bigger issues. I agree that getting permission for a tenant purchase loan can be quite difficult. One of the things that bothers me is that while people have great difficulty in getting loans from banks to purchase houses, there is also a local authority loan system that very few people seem to be able to access.

Deputy Martin Kenny

It is expensive.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It appears to be the same central way of deciding whether a person can afford to pay back the loan. It seems particularly strict and restrictive. That wider context needs to be examined because local authority loans should be an opportunity for those on relatively low or middle incomes to purchase a house, be it a former local authority house or a private one.

People have said that 73, the number of people who have applied under the current tenant purchase scheme, is a small number. It is not a particularly small number, however, considering the scheme only began in January. I assume that the numbers will increase. There are other issues, including whether people on long-term social welfare incomes should have that income included. There is a case for that because, if it is a long-term payment then, generally speaking, it stays with the person for life.

A number of things need to be examined with regard to this Bill. Overall, I would prefer to see more discretion and responsibility at local authority level, rather than centrally. The situation can be different in various areas. For example, in my own constituency, where we have had a significant regeneration programme, the council has purchased quite a number of houses in private estates, not under Part V but directly. The same issue would arise there as to whether the people living there are allowed to purchase and how much it would affect the social mix in those estates.

While there are a number of wider issues, overall it is important to have this debate given the importance of having a much better supply of local authority houses than we currently have. I support what Fianna Fáil is seeking to achieve, but there is an argument for giving it a bit of time. We will certainly need to review the overall scheme in the context of the amount of local authority housing stock that we have.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In the next slot there are nine minutes for the AAA-PBP group. I understand that Deputies Ruth Coppinger and Bríd Smith will have seven minutes between them. I believe there is an arrangement whereby a non-aligned Member, Deputy Fitzmaurice, will have two of the nine minutes.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Are they here?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You will have seven minutes between you.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

I forgot about the two minutes, so I will have to speed up. I would not particularly like to thank Fianna Fáil for bringing this Bill before us because, of all the motions and Bills we need on the housing crisis, this one would be last on my list. Rent controls, penalties for land hoarding, and a challenge to the EU fiscal rules barring us from spending money that we have on building social housing would be preferable.

The Fianna Fáil Bill applies to Part V and aims to sell off our public housing. I was a councillor for many years, so I can understand why tenants want to buy their houses. It is to pass them on to their families and in some cases to save money. That is because at one point some tenants were paying more than the differential rent in Blanchardstown, with two or three young adults working in the house, and more than their neighbours were paying on their mortgages. It was therefore a practical consideration. Generally, tenants of 30 years' duration will say: "Oh my gosh. Look at what I've paid for this house and I don't own it." In the case of Part V we are not talking about that longevity, but about tenants who have been housed recently. The key problem, however, is that we are talking about a massive drop in social housing stock in the last ten years, and Fianna Fáil is bringing forward a proposal to sell off even more of it during the biggest housing emergency that we have ever had. Extending the ability to sell off public housing during a housing emergency is really irresponsible. It is akin to cutting down trees without replanting them. That is the reality.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

Does the Deputy have any idea how many?

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

If the Deputy stops interrupting me I will give him the figures right now. I will tell him the damage this Bill will do. Anyone who deals with homeless people every day will say that the only source of permanent social housing now is existing council stock that becomes vacant. There is absolutely nothing new being built. Figures from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government's website show that in 2014 the number of properties obtained for social housing through local authority construction and acquisition amounted to 285; the number obtained through retrofitting was 44; the numbers obtained through leasing and RAS, which is not permanent social housing, were 1,062 and 2,173, respectively; and the number of casual vacancies was 3,650. Do Deputies need any more proof that the only way people can get a permanent house in the community is through the passing on of existing council stock? Yet Fianna Fáil is proposing to get rid of that as a source, at a time when they know that nothing is being built. It is absolutely incredible. It is a vote-getting exercise at the expense of people on the housing list and the homeless. It will make life much more difficult for public representatives such as ourselves who are besieged every day by people seeking housing.

The Committee on Housing and Homelessness did not recommend this. It recommended a review of the tenant purchase scheme. I would be in favour of suspending tenant purchase during the housing crisis, but let us review it. Included in the review should be information about how many houses were sold on after they were bought. I see that happening a lot in council estates. Anyone who is familiar with council estates will know that private rented housing is the biggest issue in them. A review should include all of that plus the idea that councils are acquiring houses and selling them at the same time. This proposal is lunacy.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I want to flesh out some of the things Deputy Coppinger said. An ideology is being sold to us that somehow everybody must own his or her own house. I do not know if it is a hang-up that goes back to Michael Davitt and the Land League, but I think it is more political than that. It is an agenda that has always been driven, particularly in the last few decades, by those with a vested interest in development and building. In fact, however, one should look to other European countries. I lived in Germany for a while and people there rented all their lives. They rented with strong legislation that stopped landlords from putting up the rent. The legislation also ensured that tenants lived in decent conditions and could not be evicted at the drop of a hat. One would never hear of a landlord in Germany saying: "Oh Jesus, I need to sell this place, so you have to go," which is what is happening to tens of thousands of families across this country at the moment.

While there is a social housing policy in Germany, there is also a big focus on ensuring that people live in decent conditions with security of tenure and fixed rents.

This is typical of European cities. In Ireland, we have a hang-up about owning our own home. I say that hand on heart because in the 1970s or 1980s my parents bought the house in which I grew up, having lived in and paid rent on it for 30 to 40 years, which was typical across Ireland at the time. In a housing crisis of the type with which we are faced today, we will be making a big mistake if we go down the road of allowing more council houses to be sold off. The Part V provision is a bit of a joke in terms of how it was abused by the developers, many of whom, as stated by a Deputy earlier, were allowed to pay a fee rather than hand over houses, and many of them did. Many developers never passed on that money. There are real difficulties in terms of the approach being taken in this area.

In 2006, some 11% of the entire housing stock in Ireland was social housing that was in the hands of the local authorities. Since then, as a result of the housing crisis, demand for social housing has increased but the stock available to us has shrunk. This Bill will do nothing to address that issue. It will only worsen the situation. I would have thought that at the very least Fianna Fáil would recognise that their friends in the construction industry are not developing and building and so what we have we should hold onto for as long as we can to meet the desperate need of social and affordable homes required by people on the housing waiting lists.

I am strongly against the adoption of this Bill.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill, which I support because I believe that new tenants should be given the same opportunity as applies under the current scheme in respect of social housing. In regard to the myth that we will have a huge influx of people looking to buy, that will not happen for the simple reason that people will first need to have the money to buy. The sale of these houses will provide councils with the funding needed to build more housing for people who need it. We should look at this proposal in a more positive way.

In regard to the current scheme, there are people in my constituency who wanted to buy their council homes but owing to the many clauses in that scheme, including that the purchaser must have X amount of income and so on, they could not do so. Many of them were approved for a credit unions loan, under stringent rules, but this was not accepted. I am not suggesting the houses should be sold cheaply, rather they must be sold at a price which ensures we take in sufficient money to assist in the construction of more houses. In regard to the statement that people in Ireland are hung-up about owning their own homes, that is true. It is what we are used to. A person who buys a house with a view to renting it out does so to make money. In regard to the idea that we are on a bit of a fun trip in terms of buying houses and renting them out with a view to owning them in the future, no person buys a house to lose money on it. That is the reality. Let us live in the real world.

If we were to aspire to everybody in the country living in social housing we would never have enough money to make that happen. We need to live in the real world. If we can pull in enough money to assist us in the provision of houses for people who need them it will be a win-win situation for everyone.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

So we should be buying houses to sell them on.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

The Deputy said there were new people-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The next slot is being shared by Deputies Joan Collins, Thomas P. Broughan, Mick Wallace and Catherine Connolly. I note Deputies Joan Collins and Broughan are in the Chamber. They may have to adjust their speaking time if Deputies Wallace and Connolly arrive.

Deputy Joan Collins

When I read this Bill, I was amazed. I find it incredible that it advocates a broadening of the tenant purchase scheme to sell-off social housing at knock-down prices at a time when we are faced with a massive housing and homeless emergency. I understand there is demand from tenants to buy their homes but surely the priority now is not just retention of our inadequate 120,000 social housing stock but the construction of more social housing and the maintenance of an adequate level of social housing stock into the future.

The key reason for the current crisis is the disastrous decisions of successive Governments and local authorities to divest themselves from social housing provision and to abandon their responsibilities to provide good quality, well-maintained, low-cost housing to those who need it. There needs to be a reversal of the groupthink and ideological bias against local authority housing that lies at the heart of the current crisis, namely, local authority housing bad and private housing good.

The housing and homeless strategy launched yesterday by the Government includes a proposal to build 47,000 social housing units over the next five years. In my opinion, this is about 50% of what is actually required. Let us for a moment assume that the 47,000 social houses are built and allocated. Are we then going to repeat the mistakes of the past by initiating a scheme to sell them off at knock-down prices only to be faced in ten years with the same situation with which we are faced today? I am not a supporter of tenant purchase schemes unless they are well constructed and provide that when a tenant buys a house the money derived from the sale is used to buy back or build a new council house. They should also include strong clawback clauses in situations where houses are resold within five or, perhaps, ten years.

The issue of an elderly person living in a three-bedroom house was mentioned. Why are we not building small clusters of ten or 15 units in our communities for elderly and disabled people? This would allow elderly and disabled people to sell their houses to the council and move into a secure environment, if they want to, thereby providing more housing stock for the council. We must resist the demands for Part V social housing. It is not the priority. I am amazed that any serious political party could come forward with such a proposal given the crisis we are faced with.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

We are not amazed that Deputy Joan Collins is amazed.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Housing (Sale of Local Authority Housing) Bill 2016, which in terms of its proposal to introduce a tenant incremental purchase scheme, is not a major priority. It will do nothing to address any of the problems in our broken housing system or to better the housing options for the 130,000 people in need of social housing and the thousands of people in emergency accommodation and homelessness.

There is a need for crucial legislation in relation to the voluntary housing bodies. We were promised by the former Minister with responsibility for housing, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, who is in the Chamber, and by her successor, that legislation on the administration of the voluntary housing bodies would be introduced but that has not happened. Perhaps Fianna Fáil could have taken this opportunity to bring forward such a Bill today.

The outlook continues to be very bleak for people who are urgently seeking social housing. Up to the last week of June, there were 1,078 homeless families, including 2,106 children. Homelessness is primarily a problem in Dublin and the surrounding four counties. The Government has not addressed this issue. Like many of my colleagues, I have had a look at Rebuilding Ireland. While in general terms it is a step forward in that the Minister, Deputy Coveney, has at least begun to look at the problems, it is far too little, far too late. In regard to the output figures provided in the strategy, I made a submission to the Housing and Homelessness Committee on 10 May, which I subsequently sent on to the Minister, in which I sought expenditure of €10 billion.

I thought that was the kind of expenditure we needed to ramp up social housing to address the real problems that I and other colleagues in this city deal with week in, week out. I asked the Minister to declare a housing emergency and to go after the housing issue in a FEMPI- like manner. He has not done that. He has mentioned the word "emergency" in various speeches and interviews but he has not declared an emergency and said "let's go for it".

Yesterday, the Labour Party produced a Bill based on the Kenny report, which should have been implemented. I commend Deputy Jan O'Sullivan on bringing forward the Bill. The Labour Party had five years to bring it forward and do something drastic about the price of building land. All parties in this House recognise that the Kenny report was a solution to a huge part of the housing problem. It has to be said that we always seemed to have a housing crisis. There has always been a housing crisis going back to the 1970s and 1960s. When I began representing people in the 1980s, there was a housing crisis. We never had enough homes in the social housing area. I noticed how closely the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil parties are working on this issue. Deputy Cowen has said that unless the Minister introduces such and such into "Rebuilding Ireland" in time for the budget, this plan will not come into effect because we will all be out campaigning in a general election. Both sides of the House must be brought along in respect of what is effectively a Fine Gael-Fianna Fáil Government.

However, the numbers will not do very much for the people I represent week in, week out. The Minister talks about an output of 12,600 units last year and 14,000 this year. This year has been very disappointing. The target for 2017 is 18,000 and increases to 22,000 and finally in 2020, which will be a great year when everything happens, we will produce the very basic figure of 2,500 units per month. The previous Government signally failed to meet that target.

My fundamental criticism of "Rebuilding Ireland" and even the legislation before us today is that we are relying on the same old systems, the same old failed developers, the same old speculative model of finance and the same old land systems. It is the same old, same old. The Minister may be doing with a bit more brio than his predecessor but he has not come forward with anything really innovative which would solve the problem for those 2,000 children who will be in homeless accommodation tonight, tomorrow evening, the following weeks and through to 2017. The Minister says that hotel accommodation for the homeless will be fairly rare in 2017 but the reality is that we have an emergency. The Minister had the opportunity to come in here like the Minister for Finance and his predecessor, the late Brian Lenihan, did and say that this is a terrible crisis, we must act now and house our homeless and our most vulnerable families, go through X, Y and Z of what needs to be done and do whatever is necessary in terms of changing the Constitution or bringing in the Labour Party Bill introduced yesterday. Those kinds of measures include local authorities building again. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil discouraged local authorities from engaging in direct build. When one looks at the figures in the Minister's report, is it not deplorable that we turned out 95,000 units during the Celtic tiger and wondered how we could fill them but only 4,000 or 5,000 of those units were social housing units? Unfortunately, I can only give the Minister a D plus.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Has Deputy Broughan read the strategy?

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am also glad to be able to speak about the Bill, which is timely given the Minister's announcement of his grandiose plan yesterday. We will be housed out of it before we are finished, pardon the pun, but that will not give any houses to the homeless. I remember when Part V was introduced. I was a member of a county council in south Tipperary and was a big supporter of it because the boom was going strong and we needed to get a grip and get some houses for local authorities. I remember being involved with a lot of schemes and helping smaller builders who always played their part and were glad to do so. There was a lot of resistance from the Construction Industry Federation which did not want Part V. As I said last night, it is the same today. We have builders, small builders and developers. Deputy Wallace is not here but last night he did not know whether he was a developer or builder. He was confused and I did not meet him today to find out which one of them he is now. Large builders and developers did not want Part V.

I do not have any hang-up about selling these houses and I think I can support the Bill because there is discrimination between people in social and affordable housing and Part V housing and those in local authority housing. Small schemes with 10% might have only two houses and one might be social and affordable while the other is a straight local authority house whereby if somebody leaves a house, a tenant is appointed. The person in the social and affordable house would have bought it because they were able to buy it with a housing assistance loan, local authority loan or a mortgage so why not have equality and parity of esteem for tenants? I know about the argument that we do not want to denude Part V estates of private tenants but I think it is unfair. There are all sorts of anomalies in the scheme whereby older people who are trying to buy their house cannot do so. Schemes are so ridiculous that somebody with life savings who wants to buy the local authority house in which they might have lived for over 30 years is not allowed to do so because they must go for a loan for which they will not qualify because of their age. Most pensioners only have the old-age pension and many do not even have the contributory pension. How are they going to get a loan? They have the money. The vulture funds can come in and buy with money that could be from anywhere. It could be from money laundering and bank robberies. They can buy a whole street or estate.

We must look at housing and it will take a bit of time and effort. I again appeal to the Minister to look at it. I bumped into an auctioneer in a hotel not far from here. He said that what we are discussing here is amazing and that he could not fathom us but there was nothing new about that. One of the main drivers of the strategy was that we would not have families living in hotels. The man told me that he once owned a hotel but got into difficulties and sold it for €800,000 a couple of months ago. He said that the new buyer is signing a lease for ten years with Dublin City Council which will use it to house families. Where are we going? What is going on? Does one hand not know what the other is doing? The man sold it because he had to and we are bringing in policies that will mean that there will be no more people in hotel accommodation. The best part of it is that a ten-year lease at €750,000 per year adds up to €7.5 million. At the same time, we are in a flurry here talking about how there will be no more children in hotels. Are we really dealing with the problem or are we just playing games? Are officials in Dublin City Council and other councils so out of touch that they do not know what is the Government's policy?

I know Deputy Danny Healy-Rae disagrees with me about whether councils got the money to build houses in the past number of years. A Minister from Tipperary announced money like it was falling out of the sky. The county manager was smothered with the money the local authority was getting to build houses. He did not know whether he was coming or going and he did not build a house. I told him months previously that he would not build a hen house. He built nothing because it was just announcement after announcement with a big fanfare and nothing being delivered. We need a lot of soul searching and thinking and this Bill is an effort to bring about fairness in the middle of it all.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I am very disappointed that the Taoiseach has been blaming the local authorities for the housing crisis. It is not acceptable. I deplore the fact he said that the local authorities had lost their ability to build houses. They could not build houses when they were not able to access money. The tenant purchase scheme, which was a great scheme that allowed tenants to purchase their houses, was dropped for three or four years. The new scheme is not accessible to many tenants who wish to purchase their houses. As Deputy Mattie McGrath said, old-age pensioners are not allowed to purchase a county council house even though they might have savings achieved over a number of years. For the last three years, we have had no tenant purchase scheme but now these people are being denied the right to purchase the house they have lived in, repaired, modified and brought up to a standard over their lifetime. They cannot buy the house because this scheme, as set out, is designed so that old-age pensioners or people on social welfare do not qualify.

Another category of people who will not qualify are people who were in arrears with their rent over the last three years for one reason or another. That happens to people and they catch up again but they are being denied the right to purchase their house or go into a purchasing scheme. What that scheme actually meant for the likes of Kerry County Council was that the money that was accrued from the tenants purchasing their houses went back into the repair of voids or vacant houses. As the Department was not giving the local authorities any funding, it meant there were many houses lying idle around the county and people were asking us why such houses were vacant for such a long time. There was no money being accrued because there was no tenant purchase scheme. It is only a little better now and I am asking the Minister to modify and clear the blockages that are preventing tenants from purchasing their houses. It is having a double impact in that the voids are not being brought back to standard and cannot be offered to tenants who are waiting on the list with their thumbs up looking for some place they could call home and have security of tenure.

I raised the national spatial policy with the Taoiseach yesterday. Where is the Minister directing the local authorities to dezone lands, especially around towns where there was phase 1 and phase 2 zoning? It is becoming apparent that in many of the phase 1 zoning, there is trouble with NAMA, ownership and people getting money to go forward. Phase 2 are now going to be dezoned so we will finish up with no land to build houses on. We cannot build houses if there is no land zoned to build them on. I appeal to the Minister to look at that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is ten minutes in the next slot. I understand Deputy Lisa Chambers is sharing her time with Deputies Darragh O'Brien and Eamon Scanlon.

Deputy Lisa Chambers

We all aspire to own our own homes at some point in our lives. It is something that is ingrained in our culture and something we all work towards achieving. It is considered a very important goal and milestone in one's life. It is my belief, and one shared by many citizens, that it is incumbent on our State to assist our citizens to have their own home and not to put obstacles in their way. The current legislative position with regard to the tenant purchase scheme does exactly that; it erects a barrier to people owning their own home for no apparent good reason. It blocks tenants who acquired homes under Part V schemes from accessing the tenant purchase scheme which is a clear discrimination against lower income households. The reason we are being offered as to why Part V homes were excluded in the first place is that it is to ensure that all residential communities remain mixed tenure developments. I do not buy into that reason; it is not as if we will end up with all mono-tenure developments. It will just not happen. Even if it was a genuine reason, it is simply not a good enough reason to expressly exclude or block certain tenants from owning their own home, given the importance of owning one's home to an individual, their families and communities. We have to strike a balance between our desire to maintain mixed tenure developments, which is understandable and desirable, and people's need for their own home. The reality is that many of these tenants and people have been living in these homes for many years. It also goes a long way towards building sustainable communities by offering people in Part V homes the opportunity to purchase that home if they wish. It is manifestly unfair to limit the social mobility of any person or family motivated by our desire to ensure they remain in social homes because we think it looks better. Is that not a very easy thing for us to say when we are not in that position? If people want to aspire to own their own home, we should not be preventing it. This Bill seeks to rectify that problem by amending the primary legislation to allow local authority homes or local authority tenants in Part V homes the opportunity to purchase that home.

I hope to see cross-party support for this Bill. This change is also very positive for our local authorities and far from depleting the housing stock, which has been suggested, it would have the opposite effect because it would enable the local authority to replenish its housing stock by giving it additional resources in terms of finances. It would release equity from those homes and it would also release the local authority from the cost and financial burden of maintaining those homes. In reality, those homes are not really in the social housing stock because many of these tenants stay there for very long periods of time ranging from ten to 40 years.

There are only positive aspects to this Bill. It is a win for local authorities, citizens and tenants. It is important to note that Fianna Fáil highlighted this deficiency when the scheme was first up and running. We are now trying to fix that problem which affects thousands of potential buyers across our country.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

It has been interesting to listen to the debate and I very much welcome and support this Bill. I want to bring a bit of reality to the situation. The reality is that what we are talking about is just over 2% of the overall housing stock, approximately 3,960 houses. The purpose of the Bill is to allow tenants the same rights as other tenants. I cannot understand why, if Sinn Féin supports tenant purchase, as Deputy Ó Broin said, it would not support this Bill. Why would it want to create a two-tier tenancy system? Effectively, this is discrimination based on what type of tenant one is. Anyone should be able to aspire to own a home.

Some of the comments by AAA-PBP amaze me but do not surprise me. I listened to Deputy Coppinger, who unfortunately is no longer in the Chamber to hear this debate, talking about the need for housing. She talked about her time on Fingal County Council. In her time in Fingal County Council, she never once supported a development plan; she voted against every single development plan. In her constituency of Dublin West, she opposed every single development there. Her colleagues continue to do likewise in Fingal. Members of AAA-PBP are the very last people I would take any advice from on sorting our housing problem. The reality of the situation regarding the Part V arrangement, which Deputies Coppinger and Joan Collins bemoaned earlier, is that from 2002 to 2015, if one takes out the difficult four or five years when there was very little construction, more than 16,000 units were provided under it. That is 16,000 family homes, the majority of them affordable houses where people own them. There is also a claw back for future sale. We are trying to level the playing pitch for tenants and to ensure there is not a two-tier system. If anyone could explain to me why it is right to discriminate between social housing tenants, I would not support this Bill. This Bill is about rectifying that and removing that discrimination. The whole idea that we will deplete the stock is nonsense. The figures do not bear that out; it is 2.33% of housing stock. Is anyone saying that should this Bill pass, there will be an immediate push towards purchasing those 3,961 houses? The future sale of these houses would derive their own claw back also. It is allowing families to set down roots; it is as simple as that.

The Government should allow the Bill go through on Second Stage. We can work on certain aspects on Committee Stage. While the Government wants to delay this for a further nine months, most will agree that the Irish in general will aspire to home ownership. Others can bemoan that and state that should not be the case, but it is the case. Why should someone not be secure in the knowledge that he or she owns his or her own home?

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

A clear path to home ownership should not be the preserve of the private market. A home is a vital asset for families and represents a positive transfer of wealth to low-income groups. Mixed-tenure housing estates are a key part of the Fianna Fáil vision for strong families and stable, thriving communities. However, the exclusion of Part V houses by the Government in its tenant purchase scheme discriminates against lower-income households in many communities. By stating that it is only the right of higher-income households in mixed communities to have an opportunity to own their own homes, in effect, the Government tenant purchase scheme isolates tenants in Part V social houses in private developments. The Bill, if accepted, will give all local authority tenants the right to make a long-term investment in their community by owning their own home. The Bill amends the primary legislation to allow local authority tenants in Part V houses the opportunity to purchase their homes.

The application of mixed tenure guidelines to refuse tenants the right to purchase their social houses in their communities, in which they may have lived for most of their lives, stigmatises those in social houses. The exclusion of such tenants is telling these families and individuals that they may never do as their neighbours do and own a home in their community. Giving all tenants the opportunity to buy in their neighbourhood is good for communities. It gives everyone a long-term stake, encouraging families to make long-term investments by participating in the communities in which they live. In my experience as a councillor for many years, I do not know of any Part V houses that came back into local authority stock. I have never seen any.

If there is any flaw in the current tenant purchase scheme, it is the provision that the tenant concerned must have been getting social housing support for one year. If that was five years, maybe it would show a greater commitment by those living in local authority houses to their area. That might be considered as well. I believe that the tenant purchase scheme discriminates against those on social welfare. I accept that the income stipulation is €15,000, but €7,500 of that must be earned income. I am aware of families in which parents who are caring for children with disabilities and special needs are receiving carer's allowance and cannot go out to work because of the care and attention they must give to their children. Those people are being discriminated against as well, and it is unfair. Those people deserve the chance to buy their homes the same as anybody else, or the same as anyone in this House or around this building. They should have the opportunity to purchase their houses. That is something that should be looked at so that we can give those people such an opportunity.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

This is an important debate.

This Fianna Fáil Bill is not coming at the right time. Indeed, on the production of the new action plan for housing, what Members on this side of the House and most of the Members on that side of the House were talking about was building houses for people who cannot house themselves and about the provision of housing, particularly in the social housing area. The fact is that the Government is committed to building 47,000 social housing units between now and 2021, and there is also a significant commitment in an earlier Government plan of 75,000 homes to be provided for housing applicants or those who would qualify for home supports, such as the HAP or rent allowance, by approximately the same time. Right now, it is all about supply. It is all about making sure that those houses are built. That is why the Bill is coming at the wrong time, particularly as Deputy Cowen will be aware that the Government has accepted the recommendation of the committee of which we were both members that the tenant purchase scheme should be reviewed. The Government commitment, as the Minister outlined, is to have that review take place by early next year.

The Fianna Fáil speakers opposite all are missing the point that, unlike them, the country has changed. There has been a significant shift in home ownership over the past number of years. If one looks at the statistics, one will see that in the 1990s approximately 90% of people owned their own homes but, according to the 2011 census, the percentage of Irish people who owned their own homes was 69.7%, which is a little below the corresponding figure of 73% in the United Kingdom. It is not true to say that the majority of people own their own homes. There has been a significant reduction. In fact, there was a 47% reduction in the number of people who owned their own homes in the 2011 census. As for the number who rent, at that time - the new census was published only this week - more than 470,000 people rented their own homes. It is wrong to say that people do not aspire to rent homes.

With regard to the influx of immigrants into the country during the boom, the number who have remained here since the Fianna Fáil bust is significant. Many of the immigrant population come from countries where the preponderance of home rental is upwards of 90%. Notwithstanding the fact that buying a home is a good aspiration if one wishes to do so, it is not the case in Ireland right now, and that is a significant change.

On the broader issue of a review of the tenant purchase scheme, not even the Fianna Fáil members opposite would disagree that it is important to look after significant groups. Indeed, Deputy Scanlon mentioned one specifically, and I support him in his point about people with disabilities being able to purchase or, indeed, to live in a home that is suited and adapted to their needs. That is one of the biggest problems facing me in my constituency work. People who acquire a disability during their life as they age or people who are born with disabilities cannot get adequate or proper housing. That is why it is important in the review of the tenant purchase scheme to examine the retention of homes that are adapted for disability. Regardless of where such houses are, whether they form part of Part V housing or any other housing, we should insist that houses that are adapted for disability are never sold to anybody and that they be available for those who need them. I hope the Minister, in this review, will look at the designation of a proportion of houses that are in public ownership, be they Part V or otherwise, for people with disabilities. We all know of people who, as they get older, or even because of illnesses, would like to be near facilities such as the shops, the church or the school. These are issues that we need to look at also. In this review, it is important that we examine potentially advantageous locations for people with disabilities in terms of local authority housing, be it Part V or otherwise, and reserve them as never to be sold but to be retained for people who need them.

Another important point is that the capacity of people, as they age, to live independently is most important. I do not agree with the way society is going - the idea that after a certain age one ends up in the nursing home. We need much more assisted living. We need much more independent living. In the review of the tenant purchase scheme, it would be useful if we looked at designating houses to be used for assisted living for older people or, indeed, people with disabilities. We should designate, and never sell, those homes. In fact, in terms of our planning reform, we should be looking at reserving a proportion of houses in all estates that would meet their needs.

There is absolutely no doubt those are the trends needed and the changes we must make. Selling all the houses in a particular estate, whether public or private, is not necessarily the best action to take. I point out to the Fianna Fáil Deputies opposite that housing agencies like Respond! never sell their homes. People go into them because they are happy to rent. There is a significant and increasing number of people who are happy to rent their homes and stay in them. There is not the demand indicated by Fianna Fáil for this.

The question of housing policy is changing. The size of houses is changing and our families are getting smaller. There is a much greater need for apartment living. Although I do not have the statistics, I presume a significant portion of Part V units would be apartments. We should really look at designating properties for communities and people that need them rather than selling them off. There should be proportionality, as if something applies in one estate, there is no reason it should not apply in all estates. These are the fundamental and core markers of a caring and democratic society that provides houses for people who need them while ensuring that those who are least able to purchase a home will have one in the right place, with all the services required. For example, location is very important for people with disabilities. There is no other answer than we must do this.

The Fianna Fáil Members will want to put this to a vote but we need not necessarily divide on these issues. Some of us are members of a housing committee so we should debate all the issues, bringing people in to consider objective and clear analysis of the future as we all face it. I was in local government for many years and Deputy Scanlon was probably there for a similar period. I am 42 years in public life, for my sins, and all of them in public life are mortal.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I do not believe it.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

The Deputy has a good bit to go yet.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

I have seen much change.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

He is about to see even more.

Deputy Barry Cowen

He thought he had seen the end of us.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

Under Fianna Fáil, the Ballymun houses were built to meet a housing crisis. That did not work as families could not live in those high-rise apartments. It did not make sense but at the time they were the best thing since the sliced pan. In our county, there were houses built with prefabricated structures and after ten years they began to fall apart. Perhaps Deputy Scanlon remembers how we built houses with no chimneys because at the time electricity was so cheap there was an idea that we could run them on it. That did not work either and we had to retrofit chimneys to hundreds of houses.

We have been here before and we do not need to go there again. The Labour Party Members have left but as Minister, former Deputy Jimmy Tully did a fantastic job in housing. He dealt very effectively with a major housing crisis. I ask Fianna Fáil to think again about this. We could make much progress across this House rather than dividing, which is what Fianna Fáil wants to do.

Deputy John Lahart

I thank my colleague, Deputy Cowen, for bringing this Bill to the House. My party and I believe this is a progressive Bill and I hope it will receive support from all sides of the House. As many speakers have said, we have a real longing to own our own homes, which is good. Owning a home offers people security for themselves and their families. It also gives people, and families in particular, a sense of pride and buy-in to the community. My colleagues and I believe people with the willingness, means and support to purchase their own homes should be allowed to do so. The exclusion of Part V houses by the Government from the tenant purchase scheme does the opposite, as it prevents people who wish to become proud owners of their own homes from making that further step in their local communities. It is not an example of the Ireland for all that my party wants to see develop.

We believe families and communities are stronger when people have a place to call their own. We believe allowing tenants in Part V houses the opportunity to buy these houses and make them permanent homes gives everybody involved a greater stake. It encourages families to become more involved in local clubs and activities and it helps the family to become embedded in the community. It signals a commitment to the area. I know in my own local authority in south Dublin, one of the biggest costs is in maintaining local authority housing, as Deputies across the House realise. The costs are absolutely colossal.

I understand there are almost 4,000 households affected by this Part V clause and more than a fifth of these are within the four local authorities in Dublin. There are 80 in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, close to 250 in Fingal, over 250 in south Dublin and close to 300 in Dublin city. It is a total of well over 850 households in Dublin alone that are not being awarded the same opportunity as the many thousands of other families across the country. It is not a fair or equitable approach that is proposed by the Government. By offering these 4,000 households across the country the opportunity for ownership, we will also, critically, be offering them the opportunity for stability and control over their own living environments into the future and free from the constraints of the local authorities. We will be offering them the chance to make their house a home. Allowing a tenant to purchase a house also gives low-income households the right to own a financial asset of significant value, helping low-income householders accumulate wealth. It is a form of economic safety net for them and their families so they can grow, build and integrate into the community.

It is almost ironic that yesterday we had the launch of the Government's housing action plan. As well as getting people out of emergency accommodation and tackling homelessness, it also has plans to help people to purchase their first homes. On the one hand, the Government is making provisions for people to get on the property ladder but on the other it is preventing people from doing so, stigmatising these people in the process. A clear path to home ownership should not be the preserve of the private market. Owning a home provides a vital asset for families and represents a positive transfer of wealth towards low-income groups. We unapologetically subscribe to that. Mixed tenure housing estates are a key part of our vision for strong families and stable, thriving communities. However, the exclusion of Part V houses by the Government in its tenant purchase scheme discriminates against lower income households in mixed communities.

The positive effects this Bill will have on thousands of families across the country more than justifies not just my support, but the support of all the Members in the House. Financially, the Bill allows for the release of equity from the sale of these houses, which may be redistributed and reinvested by the local authorities. There is also the removal of the cost associated with maintenance, which allows the money to be reinvested into new social housing. At this time, when housing and homelessness is one of our major challenges, exclusion is not the answer.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I take this opportunity to thank all Members who contributed to the debate on the Bill. In particular, I thank those who sought to support the Bill. For those who do not support it, I make the following observations. The Minister stated he had sympathy for us as proposers of the Bill.

However, he stated that he could not support it because he was constrained by a commitment in the programme for Government to review the scheme in its entirety in January, that all the issues raised during any such review would be dealt with and that the review would take two months. He also stated that given the data offered to him by the Department, with which he concurs, having studied it obviously, the scheme is being well received and is proving very popular. If that were the case, we would not have heard much of the evidence of my colleagues on it, for example, it having only approved 73 applicants. It would hardly have one riding high on the polls, if it could be translated into any such thing.

Deputy Damien English

Is that the Deputy's only aim in life?

Deputy Barry Cowen

Then he went on to state that he supported the many reasons the Department or experts gave to him for the exclusion of Part V housing. He is pre-empting the work of any review group when he gives an opinion this far out from the review taking place at all, let alone giving it during this debate. That convinces me that in no way should we support the amendment, which commits to a review of this issue among others. It convinces me that we on this side of the House should continue to bring forward Bills such as this one to effect the sort of change we think is necessary to address the deficiencies which exist.

Deputy O'Dowd spoke about those who have been allocated units or homes by approved housing bodies. He stated they only wanted them because they only wanted to rent a house. They only wanted those homes because they were the only thing ever offered to them. Approved housing bodies have taken the place of councils to the detriment of the aspiration of those who would like to own their own homes. Based on the strategy produced yesterday and the timelines associated with it, I am glad that we have a watching brief to ensure there are improvements because what we have heard before in such plans has never materialised. We will be holding the Government to account and bringing forward other legislation to fill the gaps left vacant in yesterday's publication despite the best of intentions and the many good things contained within it.

The big problem relating to the housing crisis and the massive waiting lists that exist throughout the country is that houses are not being built. The people who want homes do not care where they come from as long as they are built. There is a duty and an obligation on everyone who has the power to insist that happens to do so. There is also a right to at least aspire to own one's home. If a person does not want it, that is fair enough. He or she does not have to take up the offer.

We cannot have discrimination. We heard examples of discrimination not only against those in Part V housing but also against those with disabilities. That is the ultimate and absolute discrimination. It is disgusting and should be addressed. It should not be allowed to continue another day.

Other Deputies - the AAA and the PBP - would have us believe-----

Deputy Mick Barry

We have a name.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

What is it?

Deputy Barry Cowen

-----the only way to address this is for those in rented accommodation to swap with those who do not have accommodation. They are to have turns living in it. Is that the only way to address this crisis? It is not. We are dealing with people who have established themselves in communities and are entitled to seek to reside in those communities with their families for time ever after.

Deputy Shane Cassells

Hear, hear.

Deputy Barry Cowen

That should not be taken away from anyone. There should be no discrimination against anyone, irrespective of colour, gender, class or mental or physical being.

Deputy Mick Barry

What are you talking about?

Deputy Barry Cowen

I am talking about what the Deputy and his colleagues said here earlier, which is that our stocks should not be sold off in this manner or that the opportunity should not be given to someone because there are people on waiting lists who might want those homes. The only way they will get them is if one moves out and the other moves in. The Deputy wants them to share the homes.

Deputy Mick Barry

That is nonsense.

Deputy Barry Cowen

What is nonsense is that sort of mantra. That is the old nonsense the Deputy goes on with all of the time. The problem is that if this strategy works, and I hope it does-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

Your time is up, Deputy, and please speak through the Chair.

Deputy Barry Cowen

-----this issue will be addressed, solutions will be found and people will have homes. What will the Deputy do then?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

Deputy, please speak through the Chair.

Deputy Shane Cassells

They have pixie fairies building the houses.

Amendment put.

Deputy Jim Daly

The division is postponed until the weekly division time tomorrow, Thursday, 21 July, in accordance with Standing Order 70(2).