The joint committee will now hear from the representatives of four organisations involved with homelessness and housing in Ireland. We will hear presentations from each delegation individually and members will have an opportunity to question each group. We will hear from representatives of the four organisations, namely, Focus Ireland, Simon Communities of Ireland, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Threshold. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the groups to today's meeting. Before we begin, I want to draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not applied to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Perhaps witnesses will introduce themselves to the committee.
Homeless Persons: Presentations.
Ms Noeleen Hartigan
My name is Noeleen Hartigan from the Simon Communities of Ireland. Our delegation includes Patrick Burke from Threshold, Claire Hickey from Focus Ireland and John Mark McCafferty from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.
Even though the four organisations have been working closely together during our long history, we have worked particularly closely for approximately three years. One of our recommendations is that this committee should be very involved in the review of homeless strategies. We believe that as homelessness is not just a broad and diverse issue, but an important human rights and political issue, it should not just be the preserve of an individual Department or Government party. This committee could serve a great purpose in bringing a cross-parliamentary aspect to resolving the issue.
We welcome the opportunity to be here today, for which we thank the members. Each of the four witnesses will deal with a different aspect of the presentation. Ms Hickey will deal with the review of the homelessness policy which has been promised. Mr. Burke will cover the broader issue of housing policy and John Mark will deal with how we need to take an integrated approach to tackling homelessness, which is not the remit of any one Government Department.
There has been a substantial in improvement in Government policy on homelessness in the past three years. We circulated to Deputies a briefing document which explains who is homeless in Ireland, why they are homeless and what current Government policy is on the issue. Members will see that for almost four years there has been an integrated strategy which calls on local authorities, voluntary organisations and health boards to come together to deliver homeless action plans. Since then standards, services and spending have gone up. Approximately €60 million is spent between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Health and Children, which is welcome.
All our organisations are committed to working in real partnership with Government, which means service delivery on the ground to resolve the issue of homelessness. However, there has been much focus on the middle or emergency aspect of homelessness and getting people off the streets and into hostels. What we need to focus on in order to move the issue forward is prevention, and prevention at either end of the scale of homelessness. We must stop people becoming homeless in the first instance.
We know the people who are at risk. These include people leaving institutions, families living in poverty and people who are risk of sexual or physical violence in the home. The people at risk at the other end of the scale are people who have been homeless for a long time. Once they get their own home, they need some sort of tenancy support.
In the past three years, the focus of Government policy has been on the people in the middle, the homeless people one sees on the streets. We must extend policy action and invest on the other two ends of the spectrum, which includes preventing people becoming homeless. This includes young people, people leaving institutions, people living in poverty and people at risk of violence in their own home. At the other end, we must prevent those who have been homeless, whom we have managed to house, from losing their homes again by providing them with proper tenancy support.
I will now hand over to Ms Hickey who will deal with the aspects we think should be included in the review of the integrated strategy.
Ms Claire Hickey
In 2000, the four organisations published a piece of research called Housing Access for All. That research examined the contents of the housing strategy in each of the local homeless fora and homeless action plans. The research resulted in a number of findings as they relate to homelessness and an integrated strategy, to which I will refer briefly.
One of the first findings of the research was that four homeless action plans should be put on a statutory basis. Therefore, we ask that any review of the integrated strategy should analyse the effectiveness of doing just that. The reason is that, during the course of the research, we worked on it for approximately two years. At the end of the research process, and two years after the publication of Homelessness — An Integrated Strategy, 11 action plans were still outstanding. These had not been adopted and were still in draft form.
Another issue we would like adopted in a review of the integrated strategy is an analysis of the units of accommodation delivered under the strategy. Varying commitments were stated in the action plans, but when we analysed those plans there was a commitment to produce 339 units of emergency accommodation nationally and 406 units of transitional accommodation nationally. We would like to see if those targets were reached and, if not, why not.
Another issue we would like included in a review is a clarification of funding mechanisms under the strategy, with particular reference to the nature of funding available. Why has the commitment to three-year multi-annual funding not been met? There is also variation around the country in terms of funding and support posts. The review should include an analysis of the resource and expertise deficits evident in local homeless fora.
The significant strain local authorities were under in preparing detailed strategies and policies, many of which were happening simultaneously, became clear during the research process. A number of local authorities could have benefited from external help to enable them deliver their plans on time.
The data deficit facing local authorities should also be included in the review. This issue has long dogged homelessness policy and the under-reporting of homelessness. When we analysed the 20 homeless action plans, few of them used the national data available and one report stated homelessness in its area was under-reported in the national data.
In Clare, the national homelessness data published in 1999 indicated one person was out of home. In compiling its action plan the Homelessness Forum conducted an ad hoc survey and found 128 people out of home, so there is a variation between ad hoc surveys. Methodologies can be debated but there is an under representation in the national data.
A review of the strategy should include terms of reference for a new national monitoring committee and we would hope to see representatives of voluntary service providers on that committee. We would also like to see the setting of monitoring and evaluating mechanisms within that process.
Mr. Patrick Burke
It is important for Threshold to address the committee on these issues. My colleague spoke about the spectrum of homelessness. At the beginning there is prevention and in the middle there is a focus on policy and on emergency housing. Then there are long-term solutions and Threshold finds itself at the beginning and end of that spectrum in the area of prevention and through its advisory services throughout the country. This is an important part of the homeless spectrum because prevention is the best solution and making sure early intervention is effective in terms of the problem faced by people both in the private rented sector and in social housing.
At the other end of the spectrum we work closely with our colleagues taking referrals from hospitals and bed and breakfasts and through collaboration with the Homeless Agency. We house people in the private rented sector through the rent supplement scheme, which is an effective solution to people's long-term housing needs. We recommend to the committee that this response to homelessness should be continued and spread throughout the country. We provide a placement service in Galway, Cork and through our access housing unit Dublin to a more sophisticated and organised degree.
We recommend to the committee to resource such a placement service in the private rented sector and also a settlement service. Some people need additional help to maintain a tenancy in the private sector and a service would help to copperfasten that. It is also a more viable solution for those in crisis or bed and breakfast accommodation. Approximately half of the homelessness budget in Dublin is spent on bed and breakfast accommodation. Moving those people into the private sector is a win-win situation both in terms of economics and those people's lives, particularly when it comes to education and employment opportunities.
It is almost a year since the private rented sector legislation was published and there is frustration that it has not been passed because it is important. We encourage the Government to ensure it passes before the summer recess. The private rented sector is no longer a tenure of choice but one of last resort for many people. It is important that it is regulated, with the rights of landlords and tenants maintained and protected. I do not need to remind committee members of house prices and that many people who would have expected to be homeowners cannot afford a house. It is more and more likely that such people will remain in private rented accommodation for the rest of their days.
With regard to social housing, approximately 48,000 people are on waiting lists and people remain on them for longer and longer periods. Some of our clients spend three or four years on these lists while staying in rented accommodation. It is important that the Government should redouble its efforts to increase social housing output to reach the NDP targets. Fundamentally we need to double the output every year to reach that target. There has been some interest in affordable housing, which is welcome, but we should bear in mind that 85% of those on the waiting lists are on less than €15,000 per year. They are not in the affordability bracket and, while we welcome the provision of affordable housing, we must also continue to focus on social housing.
Under the 1988 Act, local authorities were required to carry out assessments of housing need, with those assessments being reflected in legislation. Members will be aware that the profile of those experiencing homelessness shows 80% are single, many of them are males, yet many local authorities provide no units for single people. We recommend to the committee that it should focus on this aspect of the problem.
I am happy to answer questions the committee may have.
Mr. John Mark McCafferty
I represent the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and I will round off the presentations by talking about joined-up government. We are examining two areas — rent supplement and Departments working together. Joined-up government is an issue for local government — health boards and local authorities — and for the State, particularly the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the one hand and the health boards on the other.
The key points I wish to make are on the flawed rent supplement scheme. We would advocate a full reform of that scheme to prevent people experiencing housing deprivation and homelessness. The second and no less substantive issue concerns the interaction of what we regard as the six Departments that have some kind of role to play with regard to homelessness. That would include the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science, Social and Family Affairs, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Finance and, as I have mentioned, Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
We have poverty-proofing in policy, but we would advocate some form of homeless-proofing to ensure that those most at risk of homelessness are not further disenfranchised by policy development. I thank the committee for offering us this space.
I welcome the four organisations and I acknowledge the work done by the various organisations. People find it difficult to understand how a family ends up in a situation where it is facing homelessness. We do understand that substance abuse would be a factor among young single males and maybe young females also. We can understand the reasons how a person can fall into that trap through substance abuse, poverty or being released from a jail, an institution or whatever, but how does the system allow a family to fall into a homeless situation? Where are the actual breakdowns?
I find it amazing. One has the private rented sector, rent allowance and various supports, the health boards and emergency housing. How does a family actually find itself in the position where it cannot find any form of accommodation, either in short-term or longer-term accommodation through the rent allowance and then in local authority housing? I find it amazing that the system could allow that to happen.
We have acknowledged that much of the problem is due to substance abuse, as well as to psychological and psychiatric problems. It would be primarily due to substance abuse among young males. How do we get these people to interact with various agencies? Many of them do not interact with any agency.
We hear anecdotal evidence of Dublin City Council having a bus system in place going around at night to the various places where people sleep rough. If we have to go around trying to collect them, they are obviously completely removed from any services that the State may be providing. We must go out and bring them in, as opposed to their coming voluntarily.
Have any studies been done with regard to other European countries? With our population size and present economic climate, how do we rate in comparison with the homelessness figures of other European countries?
Everybody here has a responsibility, including the guest organisations. Homelessness is being used as a major factor in trying to heighten fears of racism in our society. Very often we hear people ringing in to radio stations, or when one is out canvassing, and saying that we can look after the people of such and such a country all right but cannot look after our own. It is very much used as an emotive factor. It has a detrimental effect on society, and particularly on people coming from abroad who are vulnerable also.
Can the organisations and the State try to address that emotive undercurrent to the debate? All organisations have a duty of care in that regard. I again ask the witnesses to explain how a family can actually fall through the net and into the situation where they are on the streets.
I too welcome the groups and thank them for their presentation, particularly the brevity of it. That is something of a record in here.
Now it is our turn.
Has the change of policy in the rent allowance impacted on homelessness yet, or can we quantify the impact that it has had? I am sure that each of us through our constituency offices has shared my own experience of people coming through who are experiencing immense difficulty as a consequence of it. I would be interested in hearing the view of the witnesses on that.
Given their view on looking at the "end and end" policy, as they call it, in terms of the prevention of homelessness in the first instance, what is their view on the very considerable number of people who are trapped in bed and breakfast accommodation? They are not even counted as homeless. They are not included in the figures, they are not on the Richter scale, yet they are trapped in an endless nightmare. What impact does that have on end to end? How can we deal with that significant group of people at that level at one end of the homelessness scale?
On the data deficit among local authorities, do the witnesses consider that to be a deliberate move on the part of local authorities to avoid dealing with the responsibility in terms of providing for homeless people, or is it just genuine ignorance on their part, like the Minister with responsibility for housing, who cannot count the number of homeless people even in his own city?
Ms Hartigan
We have identified eight questions, and I will divide them up. The first question from Deputy Kelleher was in regard to families, and perhaps Mr. McCafferty and Ms Hickey would comment on that because both Focus Ireland and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul provide services to families. There is the issue of comparison with other European countries, the data deficit and detox, which I will take. Mr. Burke could take the evidence of the rent allowance issue. Deputy Morgan may say that the data deficit is a deliberate effort, but given that we do not have Dáil privilege we could not possibly comment. However, I will deal with the substantial issue of the data deficit.
As a starting point, Deputy Kelleher raised the issue of racism. One of the saddest things we have seen in our organisation over the last couple of years is that people who used not to like people who are homeless now do not like people who are black and homeless. They suddenly like us a bit more and are more tolerant of street homeless as long as they are Irish. That is a really sad indictment, and we actually hear that in our services and even from some of our smaller donors. They ask who we are actually working with, and that is a very sad day for us. It means that people are more tolerant, but only of our own homeless community, and none of our organisations feel that it is an either-or situation.
As Mr. McCafferty said, this is about joined up government and having a really strong anti-poverty belief across all Government Departments. If we have that we should not have to choose. This is what we experience in terms of the public's response to what we do.
Ms Hickey
In terms of why families might become homeless, there has certainly been quite a bit of research around the whole area of triggers of homelessness. We would see two pathways. One would be the structural issues, the unavailability or inaccessibility of either the private rented sector or local authority or social housing to people who find themselves homeless. There is a broader structural issue, which means that after the triggering event, which is often something like an episode of domestic violence, or a family relationship breaking down or drug misuse, the persons who find themselves out of the family home or the home they have been used to have nowhere else to go.
We have found over the last couple of years that there has been an increase in the number of families who are homeless. The assessment of homelessness which was carried out in Dublin as part of the general tri-annual assessment has shown that to be the case. Thus, for example, from 1999 to 2002 there has been an increase in the number of families, in particular the number of dual parent families. The survey data is for 2002, and we are due for another assessment next year, but it shows about 1,000 homeless children in Dublin and 1,400 nationally.
There is the structural issue and the trigger that causes the breakdown in the accommodation in the first place. In terms of where families can go, the services are quite well developed in Dublin for families. One can certainly argue that bed and breakfasts are not appropriate, and they are definitely not appropriate in the long term. Research from other countries has shown that children are vulnerable to poor health as a result. We have finished research ourselves looking at some of the difficulties families face in terms of accessing private spaces, places for kids to do their homework, play and so on. Standards are improving but it is still an issue and is certainly not appropriate for long-term placement. There is also an issue about how well developed those services are outside Dublin.
Mr. McCafferty
To underline what Ms Hickey said about budgetary impact, a household might be struggling with a variety of outgoings but then there is a shock to the household such as a bereavement or an episode of mental ill health. The budget of the household then becomes strained and there are no contingencies and a dearth of support systems in the private rented sector or social housing for those households that are particularly at risk.
Ms Hickey
We have started to provide services specifically for families. One of the difficulties is getting families engaged with the services because of the stereotype or stigma attached to homelessness services, namely that those using them are drug users or have mental health issues. We have to get families in so that they then know where to go. Often families have never experienced this before. Once they get into the cycle it can be a revolving one but in the first instance, families often do not know where to go or what their recourse is if they have been evicted. We try to get them engaged and provide the information and services that might help them. That goes for the adults and, vitally, the children because we see the potential for disruption to education. If one thing characterises the population with whom we work and the people who experience homelessness, it is poor education and educational disadvantage. It is important to maintain education for the children to break the inter-generational cycle.
Ms Hartigan
Mr. Burke will have more to say about the impact the cap on rent supplements has had on families in unsustainable tenancies.
On detoxification, there is a core group of people who are street homeless and have alcohol or drug dependency issues but they are the extreme, although much of our focus has been on that group. We have had some major successes, such as the Dublin Simon alcohol detoxification programme where we had 158 participants and 119 completed a three week alcohol detoxification, came off alcohol and moved into other accommodation.
The problem then is that we cannot house single men in local authority housing and until we break the myth that all homeless people are either drug users or mentally unwell, it is very hard to find sustainable move-on accommodation for people. A good example exists in the national anti-poverty strategy, where there is an extremely laudable Government commitment to end rough sleeping by the end of this year but there was no commitment to provide sufficient move-on accommodation. In the Dublin homeless action file there will hopefully be commitment to provide 1,000 additional units of single person accommodation in Dublin. We have ways of working with people to help them detoxify but we do not have anywhere to put people and they have nowhere left to go.
The other major issue for detoxification and those with substance misuse problems is mental health. If there is both a mental health issue and an alcohol or drug problem, a person cannot access mental health services because they want the person to detoxify first, and he or she cannot access the detoxification services because they are not equipped to deal with the mental health issues. The bottom line is that we must prevent that from becoming an issue in the first place. People who are homeless have had jobs, paid tax, have families and children, have relationships, voted for Deputies in this room but right now this is where they are. We may never end some of the awful situations that force people into homelessness but we can certainly end the amount of time they have to spend in the homelessness system; there can be swift intervention.
It was interesting that Deputy Kelleher mentioned the bus that rounds people up and asked why these people are not coming to the services. Everything I do, and everything the Deputy does, is based on having an address, from contacting social welfare to opening a bank account. As homeless people do not have that basic qualification we have to design the services specifically to meet their needs. We have done that; we have designed good services but the problem is where people go afterwards.
The data cannot be directly compared across EU member states because we all have different definitions of homelessness but we recently said that the Irish definition of homelessness is among the most positive in Europe. The Irish definition, unlike many other European countries, puts the concept of home at the heart of homelessness. We do not just say "without a roof", we recognise that someone at risk of domestic violence, even if she owns her own home, is homeless because if she is being battered in that house, it is not a home.
The state that has had the most effective impact on ending homelessness is Finland, which has doubled social housing provision. It is as simple as that in many ways. This State was providing 50% of all housing as social housing in the 1950s and 1960s but we cannot do that now despite ongoing budget surpluses. If we are serious about ending homelessness, we must deliver housing for those most in need. At the moment, despite the legislation, single units are not being built. When it comes to Part 5 and how much of a development will be social and how much well be affordable, local authority members stress the affordable because they are the more politically correct people to house. There are instances of families becoming homeless and the mother going with her child to a local authority only to be told she needs more children before she can join the housing waiting list.
Mr. Burke
On Deputy Morgan's questions on rent supplement, the four organisations here, along with 35 other national organisations, joined a campaign to speak up on behalf of recipients of rent supplement following recent cutbacks. We predicted it would have a devastating effect on a small but significant number of people. Deputies will accept that we have a responsibility to look after the most vulnerable people in society and our evidence is that these cuts are having that effect on the most vulnerable.
We predicted that people experiencing crisis pregnancy would be affected and we now have case evidence to demonstrate this. Single parents have also been affected. Young people who are moving from a rural to urban area to access employment cannot now move because they cannot access rent supplement as they have not fulfilled the stipulation that they must fund their own rent for six months. We had not anticipated it, but it has been noticed in our Cork and Galway offices that people returning from abroad who have been studying or working find they do not qualify for rent supplement. This is having a devastating effect. The coalition continues to monitor this and in a few weeks time we will make a more formal statement on the effects of the cuts and will encourage the Government to review the situation. The savings from these cuts are minimal in the broader scheme of things. They are particularly scandalous when we are running budget surpluses.
Mr. Burke mentioned the devastation being caused. Could we have some examples to give us an idea of what we are talking about? What about crisis pregnancy?
Mr. Burke
We are dealing with a young person who found herself in a crisis pregnancy and who is living in social housing with three sisters and her parents, who are devastated. She feels she can no longer remain in the family home, and she was refused rent supplement.
Is there not a provision for that in the regulations?
Ms Hartigan
With respect, there is a huge difference between what is in the regulations and what happens in practice.
I am just asking whether there is such a provision.
Mr. Burke
We have asked to appeal but there is nothing definite in that regard.
It is totally at the discretion of the CWO. I am familiar with a case of a married woman——
Sorry, Chairman——
We are not going to have a big debate on this. I just wanted to get an idea.
Mr. Burke
There is a lot of evidence, for instance, of young people who have moved from, say, west Cork to Cork and have been issued with rent supplement. They are seeking accommodation and living on the floors of friends' houses, apartments or whatever. Many of the effects will not be seen and will be unreported. That is one of the difficulties we have in terms of quantifying the exact impact this has had. Word has got out that accommodation is no longer available so people do not turn up on the doors of Threshold or anywhere else because they know it is not available to them anymore.
Given the discretionary powers of the office involved, we have been encouraging clients to make appeals. It is important we do that to test the system. It is clear that different officials are operating it in very different ways, and some health boards and local authorities have reacted differently. The North Western Health Board, for instance, did not actually implement the new changes until May 2004. It took a very responsible approach. It entered into negotiations with the local authorities, and when it was satisfied that the assessment of housing needs would be carried out in a reasonably short period of time and so on it went ahead and implemented it. Others implemented it from 1 January 2004, even before the regulations came in. Thus, operation of the cutbacks is not uniform.
I will say a quick word on the rent cuts. These are worrying, particularly for people in the very lower end of the spectrum who are experiencing poverty and social exclusion. There is evidence to suggest that properties are not available within the rent caps in certain parts of the country and that this is encouraging collusion between landlords and tenants to operate the system illegally. People are paying above and beyond the rent caps, which is a worry. The alternative for vulnerable tenants is homelessness, so any of us would appreciate that there is no option other than to pay above the premium rate.
On the crisis pregnancy case, is that a one-off or would that be repeated throughout the country?
Mr. Burke
In the last three weeks we have had three cases of that in the particular area of the country I am talking about.
Ms Hartigan
I was going to bring in Ms Hickey just to finish off on the data question raised by Deputy Morgan.
Ms Hickey
I want to talk briefly about what we are calling the data deficit. We identified a number of problems generally but also within the research that we conducted, and there are three areas in which we would see the need to address the data deficit. The first is the range of variables — that is, the type of information that is being collected. The situation in Dublin is slightly different in that a different type of methodology is being used to collect information about homelessness in the city. That methodology employs figures for both local authority housing departments and the use of services specifically for homeless people. Thus, it catches people irrespective of whether they are registered. We would like to see some adoption of that methodology across the country, or at least in the major urban areas.
The other issue concerns the range of variables. At the moment, the only information that is published is the number of adults, children, one-person households and households with more than one person. That type of information is not adequate to develop national policy on homelessness. We need to see more information about gender, age breakdowns, the pathways, the triggers for people, how long they have been homeless, whether they are registered on the housing waiting list and so on. There are a range of issues on which information must be collected to help inform policy development.
The other issue we would like to see addressed is that of the frequency of collection. At the moment it is a tri-annual assessment. People move in and out of homelessness — there tends to be a cyclical element to it — and tri-annual assessments do not capture that information. In Dublin, at the homeless persons unit one can get information annually on the number of people who are homeless, but one certainly cannot get national data to that level. We are very anxious to see improvements in the type of information collected, if not the frequency of the collection, before the next assessment, which is due in March 2005.
I welcome the representatives of the different groups and compliment them on the excellent work they are doing to address homelessness throughout the country. There was reference to the difficulty single males have in being accommodated in local authority housing, and I have come across that quite a bit, although I represent a rural constituency in west Limerick. In our local authority we take applications from single males, but they find it extremely difficult to be housed. One way of doing so that I have seen work quite successfully is through voluntary housing. If one builds ten units one can house seven people off the local authority list and accommodate three tenants at one's discretion.
The single male can be included within the list of seven anyway, but I am talking about the male of probably between 45 to 50 years of age who is falling between two stools on a constant basis. I praise that system as it is very effective, and I encourage more communities with people in that category to get involved and put those units in place. There is practically 100% Government support by way of grant aid to put those units in place.
To be honest, if one looks at the scenario with local authorities, one has the family unit coming first, one-parent families second and elderly and vulnerable people third. They all seem to come before the single male who requires a home just as much. However, one must understand where the local authorities are coming from. One thing that fascinates me in one respect is that, coming from a rural constituency, I am not aware of anybody who is actually homeless in the sense of sleeping on the street in my constituency. Would the witnesses agree that there is a big difference between urban and rural areas in that respect? I do not know why. Is it because people can access services and have better knowledge in a rural situation, where there are smaller populations, whereas they tend to become more anonymous in an urban setting? It is something that always fascinates me, and perhaps the guests might comment on it.
Also, I can understand, particularly in urban settings, a situation where children of 12, 13 or 14 are forced to leave their homes because of domestic violence. Naturally, they cannot remain in that situation. Whose responsibility is it to try to catch those people the first day they go on the streets? I can also understand that they find themselves in an out-of-school situation. It might seem attractive in the short term to be on the street, but the longer they are not caught the longer they stay on the streets.
I can understand how those people can remain homeless, whereas in the family situation I find it more difficult to understand. I imagine that people in this day and age are reasonably well informed about services and back-up. Is it because these people are not informed of the help available to them, or is it because the organisations cannot locate accommodation for them?
From my experience of my own clinics, if somebody arrives in to me on a Saturday morning and says that the rented accommodation he or she is living in is being sold in a month or week's time and that he or she has to get out, I will explain that he or she must apply to go on the housing list if he or she is not already on it but that it will take a period of time before he or she can be accommodated. Not one of those people has come back to me to say he or she is homeless and cannot find accommodation. Again, it is probably the rural versus urban divide, but it is strange that in rural Ireland the system appears to be working in that we do not have people sleeping in the streets. There might be people who could be termed homeless in a more general sense, who are living with somebody else and have a roof over their heads, but it strikes me as strange that in one situation we can apparently cope with it but in another situation we cannot.
I also wish to welcome, and should have done so at the outset, the positive comments about the efforts and good work done over the last three years and the recognition and finance that the Government has provided. The members of the delegation welcomed that and started on a very positive note. That confirms that the Minister responsible can count, with all due respect to Deputy Morgan.
Anyone with a computer can count.
I was concerned by the recent controversy regarding the payment of rent subsidies. I agree that different health boards or officials deal with the matter in different ways. Regardless of what decision one makes or the level of payment there should be consistency across the board. I have encountered this in a range of areas, even in recent days regarding maintenance grants for students, one VEC does one thing while another does something else. I cannot understand why that should be. I take the group's point about the person with a crisis pregnancy but according to my briefings the community welfare officer of the health board involved had discretion to deem her entitled to, and deserving of, a rent subsidy.
My experience is the reverse of Deputy Cregan's because I work in Dublin's north inner city. I have first-hand experience of the four groups and their work and I congratulate them on it because I know what they do at the coal face. I have always been amazed at the disconnection between local authorities and health boards and statutory and non-statutory agencies. Even among some of the voluntary organisations there was a distinct lack of communication. Is that changing? How do the groups see that progressing and how do we maintain the progress? How do the groups see the model of the Cabinet committee on social inclusion working? Can it improve or is there a further role for it?
To expand on a previous speaker's comments about other jurisdictions, at advice centres and clinics we see an increase in people, families as well as single people, from the United Kingdom or Germany, or other European countries, coming here and ending up homeless. Is there a contact with other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Germany or France? If so, how is that used or is it used enough? More frequently now we encounter families from these countries, often with only one parent, usually the mother, with a couple of small children.
I note the views of the groups that we need to emphasise prevention and protect people from finding themselves homeless. I note also that the logjam does not exist in emergency or transitional accommodation but in the transition to permanent accommodation. The lack of local authority housing units for single persons is a significant problem. Mr. Burke spoke about bed and breakfast accommodation. That represents a haemorrhage of money from the State and is not a good system yet Mr. Burke seems anxious that it be extended. Perhaps I misinterpreted him but I would be interested in his view on bed and breakfast accommodation and whether we can get people out of that vicious cycle of living in bed and breakfast accommodation if we get permanent housing built.
I apologise for missing the initial presentation but I had commitments elsewhere. How much is the problem of homelessness affected by policy decisions of the health boards and the Department of Health and Children on psychiatric care? I refer to the shift from accommodation for chronically ill patients to a system whereby, in theory, hostels are opened in communities and the local authorities are asked to take on the responsibility of housing people without adequate community support. In my city many of those on the streets at night are former psychiatric patients who were discharged, despite a lack of medium to high support hostels for them. Certain local authorities and health boards believed that giving a person a house in a certain area solved the problem but those areas had no community-based supports. How much is the problem exacerbated by a short-sighted attitude to mental health and the lack of resources in that area?
Ms Hartigan
When that policy document came out 20 years ago about dispersal of people from psychiatric institutions into the communities most people welcomed it. Simon did not welcome it and said that without sufficient resources it would increase homelessness and, unfortunately, we have been proved correct. We recently had an example of a man in a wheelchair on an IV drip being discharged from a psychiatric institution to our hostel in Cork, which is one of the few open access hostels in the city and is at times extremely busy. The simple answer is yes; it has had a significant impact.
Ireland has the lowest level of supported housing for people with psychiatric needs in Europe. If one does the maths on can see that we are not ridiculous, we aim to provide solutions, and value for money from the client's point of view. To keep someone in a psychiatric institution in Ireland costs €127,000 a year. To keep someone in high support accommodation provided by the Simon Community costs €40,000 a year. We could house three people in a quality environment that is their home for every one person still inappropriately incarcerated in psychiatric care. The UN has strongly criticised this State for breaching its commitments to the right to housing and breaching the human rights of people inappropriately housed in psychiatric care. That excludes people who have been discharged. The Government launched a laudable preventative strategy before the last general election. It proposed that psychiatric institutions and prisons and other institutions would have discharge policies so that nobody would leave State care without having somewhere to go but it did not identify where they would go or who would be responsible for this. Unfortunately, despite the economics of the situation it would be cheaper to house people in supported housing. It is a flagrant abuse of human rights to leave very vulnerable people on the streets. Despite the Government's commitment we still lack a proper system whereby when one leaves psychiatric care, one is housed in a decent way.
Our recommendations touch on the idea that the preventative strategy needs to be properly funded. All our organisations are involved in the review of the mental health policy in which we need to see homelessness specified. The people in greatest need are those we see and those most troubled are the ones we remember. The hidden homeless are in the bed and breakfasts or paying their landlords an extra €40 a week on the side which they cannot afford. They will be the street homeless unless something is done. We can stop that, because we know who is at risk. It is important to focus on solutions. Someone in the Simon Community in Cork put it to me recently that homelessness in Ireland is big enough to be a crisis but small enough to be solved. The solutions are there, but smart thinking is involved, along with spending money in the right places.
Mr. Burke
The bed and breakfast situation is clearly undesirable. I understand that approximately 50% of the budget in Dublin is spent in that area, and that is not sustainable into the future. I was suggesting that Threshold in collaboration with the Homeless Agency run what we call an axis housing unit, where we take people from crisis accommodation and bed and breakfast accommodation and place them in the private rented sector by means of the rent supplement. That is an obvious and cost-effective direction to take and benefits clients and the Exchequer. Schemes such as that, whereby we take people from crisis accommodation and bed and breakfast accommodation into either the private rented sector or social housing should be encouraged and spread throughout the country. They run exceptionally well. Some 143 people were placed in the first nine months of last year. Similar services are offered in Galway and Cork, although they are not particularly well organised as yet due to lack of resources. The service is a model for other local authorities as a means to solve the problem.
A Deputy mentioned the issue of youth homelessness and how it manifests in rural, city centre and urban contexts. It does so quite differently in those contexts. We must think outside the box a little more, and forget about the stereotypical image of the drunk homeless person on the street. In the rural context, because there is greater social cohesion along with support networks, there are fewer people sleeping rough on the streets. Some people may be housed by family members or by a social network, so the problem is not so obvious.
Prior to working for Threshold, I worked in family support and youth projects in Blanchardstown and it became clear to me how homelessness manifests itself in suburbia, compared to the city centre. I worked with young people who would not dream of accessing city centre services. Most were afraid to do so, believing the hostels to be dangerous, which may or may not be true. They also prefer to be among their peers in the community. I have seen young people sleeping rough on the streets in Blanchardstown. Almost every social house used in the area has a coal house at the back, and the young homeless use those to sleep in. They sleep in wheelie-bins and in cars. These people do not show up in counts. A count is carried out by volunteers like ourselves every few years. One night three or four of us were accompanied by two gardaí in their full regalia. We used torches and went to a field where we knew some young people were sleeping. They jumped over the ditch when they saw us coming with torches, so we could not count them. That is why the situation is hard to quantify, but the problem exists and is well known to youth workers.
Ms Hartigan
I want to return to the comments made by Deputy Brady, or rather Senator Brady, before I ask Ms Hickey to touch on the urban-rural issue again.
It is only a matter of time before Senator Brady becomes Deputy Brady.
Ms Hartigan
I could not possibly comment on that. I was very interested in what Senator Brady said. He asked if the situation was changing, and how we keep things going. There has been a substantial increase in co-operation between local authorities, voluntary service providers and the health boards. One of our strongest recommendations is that the local homelessness group that operates at a county or local authority level be maintained in any re-formulation of the homeless strategy, and also that such groups be resourced. That is fundamental. Good work is being done in Dublin because we have an agency for the homeless, and a semi-State authority working with the NGOs in the area. There are some local authorities where homeless people are not seen on the streets. Some women live in refuges. Some young people stay in family homes where they should not be. The understanding of homelessness by some local authorities remains archaic. They are not bad or ignorant people, but the resources are just not there. We need to properly resource the local authorities to allow them consider policy on homelessness and strengthen it. NGOs like ourselves are in an odd situation. We are not banging drums because we like the Government policy, but we would like to see it fully implemented.
The Senator referred to the Oireachtas sub-committee on social inclusion, to which all these matters should fall under the national anti-poverty strategy. Unfortunately from our point of view, there is no national committee on homelessness. There is no place where NGOs like ourselves can formally engage with Government and deal with homelessness at a national level. There is much learning to be done at that level. Simon has communities in Cork, Dublin, Dundalk, Galway and now in the midlands. We cover a broad urban-rural range. Between the four organisations in Dublin we have the country covered, but we have no space in which to formally engage with Government. We have fulfilled our side of the partnership deal in delivering the services. We would now like the Government to fulfil its side and bring us to the table to help with the solution.
We were all quite worried the other day by something said at a event organised by FEANPSA, the European network of homeless organisations. Mr. Gerry Mangan from the office of social inclusion who is monitoring NAPS, the national anti-poverty strategy, was there. NAPSis very strong in many ways because it says that the State recognises that housing is a right, and that the State will increase access to housing in a transparent way in order to fulfil that right. When Mr. Mangan was asked what happens when the State continues to fail to deliver on its social housing output targets, he said he did not know. This is soft politics. There is no implementation, no way of applying legal means, no way of fighting our case other than through soft politics. The issues are not soft politics issues, but life and death issues. Ms Hickey might cover the urban-rural issue and might also like to comment on the social and affordable housing action fund and the deficit there, particularly regarding voluntary housing and single men.
Ms Hickey
On Deputy Cregan's comment on the urban-rural issue, our organisation operates in Dublin, Limerick and Waterford, and we see a different type of homelessness. It is not quite as visible as street homelessness. We notice that people move to where the services are. They no longer remain in their original communities. The problem tends to be hidden. People tend to stay with friends or relatives in overcrowded or vulnerable situations. Although we are concerned about the veracity of some of the national data, it appears that there are close to 3,000 people homeless in Dublin according to counts from 2002, and nationally, nearly 6,000 people. Accordingly, there are 3,000 homeless outside the Dublin area. Cork and Galway might account for a significant number of those, but there is an issue in rural areas. People tend to migrate.
Regarding young people forced to leave their homes, health boards have a duty of care to young people under the age of 18. The youth homelessness strategy published a couple of years ago placed a responsibility on the health boards in collaboration with voluntary organisations in much the same way that local homeless fora have developed action plans for the health boards to develop youth homelessness strategies. Our experience is that the Eastern Regional Health Authority has quite a well developed youth homelessness strategy and we do not see the same number of young people sleeping out as we saw in Dublin a number of years ago. However, the very chaotic, vulnerable and troubled young people are staying on the streets. We need them to engage with services. The difficulty is that because of the chaos, there is a level of distrust. They may have been in the care system or have had some interaction with the judicial system, so there is a natural distrust of statutory organisations. These young people tend to hang out together and do not trust such organisations. I know that one of the biggest challenges we face as an organisation — we have recently opened a hostel in collaboration with St. Vincent de Paul — is to help young people through the transition from children's services into adult services. It often comes as a huge shock to the system that after their 18th birthday the health board essentially does not want to know them. That move into adult service use is very difficult for them, and they are suddenly exposed to new populations. That is a real challenge for service provision.
We have very low unemployment at present, primarily made up of young single males. Is any service available, either through the voluntary sector or through State agencies, to provide a mechanism to move them into employment, or is it just a case of providing accommodation if they cannot get on their own two feet? One would assume there are many young people, not all substance abusers or people with other difficulties, who should take up employment opportunities.
I will relay an experience I had in London a few years ago. I was there on business, and we finished quite early. I met a young homeless Scottish woman and started talking to her on the street. I invited her along to join us for lunch in a restaurant. She wanted to know whether she might bring her boyfriend along. That brought matters home to me; one or two things opened my eyes that day. We were refused in several restaurants. It might have been a Wimpy bar where we finally got served. Those were two healthy young people who had come from Scotland to London to make their fortune, or a fresh start. They had enough money in their pockets to survive for three or four days, yet the fact that neither of them had succeeded in picking up employment meant they had to move to a hostel. Once one applied for a job giving the address of a hostel, there was no chance of getting a job. They were into a vicious circle straight away. In the matter of a week, circumstances had changed for those two young, healthy people. Similar stories have been told here in Dublin.
What does the Simon Community say about the figure in its annual report yesterday that, of the 400 people who came through its Dublin office last year, not one was housed? How does it keep going in the face of such apparent hopelessness?
Ms Hartigan
I will touch on the jobs issue first, but I will not forget that point, which is very clear in our minds at the moment. At a policy level, the integrated homelessness strategy came out in May 2000. There was a commitment that FÁS would develop training courses specifically for people who are homeless and conduct an audit of the training and employment needs of homeless people. With all due respect to FÁS, as far as I know from the perspective of the Simon Community, that did not happen until we found that line in the policy document and the Dublin Simon Community went to FÁS and asked it to support our training and employment centre out in Chapelizod, where we have had a specific site built with fundraisers' money. FÁS is doing that, and it is marvellous, but that is the gap that exists.
The policies are all in place. There are policies for the Department of Education and Science, FÁS, the probation and welfare service and the Prison Service, but they are very ad hoc regarding delivery. Many things are happening only in Dublin, where all of the focus and most of the fundraising exists. Unfortunately, people find themselves moving to Dublin to access services because they are so embarrassed about being homeless in Nenagh. If it gets to that stage, they prefer to be anonymous in Dublin.
The other important point is that the integrated homelessness strategy clarified from a funding point of view that local authorities are responsible for people's accommodation costs, and health boards for their care costs. The issue of care costs has been very controversial and difficult, and many projects are not running at their full capacity because they are not receiving care costs. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has in the main met its costs, but the Department of Health and Children has not. That will become more complex with the review of the Health Services Executive and how that pans out in future. Those are the only two funding lines that are very clear, so one cannot go to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, FÁS, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or the Department of Education and Science and say that we have a brilliant intervention project. There are currently no clear funding lines for that.
Another thing that came out in the report from the Dublin Simon Community yesterday is that in our transitional housing — a small unit off Dorset Street — there are currently nine people with jobs. Transitional housing is meant to help people by way of emergency accommodation and a little support until we find them their own homes, but because they are in low-income employment, which they will probably be for most of their lives, they cannot afford to move out of the transitional accommodation. As soon as they start to try to pay rent costs, they will lose their rent supplement because they work for more than 30 hours a week. They are working for the minimum wage.
That all sounds fairly desperate, but the solutions are not rocket science. Regarding Deputy Morgan's point, it is correct that, of the 400 people who used the Dublin Simon Community's emergency hostel last year, not one received social housing from any of the Dublin local authorities. Some got private rented accommodation and some got voluntary housing. The Simon Community and other agencies are starting to build their own housing now. However, the bottom line is that the legislation that enables local authorities to house the homeless has been around for 16 years, but in that period homelessness has increased by almost 300%.
Those whom we count as homeless, when we count them correctly, and those whom we house are quite different. I accept that social housing should not be the only answer. There is the private rented sector, property regulation, voluntary housing and so on. Currently each local authority is meant to have social and affordable housing action plans. We think that that is great, and it is great that they are for five years. However, if one bases them on our current data for homelessness and then allocates funding on that basis, we will not get anywhere. We have called for those plans to be reviewed at the end of next March in light of the new homelessness figures and for the Government to sign off on a process of doing something about the data deficit on homelessness in the meantime so that by April next year we know we can stand over our figures and that the Government will commit itself to funding the housing allocations accordingly. I am being very domineering; that is not new.
Perhaps Ms Hartigan could conclude.
Ms Hartigan
I thank all the members for this opportunity, which came out of our research. We very much wanted to meet this committee and for it to have a role in the review of the integrated strategy. We also wanted to allow the full spread of parliamentary officers to engage with the issue. There have been major successes in the last three or four years, and great funding improvements; we deny none of that. We, on this side of the table, have proven our commitment to working in partnership with the Government by delivering services and often going out on a limb when commitments for funding were not fulfilled so that we delivered the services anyway, going out with our tin cans and looking for the money that way. The solutions are there, and ending homelessness in Ireland is practical.
We may never stop all the awful things that happen to people, but at least we can ensure that, when someone becomes homeless, he or she need not spend a single night on the streets, with the longest time spent in emergency accommodation being a few months so that the person does not become institutionalised. We must narrow that gap between people being at risk of homelessness and having to go through that long loop of accessing services and scraping around trying to find information, with their mental health deteriorating and substance abuse issues arising so that they end up in an awful crisis. We can stop all that cost-effectively before it happens.
From the committee we seek an opportunity, of the sort that it has given us today which we really welcome, to sit at the table and offer it some of our solutions. As I said, we have proven our commitment to working in partnership with the Government, and some reciprocity would be greatly appreciated. If any members require further information from any of our organisations, we would all be happy to assist. We try with what limited resources we have to work with Deputies as closely as we can. On behalf of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Focus Ireland, Threshold and the Simon Community, thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentation. I apologise for Deputy Gilmore's absence. He wanted to be here, but that was not possible owing to a family bereavement.
The second delegation to meet the joint committee today is the Irish Council for Social Housing. It is welcome. Before the presentation commences I want to draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the longstanding parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses of the Oireachtas or an official byname in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to address it today. We will try to be brief. Our focus is principally on the delivery of social housing in meeting the needs of homeless people and the crucial role that it has in the longterm.
The Irish Council for Social Housing is the federation of non-profit and voluntary housing associations. It has approximately 200 members throughout the country. Members build approximately 1,600 new homes per year, which is between one in three and one in four of all new social rented housing. Local authorities are the key providers of local rented housing. Members collectively manage about 17,000 units of accommodation in social rented housing. Approximately 50 of the member organisations provided services directly to homeless people. In 2003 approximately 250 new homes were completed for homeless people by the voluntary housing sector.
The voluntary housing sector, our members, has tended to provide homeless services for single men, young homeless and women who encounter domestic violence. In recent times, elderly emigrants, who were formerly homeless in the UK have returned to Ireland and have been housed by housing associations. In general the voluntary housing sector comprises large and small organisations, from 2,500 units of management to less than ten units. I am sure Deputies and Senators will be familiar at local level with their own community housing associations.
In terms of the members' role as regards homeless, a number of homeless projects have been provided throughout the country. There has been considerable focus on Dublin at this meeting, but in Monaghan, Wicklow, Tullamore, Nenagh and even in County Kerry, a number of voluntary housing associations provide distinct services for homeless people. Traditionally the response was emergency and crisis accommodation but in recent years more of our member organisations have tended to provide what is termed "move on accommodation", whether in the form of sheltered or supported housing. A recent phenomenon has been the emergence of a number of foyer-type developments where training and support for young people is incorporated in addition to accommodation. Much has been achieved in the last 20 years as regards the delivery of services for homeless people. We have moved on from the traditional emergency response of shelters and hostels and now see a future in terms of the provision of long-term housing for homeless people.
In a sense, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. A number of models have been developed throughout the country and we need to build on that. As regards social housing, the issue today is to recognise the scale of the problem to be addressed. The Government has provided increased capital funding in recent years for social rented housing. That has been welcome. However, the scale of the problem has increased dramatically in recent years in terms of the overall demand for housing, but particularly social rented housing.
The main obstacle we would see in resolving homelessness in the long term is the fact that homeless people require suitable accommodation. As was mentioned earlier, there has been an increase in the quality of services as regards health care, training and support etc. That is welcome. However, rented housing continues to be an issue. Ireland has the smallest social rented housing stock — that is, local authority and voluntary housing — in the European Union. There are approximately 120,000 social rented housing units. The ICSH estimates that this needs to be increased to approximately 150,000, a 25% increase. In this regard, the National Development Plan 2000-2006 was a clear strategy by the Government to try to forecast and target a number of new social rented housing units. That was both for local authorities and ourselves in the voluntary housing sector.
As regards our own sector, the target for 2004 was to build to 2,750 new units, a number of which would have been for homeless people. In terms of the capital funding to meet that, however, we find we will probably be only able to complete 1,800 units. We are always 1,000 units short and that has a knock-on effect for homeless people because the supply of social rented housing is just not there.
With the demand for social housing at its highest, probably since the formation of the State, the homeless integrated strategy has been put in place, which we welcome.
The other key element we would see being developed in parallel is the expansion of the social housing stock in Ireland. There is no way around it. The private rented sector is currently providing a buffer. Homeless people tend to move into the private rented sector because there are no other options. A number of Deputies have identified that single homeless people are not a priority. It should be noted that one in three of all applicants for social rented housing are single people. There is an overwhelming argument that the supply of social rented housing should be targeted towards smaller households.
As regards our own sector, we estimate that in order to meet our targets under the national development plan for 2004 we would need approximately €100 million in terms of capital funding. Within that we will need €30 million to cover the cost of accommodation for single people. Homeless people would be a key component of that. We have developed a strategy in line with the targets set in the national development plan but we are unclear about and have questions on the commitments made under the plan.
We do not see the private rental sector providing a solution in the long term to the housing needs of homeless people. The anomalies in the payment of supplementary welfare or rent subsidies are a by-product of the system we have inherited. Ireland is probably one of the few European countries where the Government pays almost 80% to 90% rent subsidies to private landlords. That is very unusual. If we had a greater supply of social rental housing which was targeted at single people, of whom the homeless form a key component, we could target single homeless people to move into social rented housing.
In assessing housing needs — this topic has been covered already so I will not cover it again — we see the housing needs assessment process as different from managing the housing waiting lists. The housing needs assessment is a useful exercise every three years as a form of research, but in terms of a service, it is different from managing a waiting list. We advocate that the assessment of housing need should be undertaken on a more regular basis. In many EU member states, the waiting list is updated on a weekly basis.
I have tried to emphasise the key component of social rented housing in this process. Services have been delivered, the quality has improved dramatically, but the blockages, as identified by previous speakers, of people remaining in shelters or in bed and breakfast accommodation for long periods, will not be solved until we expand the stock of social rented housing. Twenty years ago, we probably had no services but there were vacancies in social rented housing, especially in Dublin, although they were not appropriate types of housing. We have an increased level of services for homeless people but no housing for them. We have almost come full circle.
The voluntary housing sector will not solve the housing needs of homeless people, but we contribute in no small way. We have done so in recent years and have met our commitments under the national development plan. If the targets set in the plan are to be met, a dramatic increase in capital expenditure for social rented housing is required. I will pass to my colleague, Ms Karen Murphy, who has experience on the ground on the homeless strategy and the homeless action plan.
Ms Karen Murphy
Some great work has been done in the past number of years on homelessness. We have an integrated strategy for the country, a preventive strategy and a youth homelessness strategy. One often asks oneself, if we have all these strategies and we are able to name all the issues, why is the problem so persistent?
Our strategies may not be perfect but they are the groundwork on which to build during the coming years. From our experience, the key to progress is the supply of adequate social housing or rental housing for people on low income or welfare payment. If the supply of social housing is inadequate, one must continually provide services to the homeless. The integrated strategy is now four years old and has brought together the various bodies working in local areas, for example, the health boards, the voluntary agencies providing day services, housing associations providing shelter and emergency accommodation and the local authorities. It may be asked what is the problem if the strategy is working locally. Let us take an example. Some members may be aware of the Louth Housing Forum, which has been loudly welcomed by all the bodies on the ground. It has had an impact in improving the relationship between the various parties. It has some genuine outcomes in terms of identifying needs, such as for a wet hostel in Dundalk, which I believe is to open shortly and is to be welcomed. From our members working the ground who are providing emergency services, the same problem that Mr. McManus outlined exists. They are working with people who are living in emergency accommodation but when it comes to the end of 18 months or the two year transitional accommodation, there is nowhere to resettle them. Unless there is an adequate supply of social housing, which there may not be in the town or city in question, the input of all the good work to build up the person to resettle is to some degree lost. This is but one example where the issues are identified and the problems are understood, but unless it is possible to rehouse or resettle it is almost a matter of maintaining a revolving door system of emergency services.
The capital assistance scheme has been used very well by housing associations in the past 20 years. It is used to house people who are homeless and to give them long-term homes in the community in which they aspire to live. The Government strategy in the national development plan, which was greatly welcomed and provided massive resources to social housing, set out specific targets that were to be reached over the six year period. We consider the capital scheme is not being adequately funded from this year onwards to enable housing association to deliver on those targets. We are beating a very similar drum. The different issues have been identified and named and the answer lies in the number of social housing units being built each year. The central point is that funding of €99 million for the capital assistance scheme, which has been very successful and has a proven track record on housing homeless people, will not make a huge indent into the scale of the problem. We estimate the voluntary housing sector needs an addition €100 million to reach the target set by the national development plan.
I thank both speakers for their contribution. A point repeatedly made by them is the lack of capital investment in social housing. Did they have an input in the submissions from the social partners who negotiated Sustaining Progress? A commitment was made under Sustaining Progress to build 10,000 houses under social housing in the timeframe of the national agreement, and parallel commitments were given on the provision of additional housing under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Do the delegates have a view on the recent announcement by the Minister that the 167 houses provided under Part V of the Act will be counted in fulfilling the commitment given under Sustaining Progress?
I welcome the witnesses today. Are there any incidences of people in social housing who have moved on, having found their feet after a few years? Is there a drop-out rate? Is there any transition from social housing upwards or from social housing back to homelessness? Do the witnesses find public representatives and the planning process obstructive to their efforts to develop social housing? I find it reprehensible but it seems to be the case that pubic representatives get involved in opposing social housing schemes.
Although we are a social partner, we had no influence or involvement in the housing commitments under Sustaining Progress. It was an arrangement between the trade unions and the Government that there would be a commitment to develop 10,000 affordable houses. I do not know on what basis that was decided. There are three affordable housing schemes — the 1999 scheme, the Part V scheme and now the new scheme. Deputy Allen stated that part of the commitment was to amalgamate them. At this stage we need one affordable housing scheme, not three. The average prospective buyer is confused about the different criteria that are involved. Who gets the houses? Is a lottery involved? For transparency and administrative efficiency, the three schemes should be put together to form one affordable housing scheme.
We supported the commitments under Part V to supply social and affordable housing. We think it is a very good plan to deliver more in this area. It still comes back to the major issue. There may have been amendments, but there is still a need for expenditure to cover the costs of building social and affordable housing. We do not want a situation where the existing social housing programmes are transferred straight to Part V; we do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. There is, therefore, a need for additional investment to cover the extra supply of social housing under Part V.
Our own gut feeling is that the demand for the 10,000 affordable houses will be geared towards urban areas, particularly Dublin, Cork, Limerick and some other areas where they may be tax incentive schemes that influence property prices. In other parts of the country we are getting a vibe that the demand for affordable housing is soft enough and is influenced to a large extent by the private market. If a developer is building a private housing scheme which costs €20,000 extra, individuals will exercise their preference and go for that instead of the affordable housing scheme. That is our own view from working on a nation-wide basis.
Deputy Kelleher referred to the attitude of public representatives, which is a big issue. Some public representatives only claim to represent people who are housed, not people who are on waiting lists. There are situations where public representatives have been lobbied by home owners who have objected to social housing. There are other tags placed on homeless people, who might have an addiction problem. There is a big responsibility on all public representatives to promote the benefits of social rented housing as well as ownership housing. In this country the preference has been for ownership housing, but social rented housing still needs to be provided in local areas. That is why we get form the view that public representatives tend to represent people who are housed and not those who are on waiting lists, or are homeless and who have a legitimate right to be housed.
Ms Murphy
Deputy Kelleher raised an interesting point on the social mobility of people who live in social housing. The voluntary housing sector differs from local authority housing as there is no tenant purchase scheme that can apply to the sector. If a household becomes more economically advantaged, then it will benefit them to move out of social housing and out of voluntary housing. This will ensure that the initial investment that was made by the State in providing the house is there for the next family that might need it. It works beneficially in that sense. We always have a stock of social rented housing available to those on the lowest incomes in need of it.
We find that homeless people who move out of long-term social housing receive such good support in a voluntary housing scheme that they settle there in the long term. It is secure, quality accommodation on which they can depend. It works in two ways. There is no need for those that still require it to move on. For those that are more economically advantaged and able to move into an affordable housing scheme, we find that they move into shared ownership. The stock is still available and it frees up the waiting list.
I thank Mr. McManus and Ms Murphy for attending and for the presentation. We are looking forward to the proposed development of a wet hostel in Dundalk, although there is some resistance growing among some residents close by. I think we will be able to get it through because two people died on the streets of Dundalk in recent months. The provision will save others falling into that category.
The cost of land must impose a significant burden on funding. Do the witnesses think that the ninth progress report of the All-Party Committee of the Constitution on the CPO of land at current use value plus 25% would assist them in the provision of housing? Would it be a major asset? I say that tongue-in-cheek because I have no expectation that it will be acted upon by the Government, certainly not in the immediate future. Could the target of 2,750 houses be provided by the end of this year under the national development plan if the sum of €100,000 million was handed over? Again, I say that with no expectation that it will, but could the Irish Council for Social Housing have the capacity to deliver its element of that, even at this late stage?
With regard to Deputy Kelleher's comments on those who move on from social housing. I see a pattern developing in my own area where local authority residents, and tenants in particular, tend to purchase their housing first and renovate it. The next stage is then to move on. I am interested to see if that pattern is developing elsewhere.
In my own area people are moving into voluntary housing schemes. It is great to have those schemes for those people, but after a few years their situation might improve. For example, a single parent might find a partner who works. They pay substantially higher rents than other tenants in council houses, sometimes double the rate. It is a pity that those people will never have an opportunity to buy out their own home. They are not strong enough to go on to the open market and buy a house for themselves, yet they still have to pay high rents without ever having an opportunity to buy out the house in which they live.
The point was made that voluntary housing schemes are well looked after and that there is a management structure within the schemes. However, most of the council estates in the Sligo County Council area now have a management structure and committees within the schemes manage the local authority estates. There is not much difference in my area between a voluntary scheme and a county council scheme. This is unfair to people. While it will change over time, when it will do so is the question. I would like to hear the views of the delegation on this issue.
I welcome Mr. McManus and Ms Murphy and thank them for their work and the presentation made today. Ms Murphy referred to the capital assistance scheme, with which I am quite familiar as a member of a voluntary housing association. Is Ms Murphy saying that all the funding drawn down from the scheme is used to deal with homelessness? Many people who were entitled to be housed through the scheme have been, although they were not homeless. Is there a specific budget within the scheme to deal with homelessness? I accept that this may depend on the definition of homelessness, which I would define as applying to those who do not have a place to live. Ms Murphy might tell us how much of the funding for this scheme is spent on homelessness as well as on other areas.
The point about transition is a good one. In Drumcollogher, where I come from, the first rent subsidy scheme in County Limerick was put in place some years ago in regard to perhaps eight units. While the scheme worked successfully, tenants expressed concerns that they would not be able to purchase their own homes. I feel strongly that this should change. To refer to Senator Scanlon's point, we should have a level playing pitch. For example, if the Drumcollogher voluntary housing association allocated the tenancy of a house to a Mr. X and, at the same time, Limerick County Council allocated the tenancy of a neighbouring house to Mr. Y, one of those people could go on to own his own home, if he had the wherewithal, while the other could not and is thereby at a disadvantage. That is one reason there is no transition out of the scheme. Many people stay in it and pay their rent.
On the other hand, the capital assistance scheme for the elderly has changed people's lives for the better. When some of the elderly were housed, we expected to have vacancies cropping up on a regular basis. Thankfully, this did not happen. On the contrary, a huge lift was given to many people as well as back-up in their local communities, which is welcome. For those reasons, the expected transition has not occurred. It would be very welcome if social housing could be provided over a period and if tenants moved on to other schemes.
Mr. McManus mentioned a target of 2,400 units. He might tell us how this target was arrived at. He is dealing with a number of voluntary housing groups throughout the country which are affiliated to his national group. Does the Irish Council for Social Housing carry out its own assessment of the plans of local voluntary groups, the type of people they are being asked to house and the need for housing in different areas? How does the council try to achieve its targets and how much hands-on work is done?
I will deal with the questions in order. Deputy Morgan raised the issue of land. In the context of homelessness, our organisation would have to buy land on the open market to provide a homeless project. In the past, local authorities provided a substantial number of subsidised, low cost sites for social housing but this is no longer the case — there are now approximately 100 for the entire country. Therefore, we must buy land on the open market. It would be much better if the Irish Council for Social Housing or the local authorities could buy land below the market rate. It is pointless that so much of the social housing budget is absorbed by market land costs, which can be 30% to 40% of the overall cost of a house. If we could reduce the input of land costs, it would be of huge benefit.
A number of the recommendations of the all-party committee with which the Deputy was involved would be beneficial in the context of land acquisition, for example, valuing land at agricultural use value plus a certain percentage. We do not care how it comes to pass so long as land is provided at a severely reduced rate. Given the target of 2,750 homes, the proportion of the budget spent on land has increased dramatically in recent years.
The Deputy also asked whether we could spend more funding if we received, for example, an extra €100 million. While it usually takes two to three years to develop a housing scheme, there is a ready made mechanism under Part V whereby schemes could be turned around very quickly. Moreover, the private sector does not have a supply problem and is building at record levels. If we were to receive an extra €100 million, housing schemes could be developed faster. While it could be difficult logistically for our organisations throughout the country, in theory it could be done. However, a capital budget would be required to do so.
Ms Murphy will deal with the issue of rents. Deputy Cregan raised a number of wider housing policy issues in regard to tenants in voluntary housing organisations who would have an opportunity to buy their houses after a period. One of the by-products of a strong home ownership policy in this country is that we have a lack of social rented housing. Therefore, if we continue to sell off all of the social rented housing, we will be back in the position we are in now and the homeless will suffer most.
We need a balanced policy. At present, while local authorities offer tenants the right to buy out their homes, we would argue that a social rented housing stock is needed. While there are approximately 17,000 units at present, it is estimated that this will almost double to 30,000 units over the next five years. We need a viable social rented housing stock which would be an option for single and homeless people.
The Deputy was probably referring to those who have enough means to move on to other forms of house ownership. There is a pilot scheme in our sector at present, known as the equity sharing scheme, whereby one housing association is developing a scheme on a 50-50 basis. Half of the equity is owned by the individual and half by the housing association. This is not like shared ownership, where there is move to buy out over 20 years, but a 50-50 deal for those who cannot afford a full mortgage but can afford 50%. A number of housing organisations are providing social rented housing, affordable housing and also equity sharing schemes for the exact category to which Deputy Cregan refers. We see this equity sharing as a stepping stone from social rented housing. While it may be a solution, we will only know over time how it pans out. However, we are hopeful and think that a market exists. It would target that group squeezed between social rented housing and affordable housing, referred to by Deputy Allen.
With regard to the plans, the Government target of 2,750 homes is set out under the national development plan. This target was not set by the housing associations. We are not sure where the figure came from but it seems to be set in stone. The housing associations have been asked by the local authorities to draw up their plans for the next five years under the social and affordable action plan. The associations are currently working as a sector that is operating below capacity. We could be developing more schemes and a large number of schemes are in the pipeline, but they lack the funds to implement. Therefore, if capital funding was available a bigger impact could be made.
Ms. Murphy
On the issues raised about land, we have called for an extension of the affordable housing scheme that was announced in Sustaining Progress, whereby the State land allocated under that programme should also be made available for social housing, rather than require us to purchase land at market value using State money. The rent systems differ from those employed by local authorities. For many of our organisations that provide family housing, the rental income they receive is too low from an organisational point of view, because, unlike local authorities, their sole purpose is to provide and manage good quality housing. Therefore, the income they receive in rent is the income they need to use to maintain and manage the housing properly. Our members would maintain that the rental system does not provide them with adequate income to manage their properties, particularly in the case of high-density schemes, which might have amenities such as lifts, communal spaces, or closed circuit television systems. The provision of such amenities involves service agreements, the payment for which can often exceed the rental income the housing associations are receiving. Some organisations have exercised the option, available to them under the scheme, of imposing a cap on rents, in order to prevent individual households from keeping higher and higher amounts.
The capital assistance scheme provides for not only the homeless but also the elderly and people with disabilities. It is a small scheme but it goes a long way. The homeless aspect of it accounts for approximately 250 units per year and last year a total of 1,000 units were built under the scheme. Our contention is that increasing the capital allowance budget would also enhance the preventative aspect in dealing with homelessness.
Does the delegation have any concluding remarks?
One of our organisations posed the question as to what should be done to solve homelessness. One reply was that the answer was "more social housing, stupid", to paraphrase former US President Bill Clinton. This is where we consider the deficit lies. The strategies are there and linkages have been made between the various statutory authorities and with the voluntary organisations.
However, the issue of accommodation continues to arise. If one has access to proper accommodation, then access to the various other services is much easier. Therefore, we strongly support the provision of an expanded social housing rental stock. The private rented sector is fine but it is very competitive and homeless people must compete against, for example, students, refugees and low-income workers. We consider it our role, with assistance from the State, to push for and provide an expanded social housing scheme. I thank the committee for its time.
On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. McManus and Ms Murphy for their presentation and for answering questions raised by members.
I welcome Ms. Mary Higgins, director of the Homeless Agency. I must remind Ms. Higgins that while members of the joint committee enjoy absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official by name, in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Ms. Mary Higgins
I thank the Chairman for his welcome. I wish to explain the role of the Homeless Agency and where it stands in relation to the Government's homelessness strategy, published in 2000, specifically with regard to the Dublin action plans. Several contributors spoke positively of the strategy. It represents a significant and a positive shift in Government policy on homelessness.
Homelessness has been a persistent problem partly because of the lack of appropriate responses to it. Previous responses have been emergency responses. The reaction to dealing with the problem of people on the street has been that more emergency shelters are required. However, as contributors have illustrated, this is not the solution to homelessness. The Government strategy recognises this and takes a more comprehensive approach. It relies very much on a partnership approach between health boards and local authorities to ensure that it is not only one body that is responsible for responding to the demands of homeless people. This is important in preventing the danger of people falling between two stools. The strategy requires that each local authority prepare local area action plans, in consultation with health boards and voluntary bodies.
In the case of Dublin, because there was a structure in place prior to the strategy, we were able to complete our action plan before anybody else. Dublin is different to the rest of the country. Some 75% of homeless people are in the Dublin area. However, the problem in Dublin is not only one of scale. There is also the issue that homelessness has become an entrenched problem among a certain proportion of the population. At the time we were drawing up our plan for 2001-03, homelessness was a growing problem in Dublin. More families were becoming homeless, the new homeless were in younger age groups than was previously the case and there were more rough sleepers. We were looking, therefore, at an escalating problem. In that context, we drew up an action plan called Shaping the Future, which had as its aim the elimination by 2010 of long-term homelessness and the need for people to sleep rough.
The Government strategy is comprehensive. The first action plan was also comprehensive, encompassing about 360 actions on housing, emergency services, social welfare services, employment and training, health services and so on. It contained clear targets and performance indicators. Every action was costed and the plan was formally adopted by the local authorities and the health boards. Although the plans are not on a statutory basis — an issue that arises constantly — they are formal documents that have been approved by both the local authorities and the health boards.
In terms of the main aims, I will talk briefly about the first action plan, where we have come in regard to it and the next action plan, which is now in place. The main aims were to reduce rough sleeping by two-thirds. We acknowledged that rough sleeping was an issue that needed to be tackled. At the time we were doing the planning for the plan it was clear that there was a shortage of emergency accommodation. There were not enough places for people presenting as homeless and we had to address the gaps we knew existed in emergency accommodation. At that time there were significant gaps because homeless services focused on the needs of older single men. Those over 35 or 40 were covered but for those under that age category — women, couples, families, drug users or people with challenging behaviour — it was difficult to acquire emergency accommodation in Dublin. Addressing those gaps was a priority.
Providing an additional 1,500 units of accommodation for single people was one of the main objectives of the action plan in recognition of the fact that the solution to homelessness is not emergency but long-term accommodation. Another objective was to improve the quality and range of services. The quality of services varied but it was generally poor, and sometimes very poor. As members heard from earlier speakers, that is something that has been addressed to some extent.
Another objective was to put in place a different way of delivering services. There are approximately 70 separate services for homeless people in Dublin and the number is growing but people wander for years within the system instead of getting out of it because there is no proper intervention. This model of continuum of care was something we aimed to implement among all homeless services.
We also wanted to develop responses in areas outside the city centre. In 1999, 96% of people who were homeless were in Dublin city. They were not all from the Dublin city area but all of the services were based in the Dublin city area and hence most of the people were in that area.
There was a huge problem in terms of people being able to access services. Health and psychiatric services in particular have been mentioned as part of that. The model we were trying to develop was to bring services to the areas where people needed them. Members will remember the homeless persons unit in Charles Street. At that time everybody who was homeless had to physically present to the centre, which caused major problems for those operating and using the service. The concept of extending the service on an outreach basis was, therefore, important.
Within that aspect, and in keeping with the Government strategy, our aim was to work on the development and implementation of inter-agency and partnership working and to improve information. That was mentioned earlier. We did not know in 2000 the number of people who were homeless. The 1999 assessment gave us better information, but beyond the periodic assessments that were made, there was no way of knowing the numbers who were homeless at any time, the length of time they had been homeless, their prospects and whether they had been out of homelessness and then came back in to the system. One of the objectives was to improve the available information.
Slightly more than three years later the Homeless Agency was established as part of the Government strategy in recognition of the special circumstances that prevailed in Dublin. Its responsibility is to manage and co-ordinate responses to people who are homeless, lead services in the implementation of the action plans on homelessness and the eventual realisation of the vision to eliminate long-term homelessness and the need for people to sleep rough. As part of good practice, the action plan and the homeless agency was subject to external evaluation, which was carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers and progress was made in the context of that.
More than 80% of the priority objectives were achieved. I have to enter a caveat here because one objective was the provision of 1,500 housing units. Another objective might have been to put in place a training programme. Objectives, therefore, do not have different weights, even though they are very different in terms of their resource and other implications.
We had a target to increase the amount of emergency accommodation by slightly more than 300 beds and to increase transitional housing by 200. We exceeded those targets and increased the number of beds in emergency accommodation by 1,000, and the target for transitional accommodation was met. We aimed to reduce the number of those sleeping rough to approximately 90, down two-thirds from 275. This is highly controversial and we might want to discuss it or leave it. The numbers are down to below 100, and that appears to be consistent over the past number of months. That information is coming from people who are working on the street.
We would expect the numbers rough sleeping to have come down because we have specifically targeted people who are on the street and we have put in place additional special beds for people known to be rough sleepers, including the young drug users who were excluded from existing services, and heavily committed street drinkers. We have created places where they can drink on-site because they would not stay in overnight. If a hostel opened at 7 o'clock in the evening they had to be in and they would not be let out again until 9 o'clock the following morning, and they could not drink during that period. It was simply not attractive or tenable for them to remain there. There are now places where people can drink on-site. The access to most accommodation has improved. Much of it is available on a 24 hour basis and people do not have to leave most of the accommodation in the city during the day.
As already stated by the earlier delegation, the quality of services has improved significantly. That is partly due to the fact that funding for services has also improved. I cannot say how much money was being spent on homeless services in 1999, 2000 or 2001. I am aware that in 2003, the amount of State money allocated to homeless services in Dublin through the voluntary sector and local authority and health board services, and the private sector for accommodation, was approximately €60 million, and I understand it will be approximately that amount again for the coming year. In 2000, the amount of money available to voluntary bodies providing homeless services was €8 million and in 2004, that figure increased to €24 million. That will give members an indication of the increase in State funding that is available for homeless services.
Aside from the amount of money available to homeless services, a scheme for administering funding has been put in place. That is important because prior to the scheme nobody knew how much money was being allocated or how to get money out of Departments, local authorities or health boards and there was no transparency. There was discrimination in the sense that organisations which knew the system had the capacity to lobby and get a good deal of money but small organisations, notwithstanding that they may have been providing valuable services, did not get much money. We have a new scheme of funding which is transparent, with clear criteria for assessing applications in that the funding is related to the cost of providing those services, the services are accountable for the money they get and they are monitored. In time we will try to link the funding to quality standards and effective outcomes for people who use those services. That is a significant change and it is not finished yet. It is in train and has been quite difficult in different ways.
Partnership and inter-agency work has developed, something that arose out of the stakeholder analysis in the evaluation. People think of partnership in terms of the statutory and voluntary sectors and that if there is partnership it is between those two sectors but the voluntary and statutory sectors are not cohesive groups. The partnership has been across the board within the statutory and voluntary sectors.
A significant development from the evaluation was that people said their mindsets had changed. The way they perceived and understood homelessness and what would work in solving homelessness had changed. That is significant. It is a move from the emergency response to something more comprehensive. The information on homelessness has improved. However, in improving the information we have uncovered many more gaps and deficits. That was referred to earlier.
All of that is very positive and we have made great progress. There have been great efforts and good inter-agency work. That has been made easier by the existence of funding, a plan and a homeless agency which provides a focal point for all the activity. Notwithstanding that, however, there have been problems in the way we have progressed. One of them is information. We do not know and cannot say with certainty how to measure what we do. We do not know where we started. The statutory sector is not good at collecting information.
The situation with regard to the official assessments of homelessness was mentioned earlier. We devised a new methodology which we applied for the first time in 1999. It is a survey which is carried out over a week in March as part of the official assessment. It includes questionnaires returned on behalf of everybody who is in contact with any homelessness service in the Dublin area and people who are on the local authority housing list as homeless. We found in 1999 that about half the people who are registered as homeless did not show up in emergency accommodation or were not in touch with other homelessness services. However, most of them were registered with local authorities as staying with friends and family. We could not check that out so we left it as it was.
In 2002, that had changed. The vast majority, 75%, of people who were registered as homeless were not anywhere in the homeless population. They were not using services and were not in emergency accommodation. They just did not appear. Conversely, three quarters of the people who were homeless, that is, on the streets or in emergency accommodation, were not registered with the local authority. There is a serious problem here. The data we have are inaccurate. I am not saying it is an under estimate or an over estimate because we do not know. However, it is inaccurate and if the information is inaccurate about homelessness, one can be sure it is probably inaccurate about the housing waiting lists as well.
One of the problems that persists is that we continued to focus on emergency responses even though we knew we needed to create housing options for people, particularly for single people. We did not do that. We increased the supply of emergency accommodation by 1,000 instead of increasing private or other rented accommodation by 1,000. That is an indication of how difficult it is, once the mindset has changed, to get people to act on that change. That was a big failure——
What were the 1,000 emergency places?
Ms Higgins
They were provided, by and large, in the private sector. They are beds in the emergency sector.
Where?
Ms Higgins
They are in Dublin, mainly in the city centre. There are some in the other three local authorities. Largely, however, they are in the city centre. That is my other point, that we did not really move outside of Dublin City Council's area. It has proved difficult to do that.
Services continue to operate in a fragmented way, notwithstanding that the quality has improved and that the services have better interventions. However, they do not work as a system. In that context, people move around in circles in the system instead of moving out of it. The preventative strategy is distinctly not working. It is not a useful strategy anyway because it focuses on the point at which people are about to become homeless, that is, when they are leaving a prison, hospital or other institution. It does not deal with prevention at an early point when it could work.
The other problem with it is that we have a homelessness section or a homeless persons unit where people go to access emergency accommodation but we do not have an alternative way of quickly accessing housing. We cannot go to a local authority today and get a house or to a private landlord for a house. We have to get together deposits, rent in advance and so forth. However, people can access emergency accommodation and, in the absence of an alternative, it will be impossible to stop them using emergency accommodation.
Government policy is not coherent. This has been mentioned already so I will not labour the points about supplementary welfare allowance and policy changes. However, in the context of discussing strategies and cross-departmental teams, that is an issue that will have to be dealt with. The Government funding system has not delivered on the strategy. The Government strategy clearly states that there will be multi-annual funding on a three year basis. Government Departments supported our funding arrangements which state that we will be able to give information about what they will get to people in the November before the year they are due to get their money. The funding system at Government level has not changed so it is not supporting the strategy. That is a problem because funding is important for leading organisations and getting services operating.
We have been successful but there is a phenomenon now where people are almost afraid of success and there is still resistance to change. That will have to be addressed as well. With regard to the period 2004 to 2006, we have a new action plan entitled Making it Home. It is a smaller document than the previous one and it focuses on two areas, prevention and intervention. There are specific objectives within this action plan. We are facing a different scenario from the one in 2001 so we can be different. A reducing number of people are presenting as homeless, we have enough emergency accommodation in the city centre and we have a better handle on what is happening.
One of the objectives is to develop a comprehensive preventative strategy. People will say that anybody can become homeless but I do not believe that. It is clear that there are a number of common characteristics in the backgrounds of people who become homeless. They are, by and large, poor and probably have fragile family backgrounds. They might have addiction problems or mental health or learning disabilities. Those are the common characteristics. Homelessness is not a random occurrence. It is related to the type of places people come from. It is important to reiterate that because if it is not random, we can do something about it. If it is random, it is difficult to tackle.
People who become homeless in Dublin come from eight areas of Dublin. They are the areas where people leave school early, get involved in crime, take drugs and where there is anti-social behaviour and so forth. One can see these behaviours manifest themselves when people are in primary school, if not before that. That is where the preventative strategy must start, not at the point where people are leaving prison. We are looking at a comprehensive preventative strategy which aims to focus the responsibility for homelessness back into local areas to ensure that where it is happening and before it happens is where the interventions occur.
We have a provision for social housing for single people. Local authorities do not provide housing for single people who are not senior citizens. They now acknowledge and accept that they must provide for single people. However, if they or the voluntary housing associations were to begin providing housing for single people today, a house would not be provided in the immediate future. We need to look at something for the meantime. There are opportunities within the private sector. There is property we could avail of either through purchase or through leasing with private landlords which could be used as social housing. We are not talking about the access housing unit, which is a good model and needs to be continued. We are talking about acquiring property we can use to provide ordinary, decent, rented accommodation to people instead of putting them into emergency accommodation. It is a different use of the bed and breakfast type of accommodation and should have cost efficiencies. There will be no more temporary accommodation, emergency beds or transitional accommodation in the city centre.
We need to address long-term homelessness. This was in the last action plan but it was not activated. An estimated 350 people staying in hostels for homeless people have been there for most of their lives. Earlier, somebody raised the issue of people from psychiatric institutions, and many homeless people were in such institutions. In the mid-1980s when those institutions were being closed down, they were placed directly into hostels for the homeless. The conditions in those hostels are diabolical and appalling. It is a terrible indictment of our city that we still have people living in dormitories and that that has been their way of life for the last 30 or 40 years. Getting people out of such accommodation into long-term accommodation is one of the priorities of this action plan.
I have dealt with the question of making responses local. It is not about needing a response from Fingal County Council, South Dublin or Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. We need the response locally, including Blanchardstown, Clondalkin, Tallaght and wherever else homelessness is an issue. It comes down to local areas. We are talking about small numbers so in adopting that approach we can begin to be specific about the needs of these homeless people. We are talking in generalities all the time about 500, 1,000 or 1,500 people, but it is difficult to begin to intervene in that way. If we can deal with groups of 20, 30 or 40 we can begin to make an intervention that will have some chance of being effective.
The continuum of care model did not work for many different reasons, including trade union opposition. We need to revert to that now, however. We need to work with people in a way that works for them and does not oblige them to see ten different people or have 20 different key workers involved. I have sat around tables with 15 or 20 people discussing individual rough sleepers. Everyone around the table is working with an individual, which is not acceptable in terms of trying to be effective and get people off the streets. We need a system to intervene with such people.
We also have to address the data problems and not just within the homeless sector. There are wider issues in the way Government bodies keep data, how people define homelessness, and with hospitals and institutions. That is something that needs to be done across the board. There is no point in the homeless sector getting it right if everybody else has different ways of defining homelessness.
We also need to integrate homelessness in the wider policy agenda. That question was dealt with very well earlier. We have to understand certain things when it comes to dealing with homelessness and providing the relevant services. For a long time, homeless services have provided a safety net for society, in the same way that emigration provided a safety net in the past. If somebody does not fit into their community — someone asked earlier why families become homeless — sometimes they get evicted by local authorities for different reasons. Sometimes a community cannot deal with somebody because they are difficult or challenging, so where do they go? When they become homeless they cannot go anywhere else, so there has to be a response. It is the final resting ground for people who are difficult and cannot be dealt with, or people whom the psychiatric and education services have failed.
It is also important to understand that if we continue to improve the services we provide for the homeless, we will create more demand for those services. It was something that came out clearly when we undertook a consultation process for the action plan. Given that the quality of services and of intervention has improved, and because the homeless get overall priority on a local authority waiting list, it is pushing people into a situation where homelessness is more attractive than other options. Therefore, we need to examine the push and pull factors, which is a policy issue as well as a practical one.
I have noted down a few imperatives. The opportunity over the next three years is the last one we will get to deal with this issue. If we do not grasp it now and make the difference over the next couple of years, we will be back where we started. We will lose the momentum we have gained and we will have also wasted the investment we made in recent years. In order to get there, leadership is required at every level — locally, within the voluntary and statutory sectors, and at Government level. That will require consistency and coherence in the way policies and services function. We must focus on getting a real understanding of what are the issues, why people become homeless and how we can prevent homelessness. Housing is obviously part of the response as are the local area responses. Services must be focused on meeting needs. They cannot meet part of the need, they must make interventions with people. We must also focus on evaluation, monitoring and information so that we know what is or is not working. If it is not working, we need to know why.
In getting there we must continue to invest in some new services outside the city centre where responses are required. Over the next couple of years, we should consider reducing expenditure on homelessness by drawing back and reducing the amount of services. The money saved should be re-invested in community supports and preventative services.
Thank you very much. Do members have any questions?
I thank Ms Higgins for her presentation. I am trying to estimate the number of people who are sleeping rough. We are told your guesstimate is between 90 to 270. That seems to be the general consensus. I am curious to know why the findings of the count of rough sleepers — which was carried out by the Homeless Agency, in conjunction with the voluntary sector, from 12-29 January last — have still not been published. I tabled a parliamentary question seeking the figures from the Minister but he told me that he did not know what they were. I am wondering when that information will be published. Can Ms Higgins give us those figures now?
Ms Higgins
I can.
Thank you. Surely the value of these homeless action plans are meaningless unless they are put on a statutory basis. We have heard other presentations today to the effect that they are clearly not being implemented. What is Ms Higgins's view on that?
Ms Higgins
I will start with the second question first, which is slightly easier. I do not have strong views about whether or not something is on a statutory basis. My experience is that if something is required statutorily, it does not improve the chances of it happening. The issue is really about changing minds and persuading people to solve a problem because it is their responsibility to do so, rather than putting it on a statutory basis so they can be told to do it, or have somebody spend a lot of money taking cases in the High Court to make them do it. I understand the arguments but I do not have strong views on them, one way or the other.
When we made our proposals to the cross-departmental team on homelessness, the voluntary and statutory sectors in Dublin considered it was better to persuade people about what needed to be done, rather than insisting that it be done.
I am in touch with people all the time about the number of rough sleepers. We also undertake periodic rough sleeper counts, but I hesitate to use the results of those counts because nobody likes them. We did a count in 2002 when 140 people were found to be sleeping rough in one night. We repeated the count in 2003 and the number was 86. The count, across Dublin's four county areas, took place between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. Members of the Garda Síochána went out with us and we have over 100 volunteers who scoured parks, streets and other places where people were known to sleep rough, as well as places where it was unknown. The figures are controversial but we have not got to the bottom of why that is so.
The count earlier this year was undertaken because the street outreach teams, provided by Focus Ireland, Dublin Simon, Dublin City Council and the health board, were saying the numbers had gone right down and they could not find people sleeping rough in the city centre. The purpose of that count was to try to work out whether the gardaí had pushed everybody out of the city centre because of the EU Presidency, and whether the homeless had then moved to the suburbs, parks or elsewhere. It was discovered that they did not appear to be in any places other than those outlined. The numbers had decreased. The result of the count was controversial because it was found that over 200 people — I do not recall the exact figure — stated that they slept rough between four and seven nights over a six-week period. When I mentioned that to someone I was informed that I was wrong. Media coverage indicated that the strategy had not worked and that the numbers of those sleeping rough had not decreased. I do not believe that the media is the forum in which to deal with these arguments. I am far less interested in whether 300 or 100 people are sleeping rough than I am in discovering who are these individuals, what we are doing to them and why they are still sleeping rough. As far as publishing the figures goes, they are available but they have not yet been agreed.
I am interested in long-term single males who are often drug and alcohol abusers. There is a wet hostel at which somebody who is drinking all the time can obtain a bed. What are we offering these people and what should we offer them in terms of services and assistance?
Ms Higgins
That is a good and important question. We are probably looking at a small number of people who are entrenched in their homelessness. These are the people on the street we are trying to target. What is clear is that homelessness is the final manifestation of a range of problems. Many of these people have been brought up in institutional care. A large number have been drinking heavily all their lives and have brain damage as a result. Their behaviour is completely chaotic and we cannot assist in that regard because the services are chaotic as well. It is difficult to know what would work for these people. There is a wet shelter and there are many low-threshold services. Sobriety or anything like it is not, therefore, required but these people are still being turned out on to the streets because they are threatening, abusive, dangerous to other residents or have attacked staff. They are problematic individuals and we must find some other model of dealing with them.
Perhaps what we might be obliged to consider is the provision of self-contained units where they would not be in contact with others. Instead of the hostel-type scenario we need to provide something else. We must keep providing such services. People must understand that these individuals will have difficulties. We cannot expect them to undo 25 years' of serious damage just because we want to embrace them and include them in society.
This is the challenge we face. It is also a challenge at international level. We have been picking up the pieces. People in the entrenched homeless category have had a lifetime of misery, pain, alienation and rejection. We cannot suddenly turn that around. We must engage with them, find out what will work for them, place some sort of restraints on their behaviour and let them back into society. It is a slow process.
Ms Higgins referred to people who are living long-term in hostels, who should not be living in dormitory situations and who should be presented with other options. I presume that local authority housing for single persons would not work because a range of support services would be required. Do we need a system similar to the new foyer system in place at Marrowbone Lane for younger persons where there would be shared facilities and outside help available?
I thank Ms Higgins for her presentation. She referred to the policy of moving out of Dublin city. The area in respect of which I have most experience is Dublin 7, which probably has the highest concentration of institutions and homeless units in the country. To where would these be moved? Would it be to the suburbs or outside the country boundary?
The other point Ms Higgins made was about being able to buy accommodation and provide it. Is that not what groups such as Respond are doing in terms of providing co-operative housing, etc.? Does what they do not fulfil that need? The activities of these groups are financed, through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, by means of funding from the EU. Is Ms Higgins suggesting that there should be some other level or layer in between?
Ms Higgins
I will answer Deputy Cuffe's question first. He is correct. There is a cohort of people who are homeless and who will require some kind of semi-institutional care. However, this needs to be of a good standard. We should be aiming to ensure that we do not have people who are long-term homeless and in need of institutional care in the future. We need a range of different housing options for people and we need support. This is one of the difficulties and I should have stated that housing alone will not solve the problem for many people because they cannot live independently and will need some level of support. We have just received funding from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to provide tenancy sustainment services which will be aimed at keeping people in their homes.
The Deputy is correct, local authority housing does not meet the needs of single people. A great deal of damage has been done by people being placed in local authority accommodation where, subsequently, matters have broken down. This often happens at great cost to the individual involved but also to the community because people often then do not want those with histories of psychiatric illness or homelessness living in their areas. We need to move away from that and provide something else until the memories have faded.
Voluntary housing bodies are providing accommodation but they are involved in new build and renovation projects. If they want to provide more accommodation, they must acquire property and undergo the planning process before producing housing. If they commence with providing such accommodation now, it will not come on-stream for five years. We need something that is an alternative to emergency accommodation. Our only way of obtaining that is through existing accommodation and the only place this is available is in the private sector. At this point, however, I am not sure whether it is available even there.
Do not local authorities provide a certain level of emergency accommodation?
Ms Higgins
Yes.
I am aware that Dublin City Council has certain premises it uses if a person's house is burned down or something of that nature. Do all local authorities provide such emergency accommodation?
Ms Higgins
Dublin City Council currently provides direct accommodation to people who are homeless. Dún Laoghaire is the only other local authority that provides accommodation to homeless people. Dublin City Council sources emergency accommodation in the private sector on behalf of the four local authorities and some of it is in areas outside of Dublin city. However, most of it is in the city centre.
People become homeless in areas outside the city centre. I include in this areas in the city council area such as Ballyfermot and Crumlin. If we can disperse, it is not such a major problem. There are too many institutional type services in Dublin 7. We need to disperse it because it would be better in terms of the quality of services provided for people and in terms of other residents. We need to disperse that accommodation into whatever areas we can procure property so that it will not be concentrated. However, it must be accommodation that is appropriate to the needs of people who are homeless. If we move these people out of the city they will return because they will not survive there. It is about breaking it up somewhat.
I thank Ms Higgins for her presentation and for dealing with the questions raised by members. The three presentations were informative and interesting. We will decide at a later stage how we intend to proceed.
I remind members that the joint committee will next meet at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 when representatives of the NRA will be present to discuss the proposed N3 motorway. If there are no other issues, the meeting is adjourned.
The joint committee adjourned at 5 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 1 June 2004.