Vol. 133 No. 19
I welcome the Minister to the House. Before we commence Committee Stage I would like to point out that amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 19, 21, 37 and 43 are out of order as they involve a charge on the revenue; amendments Nos. 17 and 22 are out of order as they are not relevant to the Bill as read a Second Time.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"‘established purchase scheme' means a scheme under section 26 of this Act for the sale of houses by a housing authority which is ongoing and under which the purchaser may, at any time, make application for the purchase of a house;".
It is very important that this amendment be included in this Bill; what is why I submitted it.
The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a permanent tenant purchase scheme for local authority dwellings. I would not favour writing mandatory requirements of this type into primary legislation. It has always been the accepted practice that primary enabling legislation would leave it up to the Government of the day to decide whether a purchase scheme should be introduced, on what terms and having regard to all of the circumstances at that time. Most Senators will understand that this has worked well and that there is no good reason to depart from this practice.
The section, as drafted, would allow for a permanent purchase scheme, that is, a scheme without a time limit if that was what was decided at the time, and the Government of the day would have that option. One can see the merits of such a scheme but I do not want to rule out completely the option of having a time limited scheme, particularly in relation to certain types of dwellings. We have the best of both worlds in the Bill. The section provides for a scheme which may well continue if that is what the Government of the day decide or, alternatively, for a limited scheme — that is a limit on time — for particular types of dwellings. It is better to leave the flexibility there in the primary legislation and not try to make that alteration. I would ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment.
I do not share the enthusiasm of the Minister for not having a defined purchase scheme enshrined in section 1 of the Bill. As it turns out, at present we have no purchase scheme to facilitate people who want to purchase their local authority house. The last scheme was introduced about three years ago and lasted for about 12 months. Now that it has ended, there is no scheme.
I want to ensure the right of a tenant of a local authority house to purchase that house at any time. At present, this cannot be done. People are being victimised in that they do not have the opportunity to purchase their local authority houses because there is no scheme to enable them to do so.
I put down this amendment hoping the Minister would be flexible in his approach, knowing that he has served on a local authority and knowing that he realises how important it is that people be encouraged to purchase their houses. I hope he will take this amendment on board.
I have indicated on a number of occasions that I was extremely anxious to introduce a new tenant purchase scheme once the social housing plan and the legislative framework which underpins that is established and the local authority system have had the opportunity to work on a variety of schemes aimed at solving housing problems in a new and distinctly different way.
The Senator is right when he says we do not have a purchase scheme at present. The last scheme was introduced in 1988. It was available to tenants for about nine months and there were about 40,000 applicants of which 30,000 have now completed all the legal transactions in relation to the purchase scheme. I hope, however, under this Bill that any new tenant purchase scheme would involve much greater private financial resources. For that reason I am negotiating with the banks and the building societies with a view to encouraging investment from these sectors in this area.
Senator Naughten will appreciate that very considerable resources are required for the purchase of these houses. I am anxious to facilitate new ownership and the transfer of ownership from local authorities to tenants. I am considering all these options. The section in this Bill which we are dealing with enables me or any future Minister to introduce a scheme depending on the circumstances of the time. It enables him to have a permanent scheme if that is what he decides. It also allows for a time limited scheme if that option were taken on board.
No way will I allow Senator Naughten to interpret what I have said as being in any way against the introduction of a house purchase scheme. We do not have a scheme at the moment but I am trying to remedy that within the context of this Bill and in a way which will be as light as possible on the taxpaying community while at the same time facilitating the tenants who want to purchase their houses.
I am very pleased to hear the Minister indicate that he does not rule out the possibility of a tenant purchase scheme at some future date because the figures he has quoted of 30,000 tenants having availed of the 1988 tenant purchase scheme shows that that scheme was a tremendous success. In view of the fact that adequate resources are not available for maintenance of council houses, it is important that we would have the option of introducing a tenant purchase scheme at some later stage to allow tenants who want to purchase their own homes to do so. That has been a very successful scheme and I would like to see something similar introduced at a later stage perhaps after the Plan for Social Housing has been given time to work. I accept that there has not been sufficient time yet for the various schemes to work. I am glad the Minister has said that at some later stage he will allow a tenant purchase scheme to proceed again.
Is the amendment being pressed?
This is so important that we do not have any choice but to press it because, as I have already pointed out people living in a local authority house should have the option to buy out their house. They do not have that option at present. I understand it is up to the Minister to introduce this at whatever time he wishes, but for the past two years there has been no scheme and we have to depend on the whim of the Minister of the day.
People who want to buy out their local authority house are entitled to do so and I appeal to the Minister to take this amendment on board. It is a reasonable amendment. It does not involve a charge on the Exchequer. In fact, previous Ministers for the Environment encouraged people to purchase their local authority houses because that would absolve the local authority of the responsibility to maintain those houses. It is only right and proper that we should have a permanent purchase scheme in place.
I would like to support Senator Naughten on this amendment. It has caused a great deal of frustration to people who wanted to buy their houses that this scheme was not in operation. Local authorities have been hassled constantly by tenants wishing to buy out. I whole heartedly support Senator Naughten's amendment.
Let me register a mild note of dissent. I am fascinated by people who are madly keen on the market economy in principle but who, when it comes to tenant purchase schemes are madly keen on giving people the maximum possible taxpayer subsidy to pay bargain basement prices for the best quality houses constructed in the State. I have major problems in relation to under-pricing of local authority house purchase schemes, and anything other than what reflects the real input of the tenant over a period of time into the purchase of the house. Effectively, it is giving away an extraordinarily expensive resource and there are other far more economically efficient ways of ensuring home ownership than bargain basement sales of local authority housing.
I do not altogether agree with Senator Ryan but at least he has brought some balance into this question. It is not just a matter of saying that houses may be purchased without recourse to the taxpayer. There is recourse to the taxpayer in a number of significant ways. Up to now the mortgage arrangements for tenant purchase are provided by the local authority and, as a consequence, are a charge on the Exchequer. Second, the cost of constructing these houses and the subsidy paid each week by the taxpayer to meet the cost of local authority houses is quite substantial.
Senator Naughten will be aware that in addition to the rental income on local authority houses which are now purchased, a further £25 million is required each year for maintenance. There are substantial sums of money involved. We should take some further time to evaluate the various options that are open to us. We must also take account of the fact that the amount of local authority housing stock which become available to qualified applicants as a result of casual vacancies would not be greatly increased if all of the local authority housing stock is sold into private ownership.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2. — It shall be a principal objective of national housing policy that, before 31st December, 1999, all families be accommodated in spacious and comfortable housing at a cost they can afford, and be located in an external environment which is pleasant and wholesome.".
It is extremely important that this amendment be accepted. Having listened to the Minister on the last amendment, I wonder has a situation been reached where none of our amendments, no matter how reasonable, will be accepted? The other question is whether there is much point in this House sitting at all when the other House is in recess because Ministers are not going to accept amendments here. Nevertheless, I intend to proceed with the amendments I have down and to press them.
I appeal to Senators on the other side of the House to give me that generous support that will ensure that when this Bill leaves this House we will have legislation that can operate on the ground as those of us who are members of local authorities would like to see it operate. It is a reasonable amendment and will enshrine in this Bill the type and quality of housing we require. That should be our aim for every family.
This amendment sounds great but surely that has always been the policy of people elected onto local authorities and local government down through the years. It does not have to go down in print for us to feel that that should be our aim. It is not necessary to put this into legislation. It is and has always been our aim. It sounds great but it is what we all set out to do anyway.
I would like to have it enshrined in the Bill.
It is up to us who serve on local authorities to ensure that our Ministers support us. It is not necessary to put it in legislation. If we were to enshrine in legislation everything we feel strongly about we could not carry the book in here to read, or would we read it? It is the aim of everyone elected to local government and it does not have to be in this Bill for us to carry it through.
I disagree strongly with Senator Honan on this. It is important for us to seek to enshrine in legislation our objectives in regard to social housing and other areas such as the protection of tenants in private housing. In Dublin City Council we have created a parallel by drawing up a civic charter. That civic charter, which has an operational period of five or six years, enshrines as a priority the tackling of the housing crisis facing low income families by a building, renovation, utilisation and maintenance programme to ensure minimum standards for all dwellings by 1996 and by working in conjunction with the Housing Finance Agency and the Voluntary Housing Association. The new Lord Mayor of Dublin has declared housing to be one of his priorities.
It is important to look at the overview and recognise that while we are making provision in legislation for specific matters, we have to ensure that everybody lives in reasonable, decent and hygienic housing. Unfortunately, this is not the case at present. There is a very small number of vacant local authority houses, especially in Dublin city where there are at least ten people for each vacant house. Of course, the problem has been exacerbated by the number of emigrants who have returned.
We have a very big homeless problem. Anybody who reads the Focus Point report published this year will realise how serious this problem is. The report says that in a one year period the hostels for the homeless provided emergency accommodation for an estimated 6,000 people and it cost them £20,000 per month to provide bed and breakfast.
Housing construction has virtually stopped. In 1981 £52.5 million was spent on a total of 1,520 units of accommodation in Dublin city. In 1991, £2.81 million was spent on 25 units of accommodation. It is not surprising that we have a housing crisis. I am worried that we are tinkering to a degree——
What about the amendment? Is the Senator going to refer to it?
I am getting to it. The Cathaoirleach is the person who should indicate whether I am straying from the amendment. We have to look at the issue in the context of a national housing policy, to which this amendment refers. We are not putting enough resources into providing houses for the homeless or the refurbishing of houses. In 1987 Dublin City Council, as requested by the Minister for the Environment, put together an emergency refurbishment programme and they listed various flat complexes — Cherry Orchard, Darndale, Fatima Mansions, St. Mary's Mansions, Ballymun, Oliver Bond House, Blessington Street and St. Joseph's Mansions. Apart from St. Mary's Mansions, they have not been able to refurbish any of the complexes on this approval list as they cannot get funding from the Minister. They have also a list which has not yet been approved by the Department of the Environment. The Department have approved one list but Dublin City Council are unable to proceed with the work. An article in a recent newspaper reported conditions in St. Joseph's Mansions. There are no bathrooms there and children are washed in the sink used for washing dishes. The flats are literally falling apart.
There is an inadequacy both in terms of refurbishment and the building of houses. It is estimated that 1,500 people in Dublin city who should properly be housed by the corporation are living in private accommodation. As approximately 1,000 of these people have families, we are talking of approximately 4,000 to 5,000 people. Because of the shortage of houses, private housing is getting very expensive. There is a very poor level of monitoring of the conditions. The State, in other words the taxpayer, is paying for this accommodation.
This is a very important amendment. Until we enshrine a national housing policy in legislation we will be never able to force the Government to provide the necessary funding and resources. I ask the Minister to recognise the housing crisis in the context of this legislation. We are tinkering with social legislation and until we provide the funding to build houses for those who are unable to house themselves we will not address the real problem.
Pious aspirations are all very fine but they need legal force. Eamon de Valera wrote the highest of social aspirations into the Constitution but then inserted a clause which said they could have no legal effect and were there simply to inspire us. This amendment would be fine if it could make some difference. The Government and their predecessors have taken the best part of £1 billion out of the housing budget since 1987. If that money had been spent on housing, we would not have half the problems we now have. Fine Gael are in favour of reducing public expenditure but if we want a decent public housing programme we cannot reduce expenditure.
My problem with the amendment relates to the word "families". There are more people in need of housing than families. Under the Supreme Court definition "family" means a family based on marriage. As a result, single parents, single people, young people and many other categories would be effectively excluded. This may not have been the intent, but I am wary of the word "family". It is a word President George Bush is using with increasing enthusiasm to get himself re-elected. It is a word that should be used with great care. The words "Persons", "people", or "individuals" would be fine. To make the accommodation of families the number one objective in housing legislation is effectively, although it may not be the intention, to exclude many other categories, some of whom are in extreme need, particularly single parents to whom Senator Costello referred to. Some people may argue that that is a statement of priorities, which would mean other people would have to wait for housing until the objectives were met. I hope Senator Naughten will not put his amendment to a vote. If he does, I will vote against it.
We all have to strive to ensure that housing conditions are improved. I have a clear vision as to how this can be achieved. However, it cannot be achieved if we continue to think along traditional lines. We have to create new and different options. We have to involve the voluntary and private sectors. Local authority and private housing have to be developed as part of one housing programme. Most speakers who contribute to debates on housing either deliberately or inadvertently refer to the number of local authority houses that have been built or are about to start, as if this was the only solution to the housing problem. While the number of local authority houses built will always form an integral part of the solution to our housing problem, it is only one part of the solution.
As Senator Costello will be aware, there was no remedical scheme, no urban renewal scheme and no bathroom scheme in 1986-87. People may say that expenditure of approximately £16 million provided by the taxpayer is not enough. It is unfair of them to say that if they do not say where more can be got and who is prepared to give it.
I will tell the Minister any time.
Senator Ryan has attempted this before in the knowledge that he will never be in a position to put that policy through.
There are two separate issues involved.
The Minister, without interruption.
I agree with Senator Brendan Ryan that the concept of a family has changed; we now talk about households. The total number on the housing list at present is 23,000. Of that number 6,800 are single persons, 2,400 are married couples without children and there are many thousands of lone parents. Because of these changed circumstances, we have to adopt new provisions. The housing plan which was first published in February 1991 will shortly be enacted.
I understand Senator Naughten's frustration at the possibility of not having amendments accepted. The Dáil is in recess and if I accept amendments this Bill cannot be enacted into law and some of the provisions in the Bill cannot be put into effect. The most desirable thing we can do is enact this Bill as soon as possible.
Some Senators referred to the regulations. I will respond to these points as best I can. I want to achieve more cohesion between the private, voluntary and public sectors in attacking this problem on every front. I am in the process of trying to find additional resources which will help us in our quest to ensure that progress is made in providing the best possible housing for our people. There is no fundamental disagreement on these aims. One cannot attempt to put those aims into legislation unless a very thorough analysis is carried out over the next seven years to all factors involved, for example, economic factors, emigration, internal migration and unemployment. One would also have to consider the costs involved; for example, every local authority house built this year will cost about £90,000 over the next 20 years. That has to be funded by the taxpayer.
As I explained many times before, we have a huge dependency rate in our economy vis-à-vis our European partners: the ratio is about 2½:1, that is, one person working for two and a half dependants or ten people working for 25 dependants. There are other ways to approach the issue. One way is to try to involve the banks and building societies to a much greater extent in the tenant purchase scheme. This would enable us to free more resources and ensure, as far as is humanly possible, that all people live in decent housing.
I wish to refer to the range of options available. It is possible in 1992 to provide housing accommodation for 7,000 households. This covers all the schemes and casual vacancies but does not include the bathroom scheme, the remedial schemes and the other urban renewal developments. That is a reasonable projection. However, we must do it fairly and squarely, look at the schemes, see how they are to be financed and who is to pay. It is not enough to put forward an aspiration. As Minister for the Environment I will be fighting for all the funds I can get. If anybody can tell me where additional funds can be found I would be very glad to hear from him.
As a member of a local authority for 17 years I am glad the Minister is looking at other ways of solving the problem than simply putting pressure on local authorities to build houses as fast as they can. It did not matter what the houses were like; the party in Government wanted to be in a position at the next general election to boast that they had built more houses than any other Government. It was a disgraceful approach to housing, but that was the reality. I am glad this approach is being changed. I am also glad more emphasis is being placed on the maintenance, improvement and upgrading of local authority flats, etc., under the bathroom and urban renewal schemes.
The Minister sounded very plausible when he said he could not accept amendments as the Dáil is in recess and he did not want to delay implementation of the Bill. Is he aware that this House passed an average of three quarters of a Bill every week for the first eight weeks and has passed four Bills a week for the last three weeks? I no longer believe it is simply a matter of inefficiency. If it was, it would be gross and bumbling inefficiency. I have to conclude that there is a concerted organised effort to rush these Bills through the House — 12 Bills in three weeks — so that Members do not have the opportunity to make amendments.
I have made myself available to both Houses since I was appointed Minister for the Environment. I have never objected to facilitating both Houses. I am not getting involved in a debate about how this House orders its business but the Dáil is in recess. I want to implement this Bill. Local authorities are begging for various provisions to be introduced. I do not want to get involved in an argument about whether amendments should be accepted.
Amendments cannot be accepted. There is no point talking that way.
Senator Hederman, an tAire is replying.
The Minister should not try to fool us; we are not fools.
This Bill is required. Having regard to the fact that the Dáil went into recess last week, I do not think it is fair to say I am trying to steamroll legislation through this House. I am willing to sit longer hours, even late into the night. I am prepared to do whatever I can to enact legislation which will solve our housing problems. My primary responsibility is to solve our housing problems. If people in this House or the other House have problems they are of secondary concern to me.
All of us want to see an expanding housing policy. We realise it must be funded from somewhere. I refer particularly to the Dún Laoghaire area. Some of the older houses in the area were neglected and much work needs to be done. The Minister must assess the amount to be spent on constructing new houses and on refurbishing older houses. Very few new houses are being built, but the Department are involved in various refurbishment schemes. The Minister should make a list of priorities in respect of refurbishment of existing dwellings and the construction of new houses. An overview must be taken.
Dún Laoghaire Borough Council made submissions to the Department as long ago as 1988 and 1989 but when we are approached by people living in the area we cannot tell them whether anything is about to happen. Obviously we do not expect the Minister to write a cheque for several millions for Dún Laoghaire but we need an indication that progress will be made in certain areas. We also need to know how many new houses will come onstream. The housing list grows monthly. There are difficulties in the shared ownership scheme but there are certain people on the housing list who, if given half the chance, would be prepared to make the effort. People must be removed from squalid conditions, and we must aim at certain levels. There is no point in making bland statements about Utopia. We must live in the real world.
The Minister should ensure that his officials contact local authorities in regard to submissions made three and four years ago and to give them the relevant information.
I accept that this is an amendment of wide-ranging, national importance, but we have had a long discussion on it. Perhaps speakers will be as brief as possible.
I have tried not to be long-winded.
I will facilitate the Chair. There are over 50 amendments and we have little time in which to debate them. I tabled this amendment because it should be the ambition of the Government, the Oireachtas and every local authority to provide the best possible accommodation. The provision of money has always been a major factor. I do not want a repetition of what happened in Ballymun or in Battery Heights in Athlone where unsuitable houses were constructed which did not meet requirements.
I am tempted to say what has happened in recent years in Battery Heights.
Athlone is very close to both our hearts. Houses of very poor quality were slapped up and within 15 years the State had to demolish parts of those houses to make them habitable for families. That should not be allowed to happen. The aims embodied in this amendment should be the target we should try to achieve.
The Minister said earlier that every local authority house costs £90,000 a year.
Over 20 years.
I accept that. The Minister must also agree that there are huge savings as a result of the gigantic drop in the local authority house building programme in the past three or four years. I regret very much the slow down in house building which has caused major hardship for families. A major challenge facing the Minister is to recommence the local authority house building programme. I do not believe the social housing policy will work.
I listened with interest to the Minister saying he could not accept amendments because if he did so this legislation could not be finally passed. That is quite true and it shows the hypocrisy of this House sitting this week. Every Senator knows that the Minister will not accept amendments today because the other House is in recess.
I am straight about it.
I am not disputing that, but it is about time for this House to get its act together. It is absolute hypocrisy that 53 amendments have been tabled which we know the Minister will not accept because if he does so the legislation will not come into effect until 1 November. It is time to review this matter. I do not believe the Dáil will be recalled.
I call Senator Costello and I ask him to be brief. He made almost a Second Stage speech earlier.
I would never do such a thing. I agree that important legislation like this should not be dealt with at the tail end of the session. We should have the opportunity of introducing amendments which can be passed and sent to the Dáil. I do not reflect on the bona fides of the Minister's intention with regard to this legislation but we are operating in limbo.
I accept everything in the legislation but I have reservations about some of the proposals. Nevertheless I am prepared to see how the provisions will work. We must also look at the fact that we have literally stopped building houses. I gave the figures earlier, indicating that £50 million was spent in a period of ten years and that the figure now is approximately £2 million. What building activity there is in Dublin is in Sheriff Street on the basis of de-tenanting the old jerry-built flats without urban planning. There are also a couple of small schemes. In Portland Row there is a refurbishment scheme involving 13 old houses. Four of them were allocated last week and the lowest number of points was 98. It is expected by the local authority that the number of points required for these houses will not be below 95. We can see the great demand for housing. We must consider this in relation to unemployed. The problem is growing with the number of people becoming unemployed.
The Senator is engaging in repetition.
This is a new point. Many of the people now unemployed had a mortgage and we are not catering for them as they are not employed, they cannot get in on a shared scheme. Will the Minister address that problem and make provision for growing accommodation needs in that sector?
We could all subscribe to the sentiments expressed in the amendment tabled by Senator Naughten, but surely it is not necessary to have those aspirations enshrined in legislation. I do not think any Government could do that. There is a very difficult question of resources. It is not a cheap job to create houses for the huge number of applicants who are on the housing list at present. All the Government can do is try, as the resources become available, to do the best they can. The Minister has said that this year 7,000 applicants will be dealt with.
The plan for social housing introduced by the Government will help to eliminate the huge housing list. There are various options in that plan such as shared ownership, mortgage subsidy and so on. If that plan is implemented properly by the local authorities it will help reduce the housing list substantially.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, it is not just a question of building local authority houses. There are other elements which should be brought into this scheme such as the private sector, the banks, the building societies and so on. They have a part to play too. That, coupled with the plan for social housing, will help reduce substantially the huge housing list.
The Minister says he is very keen to get this Bill through. I am intrigued that there is no commencement date for this Bill that its provisions will come into force when the Minister sees fit. That does not suggest a huge enthusiasm on his part. He wants the Bill put through but it will be at his discretion when various sections of it will come into force. If he wants me to suggest where the funds will come from, I suggest he could have a lower threshold for the property tax and the income related residential property tax. The threshold is excessively generous. People in my income bracket can well afford to pay it and should be doing so.
Senator Cosgrave mentioned Dún Laoghaire and told us about the housing problem there. Dún Laoghaire has fewer homeless people than any other urban area in the country, according to the Department's figures. The Department's housing report for 1991, shows there are two homeless people in the whole of Dún Laoghaire. There are 350 in Cork, which at a guess has about the same population. I am intrigued as to how they can have an expanding number of people on the housing list and virtually no home-lessness. Maybe they know something we do not; maybe they have a policy provision we do not have or maybe they do not bother to count them. The Minister should inquire in Dún Laoghaire about the apparent absence of a homelessness problem.
This amendment is laudable and is one we would all like to see adopted. It is unnecessary that it be written in. Why should we pick on the date of 31 December 1999? We would all like in an ideal world that the objective of this amendment would be achieved within one year.
The Minister, said he was not trying to steamroll this Bill through. I do not know whether he is trying or not but it is being streamrolled through. Perhaps the Minister and his Department were tardy in bringing forward the Bill. I do not know what the problem is. We can only deal with the facts here. Perhaps the Minister, and his Department, could have brought it to the Dáil a little sooner and it would have come here a little sooner. For the Minister to suggest, as he rather offensively put it, that the meanderings of anybody in this House would not be allowed to hold up his objectives in responding to the housing crisis is very insulting. It is perfectly clear that everybody in this House is as anxious as the Minister to respond to the housing problem. I am very amused to hear the Minister say that he will spend all day and all night if necessary discussing the Bill with us. His colleague yesterday said he would share his thoughts with us, but we all know that does not mean anything is going to change.
I am gravely concerned about section 2, which deals with shared ownership leases, and on Second Stage debate I spoke at length on the issue. My amendments to the section dealt with the quality of housing and the ambitions and aims that we, as elected representatives, should have in this regard. Basically, we should try to improve the quality of housing. Two of my amendments have been ruled out of order on the grounds that they might incur a charge on the Exchequer. I do not believe that they would involve a potential charge. Rather, I consider that they express an ambition for the best possible quality of housing, something that each and every one of us as elected representatives, whether we be members of local authorities, Members of this House or of the Dáil, should strive to achieve.
Under a shared ownership arrangement an individual might buy a half share in a house, with the local authority owning the other half, and then some 20 years later might have to buy the other half of the house at an index-linked price. That is crazy. If the Bill goes through and if shared ownership becomes a fact of life, I appeal to the Minister to at least ensure that people are able to buy back, at whatever stage they wish, into the other half share at the cost on the original date of purchase. If that is not done some people will never, in a whole lifetime, be able to own their own house. As the Minister knows, it is the pride and ambition of everybody in this country to own his or her own home. Under the shared ownership scheme effectively people for the first 25 years will pay off the mortgage on the first portion of a house and then will have to remortgage and spend the next 25 years paying off the second portion. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to at least ensure that people will be able to buy the second portion of the house at the original cost.
I fully support everything that Senator Naughten has said on this issue. I have two points that I should like to share with the House.
My first concern relates to the purchase of a portion of a house by mortgage, with rental payments being made on the other portion of the house, the other portion also being purchased on the repayment of the mortgage on the first portion of the house. The scheme certainly will not get off the ground unless the price of the second portion of a house is tied to the cost price at the time the first mortgage was entered into. An index-linked system whereby the cost of inflation added to the cost of the final lump sum to be paid after the first mortgage was paid off, or to be renegotiated under a new mortgage, would be a very poor deal for our tenants. The Minister should remember that they are people at the lower end of the income scale. It could happen that generations of a family had to make payments before their house was fully paid off. The primary concern is to peg the amount dealt with at first by way of rental payments and due for payment after the completion of purchase of the first portion of a house to the cost of the house at contractual stage.
I should like the Minister to address the question of whether the unemployed might be brought into this scheme. For an example, the House could consider a case I am trying to deal with at present. An individual who was employed purchased a small one-bedroomed house some year ago. That person is now unemployed but does have an asset and is therefore not eligible for direct housing from the corporation. It would be ideal if that person were able to sell the one-bedroomed house and use the proceeds not only as a deposit but as a means of paying off what would be the mortgaged sum on the first portion of a house under the sharded ownership scheme — whether that portion be 25 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent. The individual could then pay rent on the outstanding amount of money. There are many people who would have bought a low cost, small house, particularly in the inner city areas where there are many one-bedroomed houses, old artisan houses and so on, but because their family has grown they need rehousing as they are in over-crowded accommodation. We do not have a scheme to deal with those people. I consider that the shared ownership scheme, even without amendment, would be flexible enough to bring in those people if the Minister would allow the entire deposit on a house to be considered as a mortgage. In other words, instead of the purchaser making a small deposit on the mortgaged portion of a house and then entering into a repayment arrangement for 20 years or more, the deposit would be extended to cover 25 per cent or more of the actual purchase price and the individual would then enter into a rental arrangement under which, because of unemployment, he or she would be entitled to certain subsidies from the authorities. The problem of the unemployed who are in need of accommodation could be addressed in that way.
The social housing plan was launched in February 1991 and about 240 applicants were approved for shared ownership arrangements before the end of 1991. In the first three months of this year that figure trebled. Although there may be doubts about the shared ownership scheme and there may be reluctance on the part of certain elected representatives and local authority officials in some places to recognise the good sense behind the scheme, the applicants who come within the range of qualification are recognising the sense of the scheme.
When considering the options that could be provided for home ownership the Government took the opportunity to examine what was happening in other countries. We looked close to home to determine what was happening in Northern Ireland. I am happy to tell the Seanad that in the North of Ireland 13,000 households have embraced the shared ownership scheme, which is named the co-ownership scheme up there. The scheme is working very successfully in the North of Ireland.
In the normal way we would encourage and would like everybody to purchase or own their own house by conventional methods. The simple reality is that there are a great number of applicants who very much desire home ownership but because of the constraints of their family income or their personal income, and having regard to the repayments that would be necessary under conventional mortgages from building societies, local authorities and so on, they are not able to purchase their own house. We would not be confronted with such circumstances if all those on the approved housing lists were in a position to own their house and wished to do so from the moment of purchase. Therefore we must ascertain whether there is another way in which we can help individuals, families or households to purchase their homes under a shared ownership scheme.
There are a great number of applicants — I have given the House the numbers of people in households under co-ownership arrangements in the North of Ireland, 13,000 — and if one examines the position on a population comparative basis, it would appear there are at least 26,000 applicants in the South who would fit into that category. Are we not then to provide those applicants with any new option or facility? Those Senators who have had the experience of wanting to purchase something but did not have the requisite financial resources to do so——
That happened to all of us.
——decided they would wait until such time as they had the requisite resources. But within the intervening period — as they will have endeavoured to put together the necessary finances — they will have found that the cost of the product, house or whatever, will have continued to rise substantially above the prevailing inflation levels. This will have meant that, three or four years later, having put those savings together, they were then further away from the possibility of purchase than they had been before. Therefore we said, "No. We will strike at it now. We will ascertain whether we can help such households achieve shared ownership".
The system is simple in the sense that one can purchase up to 75 per cent of ownership of one's house in the first instance. Most people referred to a 50 per cent ownership. We will accept that. The argument advanced by Senator Costello was that the value of the remaining part of the equity held by the relevant local authority should be withheld or stand still. What we have endeavoured to achieve is that that would rise, not in the way in which housing values might rise — the House will be aware how they can escalate from time to time — but would merely keep pace with the value of money. People will be in a position to own the full house. They will have the option of selling the house. It is important to put this into some overall financial context.
I did not have the opportunity a few minutes ago to refer to references to earlier housing developments nationwide. The fact is that this year I have to find £200 million within my Department to meet the loan repayments on commitments entered into over time by local authorities nationwide. That money has to be found. When it comes to making provision for doing more than that, one has to find the necessary resources and take them from somewhere.
We are endeavouring here, in line with what is happening in other countries — with an exceptionally good experience in the North — to introduce an innovative scheme. Indeed, I might compliment local authorities and elected representatives who are putting their full weight behind the implementation of this scheme. I regret that its implementation is not even nationwide. There remain some local authorities who are reluctant to implement its provisions. I want to encourage housing officers and elected representatives nationwide to see the wisdom of providing an opportunity for families or households who do not have any other choice available, who want to own their homes but have not the requisite financial resources to enable them to do so. If they are to wait until such time as they have the requisite savings the likelihood will be that the gap between them and the purchase of their homes will be even greater. We are bridging that gap.
Senators, and Deputies in the other House, will realise that, even though we had arguments about amendments, we are dealing with amendments which have been lifted almost in their pure form from those before the other House which were rejected there. Therefore, in one way, I suppose one could contend the Seanad is not placed at any greater disadvantage than the other House in that context. But in neither House was cognisance taken of the fact that we provide a rental subsidy under this scheme which helps eligible applicants and new co-owners of houses in the rental cost of that part of the equity they have still to purchase.
Much consideration has been given to ensuring that the scheme will work. I am delighted to see the nationwide response to it, although I should like it to be greater in some places. But already, at this point in the year, a few local authorities have expended their full financial allocation for this purpose. They have put a determined push behind the provisions of the scheme. Clearly it is working. In the light of experience any technical or other legal difficulties that have arisen on the part of local authorities have been remedied in this Bill, thereby freeing up the scheme for quicker implementation throughout the country.
I can assure Senators that the shared home ownership option while not being the only solution meets a particular need. It is designed for a particular category of households, people who have no choice, who are unable to purchase their homes though they wish to do so. In this scheme we are facilitating such people to the greatest possible extent, very much in line with what has been the experience elsewhere.
I listened carefully to the Minister's reply. Under this shared ownership scheme, or what I might describe as a hare-brained scheme, people will never own their homes. This is my objection to it. The average person will take out a mortgage at, probably, 30 years of age. Under this scheme that person will have reached age 50 or 60 before that mortgage is repaid. This means that such a person will never see the end of it.
The Minister referred to the trebling of applicants in the first three months of this year. That is still a trivial number given our current huge housing problem nationwide. It is a clear indication that the rank and file have no interest in this scheme. Given the diabolical housing conditions many families are subjected to, they are still not opting for this scheme because they can see no end to their commitments or repayments. That is my objection to it. I contend that those who opt for this scheme will have a loaded revolver pointed at their foreheads as there is no alternative available to them.
The local authority housing building programme has dried up completely, or as near as makes no difference. For example in my county where there were 80 houses built annually four years ago, only 15 are now being built. That is a disgrace. An applicant on the Roscommon local authority housing list today could wait 12 years before being allocated a local authority house. Such people will not become involved or participate in this scheme. People in rural areas are a proud people who want to own their homes and see an end to the line. The Minister would have to agree with me that whenever any purchase scheme was offered, by and large people in rural areas bought out their homes, whereas under his social housing policy they will never be given such an opportunity. The Minister referred to experiences in other countries. He should remember that other countries have not our tradition of home ownership. We like to own our homes. People will never be afforded that opportunity under this social housing policy.
The Minister said earlier he will not accept amendments. However, he must recognise that this social housing policy, this joint ownership on the part of tenant and local authority, is not feasible. He should recognise that from the start.
I have to reject out of hand Senator Naughten's contention. I am a little surprised at his resistance to new thinking. I am also surprised that he would find something fundamentally unacceptable about the scheme which is innovative and provides for a subsidy on the remaining part of the equity for qualified households. Yet he could find nothing wrong with the Fine Gael ending the Housing Finance Agency's index-linked scheme without any subsidy, a few years ago. The Senator is making the mistake of confining himself to thinking that this is the only scheme available, is suitable for certain applicants and not for others. New housing construction will meet the needs of other eligible households, such as work in lieu of local authority housing, extensions, voluntary schemes and remedial schemes. The Bill has a comprehensive, open, flexible outlook on the range of options available to solve housing problems. I assure Senator Naughten that, in spite of his resistance, a growing number of people nationwide are inclined to listen to me rather than to him.
Perhaps we could move on from this section because we are spending a great deal of time on it.
I agree with Senator Naughten rather than the Minister on this matter.
It is not always that Senator Costello and I agree.
We have encountered this problem within local authorities in the build-up to the scheme. There has been the build-up to the scheme even though the legislation is not yet operational. There is a real fear on the part of potential purchasers about the open-ended nature of the scheme, about the inability to freeze the market value at time of purchase. There real fear is not knowing what they may be handing down to their families and dependants. One cannot draw a line and say what will have to be paid or what they are getting into. While the inflation rate is low at present, what was its level ten years ago? What will it be like ten years hence?
The Senator can rely on this Government in that respect.
This Government will not be in office indefinitely.
It is not looking too bad.
Senator Costello, without interruption on section 2 please.
Senator Costello is engaging in wishful thinking.
We do have elections and the occasional change.
Once the Senator moves to the Dáil from my electoral panel I do not mind.
Is the Minister in a position to reply to the points I raised in relation to the unemployed or somebody who would be able to make a substantial deposit, perhaps through the sale of their existing premises which would have been a low-income-orientated premises? If the size of the family increased, they may wish to participate in a scheme like this but because they are not employed they cannot actually pay a mortgage or would not be considered for mortgage purposes. For example, could they sell their one-bedroomed home when they need a two or three-bedroomed house which they could purchase under this scheme? Would the Minister say whether the scheme would accommodate such people and their circumstances? I have come across a couple of such cases. The cheme could address the needs of, say, someone who married young, obtained a small house in the inner city, and is now unable to avail of local authority housing or purchase larger accommodation. Are the provisions of this scheme open to such interpretation?
Experience in the North of Ireland has been that a great number of householders decided to move towards the purchase of the second part of the equity at faster or more frequent intervals than has been originally envisaged.
On the specific point made by Senator Costello, I have been at pains to point out on a number of occasions that I want to break away from the notion that somebody in receipt of unemployment benefit is not entitled to take out a mortgage. This scheme can work in a number of ways. For instance, local authorities can go into the marketplace to purchase suitable accommodation related to an individual's capacity to pay. For example, in one local authority area an unemployed person paying a rent of £15 a week moved into shared ownership at £19 a week. The facilities are there for a person to take advantage of this scheme and the relevant local authorities have the necessary flexibility. I am extremely anxious that local authorities, looking at the market position and the possibility of purchasing accommodation to suit the needs of such categories of people, be a vital component or factors in the approach to solving this problem.
The Senator raised a specific case of somebody disposing of a property of a comparatively low value. Clearly the provisons of the scheme will enhance their position, in that henceforth they will be in a position not only to pay a deposit but also to move to a higher percentage of ownership from the beginning. I would welcome such opportunities and encourage them at local authority level.
I will take the Minister's remarks to the local authorities.
I am very much afraid of the impression that will be given by certain Senators who appear to be objecting to this scheme merely for the sake of objecting. People must recognise that this is a very innovative scheme for a certain category of people. Indeed, it acknowledges what Senator Naughten spoke about earlier, that the majority of our people would wish to own their homes.
Senator Naughten spoke of people not knowing the amount of their future mortgage repayments. That is the case whenever anybody enters into an agreement or takes out a mortgage with a building society or other financial institution; their repayments will vary as interest rates rise or fall. We should acknowledge that this scheme constitutes another vehicle affording a certain category of people with an opportunity or owning their homes.
As the Minister said, there is an inbuilt rental subsidy under the provision of this scheme. The fact that the number of applicants in the first three months of this year trebled compared with the whole of 1991 is an indication that people who want to own their homes at some stage in the future realise that the provisons of this scheme are suitable for their purposes. We should not be frightening people away from a worthwhile scheme, which could lead to their finding, too late, that they should have opted for it.
I accept that the scheme is targeted at a certain category of people, those local authority housing lists or prospective tenant purchasers of local authority houses. It is also targeted at those with an income of less than £12,000. It is unfair of the Minister and Senator McKenna to accentuate that the figures have trebled in the last few months since the scheme began. There were extreme difficulties at the beginning of the scheme which prevented people from applying and the Minister should readily acknowledge that. It was not until these difficulties were ironed out with his Department by the local authorities that the scheme got off the ground. One cannot say that the figures trebled, the scheme only started in the last few months.
It is proof the scheme is a success.
No. We would have had these applicants in the earlier stages if the problems had been sorted out in the first instance. The scheme is encouraging people to take out mortgages. Senator Naughten raised the point about buying at a later stage. The Minister said that those in Northern Ireland are now buying in at an earlier stage than was anticipated. It should not be overlooked that many people remortgage for house improvements and here we are asking people to take out a mortgage today and to remortgage in ten, 15 or 20 years' time to enable them to carry out house improvements. This happens all the time as people want better homes. In the past, many people remortgaged to provide bathroom or toilet facilities within the home, or to add extra bedrooms as the family grew. If these people have to remortgage at the increased price they will not be able to improve their homes.
It is part of a package to eliminate the building of houses by local authorities. As I said on Second Stage, the scheme is not reducing the list of housing applicants because between 75 and 80 per cent of those people are on social welfare assistance. Not many of them will apply for shared ownership or co-ownership of houses. There is a real problem here and the Minister should not regard the scheme as a way of eliminating the building of local authority houses. This is not working in the Dublin area although 400 people have applied in Dublin county for the shared ownership scheme and the applications are being processed at present. It is grossly unfair of Senator McKenna to make that comparison but he was prompted by the Minister who said earlier that the proof of the success of the scheme was the flood of applicants. When a house has been lived in for ten or 20 years it needs improvement and probably extra rooms. The cost of remortgaging should be related to the price of the house on the day of purchase.
I agree with this section. I am quite prepared to listen to people in local authorities, who can talk about the possibilities and difficulties, etc., in relation to a new scheme, but I cannot see anything wrong with experimenting with new ideas. Some of the countries which I most admire — particularly Scandinavian countries have never strongly supported direct local authority house building, they prefer to use public resources to give people security in decent housing. I am in favour of getting people guaranteed access to good quality housing. I am not in favour of guaranteeing people access to making a killing out of selling good quality housing simply because the State understates the value of the property. I am not in favour of subsidising people like myself to get rich by buying houses with heavily subsidised mortgage interest. I am in favour of a housing policy, not a personal enrichment policy or a capital acquisition policy. Shared ownership is a way of enabling people to get a foot inside the door and once people do that we can leave the rest to them.
I am prepared to accept that there is a whole host of problems which have not even been thought of yet but the idea that one should object in principle to new ways of thinking suggests that some of my colleagues have not, perhaps, realised that new ideas are a good thing.
Another reason for supporting this scheme is that our local authority find the cost of maintenance prohibitively high. Under this scheme the tenants or owners of the future will have an interest and pride in the property which they do not have if they are renting one. From that point of view alone — although there are other advantages — it is a welcome scheme.
I listened with great interest to Senator Ryan. Obviously he fails to appreciate that the local authority housing scheme has been abolished by this Government in so far as the funds have been taken away from it. This scheme will replace the former scheme which has run out of funds. The urgency of this social housing programme is simply because (a) the Government have failed to provide the funding for local authority housing; (b) this Government and their predecessor over the last four years withdrew the house improvement scheme which was undoubtedly bringing a lot of houses back into the housing stock and (c) the new house grant scheme has practically gone because unless somebody is building a new house for the first time and getting a contractor — direct labour is no use any more — he or she cannot avail of the £2,000 new house grant. This is why we have a huge number of applicants for local authority housing and this hare-brained scheme will not help people to own their own house.
I must make a comment in relation to the Minister's statement and that of Senator McKenna about the great success of the scheme. In Dublin city 435 applications have been received to date and staff have had to be redeployed and trained to assess them. Extra staff were not provided to deal with the scheme so it is an extra burden on the local authority. Sixty provisional approvals have been made, 90 approved applicants have recently selected dwellings and paid a deposit to the corporation and these are being processed. Every possible effort is being made to increase the number of approvals speedily; however, the income of many applicants is low and it is unlikely that they would be able to meet the repayments on a house within the nominated price range.
That is the problem to which Senators Naughten, McMahon and I have been adverting, that it is extremely difficult for the tenants, 70 per cent of whom are on social welfare payments at an average rent of £10 or less, to meet the mortgage and the rental. That is a major obstacle and, while we are in total agreement with experimenting with as many schemes as possible, an improvement to this scheme could be to freeze the cost of the house at the time of purchase so that the mortgage and rental can be paid and the tenant knows precisely what he is entering into rather than having an open ended scheme which increases with the rate of inflation.
This is not a bad scheme but it will be very limited by the factors to which I referred in relation to the fact that tenants — those whom we want to purchase the Houses under the scheme — will find it very difficult to meet the repayments on the mortgage.
Shared ownership is an innovative scheme which has generated major activity and interest within all local authorities. To prove my point, last year there were something in the region of 240 approvals in that category while in the first quarter of this year we have already had over 600 approvals, which suggests we are making inroads. It is innovative, it is a scheme that appeals to people and they can avail of it.
One of the factors referred to by Senator Costello in connection with Dublin — I refer to it in regard to the south Cork housing area — is that we had 67 applications this year, four were approved, seven were refused and the rest are in abeyance. There seems to be a difficulty within certain local authorities in terms of progressing the applications. This is one area in which the Minister could tell county and city managers to get the lead out. People are anxious to be housed and it is in all our interests to ensure that they are provided with proper housing. Local authorities now have the mechanism by which it can be done and I suggest that the Minister should urge the managers to get on with the scheme.
Senator McMahon said that people do not know what they are buying. That does a disservice to the officials in the local authority because I know from experience that they go to great pains to explain the scheme to applicants, outlining what is involved, how long the payments will go on etc.
We have debated section 2 for an hour and I would appreciate it if we could move on.
I sincerely hope we can move on, but I want to comment on the behaviour of my local authority. Senator O'Keeffe made a grossly unfair statement. I have had occasion to deal with local authority staff throughout the country and certainly their behaviour in the Dublin area does not bear out his remarks as they act with the greatest efficiency within the law. My local authority, up to 10 July last, received 392 applicants under this scheme. They have provisionally approved 218, 12 have been further processed and given houses, 81 of the 392 applicants withdrew from the scheme and further information is required in relation to 65 applicants. What greater efficiency can be required than that? It is most insulting to my local authority to tell them to get the lead out and to get on with the scheme. Local authorities are anxious to see people housed and they are inhibited from doing so because of what this Government have done in diverting the funds available to them. I have seen the lists in County Dublin rise to the greatest number in my time as a public representative. There are 2,200 applicants in Dublin county today; never before were there so many on a list. That is what the Minister's alternative schemes are doing in my part of the country. Of the 2,200 applicants, 80 per cent are on social welfare. Is it any wonder that we wish to improve the lot of those people? I am also surprised at the comments made by Senator Ryan, who should be concerned about the people who are now forgotten under the Government's housing scheme. There are people in County Dublin today who have never before been in such a plight in regard to housing. It is disgraceful to blame the officials of local authorities when it rests with this Government.
I did not blame officials.
In 1987, 1988 and 1989 when the party in front of me were supporting the destruction of local authority housing I talked about it then. My views are the same now and I have been consistent ever since.
That is not true and is a false and misleading statement.
I opposed successive budgets which devastated local authority housing. I will not be diverted by recent conversions to the reality of the abolition of local authority housing. When I hear a good idea I recognise it. I know it can be used as a sham, I know it can be used as a cover up for the lack of funding, but the reality is that imaginative schemes generate demand which can create additional political pressure to provide the funds. We can deal with the funds later on. I would like a dozen good ideas to be tried to make use of public funds in the best possible way and I would be the first to point out that they are wrong. I will not get involved in a spurious argument about something that is a good idea simply because I do not like the Government.
I totally reject the statement by Senator Ryan. He knows it is false and misleading and that nobody did as much to bring up the numbers of local authority houses as the Government from 1983-87. I am sure that Senator O'Keeffe, on reflection, will withdraw the statement. It is wrong to criticise county and city managers for not operating this scheme. The reason this scheme is not being operated is that county and city managers have no confidence in it because they know it will not work. I will give on example: in my own county, with a population of 50,000 there has been only one applicant. That tells its own story.
I am not surprised that there will be few applicants if public representatives take an absolutely trenchant position in regard to new ideas, against advising qualified applicants that there are options open to them—
That is a terrible statement. Public representatives do not take negative attitudes.
I did not interrupt anybody. The simple fact is that there is an uneven application throughout the country in terms of the response to this scheme. That is not a reflection on individual authorities; it is a fact of life. I am delighted Senator McMahon is aware of what is happening in Dublin county because I had the privilege in Dáil Éireann of telling a Deputy representing north Dublin how good Dublin county were in their response to this scheme, approving at the moment at the rate of one per day, which would be between 300 and 400 in the year. There is no point in Senator Naughten closing his eyes to these realities.
On the question of ownership what is fundamentally wrong with a family or household today is that they are not in a position to own 100 per cent of their home, and may not be able to do so for 25 years. What is wrong in setting out to own half or three-quarters of that home? What would be wrong with the next generation carrying on the process of getting outright ownership? Are we saying that a particular generation must own absolutely, and that therefore the next generation is to get it free, gratis and for nothing?
Everybody likes to clear the mortgage.
Everybody wants to do it, but not everybody is able to do it. In the next ten years 10,000 to 12,000 people will own their homes under the scheme that is being pushed by Dublin County Council and others. By approaching it my way, they will be moving towards outright ownership. Approaching it the Senator's way, they have no choice. Senator Naughten may be the Minister for the Environment some day and this Bill provides the opportunity to peg the cost of the remaining equity, if so wished. The flexibility is there, if there are circumstances that demand it, and I have provided for that.
Senator Naughten said that local authority houses are not being built. As long as I am Minister for the Environment I will not approve large local authority housing schemes on the periphery of cities and towns. I am not going to pool into one area, groups of people, lone parents, the unemployed and the people on the housing list. I want them to be part of the community, and to be fully integrated into it on sites that are serviced, in houses that have been acquired or extended as a result of voluntary activities, and I will fight my corner to get the financial resources that will make that achievable. That has to be the philosophy. Why should there be a reluctance to extend one's home under the local authority works scheme, in lieu of local authority housing? What do people do in normal life when they have overcrowding? They try to extend. We are facilitating that.
I welcome that.
I presume County Roscommon is resisting that as well?
We are not getting the money.
I presume they are resisting it. I want the population of Roscommon to continue to maintain and resource itself, so that it will be a three-seater constituency, although it is a four-seater at the moment. The pressure is on to take three for Fianna Fáil out of the four, I understand.
Reference was made to the house improvement scheme. I will never introduce a house improvement scheme like that. If I have the resources, I will target them to the people who need them. The taxpayer should not have to find £200 million for people who can afford to extend their homes. As a public representative I have to tell people who come into my clinics that I have no house improvement scheme for them, that I know they are entitled to one, but that I also know that grants were paid to people who have more than one home, more than one option and more than one facility. I am not going to have a scheme like that in place burdening the taxpayer and which is not targeted. If we are able to introduce an improvement scheme in the future, and I look forward to the day when we can do it, it will be in line with the philosophy of this Housing Bill, it will be aimed at those in need, reaching out to people, and concerned to do with our resources the maximum possible.
Reference was made to the scheme during the eighties. The total number of houses built dropped every year, from 1981 to 1988, but as I mentioned earlier, I have to find £200 million this year just to pay the debts. I have to make sure that I use these resources to the limit possible. I will fight my corner for the resources, but I want to urge this House and people like Senator Naughten, for whom I have the highest regard, and other Senators who have contributed here, not to get themselves stereotyped by adhering to the schemes of the past as if there was not a changed society.
Senator McMahon knows, when he talks of those ever-increasing housing numbers, that they are dramatically changed from anything he has ever experienced. The total number may be less than it was ten years ago, but the actual composition and make up of the numbers is entirely different. We are having to make provision for a very changed housing dimension. It requires concern, flexibility and involvement of all the sectors, because it will take that kind of dynamic effort from the private sector, the voluntary sector and the local authorities. We cannot close our eyes to these realities. This Bill opens up that flexibility. We should help it along. It is not just a matter of who is in power. It is a matter of dealing with the people who are in need and whom we want to help. It is a matter of sponsoring and promoting new schemes that will help us to achieve that reality.
The Minister spoke at length as if this was an additional scheme. It is not. It is a replacement scheme for a scheme which was very successful over a long number of years. That is my objection to it. The Minister talked about certain people getting house improvement grants. I do not doubt that there was a certain amount of abuse as regards that house improvement grant, but the Minister or the Government should not have killed the scheme. What they should have done was adjust it to meet the requirements.
I do not close my eyes to any innovative scheme or any trial period for a scheme to house people. I said on the Second Stage debate that we should let new schemes run alongside the old schemes until they are proven. In Dublin County, and obviously the Minister knows a fair bit about it, there are forgotten people in dire housing circumstances who do not fit into any scheme, because the Minister has done away with the local authority building scheme. There are 2,200 applicants in Dublin County, the highest number in my time as a public representative in that area. I hope Senator Ryan is still behind me, because that figure was down to less than 200 or 300 when we were in Government. Never forget that. This is the highest number in Dublin County since I became a public representative, way back in the mid sixties.
In my early years as a public representative by far the biggest problem of people coming to my clinics was housing until the housing list was reduced. I am not being unfair to the Minister in saying that 75 per cent of housing applicants now are on social welfare and do not fit into this or any other scheme. They would not have £1,000 in a thousand years in their present circumstances, to put down as a deposit. They are the forgotten people. I am not objecting to this scheme. I want to see this scheme go ahead, but I want to see the majority of housing applicants in the Dublin area being facilitated and they are not being considered. Money is now being diverted from these people that I am talking about to facilitate other people in the scheme. I have no objection to people getting houses under the scheme. By all means have the scheme, but let it run alongside all other schemes. Let us not forget about the other people who should be given the benefit of the doubt. If there is a doubt about the allocation of money, the money should be diverted to the people on social welfare who are in dire housing circumstances. They are not being given any chance. They are now being put on the list, as the single person was, in the sixties and seventies. People are on the list all right, but they will never get a house. I know that has changed for the single person, but we are now putting these people who are on social welfare on a long term list. I am pleading for them.
As Senator McMahon said single persons remain on a list and are not housed because there is no accommodation for them. That is the simple fact. I am disappointed with both the Minister's and Senator Ryan's remarks. They are misconstruing what we are seeking to do in this Committee Stage debate. We are not objecting to this proposal; we are seeking to improve it to make it more accessible to those people it is targeted at, the people on social welfare, who are unemployed, who find it difficult to make mortgage repayments or, indeed, to be able to pay at the end of the equity scheme — as the Minister referred to it. That is what we really want to do. I outlined to the Minister the obstacle that my local authority are facing. On 13 May 1992, they made a submission to the councillors in relation to the shared ownership scheme. They put in on record that they had only 19 approved applicants for selected dwellings. We have got provisional approvals for only 60 out of 435 applicants. That is not through lack of co-operation or because of a negative attitude among councillors or politicians. The income of many applicants is low, and it is unlikely that many would be able to meet the repayments on a house within the price range nominated by them. People want to get houses but because of house prices in the city of Dublin it is virtually impossible for the people at whom this is targeted, to get one. That is why after 12 months looking into this scheme, redeploying and training staff, interviewing all the applicants and putting out literature advertising it, only 19 people got dwellings. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to seek improvements. The improvements we seek is to make the scheme accessible to people. People should be able to see what is at the end of the road, see what their outgoings will be and get pegged to the actual cost at the time they are entering the commitment.
I would also like to correct the Minister in relation to the statistics from 1981. In 1981 1,520 units of accommodation were constructed. The number decreased in 1982 to 1,351 in the Dublin area. It increased to 1,753 in 1983. It decreased to 1,717 in 1984. It decreased in 1985 to 1,358. In 1986, it decreased to 1,014 but in 1987 it had decreased to 446, in 1988 148 and in 1989 to zero.
They are selective figures.
Even those statistics illustrate a number of points. First and foremost, the Senator is losing sight of the overall position of total housing constuction. I referred to Dublin county a moment ago in terms of their response. Is it put to me as being logical to assume that the situation in the city is entirely different from the county? I have to put on record my disappointment with Dublin city in terms of their response to the scheme. I could put on record a number of other local authorities, one in particular, where there does not appear to be the kind of response that is required. This is an extremely urgent matter. I want to encourage public representatives, housing officials and everybody else to work this scheme as hard as it is possible to work it. It is not the only element in this plan but it is the one which is being concentrated on here at present.
With regard to local authority house buildings, where Dublin City Council and Dublin County Council have an opportunity to purchase a house to meet the kind of needs that Senator McMahon is talking about, we want to encourage them to take it. This cannot be solved by just looking at one particular range. The argument is very often put to me by Dublin City Council that the price range is out of order. I looked up the statistics for 1991 and found that 30 per cent of the houses in Dublin were sold for under £40,000 and ten per cent were sold for under £20,000. What did the local authority do about acquiring any of those? These are the realities that we are faced with and that we have to explore in the context of how we deal with housing, to get a mixed solution to the range of problems that are facing us. Ten per cent of the houses in this country at the moment are unoccupied. They may not all be suitable for purchase or acquisition, but they are unoccupied. In every town, village and city there are blights on the environment, potential purchases for group housing, for single households——
And no housing or improvement grants.
We are still paying the debts after the Senator's party's administration. We have another £24 million to pay of the £200 million left to us to pay. I will leave no debts behind me.
I would not be too sure about that. Obviously, the Minister was not listening to the Minister for Finance in the Dáil last Wednesday.
We are talking about a range of things we want to do. It is not good enough to say we will not work this or we will not work that. It is not all about building houses. It can be about buying houses. It can be improving the houses which are to be found in all our towns and cities. As a young county councillor, I dealt with a problem like this.
The Minister is still young.
Twenty years ago there was no such thing as a scheme like this. In my home town, I approached the county manager with a proposal to house a family in a derelict building in the middle of a lovely old terrace of houses. Work was carried out by the local authority, and by the family, and that family have been happily housed there ever since.
In saying that I will not have big local authority schemes, I do not want to turn my back on very beautiful schemes that have been built in the past or on the contribution that the tenants and local authorities have made. However, I do not see that kind of solution as being the predominant solution, or the character of housing for the future. That is all we are saying here. Let us look at that. Create the mix, and look at the different solutions.
This year something like 1,300 houses will be built in the country. If I can find more resources I will increase that. Suitable houses will be purchased for shared ownership and there will be the extension of local authority houses and an absolute commitment to bring the private sector and the voluntary sector in. The voluntary sector this year will provide between 500 and 600 units throughout the country. That was not part and parcel of past housing experience and it is very acceptable and welcome. A local authority in this country refused to respond positively by giving a site. The majority voted not to do it. When we want to change, let us take everything on board on the basis of the work that I have been able to do and the commitment of the officials in the Department of the Environment to this new thinking, and to supporting the local authorities in a range of options to deal with a variety of housing problems that face us today.
Amendment No. 7 has been ruled out of order. Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are cognate and may be discussed together. I now call on Senator Costello to move his amendment.
Is Senator Costello present to move his amendment?
No.
Has he authorised any Member to move this amendment on his behalf?
He authorised me in general to move his amendments, but I have no idea what this amendment is about and I have no intention of moving it.
Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order because it involves a charge on Revenue.
With regard to the question of regulations under subsection (5), and I am referring in particular to paragraph (f), I hope the regulations take into account the new trend in Dublin city, which is expressed by the elected representatives on the council, that we can no longer build large houses and provide large living space in the down town city centre area. There is a considerable change of attitude — although it is not unanimous, the majority accept that we must provide smaller units in the city areas. In other words, one cannot expect to get the same accommodation in the central city area as in the suburbs. To a large extent that is the type of housing we have been building in the past but we will have to move away from that.
Amendment No. 11 is also in the name of Senator Costello, who is not present in the Chamber.
I have his permission to move his amendments but I am simply declining to move the amendments I do not understand.
Do you wish to move amendment No. 11?
No.
Amendment No. 12 has been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 13, 18 and 20 are cognate and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 13 is in the name of Senator Costello, who is not present in the Chamber.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 21, after "improvement" to insert ", extension".
I am moving this amendment with Senator Costello's permission. The fact that the amendment has not been ruled out of order leads him to believe that the words "extension" is already included because if it was an extension of the application of these provisions I would be regarded as imposing a charge on the Revenue and therefore would have been ruled out of order. I presume the Minister will say that "improvements" includes "extensions".
Senator Ryan has been majoring here all day and has taken a great deal of weight from my shoulders. The word "improvements" covers "extensions".
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, subsection (1), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) rendering part of the house suitable for independent or semi-independent occupation by an aged person or aged persons sharing or proposing to share the house with relatives or other persons prescribed in regulations.".
In moving Senator Naughten's amendment, I understand this provision is included in the Bill and perhaps the Minister will clarify the matter for me.
The circumstances envisaged in the amendment are already covered in the Bill and I wish to reassure the Senator on that point.
Amendment No. 15 has been ruled out of order because it involves a charge on Revenue.
Amendment No. 17 has been ruled out of order as it is not relevant to the Second Stage of this Bill.
Amendment No. 19 has been ruled out of order because it involves a charge on the public revenue. Amendment No. 20 has already been discussed with amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 21 has been ruled out of order because it involves a charge on Revenue.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 13, subsection (1), between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) In drawing up and adopting or amending a policy under this section a housing authority shall have regard to the distinct needs of and provision for members of the traveller community.".
Because of the obnoxious nature of section 10 it is important to reiterate the need to impose an obligation on the housing authorities, some of which have had 20 years of practice at finding out how not to do anything for the travelling community. Some local authorities have a good record of identifying and recognising the distinct need of travellers, but the record of others is nothing short of disgraceful. Some members of local authorities are nothing short of disgraceful either.
Under section 58 of the 1966 Act, which this section of the Bill expands, local authorities are responsible for the management and control of any dwelling, buildings or other land of which they are the owners. The provision requiring the drawing up of a policy statement by the local authority for the performance of the functions under section 58 therefore extends to halting sites. In drawing up policies in relation to such sites regard will have to be had to the needs of the occupants just as in the case of tenants of houses. Accordingly the proposed amendment would be unnecessary. In any event subsection (1), paragraph (c), includes provision for the Minister to direct authorities to have regard to specified matters in formulating policy and if a Minister was unhappy with the manner in which a local authority were discharging their duties he could make use of that provision. I hope that these assurances will persuade the Senators not to press the amendment.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b), between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following new subparagraph:
"(vii) the records and accounts of a designated body will be inspected and audited regularly by a Department of the Environment auditor.".
It seems eminently reasonable that there should be a clear provision stating that the accounts of any such designated body will be subject to the same scrutiny as the accounts of any other body which might be directly or indirectly in receipt of public funds?
This amendment was first put down in the Dáil and, recognising that there was merit in strengthening the provisions in relation to auditing of the accounts of designated bodies, I introduced paragraph (h) to subsection (4) on Report Stage in the Dáil. This specifically provides that ministerial regulations may make provision in relation to the auditing of the annual accounts of a designated body. I would not however envisage the audits being carried out directly by the local government audit reports to the Minister rather than to the local authority. The local government auditor's function would be to ensure that proper annual audits were being carried out and furnished to the local authority by the designated body. Furthermore, I should say that the existing provisions in this section will, under subsection (4) (f) and (g), enable the Minister to make regulations in relation to the monitoring by the housing authority of activities of the designated body, the submission by the designated body of its accounts and other reports to the authority. Also the delegation order itself, under subsection (3) (b) (v), can set out the rights of the authority to inspect the books of a designated body. It is therefore clearly envisaged that the delegating authorities will keep ongoing checks on the activities of designated bodies, which would include an annual examination of their accounts.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 14, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
"10.—(1) A housing authority may directly or in conjunction with another body provide sheltered, protected or semi-independent accommodation either of an interim or permanent nature for special categories of citizens including—
(a) aged persons,
(b) families the head of which is less than 21 years old,
(c) persons who might otherwise be institutionalised,
(d) families, members of whose household have caused severe social disruption to neighbours on an ongoing basis,
(e) other categories specified in regulations including battered or abused women and children and young people sleeping rough or alienated from their families.
(2) The Minister may, by regulation, specify the type or types of accommodation including the type or types of supervision to be provided under this section.".
Much has been said about these categories of people and I do not want to delay the Minister, but I would like to hear a response to the amendment.
This would be an unnecessary addition to the Housing Acts, which already contain sufficient powers to accommodate the Senator's proposal. Section 6 of the Bill allows housing authorities to grant assistance to approved bodies for the provision of housing accommodation that would encompass all the categories envisaged in the proposed amendment. For example, the Focus Point project at Stanhope Street, which caters for housing needs, was actually aided to the tune of £1.92 million under section 5 of the 1988 Act, which section 6 of the Bill replaces. That project also received two special grants in 1990 and 1991 amounting to £335,000, bringing the total assistance to £2.25 million. Special allocations have been made for the provision of communal facilities in existing and new voluntary housing developments in 1991 and again this year. These allocations are intended to provide a supportive community atmosphere for the residents. Focus Point, which specialises in dealing with homeless persons, receives an annual grant from my Department towards its running costs and the 1992 allocation for this purpose is £65,000.
It is clear, therefore, that the Government fully appreciate the potential of sheltered housing provided by the voluntary sector as substantial resources are being committed to it and the legislation is not a hindrance. Equally, section 56 of the Housing Act, 1966, under which all local authority dwellings are provided, is perfectly adequate to allow local authorities to cater within their housing programme for the housing need to which the amendment refers.
I disagree with the Minister about section 56 of the Housing Act, 1966. That Act made no particular provision for people who were homeless or people who were living in unsuitable or overcrowded accommodation and a number of other categories. One of the deficiencies in the Act is that it does not actually specify people who have no accommodation. I accept fully what the Minister said regarding all the wonderful things he is doing but, as I have said consistently throughout this debate, the Department of the Environment have managed to spend £1 billion less during the past five years than they would have spent if they had simply maintained the 1986 and 1987 expenditure — in cash terms, not even real terms — at the same level on housing.
Because they have now spent very constructively, but also with an enormous multiplier in terms of good PR, about £10 million or £20 million on a whole range of very worthwhile projects, they would not be allowed to get away from the fact that what they have actually done is pulled the plug on low cost housing. Schemes that would have been peripherally important in terms of the overall housing programme are now overstretched because of demands and because of the lack of public housing and all the schemes the Minister talked about at such length earlier. We cannot get away from the fact that these schemes, which were meant to deal with specific niches in the housing demand, are now going to be hopelessly stretched because most people on low incomes are in some kind of publicly supported housing. I do not disagree with what the Minister has said, but the saving is a drop in the ocean by comparison with the enormous savings that have been made by the Department of the Environment by simply not spending money on housing over the last five years.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 14, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
"(1) This section shall only become operational by ministerial order, which order shall only be made once the Minister is satisfied that a national plan has been implemented to fully satisfy the varied accommodation needs of the traveller community.".
I find this whole section profoundly offensive in its tone, its presumptions, its arrogation of extraordinary powers to the local authority. They do not even have to meet minimum standards; they simply have to decide what they do for these people. There is a local authority site in a disgraceful condition run by Dublin Corporation on the periphery of this city which I visited shortly after I returned from Palestine and, quite honestly, it sent me back to the refugee camps on the West Bank. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians would have been a credit to them compared with how Dublin Corporation on that site deal with travelling people. To suggest that local authorities should be allowed to pick up a caravan after 24 hours and dump it out there is outrageous.
A variety of problems arise under section 10. To start with, it would be useful if the Minister had to certify that he was satisfied — in the words of the amendment — that "a national plan has been implemented to fully satisfy the varied accommodation needs of the traveller community". I am increasingly aware of the fact that prejudices against travellers is becoming fashionable again. I quoted from a letter from the president of the Cork Chamber of Commerce on Second Stage about travelling traders. It was valid as far as the complaint went about those people, but it managed to incorporate every single prejudice that has ever been articulated against them such as fiddling social welfare, of being vagabonds and so on. As far as I am aware, I am the only public representative in Cork who took the least exception to this man's outrageous use of his position to stigmatise a whole community.
I fear that section 10, with its series of judgments and assumptions about the travelling community and about what they do and will not do, is a further reintroduction of prejudice into our society. One way to dilute the impact of this obnoxious section would be to ensure that the Minister would, first, have to say that he was satisfied, however political a judgment that might be, that there was something like a national plan implemented which looked after the needs of the traveller community. I have always said that when there are decent halting sites and a range of services available to people we can talk about enforcing other laws. Before those services exist any enforcement of the law is a coercive act by the vast majority of the community against the vulnerable minority. There are a whole series of other questions to be asked on this matter. I would invite him to wait until he is satisfied there exists sufficient services of an acceptable standard, which reflect the needs of the travelling community, not those that reflect the prejudices of local authorities.
This amendment would almost certainly mean that the section would never be brought into force. In fact, it would be preferable to drop the section altogether than adopt this amendment.
I would accept that.
How would a Minister ever be satisfied that a national plan has been implemented to fully satisfy the varied accommodation needs of the travelling community? It is obviously an impossible criterion to write into legislation. No matter how successful local authorities are in planning for the needs of travellers, because of the very nature of those needs there will always be some problems, even if they are only seasonal ones. If the section has merit, and many believe it has, then this amendment is not realistic.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 42, to delete "five miles" and substitute "one mile".
I was intrigued to notice that a ministerial amendment in the Dáil increased the radius within which a halting site must be located from one mile to five miles. The original provision was for a distance of two miles. A two mile radius means 12 square miles, a five mile radius means 75 square miles, so that the area in which you can seek out a site is being extended. If a temporary dwelling — with the extraordinary latitude which the Minister gives to himself in section 10 (14) is located anywhere in the city of Dublin there will be a site somewhere within a five mile radius. Therefore, they will simply have to say we can put them anywhere; there is no requirement that they must go to the most suitable site, to the one that is nearest the children's school, to work, shops or nearest any other service. The local authority can, if they are feeling benevolent, be benevolent; if they are feeling aggressive they can be aggressive; if they are feeling downright cantankerous, they can be cantankerous. In the words of section 10 (1) "a temporary dwelling could... appropriately be accommodated on that site" if they think so but not on any objective criterion. Therefore, the very least would be to reduce the radius over which they could cast their increasingly hostile eye if they want to take on travelling people and move them on in the interests, presumably, of the appearance of certain parts of our urban areas, otherwise this involves the use of draconian powers to move people on whenever the local authority wish.
I would like to make a few general comments on the section. I make these comments on behalf of my colleagues Senator Eoin Ryan — and Deputy Joe Doyle — the other public representative in our area — who encouraged Dublin Corporation to erect sites for travellers in the Ringsend area and in the Ramley area. I accept what Senator Brendan Ryan said, that some Dublin Corporation sites are in a disgraceful condition, but I do not think we have the worst record in Ireland for providing sites for travellers. We have played our part, not as well as we should have, but we have certainly played it a great deal better than many other local authorities. The difficulty about this section in my experience——
I am reluctant as always to interrupt the Senator but I would respectfully remind her that she should address her remarks to the specific amendment.
In relation to the specific amendment we have had numerous instances where we have endeavoured to persuade local communities to accept a site for travellers in their midst. Sadly, this task has not always been easy. As Senator Ryan said, there is a great deal of resentment and prejudice towards travellers. It is shocking and it is a scandal. During my time as a public representative the only two meetings I recall with absolute horror — I shake every time I think of them — were with residents' associations where they would not agree to accept Dublin Corporation's proposition regarding sites for travellers. It was appalling and to use the word "unChristian" would be to put it mildly. If the local authority can assure that community, or those people who are objecting to the site, that the travellers will be accommodated in a properly serviced site it helps to obtain their agreement to the site.
This section is very important but I do not have a strong view on whether the distance should be five miles, two miles or one mile. I am inclined to think that one mile would not fit the Bill. I would like it to be one mile but I am trying to be practical about it and to balance the opposition of local communities with that of the problem for the travellers. I do not have fixed views on the matter but I am of the opinion that one mile is not enough and possibly two miles might be reasonable.
The purpose of this section is to enable the housing authority to take direct action to secure the removal of a temporary dwelling where it is parked within a radius of five miles from an official halting site in which there is a suitable vacant berth. The radius was, in fact, increased from two miles on Committee Stage in the Dáil in the light of extensive comments made by Deputies during Second Stage debate on the problems caused by uncontrolled parking of caravans, often within a reasonable distance of vacant official halting sites. The effect of this amendment, however, would be to reduce the limit to one mile. As this would significantly curtail the application of the section, I cannot accept it. I do not think it unreasonable to expect travellers to make use of halting sites that have been provided at considerable expense to the taxpayer and, therefore, to the housing authority. I consider that a distance of five miles will achieve a balance between the need to make use of halting sites and the needs of the travelling community.
It must be remembered that a housing authority may exercise powers under this section only where a caravan can be appropriately accommodated within an approved halting site. As presently drafted, this section would allow a local authority to take action against caravans parked beside one site where another site within five miles may be empty. On the other hand, it would not enable travellers to be moved out of the general area where they want to reside for the time being.
I should like to put on the record as strongly as I can that the primary aim is to solve a problem which seems to be militating against the possible acquisition of suitable sites. We have to face the reality that the acquisition of suitable halting sites has presented enormous problems throughout the country. We therefore have a choice. We can say the position is impossible, that we are not able to solve this problem and as a result condemn a section of our community to living conditions and to a lifestyle and life expectancy which are unacceptable. All of us have experience of sites that are blighted, inappropriate and where the freedom to park almost anywhere is the order of the day. Many people will be familiar with the traffic accidents and the dangers which apply to this kind of haphazard development.
We must take on board the resistance of the settled community to halting sites. What I want is to try to eliminate that resistance. If I cannot do that, then we cannot solve the problem because we will neither be able to get the sites nor develop the sanitary facilities and other amenities that are so necessary in the context of helping the travelling community.
Very often it would allay some of the fears if it were possible to give an assurance that a site would be fully utilised and that there would be no parking close to a halting site where there are vacant berths. It may not be the most desirable thing in the world that we have to set limits like this, but I have to try to be practical and to face the problems as I see them. The alternative is to leave things as they are. They are wrong from the point of view of the travelling community, they are unfair and we need to change them. We need to convince the settled community of the need to address this problem. It may be possible to reduce opposition by providing fairly high cost, well developed sites and ensuring that there would be some obligation to prevent parking very close to it where vacant berths are available. Is it suggested that when we find the resources to provide the site and the buildings and put in the services that travellers may still decide to park immediately outside? It would not be fair to the community living in an area that supported the notion from the very first day that those freedoms should remain, that those blights should remain on the side of the road are harmful to the travelling community, to the tourist potential and to the people who are living in that area.
We are trying to find an accommodation. It is not that what we are doing is sacrosanct. It is not that we have all the answers and know perfectly what to do. I am quite sure Senator Brendan Ryan feels the same way. We need to explore the avenues to find ways to reduce the opposition. We desperately need more sites. The first priority is to get the sites and I will try to provide the financial resources to the local authorities to develop them. When I visited one local authority on my tour around the country, they informed me that there was a possibility of getting other sites but they did not have sufficient financial resources. Many other questions were put to me demanding money for one thing or another, but I said in that one instance that if they were short of finance I would come back to deal with that problem. It is a commentary on our attitude that I was asked subsequently at a press conference why it was that I was able to have some resources for this purpose when I was not able to have it for other demands of the local authority.
You cannot win.
That brings us to the nuts and bolts of this problem. We must try to find a balance based on all the views which were put to us. In the Dáil I had to resist a provision which would provide for no limit so that the local authority itself could decided on any limit. I thought it would be better to set some limits. To set a limit very close to the site would militate against the possibility of acquiring new sites; too far away from the site would mean that people would be pushed too far away from where they wanted to live. That was the balance we struck and we are prepared to give it a good try.
The Minister is perfectly right in this case. My experience is that this was the one thing which held back the accommodating of the travelling community in my part of the country. Our first effort at it was many years ago in Clondalkin where an assurance was given to the local community that there would not be parking within approximately five miles. Of course it was not enforceable, and it was not enforced. It meant that the entire county knew of the situation and whenever we went to acquire a further site in the county this was thrown up at us. The settled community would not accept an undertaking from the local authority.
There is another important point here. There is a minority of travelling people who do not want to go into the sites provided for them at the taxpayers' expense. It is very hard to justify the expenditure on this kind of accommodation for the travelling people when there are other needs in many local authority areas and other people looking for housing. Yet here we are giving 100 per cent grants to accommodate the travelling people. Despite that and despite the facilities on these sites there are many travelling families who do not want to use them. They do not go into them. If parking is restricted to one mile they will find sites in the Dublin area so as to avoid going into those sites. It would put the Dublin authorities in a most invidious position with regard to solving the problems of the travelling community. The travelling community know the law far better than we do. I found this from my own experience also.
How dare they know the law.
They would know the landowners in an area, whereas I would not know them. They know which plot to occupy, the plot which they have found they cannot be moved from. If there is a parking limit of one mile, it will leave the problem in the Dublin area unsolved. I do not think Senator Ryan or anybody else would like to see that situation arise.
It is not so long ago that Dublin County Council got involved in moving a traveller's caravan the result of which was the arrest of a priest and a nun, among other people. I would be intrigued to know under what powers the council operated then, because it seems to me that what this is about is short-cutting and speeding up of processes that are already available to them. The only obstacle that I know of to their present powers is the Supreme Court decision that there must be somewhere for people to move to, which does not seem to me like an outrageously unreasonable condition.
This section has no date for coming into force; in other words, it will not apply only to people who move a dwelling after a particular date. It will apply, for instance, to people who may have had a caravan in a location for 20 years, or to people who, perhaps, have had children going to school from that location for 20 years. Has the Minister inquired about the educational possibilities for children who are moved five miles from where they are at present, and what will that do about the long term problems of the travelling community?
I am talking not about the problems with travellers, but about the problems of travellers. They may be difficult, but if what has been said in this House about the acceptance or non-acceptance of travellers was said about black people instead of about travellers, the Press Gallery would be full of journalists screaming abuse about people who were racist and prejudiced. One can get away with saying certain things about travellers but if one said those things about black people one would be accused of being racist and prejudiced. If one talked in this way about what black people want, where they will live and what they care about, one would be accused of being racist but if one says this about travellers one can get away with it. We have got so short a distance along the road of recognising minorities in our society that we can claim the majority can read their minds, read their attitudes, and, indeed, know what legal knowledge they have as well.
The point is, there would be no problem if sites existed and to suggest that the problem of sites will be solved by moving them onto sites that local authorities cannot manage is nonsense. It would be an outrage to move a family with children to Saint Oliver's site in Dublin city beside, ironically, Wheat field Prison. To move a family into such a site would be a gesture of appalling cynicism, given the state of that site. The local authority does not have to meet any standards of sanitation or space; it simply has to say that in its opinion the accommodation is appropriate. If the officials of Dublin Corporation, who run this site, are of the opinion that Saint Oliver's is appropriate, then they will dump every traveller they can onto it — and many more sites besides if they feel like it — because of the extraodinary breadth of the definition of a temporary dwelling. They will be able to clear any potential cardboard cities that might develop due to increasing homelessness because of the definition of a temporary dwelling in this section. We will have the most wonderful and cleanest streets in Dublin. We will have no homeless people in Dublin at all if somebody in Dublin Corporation takes the notion that they can clear them all into sites if they feel like it. That is what is in it. Whatever the motivation, what this section will do is to further stigmatise, further brand and further harass people who have suffered quite enough already.
I think Senator Ryan is confusing two different problems. I have visited Saint Oliver's site but I am prepared to accept what he has said. I do not contend that sites for travellers run by Dublin Corporation are what they should be. I accept that, and some of them are worse than others, but that is the problem that should be addressed and it is a problem some of us, as public representatives, have endeavoured to have addressed. I do not think that that is the same as the other problem which the Minister outlined very fairly, that is, why it is important to encourage communities to accept sites for travellers in their areas. They will not accept them. This is not easy to do. The two experiences we had in the Pembroke area and in Ringsend, where eventually they accepted sites, were a nightmare. The problems in the county are quite different from the problems in the city. I do not believe they will be able to get any more sites accepted if they cannot give the settled community the assurance that it will help to clear travellers who are parked all over the place.
No matter how one approaches this problem it is possible for somebody to pick an extreme situation where a difficulty might arise. I am not going to stand here as Minister for the Environment and say that this Bill will eradicate for all time the problems that beset society today. What we are trying to do is to make a further attempt to solve the problem. I am happy about the language I use and the efforts I make and my commitment to solving the problems of the travelling community. I would dearly wish the opposition to halting sites to change. It would provide us with a greater opportunity to deal more expeditiously with the problems relating to these matters.
It has been my experience from discussions with representatives supporting the travelling community that those who will first occupy those sites will be those families who tend to live in the particular area. I do not envisage it being otherwise. It would seem quite extraordinary to me that a family living close to a halting site, availing of local educational facilities for as long as 20 years, would not be the first family to occupy that site.
There is a five mile limit.
I am talking about the opportunity to live close to where they had been living but in much better surroundings. That would be my priority and I am sure it would be the priority of the local authority also. We are still faced with a situation where, in all circumstances, some little effort must be made on all sides. I will not stand here and decide for all time what the settled community may wish to do, but it seems to me there is plenty of room for radical improvement in terms of the awful conditions many travelling people still live in today. The overriding priority is to give some opportunity to these people for education and employment in a way which has not been possible up to now. That has to be the governing priority.
The travelling community have indicated time and again that the first stage along that route must be the provision of halting sites. It is not the only solution but it is the one that is most often sought by them. To take that a step further, one must acquire a site and to do that there must be some agreement locally to obtaining that site. We can stick our heads in the sand and say it is not ideal — and I would be the first to admit that circumstances are far from ideal — but within the provisions of this legislation we must decide what further steps we can take to improve the situation. If I find, in the light of experience, that some further changes need to be made to create the possibility for an earlier solution to these problems, I will be the first to explore it, but I think we should give this a trial.
I hope Senator Ryan did not intend to be unfair to Dublin Corporation. Far be it from me to defend Dublin Corporation. I am usually at loggerheads with them, but I hope the impression is not going out that the halting sites are as described by Senator Ryan. The site he mentioned may be in that condition. I am not so aware, but certainly the sites in my area in Firhouse and two in Tallaght, particularly the one at Brookfield in Tallaght, won an award for general appearance and upkeep. It is a pleasure to visit and I invite Senator Ryan to visit some of those sites in County Dublin. Then he might get a different impression of how the travelling people are being treated.
I hope he does not pick out a site where there might be a temporary problem. Over the years we have had to deal with families who would not move into a site. I am proud of the sites in my area, and I invite Senator Ryan to visit the site at Brookfield, Firhouse or any other site.
With regard to the Minister's detailed and long reply to these amendments, I believe some credit should be given to the local authorities who down through the years have put proper sites in place, manned them and tried to service them. I wish to say to Senator Ryan that in County Clare it was never a case of "them" and "us". Thirty-five years ago the first commission to deal with this problem were set up. My late husband, Derry Honan, was appointed a member of that commission by the then Minister, Mr. Boland. The members of Shannon Town Commissioners and Clare County Council worked together in dealing with this problem. Trouble is now being created by new families moving into the area. They are creating problems for the settled community and members of the travelling community who have settled in the area. At present two caravans are parked outside the vocational school in Ennis. Clare County Council do not seem to have the power to move them. I have spoken with those families. I do not have as much contact with the travelling community as Senator Ryan, but I have tried to solve this problem.
A big site was set up near Drumcliffe cemetery along a road where there were houses valued at between £60,000 and £70,000. Credit should be given to local authorities who have worked hard to provide sites. Some of these families are not prepared to co-operate with the local authority.
I accept Senator Ryan's views on this issue. I do not put people into different categories. It would be wrong if the impression was given in this debate that local authorities did not play their part in trying to deal with this problem.
The debate on amendment No. 27 has been broadened. I hope that under this section people who have been in the one place for 20 years will not be moved and that members of local authorities will be able to have a say in such cases. To attempt to reduce by way of amendment the distance from five miles to one mile is totally impracticable. Maybe there should be a separate Bill to cover Dublin.
I wish to point out to Senator Ryan that it would be impractical to locate sites a mile apart in the functional area of my local authority, which is about 70 miles from north to south. The best thing to do is locate them in towns where the sites have worked very well. I do not see any merit in the amendment.
I hope that under this Bill people who have lived in small campsites for years will not be moved. These people are accepted as part of the local community. My local authority and county manager have never attempted to make life awakward for these people by moving them to sites. Even though they have refused to live in houses, they are accepted as part of the community. I hope those people's rights will be protected under the Bill.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 14, subsection (1), to delete line 44, and substitute "and that site has sufficient space and sanitary facilities available that the temporary dwelling could".
This is where the Minister's good intentions are tested. The section as it stands will leave it to the discretion of the authority to decide whether a temporary dwelling can appropriately be accommodated in a site. As my colleagues have said, local authorities have different records: some have an excellent record, some have a poorer record and, tragically, some have virtually no record at all. Some local authorities have a great record of providing good quality sites. I am aware of the sites to which Senator McMahon referred. Local authorities will have an opinion about the appropriateness of putting a temporary dwelling in a particular location, based on the high standards they have operated. However, other local authorities will be equally content to dump everybody in a slipshod second rate site that meets some minimal requirement.
We must set objective criteria, either by way of regulation of legislation, which provide that there must be space and there must be empty berths in a site. A satisfactory level of sanitation must be available on the site so that the children living there will not be more unhealthy than if they were living elsewhere. It should not be left to the local authority to guarantee that the same standards will be maintained. As some Senators have said, these standards can be uneven.
If the Minister wants to use this as a carrot and stick arrangement, it would be much better for him to provide that adequate levels of sanitation and space should be available. This would mean the local authority would not be judge, jury and executioner and a travelling family could test this provision in the courts on the grounds that space and sanitation standards were not adequate. Under the section as it stands, the opinion of the local authority will be absolute and the occupier of the temporary dwelling will not be able to argue his case. This is wrong.
Section 10 (1) enables a housing authority to require a temporary dwelling to be removed to a halting site where it could, in the opinion of the authority, appropriately be accommodated. Therefore, an authority is required to form an opinion in each case that the caravan, etc., could be appropriately accommodated on the halting site concerned. This would automatically involve such considerations as the space, and certain facilities, including sanitary facilities etc., being available on the site. However, it must be said that halting sites are generally of a high standard in terms of the criteria referred to in the amendment in relation to space and sanitation. While some temporary sites, especially those in County Dublin, are not finished to the same standards as apply on permanent sites, they still afford travellers much better conditions than would be available on the roadside.
I accept the point made by Deputy Honan that local authorities have made every effort to ensure that halting sites are properly developed. The cost per unit now exceeds the unit cost of one local authority house. This gives a clear indication of the commitment on the part of the Government and local authorities to provide the most satisfactory and best developed sites possible. I have had occasion to open and visit a number of halting sites. I was delighted to see local residents among the welcoming groups. Some people may say they should not be thanked for doing this because so many other residents were opposed to the sites. I wish to acknowledge the efforts made by those people who gave their support.
I wish to refer to existing sites which may not be as adequately served as they should be. Clearly the onus will be on the Government and the local authorities to improve these facilities. The officials in the local authority dealing with this matter have to be satisfied that these families will be appropriately accommodated in the site. This means that the facilities have to reach the required standard. This amendment is unnecessary as the local authority have to ensure that a site meets all the criteria outlined in the Bill.
Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendment as it stands, although I support the thinking behind it. I could never bring myself to support an amendment which proposed to take power from local authorities. As I have said consistently in this House, many or our problems stem from the fact that local authorities have so few powers. I am not saying all local authorities have carried out their functions in respect of the travelling community in a satisfactory manner. I believe the way to deal with these problems is to give local authorities more and not less powers. Every time a local authority do something wrong power is taken from them. We should be assisting and encouraing local authorities to do their job properly.
This amendment proposes to take another power from local authorities. I could support the amendment if it read "and the site, in the opinion of the authority, had sufficient space and sanitary facilities available that the temporary dwelling could". I am not opposed to the idea of providing sufficient space and sanitary facilities. I believe the words "appropriately be accommodated" in section 10 (1) mean that adequate space will be provided in a site and it could not pass the test if no berth was provided for the temporary dwelling. I thought the word "appropriately" meant decent facilities. As I said, unfortunately I cannot support the amendment as it stands.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 15, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following new subsection:
"(6) A Housing Authority shall not exercise its powers under this section, if the exercise of such powers would render persons under 18 years who are occupying the temporary dwelling, homeless.".
I find it astonishing that there is hardly any reference in this section to the people who might occupy a temporary dwelling. Although I have a slightly different brief and enjoy certain luxuries members of local authorities do not have——
It is not the only luxury the Senator enjoys.
I believe it would have been much more humane to refer to children occupying a temporary dwelling and the need to identify their problems. Sometimes there can be more involved than simply a temporary dwelling being parked in the wrong place. As Senator Finneran said, there can be a long tradition of people living in one area. An insensitive local authority may decide to move a temporary dwelling too soon or too quickly without adequate consultation, thus leaving children without shelter.
My amendment may not comprehensively deal with the issue but it would have been nice for the Minister to refer to the need for a local authority to consult with the local health board before taking any of these powers. They should find out from the local health board and social workers the position in relation to children and their vulnerability instead of looking at the issue entirely in terms of the structure to be moved.
I note that debate on this Bill is to be concluded shortly. Is it the intention of the Acting Leader to give additional time for this debate? I raised that point on the order of Business because I felt it was impossible to deal with the Bill in the time proposed. I should hate to think that a Bill of such major importance would conclude without being fully discussed.
I understand the House made a decision this morning on the order of Business. Unless there is variation in the Order of Business, I must put the question at 2.30 p.m. in accordance with the order of the House. The question is——
On a point of order, I asked the Leader of the House this morning to give additional time because I knew it would be impossible to deal with the Bill in the short time allocated to it. It is a great pity that debate on this Bill should be brought to a conclusion now. The Acting Chairman is stuck with the Order of Business agreed this morning, but I am asking the Acting Leader to give extra time.
I should like to ask the Acting Leader what is the position.
It was agreed on the Order of Business that debate on this Bill would conclude at 2.30 p.m.
I must protest in the strongest way at the fact that additional time is not being given to this very important legislation. I do not want to make the job of the Acting Chairman any more difficult but I must put on record my utter disgust that such an important Bill has not been fully discussed because we have not had adequate time. It is the most important legislation to come before this House for some time and we have had only four hours to deal with it.
The Senator had this opportunity on the Order of Business.
If the Senator was here he would know that I made that point on the Order of Business. I put that point clearly on the record. I deplore the fact that the Bill is being guillotined.
We have made very substantial progress and I thank all the Senators who contributed. It is no harm to thank Senator Naughten, even though he took time off for lunch.
I join with other Members in thanking the Minister for the detailed way he handled the Bill, but I regret that we have not had adequate time to discuss it.
In accordance with an order of the House I must put the following question: "That the Bill is hereby agreed to in Committee and is reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".
