Two amendments were put down for Report Stage. For the information of the House, amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.
Housing Bill, 1988: Report and Final Stages.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 21, line 34, to delete "55".
I found the Minister's explanation for the deletion, in its entirety, of section 55 of the 1966 Act entirely unconvincing. I have spent — as have a number of Members of the House — a considerable period of time trying to get the Minister to talk about house building, housing policy and the future development of housing policy with no success. On a few occasions the Minister appeared to be trying to regulate the business of the House and decide on what we should and should not discuss on certain sections.
At this stage I am not so much concerned about the practice on a day-to-day basis of local authorities but the elimination from legislation of a legislative requirement on local authorities to plan a building programme seems to be an altogether retrograde step and one that does not seem to be consistent with the provisions of this Bill. It is clearly not adequately dealt with under section 20 because section 20 could just have to do with how local authorities choose to allocate a static, or indeed a contracting, housing stock. Therefore, there would be no legislative provision in place which would require housing authorities to continue to look at their house building programmes and to at least go through the motions of carrying out an assessment or drawing up a housing building plan for the future.
That leads me to conclude that the repeal of section 55 is not unconnected with the drying up of funds for local authority house building. It would, of course, be perfectly logical to propose the repeal of section 55 of the 1966 Act if virtually no funds were going to be made available for local authority house building in the immediate future. It would be somewhat farcical to place us in a position where large amounts of local authority time and the excellent skills of their staff, whom Senator McGowan defended so eloquently last night, were to be used to prepare building programmes in the full knowledge that there was going to be no money available to do anything about those building programmes, not even to have restricted funds but as is the case in all the major urban centres this year, to have no money available for new house building.
I have to suggest that the proposal to repeal section 55 of the Housing Act, 1966, is as much a reflection of the future prospects for local authority housing as it is a reflection of the intent of this Bill. Therefore, I am opposed to the repeal of section 55 and propose this amendment to the Schedule, to delete section 55 of the 1966 Housing Act from the sections to be repealed under this Bill.
I second the amendment. The Minister has said that section 55 is superfluous and does not need to be included in this new Bill because the local authorities were not using its provisions and because most of the funding comes from the State. Be that as it may, at least section 55 placed an obligation on local authorities to build houses. You can go on forever requesting them to draw up plans, programmes, assessment of needs and so on which they can submit to the Department of the Environment, but if there is not legislative power to require them to build houses is there much point in asking them to do so? I want to be assured, because on rereading section 20 to see if there is specific power to request local authorities to provide houses I came to the conclusion that, if there is, it is very weak. Let us be honest with one another. We are legislating to ensure that local authorities meet the demands Government will make arising out of this Bill. We can argue admittedly about whether there will be sufficient funds to do that, but let us not fool ourselves that we do not need legislation to request local authorities who are particularly dependent on legislators to provide the money to do so. They are linked intrinsically, as Senator Ryan suggests. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us that, in some section of this Bill, there is a specific requirement for local authorities to build houses in accordance with the plans drawn up by them, based on their assessment and submitted to the Minister and agreed by him, that is there a follow through in legislation because, if not, it is seriously defective.
I will take note of your guidance, a Chathaoirligh, on whether the Minister had time between the last Stage and this Stage to take on board an amendment in the area I suggested, or whether he is just giving a commitment to look at the problem I raised which was also addressed by Senator Fitzsimons.
I would like to re-echo the concerns of Senators Ryan and Ferris. Certainly section 55 of the Housing Act, 1966, had the word "building" in it and required local authorities to build. Section 20 of the present Bill which replaces that section is very passive about meeting their assessments and their requirements under section 9 and in no place does it say that local authorities are empowered to build houses. I share this concern and the Minister should clarify the position for us.
The Minister did have sufficient notice. The House had decided that we would go on to Report Stage.
I realise that, but I am not actually sure if he has come back with an amendment or not.
Section 55 of the 1966 Act did not require local authorities to build houses. The power to provide houses is in section 56 of the 1966 Act and the housing programme, as always, will be determined in consultation between the Department and other relevant bodies, and the Department foot the bill. Once assessments are made, once local authorities know what they require for the particular categories that are set out specifically in this legislation which I regard as a most important feature of the legislation, local authorities can assess what they require in the matter and, in normal circumstances, the matter will be dealt with by the Department under whatever housing allocations they have available to them. The important thing is that section 55 never required local authorities to build houses and that should be corrected for the record.
May I say that I did not think that section 55 required local authorities to build houses and I never said so? I proposed the amendment. The section required local authorities to go through all the necessary preliminary work that you would have to do before you could build houses which is to plan a building programme and to go into such detail:
A buildings programme shall be in such form as the Minister may from time to time direct and shall include the proposals of the housing authority, etc.
I am not under the illusion that, because section 55 is to be repealed, local authorities will not be able to build houses. I am simply saying that the legislative base under which they can be directed to move towards the necessity of building houses is being diluted. As I have already said, there is nowhere in legislation now where a local authority can be required to take the first steps towards building houses.
I am perfectly aware after the debate on this Bill that the Minister has a strong objection to local authorities being compelled to do anything which would require them to house any particular group of individuals, however deserving. The Minister is not in favour of requiring that people should be housed. It is a deeply held objection of his which flies in the face of all the advice from every voluntary organisation. I am well aware of it at this stage. I have heard it so often over the past six or eight months that I could not but be aware of it. I did not think there was any requirement of local authorities to build houses but there is a requirement in the 1966 Act. Perhaps it has not been implemented or operated. Nevertheless, it is there requiring them, in the words of the Act:
to prepare and adopt a programme ... setting out the works which they propose to undertake having regard to the housing needs of their functional area.
Under section 20 of the Bill they can have all the regard they wish to all the assessments they make, but if they have no houses then they have no houses. It is a logical part of any housing policy that they should be required to plan and to build local authority houses to meet the needs assessed under sections 8 and 9. I do not believe local authorities will stop building houses if they have the funds. I also still believe that, at a time when there will be apparently close to zero funds available for local authority house building, the repeal of section 55 is at least symbolic of the future policy in this area if not of some significance in terms of reducing the attention which will be drawn to the inadequacy if not the absence of local authority funding for housing. That is why I moved this amendment.
It is obvious that there is not much point in responding to that for the simple reason that whatever might be said is not obviously going to convince Senator Ryan in so far as this is concerned.
To put it in a nutshell, I regard section 55 of the 1966 Act as a paper exercise. The section has fallen into disuse and is of no consequence. It is not required and I am not interested in maintaining on the Statute Book sections that can be written off the Statute Book with no ill effects. I regret that the last speaker has such a poor opinion of local authority members, as they constitute a housing authority. There was a certain amount of implied criticism that, as elected members of local authorities and housing authorities, they would somehow neglect the requirements and the needs and the responsibilities for housing the people they represent. I do not share that view.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Is the Minister in a position to address the problem which I have raised with him now on a few occasions and which is particularly relevant to section 23? Perhaps the Minister would be generous enough to say, as he has not brought forward a Report Stage amendment which I requested in the course of the debate, that he will give me a commitment to address the problem I have identified and that he will communicate with me as to what action, if any, he is prepared to take, particularly with regard to the anomalies which have arisen for certain categories of tenant purchasers.
This is the Final Stage of the Bill. I have peculiar feelings about what is in this Bill. On the one hand, I am very happy to see a number of provisions in the Bill. It is the first time that people who are homeless have been identified in housing legislation as being a particular category of need and that is, of course, important. It is also true that a duty has been imposed on housing authorities to identify them, to attempt to assess the extent of the problem of homelessness and the extent of the needs of those who are homeless. That is also welcome. The repeal of the offensive section of the Vagrancy Act is also welcome.
The tragedy is that section 10, which could have been the beginning of the end of the extraordinary exclusion of many people from the right to shelter, is so weak and ineffectual and contains so many extraordinary anomalies under which housing authorities will be able to attempt to direct voluntary organisations as to who they should or should not house. Section 10 will enable housing authorities to tell voluntary organisations, who may have housed people under the provisions of section 10, that because they, the housing authority, no longer believe that person is homeless they must be compelled to leave. I find that provision quite extraordinary.
I also find the provision that people who are housed by a voluntary organisation could be required to pay rent to the housing authority rather peculiar. Apart from those anomalies I have to say that every voluntary organisation I am aware of do not believe that that section will work in the way that the Minister almost alone among those who have concern for the homeless seems to believe it will work. The extraordinary administrative changes that would be required of a housing authority for them to be able to advance money to people, to be able to arrange lodgings for them, are dependent on the goodwill of financially-pressed housing authorities who will have within 12 months large numbers of people on their housing lists. While I am not for one moment arguing about the goodwill of many people towards the homeless I am outlining the considered view of a large body of opinion including, for instance, that of the Archbishop of Dublin and his advisers on the whole area of social concern. The Archbishop of Dublin about three or four months ago quite specifically criticised the Bill because of the absence of a provision that would compel housing authorities to make provision. I do not want to go on that line because I do not want to behave in a disorderly fashion. I am talking about what is in the Bill and what is in it, in my view, is hopelessly inadequate on the one critical issue. I would not expect what is in the Bill to suit me but I have not been convinced that what is in it is either workable or that the goodwill among the organisational and executive authority in housing authorities exists to ensure that section 10 will work.
I regret that the Minister, alone among those who have concern in this area, felt obliged to pursue this line. It leaves an unfortunate and regrettable sour taste in my mouth about a Bill which has so much in it that moves in the right direction but then, having identified the problem and who should be responsible, fails to follow through leaving us with an uncertain future. The one guarantee I can give is that whatever the legislation does it will be carefully monitored by many people. The effectiveness, or otherwise, will be assessed by many people. If, as I suspect, it proves ineffectual, I shall be back, with other Members, with the necessary amending legislation to ensure that what should have been in the Bill is included in the next one.
I am delighted that the Bill has been given a speedy passage through the House. As a Member of the House I should like to say to Members of this and of the other House, as well as to social workers, Archbishops or any other category one likes to include, who claim to be the sole custodians of concern for those with a housing problem, that they are codding themselves. We are all concerned about those people. Those who profess to know most about this problem may at the end of the day be embarrassed if they are asked to listen to an interview with homeless people. The Bill does as much as possible for those people. The problem is so great that no legislation could cure all the ills. We have to look after a wide range of people, from those who sell videos and televisions on the motorways to the unfortunate créatúr who has to sleep under a jute tent at night.
The Bill has tidied up a lot of housing legislation. When I heard a Senator refer to section 55 of the 1966 Act I was tempted to ask if that provision had ever been used. Did any Minister, or official from the Department, ever direct a local authority to get on with the job of building houses? Members can use jargon until they are blue in the face but they must recognise the problem that faces the Minister, how will he raise the cash. All local authorities, from the most inactive to the most progressive, have numerous plans to provide houses but the Minister's problem is to persuade his collegues in the Cabinet, and ultimately, the taxpayer, to commit more funds to deal with this problem.
I hesitate to interrupt the Senator but I must point out to him that on Fifth Stage Members must confine their remarks to what is in the Bill.
I am concluding. I welcome the Bill which does not do anything more than tidy up housing legislation. We must remember that it is not a magic wand and that the Minister will have a problem in raising the funds. I hope he will be successful in his efforts.
In general we welcome the Bill which has many commendable provision. It was very progressive of the Minister, and in keeping with the spirit of the debate on the Bill, to undertake to re-examine the need for caretakers at halting sites for travelling people. I understand that the Minister, on Committee Stage, indicated that the Department have not received any complaints about the market value of houses to be sold under the 1988 tenant purchase scheme. The scheme does not encourage people to complain about valuations. For example, Dublin Corporation valuations will not be available until the autumn. The Minister should consider having such complaints dealt with by an independent arbitrator, the cost of that arbitration to be incorporated in the price of the house.
I welcome the Bill, in particular the provision for the homeless. I feel obliged to point out that the local authority of which I am a member have been very responsible in regard to providing accommodation for the homeless. In the course of the debate the Minister informed us that he would be asking local authorities to be reasonable when valuing local authority houses. He should ask local authorities to adopt the same reasonable approach when implementing section 10. The Minister should explain to local authorities the concern expressed by Members, particularly Senator Brendan Ryan. It is important that they should understand the principle in section 10.
I should like to thank the Chair and the Members of the Seanad for the speedy passage they have given to the Bill. In response to Senator Ferris, the question of the price of houses under the tenant purchase scheme is not a matter that is laid down in legislation. It is an administrative matter and it did not require any response by me by way of amendment. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It was a good debate and the matter was dealt with in a very positive way. It is some time since this Bill was first mooted, on 9 November 1983. I would have thought that some Senators would have referred to that as it has been a long wait for this legislation. Many people felt it might never come to pass and I am pleased that it has, finally. It is progressive and far-seeing and it will greatly change many apsects of dealing with housing for those less fortunate than ourselves. I was particularly pleased that section 10 was passed unanimously without a division in this House
Question put and agreed to.
Will somebody indicate what we are taking now? It was agreed on the Order of Business that we would take Item No. 3 at this point.
That is what I understood from the Leader of the House.
Could we adjourn for ten minutes?
I suggest that we adjourn until 7.30 p.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 7.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.