I welcome the Minister of State to the House.
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2001: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
A number of weeks ago my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, came into this House and outlined the comprehensive range of measures taken by the Government over the last five years to reduce house price inflation, increase housing output to match demand and improve affordability for first-time buyers and lower income households. I am pleased to be here today in the Seanad to present the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2001, and to set out the very important legislative provisions contained in it.
It is important to place this Bill in the context of what the Government has achieved in the housing area. Since coming into office, we have achieved record levels of housing output in each of the years from 1997 to 2001. During this time about 216,000 new houses have been built representing about 18% of our housing stock. House price increases have also seen significant moderation, from peaks of some 40% in 1998, to about 5 - 6% in the 12 months ending September 2001. A local authority multi-annual approach has been introduced to achieve a total of 25,000 starts for the period 2000-2003, and to allow for greater forward planning and efficiencies of scale in delivering the increased local authority housing targets – 5,000 units were completed under the programme last year, the highest level in 15 years. Record levels of funding have been committed to support the voluntary housing programme leading to a total of 1,250 units being delivered last year, the highest output ever. A sum of €63 million has been provided for the serviced land initiative which will deliver water and sewerage services for some 165,000 housing units.
Increased income limits have been introduced for the shared ownership and affordable housing schemes and a new site subsidy for houses provided by local authorities under these schemes. Substantial funding increases have been provided for the various grant schemes. The provision for the special housing aid for the elderly scheme has increased from €5.1 million in 1996 to €11.9 million this year. The disabled person's grant and essential repairs grant scheme allocation has increased sixfold from €5.5 million in 1996 to €32 million in 2002.
Funding for Traveller-specific accommodation has almost doubled from €12 million in 1997 to €23.7 million in 2001. Last year 137 new units of Traveller specific accommodation were provided and a further 45 refurbished. This is in addition to 162 Traveller families accommodated in standard housing. A comprehensive Government strategy on adult homelessness was launched in May 2000 and a preventative strategy to ensure that people leaving State care do not become homeless was published a few weeks ago.
The Bill ranges right across the housing spectrum and provides additional legislative supports to the Government's housing policies. The main provisions of the Bill include providing for a significant increase in the borrowing limit of the Housing Finance Agency to enable it provide finance to local authorities for housing capital purposes and extend the power of the agency to lend for additional non-housing capital purposes. It also extends the powers of the agency to lend directly to voluntary bodies for the provision of housing. The Bill places the affordable housing and shared ownership schemes on a statutory basis. It introduces greater flexibility in relation to the administration of the new house grant scheme and provides an up to date statutory framework for financial assistance to organisations providing advice or research on housing issues. It provides power to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to make regulations which will allow for the continued payment after 25 July this year of allowances to successor tenants of what were formerly rent controlled dwellings.
The Bill also makes provision for changes to legislation dealing with unauthorised encamp ments by amending the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992 and the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994. Provision is also being made for a number of other amendments to housing and related legislation and technical amendments to the Building Societies Act, 1989.
I will now refer in some detail to the main provisions of the Bill. Sections 1 to 4 contain the usual provisions of a general nature dealing with such matters as citations, commencement, interpretation, regulations and repeals.
Section 5 defines affordable and shared ownership housing. Section 6 provides a statutory basis for the affordable housing scheme, giving housing authorities clearly defined powers to build or arrange for the building of new houses for sale by them to eligible purchasers at cost price and, accordingly, at a significant discount from the market value of comparable houses in the area. The Government has set a specific target of 1,000 units of affordable housing per annum under the scheme over the period of the national development plan.
Section 7 provides for the payment by housing authorities of a mortgage subsidy to eligible persons who have received a loan from a housing authority and that these subsidies may be recouped from moneys provided by the Oireachtas, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.
Section 8 requires each housing authority to establish a scheme that determines the order of priority to be given to persons to whom affordable houses are being made available for sale. This section also sets out the matters to which the housing authority must have regard in the making of such a scheme. These include the accommodation needs and current housing circumstances of applicants, the period for which applicants have resided in the functional area of the housing authority and the distance of affordable housing from the applicant's place of employment. There is also provision in this section for periodic review and amendment of the scheme of priorities by a housing authority. Specific provision was made during the course of the Bill's passage through the Dáil to clarify that the making of a scheme for the allocation of affordable houses is a reserved function.
Sections 9 and 10 recognise that there is a need also to provide housing authorities with some degree of control on the resale of houses supplied under the affordable housing and shared ownership schemes so that undue profit cannot be made by those to whom a house has been provided under either scheme. These sections, therefore, provide for controls, including a clawback of profit, on the first resale of houses purchased under these schemes in the event that houses are sold by the initial owners within 20 years of the date of purchase. Sections 9 and 10 also provide that any moneys accruing to a housing authority under these sections should be used by it for the provision, improvement or refurbishment of housing.
Section 11 updates the general power of the Minister to pay new house grants. This updated provision will allow the removal of a small number of anomalies, in particular to ensure that following a legal separation applicants who are themselves first time purchasers will be eligible for a grant. At present, a grant can only be made available in these circumstances when the applicant can prove hardship. It is also intended to provide flexibility for the payment of grants in the future including provision for differential rates of new house grants to encourage, for example, more efficient use of energy, including the use of renewable forms of energy in line with the national climate change strategy.
Section 12 brings together and clarifies the existing provisions governing financial assistance to approved housing bodies by way of grant aid. The role of the voluntary housing sector in the provision of social housing and in relation to housing research has been rightly acknowledged on many previous occasions. The extent of activity by the sector requires that it be supported financially in order to continue to grow. Last year we provided over €1.1 million in grant aid to voluntary housing bodies specifically to assist them with their administrative costs and in carrying out research. Section 12 provides powers to the Minister to pay grants to bodies providing research or advice on housing or promoting the provision of housing by voluntary or co-operative bodies. I have also taken the opportunity to clarify the aspects of housing research that may be grant aided which include research in relation to housing needs, standards, management, finance or other aspects of housing policy.
The availability of accurate and comprehensive information on all aspects of the housing market, in particular trends in relation to house prices, is essential for the development of housing policy and policy instruments. Given the importance of comprehensive house price data, my Department engaged the services of consultants to examine the house price information currently obtained by the Department and data otherwise available and to assess and recommend how to improve the use and analysis of the data. This work is now complete and the consultants have recommended that the existing data collected and published by the Department be augmented and improved by information technology systems developed with the aim of providing a broader range of house price indices for statistical purposes. Provisions are included in section 13 to facilitate this. Data provided to the Department by mortgage lenders on an anonymous basis will be given appropriate protection and can not be disclosed to any other person, except in accordance with arrangements made between the Minister and the mortgage lenders concerned or in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 14 clarifies the management functions of housing authorities in certain cases. It confirms that housing authorities can perform management functions, including the charging of rents in relation to dwellings procured through arrangements such as a leasing arrangement between a local authority and owners of private accommodation, whereby accommodation is made available for tenants designated by the local authority. This amendment is necessary because section 58 of the 1966 Act empowers them to charge rents only in the case of accommodation owned by the authority. The extent to which local authorities will be responsible for the management of such dwellings will be provided for in agreements with property owners. This is an important provision as local authorities increasingly use a wider range of ways for providing housing including the purchase of apartments in private developments under arrangements provided for in Part V of the Planning and Development Act and otherwise.
Section 15 clarifies the liabilities of housing authorities following the sale of a dwelling under a tenant purchase scheme, in terms of the provision of services and insurance of the dwelling. Once the dwelling has been sold it is privately owned and the owner becomes liable for all costs arising in upkeep and insurance.
As a result of the additional functions being introduced for housing authorities under Part II in relation to affordable and shared ownership housing, it is necessary to amend section 23 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992 which provides for the definition of a housing authority and the housing functions of different categories of local authorities. This is provided for in section 16 of the Bill.
To maintain momentum on the social housing programmes and to give effect to commitments we made in Action on Housing in June 2000, section 17 provides that the borrowing limits of the Housing Finance Agency be increased from the existing limit of £1.5 billion to €6 billion. The current statutory limit of £1.5 billion has been in place since 1992 and will be reached by the agency by the middle of this year. This increase to €6 billion will cover the agency for about eight years at predicted future levels of activity.
Section 17 also provides that approved voluntary housing bodies may be afforded direct access to funding from the Housing Finance Agency, subject to terms and conditions which must be approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance, including appropriate conditions to minimise exposure of the agency to risk resulting from such lending. At present, voluntary housing associations only have indirect access to funding from the agency through the local authorities under the capital assistance and rental subsidy schemes and under the sale of sites subsidy scheme.
Section 17 also provides that the powers of the Housing Finance Agency be extended in order that it can lend to local authorities for certain non-housing related capital expenditure purposes. These include funding to allow local authorities finance the up-front capital cost of the commercial and industrial elements of new water treatment and delivery networks, and wastewater collection and treatment systems. These costs will be fully recovered over time with relevant operational costs from commercial and industrial customers.
The provisions of the Bill have been extended in the Dáil in relation to the borrowing mechanisms available to the Housing Finance Agency. Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, now provide that the National Treasury Management Agency may perform the borrowing functions of the Housing Finance Agency, including the management of the indebtedness arising, when so requested by the HFA. The NTMA is also empowered to make repayable Exchequer loans to the HFA. This will enable the NTMA to raise funds in the name of the Exchequer at the finest rates and to on-lend these moneys to the HFA.
Section 20 addresses a concern of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, that the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982, does not contain statutory authority for the making of rent allowance regulations by that Minister, to allow the continued payment of rent allowance to successor tenants who will cease to be protected under the 1982 Act on 25 July this year. The section will enable the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to make such regulations.
The matter of unauthorised encampments is also addressed in the Bill. The encroachment on public and private lands by Travellers has been an issue of much genuine concern recently, particularly in those areas where large-scale encampments were involved. Such unauthorised encampments raise issues wider than accommodation matters proper to the Housing Acts, such as issues of public order, intimidation and trespass.
Section 21 provides for the amendment of section 10 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992 as amended by the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act, 1998. Section 10 of the 1992 Act provides powers for local authorities to remove unauthorised temporary dwellings from public places, depending on the circumstances. The scope of the power available to local authorities includes cases where nuisance is caused to any dwelling within a one mile radius of approved Traveller accommodation, not, as at present, dwellings in the immediate vicinity of such accommodation. This section also widens the grounds on which the power may be used where obstruction of, or interference with, public or private amenities is caused by a temporary dwelling. The power will not be mandatory on a local authority which will continue to have discretion to permit those Traveller families in need of permanent accommodation to remain on land pending the provision by it of permanent accommodation.
Section 24 provides for the insertion of a new part in the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, to provide for a prohibition on a person entering and occupying land, and bringing any object onto the land without the owner's consent, where such entry or occupation is likely to sub stantially damage the land or any amenity associated with the land.
There is also provision that where a member of the Garda Síochána has reason to believe that a person is committing or has committed an offence under the section, the member may demand of him or her his or her name and address and direct him or her to leave the land and remove any object from it which is owned by him or her or under his or her control. Failure to comply with such a request or direction will be an offence under the new provision. Provision is also made for a member of the Garda Síochána to arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under the new provision.
In the event of the owner of a temporary dwelling or other object not removing the object from the land at the request of a garda, the member concerned may remove or cause to be removed the object from the land in question and arrange for its storage. The Commissioner will be entitled to sell or dispose of an object removed and stored under this provision in certain circumstances. The penalties for a person on summary conviction of offences under the section are a fine of up to €3,000 or a term of imprisonment of up to one month or both. The amendment provides for an effective mechanism to deal with the type of large-scale unauthorised encampments which we have seen emerging in the past year or two.
Section 22 amends the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act, 1997. This amendment is an "avoidance of doubt" provision. It clarifies the powers of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to attach conditions requiring the payment of contributions towards expenditure incurred by or on behalf of Dublin City Council or the authority in respect of the provision of essential public infrastructure and facilities in the docklands area. It also covers the application of conditions in relation to the social and affordable housing provision.
Section 23 contains a number of largely technical amendments to the Building Societies Act, 1989, including amendments intended to take account of changing accounting practices in relation to the preparation of annual accounts.
The Bill provides additional legislative support for the efforts being made by the Government, local authorities, voluntary housing associations and others in the housing area in the delivery of much needed housing. I look forward to a positive and constructive debate on the Bill which I commend to the House.
I welcome the Minister of State. We, on this side of the House, are quite supportive of the thrust of the legislation and welcome many aspects of it. However, some questions have to be teased out and I hope the Minister of State will be able to give answers later. I need to put a halt to his gallop with regard to his opening statement where he said that between coming into office in 1997 and 2001 there were 216,000 new house starts. He gives the impression that with one wave of a wand, it was possible to immediately build 216,000 new houses, the provisions for which were put in place long before the Government came into being. First, the land had to be purchased, planning sought, etc. before starting to even dig a foundation trench. It is unfair of the Government to try to claim credit for all the houses that have come online.
In parallel with the increase in the number of houses, there has been an increase in the number of housing applicants. In a recent debate on housing I pointed out to the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, that in three towns I randomly considered the numbers of housing applicants had doubled in recent years. The Minister of State will know that in Cork the number has gone from about 1,700 to over 3,000. In Galway a few years ago there were just about 700 applicants; now there are over 1,200. We are not meeting the demanded needs. I agree and welcome the fact that the Bill will go some way to helping those who can afford affordable housing.
The Minister of State mentioned research in relation to housing needs, standards, management, etc. Can he be more specific about what he means by research? Does he mean research into the style of housing we should be building, accessibility for the disabled, or management structures for these houses? He was very vague and did not outline specifics.
I also note the Minister of State is giving additional funding for voluntary groups. Following on commitments made in Action on Housing in June 2000, the borrowing limits of the Housing Finance Agency will be increased from £1.5 billion to €6 billion. Both of these are welcome.
The changes under sections 21 and 22 will get most attention. They affect people entering land that does not belong to them, perhaps establishing businesses or just using it. We are talking about Traveller families who establish themselves on lands either owned privately or by a local authority and the difficulty of having them removed. We must find a balance in the proper use of land.
Those engaged in hill walking and those interested in angling and various other field sports have traditionally had access to lands. I am concerned that this change in the legislation might be used to exclude them and those who engage in properly regulated sports. How does the Minister propose to find a balance between this aspect and the right of those to ensure their land is not abused by people who may use it on a temporary basis by parking caravans and carrying on businesses, only to leave behind rubbish and detritus?
I listened to some of the debate in the Lower House dealing with Traveller families and accommodation. The Minister of State has trumpeted the number of houses built over the past five years but my records indicate that only 110 Traveller hard stands have been provided when there is a need for 2,000. What are the projected future needs? The "not in my back yard"– NIMBY – syndrome has meant this and previous Governments have failed to meet their targets in this area. Politicians know there are few if any votes in providing hard stands, which means there is no urgency in addressing the issue. An educational supplement in The Irish Times rightly praised a Traveller family with accommodation on a hard stand because a family member had obtained her junior certificate and was looking forward to continuing her education. A photograph of her was taken outside the hard stand. I do not know if it was deliberate or not, but it also showed bicycles thrown against the wall, old beds, bits of cardboard and other rubbish. While there is a duty to provide Travellers with facilities, they have a duty to maintain them.
Should we aim to ensure that the traditional culture of travelling by the Traveller community is allowed and, if so, how is that to be balanced against the need to ensure that Traveller children are properly educated and to address the fact that life expectancy among Travellers is at least ten years less than in the settled community? There is also the need to increase the likelihood of Traveller children entering third level education, which currently stands at 0.0001%. How do we ensure that Traveller children have equal opportunities to those in the settled community? Does it mean we should ensure that Travellers are pampered? The House should debate these issues.
Will the Minister of State indicate how it will be possible to exclude trespassers from lands owned by local authorities while ensuring that people have proper and reasonable access to them to engage in traditional sports? I will be proposing an amendment on Committee Stage to deal with damage done to caravans and other objects which are removed by local authorities. In one instance a local authority had to pay compensation for damage to a caravan which occurred as it was being removed. If a local authority goes to court with the Traveller community or any minority group the judge will generally tend to find against the authority on the basis that it can afford to pay. I have seen this happen repeatedly. I hope the Minister accepts my amendment. It will ensure that where local authorities or other parties remove an object with due care, be it a caravan or whatever, they will not be sued for damage that may occur.
I agree with the general thrust of the Bill. Any measures that provide more and better accommodation are worth supporting. I recently discovered that a party to a joint ownership scheme had to deal with the removal of a ridge tile from the house. The person, who is part of a tenant purchase scheme, wanted to know if, in such circumstances, it is the responsibility of the local authority to insure the structure, as opposed to the contents, of the house. In this instance the authority did not insure the structure of the house. It would be in its interests to ensure that insurance is in place, in its own name or jointly with the occupiers, especially if it had to re-occupy the house. The Minister of State should address this aspect.
I look forward to the provisions of the legislation being implemented as soon as possible. I also ask the Minister of State to respond to the points I have raised, including what is meant by research and the implications of excluding people from properties.
I compliment the Minister of State on introducing this important and much needed legislation. I welcome the increase in the borrowing limits of the Housing Finance Agency, from £1.5 billion to €6 billion. It is an indication of the Government's commitment to ensuring that housing needs are addressed.
I also welcome the putting of the local authority affordable housing scheme on a statutory basis. It will provide for a claw-back under the shared ownership scheme. It is another indication of the good work undertaken by the Minister of State in addressing the needs of the public.
Senator Coogan referred to flexibility in the administration of the new housing grants scheme and the provision enabling the Minister to give financial assistance to organisations offering advice and research in this area. There must be research into these areas and the Department and the Minister are going down the right road in that regard. The measures taken by the Minister in the past year or two have brought some sort of normality to house prices. The measures taken in regard to affordable housing were a good step and will allow young married people to buy their own houses.
Senator Coogan referred to Travellers. Since 1997 the Government has provided €72 million for the provision of Traveller accommodation. It provided €23 million last year for such accommodation. This indicates a commitment on the part of the Government, the Minister and the Department to housing for Travellers and to looking after their needs. I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister on bringing it to the House.
I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome the Bill. Its purpose is to provide extra funding for more local authority housing and to put affordable and shared ownership housing on a statutory footing, which is right and proper. I welcome the Bill, although I have not studied it in any great detail. However, I have one or two reservations but the Minister of State may be able to provide guarantees in this regard.
Under the old Acts, someone living in a local authority house would, after a number of years, be able to buy the house for a negotiated price under the tenant purchase scheme. The local authority had a formula for working out the price. This Bill does not govern the voluntary housing sector. People who have been provided with housing by a voluntary housing authority will never be in a position to buy the house under a tenant purchase scheme. This is something the Minister of State might consider including in the Bill. The Government and local authorities are pumping more money into the voluntary housing sector. However, those who depend on voluntary housing will not have the same concessions as people who get a local authority house from the point of view that they will never be in a position to own their house.
The aspiration of those who get a local authority house is that at some stage they may be in a position to buy the house from the local authority under the tenant purchase scheme. This will never be the case under the voluntary housing scheme because that sector seems to hold on to houses and not sell them to tenants under a tenant purchase scheme. This aspect should be looked at because all those in the voluntary housing sector have been on a housing waiting list and they should receive the same treatment.
Another issue which has been brought to my attention recently relates to sporting groups. I would like the Minister of State to give a guarantee that the Bill when enacted will not in any way affect access of fishermen to lakes or rivers and that it will not affect people involved in climbing, mountaineering and so on. If the Bill is enacted in its current form, it could mean that access is denied to people involved in outdoor sporting activities. We all know what the fishing industry is worth to this country from a sporting and tourism point of view. Given our great trout and salmon fishing lakes and rivers, the fishing industry is a major national asset. I hope the Minister will guarantee that when the Bill is enacted, it will not prevent people from gaining access through private lands or from getting boats onto rivers and lakes to enjoy a day's fishing.
The central and regional fisheries boards have done great work over the years in building up what is now one of our greatest assets. As we all know, the fishing industry is growing. As more people have more leisure time, they are taking up fishing as a sport. People have expressed fears to me that if section 21 is enacted, it will cast a doubt over accessibility to lakes and rivers. I hope this provision can be regulated in a proper fashion.
Apart from these reservations, this is good legislation which is much needed. As more people come onto the housing list, more money needs to be invested in the housing industry. People who years ago could afford a house can no longer do so. Therefore, there will be more responsibility on local authorities to provide more housing in the future. I welcome the Bill and hope the Minister of State will be able to allay the fears expressed to me in regard to access to rivers, lakes, mountains and so on.
I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on bringing forward this very important and wide-ranging legislation. I would like to refer briefly to the affordable and shared ownership housing scheme which will now be put on a statutory basis. The flexibility in regard to the administration of grants is to be welcomed. Many young people will be delighted to hear they are now being looked after, particularly young people who are ready to settle down but cannot find accommodation.
However, I am concerned about one aspect of the Bill of which I have a great knowledge and background. This relates to sections 20 and 24 which deal with huge, unauthorised and illegal Traveller encampments. I wish to preface my remarks by saying that I am, and always have been, committed to the Traveller's programme. A very fine programme is in place in my constituency where young Travellers attend the local school and are involved in the local GAA club. This works very well.
The sad part is that those Travellers are now suffering from being associated with the huge illegal encampments I have witnessed in my electoral area of Rathfarnham. This time last year, over 150 caravans moved up along the Dodder and encamped in the public space along the linear park. These are people who already have accommodation, who are better off than you and I and who own businesses throughout the country, but because of the very nature of their lives, they decided they wanted to move.
I do not object to that, it is part of their culture. However, I do object to this huge incursion into public and private land and to the intimidation and breach of public order, and that is why I welcome this legislation. The amendment to the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994 gives the Garda the power to step in and help public representatives and local authorities in tackling this problem.
I am aware of the huge commitment of the Government to this and that the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, has met county managers throughout the greater Dublin area to try to find a way of getting transient sites up and running. I have no difficulty with that – we need a transient site in each local authority and to co-ordinate the activities of Kildare County Council, South Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council so that Travellers moving from one place to another can be accommodated.
However, we do not and should not have a duty of care for those Travellers who decide to move up from the country to Dublin and destroy our environment, our amenities and public spaces and intrude upon people's lifestyles. The Dodder linear park is a beautiful amenity area which residents and locals use every summer for walks and leisure activities. It was destroyed last summer. It was a disgrace to see the type of objects that were dumped in the Dodder and to see how these people conducted their business and then dumped the leftovers of these business activities in the evenings.
We had no power to do anything about this. The Garda had no power and when the local authority brought the matter to the High Court it was told the Travellers could not be moved on unless there was a site to move them to. This was crazy; the whole system had broken down. I congratulate the local residents, who were very fair minded and tolerant in trying to solve this problem with us. They gave us a hard time as public representatives, but we were absolutely frustrated in trying to find a solution. I congratulate the residents for standing back and trying to help us. They were prepared to do everything they could to see how best we could remove the encampments. However, the power to do so was not there, and I welcome this legislation for giving a stronger hand to the Garda to act to move these encampments on if they refuse to move of their own accord. The Garda can now arrest without a warrant, and their hand is also strengthened in terms of the ability to confiscate property.
I want to see the legislation in action. I ask the Minister to reinforce the point in his reply that when these illegal encampments are established, I can phone the local Garda station and ask them to come down and remove these caravans. It would be great if I could relay this message to the people of Rathfarnham, and I seek the Minister's assurance on this.
Of course we have a duty of care and a duty to find accommodation for people in our own jurisdiction. However, it is these business Travellers I object to. I am committed to the Travellers programme, and it is most unfair that those Travellers who I know are settling in very well are now being tarred with the same brush. I feel great sympathy with those Travellers, but it is the large, illegal encampments I am concerned about. I was quite nervous when I went to visit one myself. I have spoken at length with the residents around the Dodder and asked them to be patient with us and they have been more than patient.
The Minister is to be congratulated on this legislation, which I thought was not going to be introduced. The trespass laws are the key issue, and it is a great step forward that the Garda can arrest people, remove objects, take these people's businesses from them and tell them to move on. However, we must compel local authorities to act because county managers are not prepared to reach out and find transient sites. They adhere to the practice in theory and draw up future plans for sites, but each local authority area should have at least one transient site catering for at least 20 caravans.
Neighbouring local authorities should co-operate to ensure a balanced allocation of places on transient sites. Unless we have the back-up provision of transient sites, we are going to have a repeat of what happened in Rathfarnham last year. As it is, there are ten caravans still in place along the Dodder, which we cannot move because we have nowhere to place them. Even when we do find places for these people, some of them do not want to go because they do not like the other people already in the transient sites. The power of local authorities has to be enforced so that the people in these encampments can be offered alternative accommodation or else an ultimatum to leave the area altogether.
The public are crying out for support, and the danger is that people might eventually take the issue into their own hands. I do not think this will happen now because we can tell them this legislation will work. It is the first time I have seen real progress in this area, but we now want to see practical action. I compliment the Minister on bringing this legislation forward.
I welcome the Minister to the House, but I wish more time had been taken to consult with groups involved in this issue. There has been a total lack of consultation. It is appalling that in a week when we have been trying to raise awareness of anti-racism, of the need for inclusiveness and understanding cultural differences, we have failed to talk with and get the views of those involved in the consultation process conducted by the Minister's own Department. It is unbelievable that there has been no consultation with that group. The Department set up a group specifically for the purpose of consultation but then introduces legislation without consultation. If I am wrong on this, I stand ready to be corrected.
All sorts of emotive things can be said about the Traveller issue, which is the core issue I want to focus on, particularly the criminalising of people. On the one hand, members of the Traveller community are citizens of this State and have the same rights and entitlements as everybody else, which need to be protected. However, no one can justify the behaviour of some Travellers, who engage in blackmail and extortion of money when it comes to the issue of illegal encampments in scenic areas, sports fields and residential areas. That is wrong.
Two incorrect forms of behaviour occur here. The State is not fulfilling its statutory responsibilities to the Traveller community and certain members of the Traveller community are behaving in an anti-social manner. These gaps need to be bridged. However, we must ensure that legislative action is not taken with a blunt instrument approach, as it is in this Bill. This legislation is directed at all Travellers, regardless of whether they are law-abiding. We must not make victims of individual Travellers who, due to over-crowding at halting sites, have no choice but to settle on private grounds. We must distinguish between such people and those who deliberately come into settled communities and terrorise them with a view to extorting money. Let us distinguish between crime and need. The problem I have with this legislation is that it does not make such a distinction.
We know what the problems in this area are, but we have responded to them with a knee-jerk methodology. Such State action affects all members of the Traveller community. We might just as well have a law that criminalises all Cork people, because some of them have broken the law.
The consultative committee on Traveller accommodation is appalled by this legislation. This is the very committee which we set up to assess the needs of Travellers and I want to know why the Minister did not consult it when this legislation was being drafted. Consultation with that committee would not have necessitated any softening of our position on Travellers who break the law.
A school in Ennis had to be closed down last year when a group of Travellers camped in the grounds there and refused to move. Those Travellers created chaos. That is a fact and I have no problem with saying that. However, we must also remember that most local authorities are failing in their responsibilities to provide adequate accommodation for the Traveller community.
On the one hand, we are being pushed along by a reactionary, racist view of Travellers and, on the other, we have people who suggest that Travellers can do no wrong. The truth is in the middle. People who represent the Traveller community tend to be sensible, with a clear view of the world, who do not attempt to justify unacceptable or criminal behaviour.
The section of this Bill which deals with offences relating to entering and occupying land without consent does not take into account the reality of the accommodation situation for Travellers. Where overcrowding takes place, families have no choice but to camp in areas other than a halting site and they should not be criminalised for doing so. This is an issue of justice. If we actually delivered on all of our commitments regarding Traveller accommodation and certain groups continued to form illegal encampments, we could justify taking legal action against them.
I am opposed to what is taking place along the river Dodder and to what is happening at illegal camps around the country. I am equally appalled by the conditions in which Travellers are living, in wasteland around Blanchardstown, where they have no water. Such Travellers have a high incidence of illness and a high rate of infant mortality. That is criminal.
It is the lack of balance within this legislation that creates these problems. We must be a humane but strong society. The rules must be implemented. We must not run along with every liberal view, but similarly we must not be driven by every reactionary view. Our society should reflect an intercultural community, where Travellers are respected and are part of what we are.
It is wrong that some Travellers engage in anti-social behaviour. However, it is equally wrong that, while we live in one of the most advanced communities in the OECD, Travellers have the lowest life expectancy, highest level of infant mortality, lowest levels of access to running water and the lowest levels of housing. Local authorities are not delivering. I am not being pious about this. I appreciate that there are political reasons behind it, but we must acknowledge that it is criminal that kids are dying on caravan sites because we are not housing them.
If there were balance in the legislation, I could accept it. However, I cannot accept the criminalisation of people who are simply trying to find a space to live and raise their families. In every walk of life, there are good and bad people. We must ensure that the people on whom we impose the letter of the law are acting with criminal intent. We must not criminalise those who are merely trying to survive in a set of circumstances which we have created.
I am very grateful to Senator O'Toole for agreeing to share his time with me. I am very interested in speaking on this issue because I was the person who pioneered those clauses in equality legislation that protect the rights of Travellers. I have great sympathy for their situation. I have reservations about the lack of consultation during the drafting of this Bill. There is a consultative council for Travellers and they were not included in this process. In the interests of democracy, it was important that they should have been included and their reservations and problems be taken into account.
The lack of accommodation provided for Travellers must also be addressed. Where are they to go? The rights of decent, ordinary Traveller families must be protected. That is a real problem. A former Minister of State, Deputy Chris Flood, has expressed his concerns about this legislation. Others have said that it could lead to confrontation and violence between groups of Travellers and the Garda, which would be regrettable. There is a need for balance.
There is no doubt that as opposed to the individual situation of Traveller families there have been large-scale intrusions of families from the United Kingdom. They bring a lot of vehicles with them, many are wealthy traders and they engage in blackmail. They deliberately target schools, places of public amenity and residential areas. They then use the inconvenience they cause to extort money. We have heard of some demanding £3,000 to move on. They break through gates during the night and say the gates were open and they were therefore not involved in a criminal act.
There has been a lot of pressure on authorities to resolve this problem. An individual citizen only has recourse to civil law but that is expensive and time consuming. Often by the time a citizen has spent his or her money the travellers have moved to some place else to make another killing. That is unfair. In saying we need balance I mean we must also have balance in terms of the rights of individual residents in any area. That applies in particular when schools are affected. It is abominable that some of the large scale encampments have left sites near schools in not just untidy or unpleasant condition but in an unsanitary condition which is a danger to health. In at least one school a series of scheduled matches had to be put off because of this. That might appear a trivial matter but it is important for the affected community.
For example, the area along the Dodder was a notable cause of complaint and the situation there was nothing other than a public scandal. The decent members of the Traveller community here would be deeply ashamed of the behaviour of others in their community. I have listened to debates on this subject on radio and I pay tribute to the decent corporation spokespersons I have heard. They have endless patience and within the restrictions of their budget and of the political framework provided for them they have attempted to cope.
I support the Bill but I hope it will be sensitively administered and that our own decent Travellers will be properly treated and not subjected to the strictest provisions of the criminal law in circumstances where fate has driven them into the situation. The House should remember that to travel is part of their culture. There was a wonderful programme on RTÉ some weeks ago which started with a man taking photographs of travellers. It showed the travellers again 30 years after the original photographs. There was one beautiful woman who sang and 30 years later she sang the same song again in Galway. Although her face was now weather-beaten she was really lovely. She visited some friends in Galway city where the husband, a fine upstanding man with a twinkle in his eye, made the point that he is stuck in the house, that the local authority makes it impossible for him to keep animals near the house and that it is in their blood to want to travel.
We all think of travel at this time of year. As "Mise Raftairí" says:
Anois teacht an Earraigh beidh an lá ag dul chun síneadh
‘S tar éis na Féile Bríde árdóidh mé mo sheol.
There is something in the Irish spirit that likes the idea of wandering and on a beautiful day like this what could be more heavenly than trundling around a provincial side road. However, the weather is not always good and travellers have a difficult and harsh life.
We must ensure the law, when passed, is administered fairly. When I was young Travellers were a sight to behold because they had wonderful barrel-shaped caravans driven by horses. They made tin cans, mended buckets for farmers and were an integral part of our lives. The progress of modern times has dislodged them from this and now a substantial section of the Traveller community, particularly those who come from England with expensive cars and trailers, make a lot of money in hard cash which is not returned for tax purposes. They have all the advantages of taxes paid by the settled community and then use blackmail and operate outside the law.
We are all citizens and must obey the law. It is a pity the situation has been pushed to the extent where we have got to introduce this legislation. I have great sympathy for Travellers, particularly our own. They have only their own cousins, who come in from England, to blame for what is happening. I appeal to the Garda to treat sensitively the individual Traveller families who may be suffering hardship and difficulty. The Garda will have the support of the community if they impose the full rigours of the law on the wealthy groups of Travellers who come in and abuse the privilege of being in this country.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I also welcome this important Bill. We tend to take notice mainly of the sections in relation to Travellers. There are other important sections in the Bill.
In relation to housing development, I recall as a member of a local authority in 1997 when Departments made moneys available. We were not in a position then to build houses because we did not have land available and had to be provided with extra land and infrastructure, water and sewerage services, to enable us address the housing needs of people. Will the Minister tell us what allocations were made to local authorities over the last number of years and did any local authority ever use their allocation in relation to the needs of Traveller accommodation? I feel confident in saying that in most cases it was not used. There is an onus on all local authorities to provide serviced hard-stands urgently. If we do not provide them we are on a collision course with the unfortunate people who have no accommodation. Some of them do not want housing but want to continue to travel from place to place.
Traveller trailers are another problem with which this Bill will deal efficiently and effectively. They created problems in Naas mart where they moved in and wrecked the place. In many cases they moved onto playing fields or onto private lands and would only move on when paid to move. The leader would get a payment of thousands of pounds and only then would they move on for fine pickings elsewhere. That will be addressed in this Bill and we welcome it.
Local authorities have moved in recent years towards providing "turn key" houses built by contract developers. Senator Coogan made an important point in relation to the housing finance agency provided for section 15. We must ensure those houses are maintained and insured, otherwise people can walk away from them resulting in huge expense being incurred to bring them back to an acceptable standard.
The Minister of State has outlined many important sections in the Bill where there are substantial improvements for developers providing houses. Perhaps the Minister of State would clarify if the total floor area of a house is what is referred to in the legislation for grant purposes. Is it proposed to change the square footage of houses that qualify for grant aid? We need to examine the issue of the floor area as there may be problems for people building standard-type family houses in qualifying for grant aid. We realise that the grant aid is important. I welcome the provision of grant aid for first time builders of houses.
There are problems in relation to planning for housing in rural areas. People are moving into rural areas because we are not providing private sites on serviced land in towns and villages. This is a matter for local authorities. The Minister of State's Department has made money available and it should instruct county managers and local authorities to provide more private sites so that people who want to stay in their parishes can build there rather than moving into rural areas where they will have planning problems. This is a matter we must consider.
There are also problems in relation to halting sites and hard stands and there is an onus on local authority members to deal with them. That is what they are elected for, not to take the soft options. Local authority members are elected to make hard decisions. There will be more problems for Travellers seeking accommodation as a result of this Bill because of regulations as to where they can and cannot park. This means local authorities must provide permanent housing. If they do not, they will have to opt for halting sites or hard stands with ancillary services, the cost of which is not huge.
The voluntary housing sector needs to be examined. I welcome the section which deals with the tenant purchase scheme because there is a claw-back provision. Many people purchased houses from their local authorities, lived in them for a number of years and sold them, making substantial profits while leaving the local authority with no way to recoup their money. In many cases, local authorities in rural areas had paid between £80,000 to £100,000 to provide accommodation and, within three or four years, people had sold the houses on.
I wish the Minster of State well with this Bill even though people will have objections, particularly to the section relating to Travellers. People will also recognise that we must move on. We can no longer leave people on the sides of the roads with the dangers of traffic and so on. We must provide facilities for them to get off the public roads and this Bill is a move in the right direction. I compliment the Minister of State and his officials on bringing this Bill to the House.
I welcome the Minister of State and I welcome certain sections of the Bill but not others. I see this legislation, coming at this time and with the twist that has been put on it, as a blatant political gimmick which masks the bankruptcy of Government housing policy.
I will cite some statistics from the March 2002 edition of Simon Community News to illustrate what has not happened during the term of this Government. In 1991 there were 2,751 homeless people, in 1993 there were 2,367, and in 1996 there were 2,501. In the first half of the 1990s, therefore, the numbers were gradually decreasing to a manageable level. However, in 1999 the figure jumped to 5,234. The 2002 figure is pending and, although we do not have it yet, I can assure the Minister of State that it will show another substantial increase.
The number of homeless people was kept to that level when things were beginning to improve with the massive boom that the Celtic tiger provided. It is a disgrace that there was a more than doubling of the number of homeless people in the first three years of the Government's stewardship.
The housing lists have increased to 150,000 and the figures for Traveller accommodation are scandalous. The 1995 task force report on the Traveller community recommended that 2,200 units of accommodation should be provided. In the seven years since, 111 units have been provided. In other words, 95% of the proposed accommodation has not been provided over a seven year period and Fianna Fáil has been in Government for virtually all of that period. Indeed, we are coming into the seventh year of that period.
Young couples cannot afford accommodation, sites or property because it is largely the preserve of speculators and the big business community and we have seen what that has produced in terms of corruption around the country. Private rented accommodation is—
Did the Senator say there was corruption around the country?
There certainly is in Dublin and I have heard of corruption in the second city.
The Senator should tell us about it because I did not hear about it.
I will talk to the Senator later and I may be able to describe some people and building sites, in relation to which questions need to be answered.
The cost of private rented accommodation is astronomical and there are as many evictions taking place now as during the worst days of the 19th century in rural Ireland. People attending my constituency clinics have been evicted from private rented accommodation because the landlord wants to put in tenants who can pay a higher rent, but the health board cannot afford to pay the higher rental allowance. In the meantime, vast profits are being made by speculators. The Minister is passing the buck in this legislation and placing responsibility for the provision of social affordable accommodation on voluntary housing associations.
I have no objection to housing associations coming into the market to provide affordable housing, but that is not where the major thrust of our efforts should be directed. Local authorities have a responsibility to provide housing and the Government has a responsibility to provide fin ance for it. Passing it on to another body is not the answer to reaching housing targets. Most of the housing associations are not Irish bodies. Increasingly they are coming in from England, so the majority of such housing is not being provided by indigenous housing associations. I would like the Minister to comment on that.
These housing associations seem to have a bias towards single unit accommodation so they can obtain a greater capital grant from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. They are to some extent milking the Department for the construction they undertake because in virtually all cases they are getting the maximum grant available. A considerable amount of monitoring of these housing associations is required. They may be good associations, such as the Simon Community or local co-operatives which respond to the direct needs of those whom they represent, but others are business operators seeking to obtain the maximum profit from the market. We must examine the fact that, to an increasing extent, social and affordable housing now comes within the remit of housing associations.
It is deceitful to introduce the element concerning travelling people in this legislation. The amendment the Minister introduced does not deal with housing, but with trespass, extortion and law breaking. Such matters should be dealt with in legislation introduced by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is common knowledge that there have been abuses of trespass and extortion and that Travellers have used their position to break the law. That has been reported in the media and it should be targeted, but not in the context of housing the Traveller community. In this Bill, the Minister is tarring every Traveller with the same brush.
We certainly are not.
That is the way Travellers see it.
That is the way the Senator wants to present it.
That is what is happening and that is why the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is meeting representatives of the Traveller community today. The Minister should remember that this section was introduced without any consultation with the Traveller community, despite commitments to the social partnership of which the Traveller community forms part of the third strand. A task force was established to examine this situation and make recommendations, but the community was by-passed. That is not a consultative approach. I have come to the conclusion that this is an election gimmick so that Fianna Fáil can say, "We have become tough on Travellers because we are looking for votes".
That is what the Senator is saying.
I am not alone in saying this; it is being said by the Traveller community also. If it is not a gimmick, why was there no consultation with Traveller groups? Why has the measure been introduced in this Bill? The Minister should admit that it is a gimmick. It is sad that having introduced this element into the Bill, the statistics reveal the hopelessness of the efforts that have been made by local authorities to house Travellers. Why has the Minister for the Environment and Local Government not insisted on better efforts being made to provide such accommodation? That is the scandal. People, including the Traveller community, can see that discrimination remains. As Travellers have a nomadic tradition, they are all being regarded with suspicion as trespassers who indulge in questionable activities.
The Minister should have imposed penalties on local authorities, such as the penalties that are to be imposed on Travellers, for not fulfilling their legal obligations to provide necessary housing.
Would the Senator support the officials if they did that?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Farrell can speak after Senator Costello.
I would not have the slightest objection to penalties being imposed on Dublin City Council, or any of the local authorities in Dublin or elsewhere, if they did not provide shelter for people who need it. That is their duty and I want it done for the homeless as well.
If there are objections to such a shelter, would the Senator support the objectors?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask Senator Farrell to desist from interrupting Senator Costello.
I want housing provided for the homeless, as well as young couples and people in private rented accommodation. I want the Landlord and Tenant Act to be changed dramatically, but these important issues have not been addressed. A laissez-faire approach has been taken by this Administration to the provision of housing and accommodation generally. Every time Fianna Fáil comes into power, the public sector side of legislation is always neglected. On every occasion that Labour and Fine Gael have been in power we have addressed housing needs in substantial terms and the numbers on the waiting list have always decreased. That is a matter of record for all to see.
And emigration went up.
If the Labour Party is in power after the election, I can guarantee that the same procedure will recommence concerning all these housing matters. We will not come up with simple gimmicks at the eleventh hour to give the impression that something is being done about the problem. This scandal is emanating from the Government side.
The Bill refers to the Docklands Authority and I am delighted that authority is seeking the same 20% social affordable housing mix as is contained in other legislation passed in the last year. The Docklands Authority has been negligent, however, in terms of its own social remit. The terms of reference of the Docklands Authority aim to provide for social and economic rejuvenation of the area. The authority is providing for economic rejuvenation but it has been negligent in the degree of social services it has provided. There is a considerable backlog to be dealt with in that respect.
In my constituency, the East Wall area has not been touched by the docklands revival. It might as well be out in the desert. It is an intact community of 3,500 to 4,000 souls which is part of the docklands area, yet it has not benefited one iota from the money pumped into the docklands. This cannot be allowed to continue. The legislation refers to the matter.
It is already within the remit of the docklands authority to deal with these communities, but it is not doing so. If a body has a dual mandate of social and economic revival, it cannot be limited to the economic side. The Minister has a role in this matter to ensure both elements of the mandate take place. I know good people work for the docklands authority and are on the board, but they are often banging their heads against a wall when it comes to implementing the social side in terms of quality of life, building up communities, landscaping, amenities, recreational facilities and all the items which define community.
What the Minister of State is bringing into law is welcome, but can he give me some assurance that, in a few years' time, I will see, not just high rise buildings along the docklands skyline, but also the reinvigorated communities of East Wall, Sheriff Street and Ringsend, all of which are still marginalised? The newcomers to the area are doing well and much new business has been established. However, unless it has a ripple effect on local communities, it is not succeeding.
I do not have any problems with the element of the legislation dealing with affordability. I recommend that the Minister of State keep an eye on some of the housing agencies and bodies entering the market. I also want him to keep an eye on the docklands development authority. Even though it is doing a good job in certain areas, the social factor has been neglected. I oppose the section criminalising the Traveller community.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, to the House and congratulate him on his brief intervention on "Morning Ireland" which was succinct and dealt adequately with the issues raised in earlier contributions to the programme.
I welcome the Bill and its provisions. A few matters require comment. I note that under section 8 each housing authority is to establish a scheme to determine the order of priority to be given to people to whom affordable houses are being made available for sale. There is a broader dimension to this relating to people on housing lists and the length of time they are on them. It is a problem and causes frustration for the clients of local authorities that they are not able to discover their position on the list. I understand there are emergency cases and priorities which must be dealt with by health board personnel and local authorities. That said, there is probably insufficient transparency in this area. If there was more, some of the disquiet which tends to arise in the allocation of houses could be allayed and people could have a clearer understanding of their position in the order of priorities. We have made some progress in this respect in County Kildare and it is welcome. However, more could be done. This might be taken into account.
Listening to Senator Costello reminded me of Deputy Stagg's intervention at last Monday's meeting of Kildare County Council. The Deputy appears to disregard the figures enunciated by the Minister of State which have been repeatedly emphasised in debates in the House by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. I congratulate both Ministers of State and everyone in the Department of the Environment and Local Government on the progress made during the lifetime of the Government. It appears that, in Deputy Stagg's case, if something is repeated often enough even though it is not a fact, it becomes accepted as a fact. Deputy Stagg appears to disregard the figures for the number of new houses built and starts made by local authorities. A total of 5,000 units were completed under the multi-annual approach last year, the highest level for 15 years. The statistics contradict the assertions made by Deputy Stagg and Senator Costello.
Another aspect of the Bill concerns information on the prioritisation of clients and points and so on for securing local authority houses. I note that consultants are to examine the house price information obtained by the Department and that there are recommendations regarding information technology. That is welcome because we do not have enough information at our disposal in this area, even regarding housing lists. A great deal has been said about the scale of housing lists and it is correct to say it is disturbing. Any public representative or citizen would be disturbed by the number of people on them.
It is sometimes the case that, when houses are allocated, people do not accept them. There appears to be a mismatch between the number on housing lists and the number who avail of the houses when allocated them. One would expect that, when houses are allocated, those at the top of the list, the most urgent cases, would be given houses and that they would accept the offer when it came their way. However, it has been my experience that sometimes they do not.
There is another dimension to this, namely, the fact that local authority houses lie idle for a long time. I receive inquiries on a weekly basis about certain houses which are vacant asking the reason access cannot be gained or they are not allocated. The local authority's answer is that they must be renovated and brought up to a required standard for people to live in them. People are sometimes willing to carry out the works, but the authorities reply that that cannot be done or the people concerned must employ a registered builder. While I accept people must be tax compliant, when the building sector was booming it was extremely difficult to hire contractors or tradespeople to do these relatively minor tasks to bring houses up to a required standard. That is an area which must be examined and about which something must be done.
I welcome section 14 whereby a leasing arrangement can be made between local authorities and property owners to make their private accommodation available to tenants designated by the authorities. The health boards use this facility extensively. If there are instances when a local authority can bid for a property, that could also be used as a way of relieving the logjam.
On section 21 concerning the law as it pertains to Travellers, I had experience as a land owner of a small group of Travellers camping adjacent to my residence on a piece of road being installed to facilitate the construction of a bridge. They did not create any trouble, kept the encampment clean and were model citizens in every respect. Suddenly the small group was supplanted by a much larger one and the smaller group had to leave. When I approached one member of the larger group the response I received was: "I hope you sleep well in your bed tonight." Fortunately, another member of the group quickly admonished the person who said that to me. However, what the first person had said to me was illegal. It is against the law to make a threat like that.
The Garda must be given power to operate the law, irrespective of whether it concerns a settled citizen or a Traveller citizen. I see no distinction in that regard. We are all bound by law and, in circumstances where private property is invaded – and I use that word advisedly – it should be open to the Garda to intervene if necessary.
There is a very good model for this in English law, which was shown to me by a Garda officer, in the context of the incursion at Stonehenge by New Age travellers. The law was amended – very effectively, in my view – to ensure that, where there was disorder or very large-scale damage to property, the matter could be addressed. I believe that is the correct approach.
The difficulty with regard to private property, as opposed to public property, as I understand it and subject to correction by the Minister of State, is that it is up to the private citizen who owns the property to seek recourse through the courts to get an injunction against the people who have entered the property. That is a very expensive and slow process and, in my view, it is wrong that people who look after their property well should be subjected to that cost and inconvenience.
I accept that local authorities, including elected members, are culpable in that respect. Frequently, local authority members have not had the courage to designate locations for halting sites. In my local authority area of County Kildare, we amended the draft plan for Kilcullen to put in a halting site. Despite considerable controversy, it was designated in the plan. There is still no halting site in existence but at least it is designated.
It is reasonable to provide that, where a member of the Garda Síochána has reason to believe a person has committed or is committing an offence under the Bill, the member may demand of that person his or her name and address and direct the person to leave the land and remove any object from the land which is owned by, or under the control of, that person.
I grew up in a rural community. At that time, it was standard practice for people who were then known as "tinkers"– which was not then a term of opprobrium – to arrive on the farm with their small family and their horse and cart and to set up camp there. They were provided with hay for their horses and farm produce for the family during the two or three days they stayed there. They also got jobs during the harvesting of grain or beet crops and then they moved on. Nowadays, if somebody were to take compassion on one particular family, there would be an invasion within a very short time.
There have been instances in my local town, Newbridge, where money was demanded before Travellers would move on. That is wrong and should not be allowed. We need to distinguish between the categories of persons to whom we are referring. Some of them are definitely operating outside the law and it should be amended to deal effectively with those situations. I do not regard that as racist.
Issues were raised with regard to field sports people entering land, such as for fishing or shooting purposes. I am chairman of a local angling club with fishing rights on the River Liffey. The riparian owners are very co-operative and we have enjoyed "grace and favour" rights for a very long time. I do not regard that as being in any way jeopardised. As invitees – I believe that is the correct technical term – we are entitled to be on the land. I know of no fisherman who would knowingly cause damage to property. Indeed, in my own experience as a landowner whose land borders on the Liffey, fishermen have often come to the door to report a problem on the farm, such as an animal in difficulty or whatever. That is a positive aspect. I am sure the Minister of State can confirm that there is no question that people who enjoy legitimate rights to go on to property would be penalised in any respect. If people engage in poaching, they should be dealt with in the same way as others who invade private property and cause damage.
I commend the Minister of State, his fellow Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and their Department for the action they have taken in this area over the lifetime of the Government. It has been most effective and this Bill seals it very well.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He and I have been involved at local authority level since 1979. As a former Lord Mayor of Cork in 1984-85, he is very familiar with the responsibilities of local authorities in relation to housing. I am glad this Bill is being brought to the House by a person who is well aware of the problems in this regard.
I particularly welcome the Bill in terms of its open approach to the provision of funds. Housing authorities have major problems in meeting the requirement for accommodation. In Cork city, availability of land for public housing is a problem. There are also problems in securing planning permission, against which there are strong objections.
I am glad that, at long last, the Minister of State and his Department have opened up opportunities for people to do things for themselves. In 1985, when we introduced the £5,000 grants scheme, we eliminated our housing problems in Cork city. That showed what can be achieved by allowing people to take initiatives on their own behalf.
Section 7 of this Bill provides opportunities with regard to social housing and I hope the Minister of State may elaborate on that in his reply to this debate. The provision for 20% social and affordable housing in new housing developments is a very positive measure. People who are prepared to purchase their own homes deserve every possible support. There is some resistance to the idea of combining public and private housing in the same development. By providing grants and, especially, mortgages at affordable terms, a better image is projected on the basis that people are buying their own homes, even though they are being assisted.
That was done in the early 1960s when working class people were assisted by the local authority to purchase houses in areas such as Farmlea, with which the Minister of State is familiar. For example, my brother, who bought one of those houses in 1963, paid off his last instalment just 12 months ago. The repayment over a period of almost 40 years was in the region of £2.90 per month. I see no reason to prevent comparable assistance being provided now.
Rent allowance amounted to £12 million in 1984 and this year's figure will be £140 million. There should be greater emphasis on using the provisions of section 7 of the Bill to promote house purchase, rather than renting. The Government should give all possible assistance to encourage people to provide for themselves in that regard. That is a much more cost-effective approach.
Why not consider second generation mortgages? That is common practice in other European countries. Banks seem to expect people to pay mortgages over a period of 20 to 25 years. On that basis, a couple who marry at age 25 would have paid off their mortgage at age 45. In the meantime, they are restricted as to what they can do with the property and they are heavily burdened by the repayments. They should be given every assistance and it is imperative that we be seen to do this.
This opportunity arises in section 7, which deals with regulations on the social housing mix. We should not use the term "mix". There is no difference between the person who is able to buy on the private market and their sister or brother who does not have the same finances. We should say that assistance will be given to some 20% of people, without referring to the fact that they may be on the local authority housing list. For far too long we differentiated between "them" and "us" and now is the opportunity to tackle it in this legislation.
I resent so much focus on the Traveller community with regard to the Bill. There is much more substance in this Bill than its effects on the Traveller community. I do not wish to demean anyone but there is a problem regarding the Traveller community which needs to be addressed, as this Bill is attempting to do.
Currently the health authorities handle rent allowances. The Minister of State should seek to ensure that this is done by housing authorities. There are some excellent housing authorities, such as the one in Cork, that would be able to handle any problem. There was a recommendation in 1995 that there should be regional housing authorities. What is the point of the health boards allocating money when the city authorities are looking for it? Imagine what the housing authority could do with the amount of money the Southern Health Board has for rent allowance. They could assist people to do something for themselves and we would get much more benefit for our money. More people would benefit than is currently the case. It is important that nobody is demeaned by giving the impression that we are providing charity to them. This is taxpayers' money and we should use every facility possible.
In 1985 some 5,500 houses were bought back at a cost of £5,000 each in a 14-month period. We did not have a housing problem in 1987. We had a surplus of local authority housing. While I was one of the people who pushed very strongly for it, I admit that the scheme was too good. In the city of Cork there are currently 4,000 applications on the housing list which amounts to some 10,000 people or an average of 3.3 people per application. That is mirrored throughout the country.
There is a problem in regard to where we can build. If an attempt is made to put up 90 houses in an area the people in the neighbourhood object and say they only want 80. There is strong objection to local authority housing schemes.
The Minister of State should ensure, by regulation, that every assistance possible is given to people who wish to buy their own homes. We should consider the promotion of second generation mortgages. The Minister should not be afraid to do that and every assistance possible should be given to people in this regard.
I am concerned about section 24 concerning sporting bodies. I know the Minister of State spoke about this area on the radio this morning and I await his reply with interest. Sporting bodies are concerned because they may need to go on to private property to recover balls and so on. This provision needs to be looked at, as it states that if one is seen to enter private lands one can be fined €3,000. I urge the Minister of State to look again at this area.
I congratulate the Minister of State on the Bill. Progress in this area has been long overdue and a facility has to be given to the vast majority of people who are prepared to do something for themselves if they get the assistance.
I will be very brief so the Minister will have time to reply. Concerns have been expressed about section 24. The Traveller community has been in touch with us saying there has been no consultation with them about it. I am well aware that there are serious social problems with them in various parts of urban areas in particular, but I wonder if we are going the right way with this blunderbuss attempt to deal with the situation. I hope the Minster of State will go very slowly through this section on Committee Stage.
Section 22 regarding the Dublin docklands development also presents issues of concern. I hope that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority honours this section more than previous commitments it has made. In the original plan, stack A was to consist partly of a museum of some description but now that tenders have gone in for the museum the allocated space has been severely curtailed. I have been involved in attempts to set up a science museum and have been in contact with the Tánaiste, in particular, regarding it. Much more space has been given to high class retail shops, and while I accept that it is important that such places fund themselves, there are public duties on those who have responsibility for these developments. There is an onus on them to comply with the commitments they have made.
In order to facilitate the Minister in completing his reply to Second Stage, I propose, with the agreement of the House, that we extend the time of this sitting to 1.15 p.m. or earlier. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank each Member who contributed to the general debate and gave a welcome to the Bill. The Bill reflects the radical approach to housing taken by the Government in the past five years and marks a further stage in the comprehensive and cohesive range of measures introduced in the housing area.
During a debate on a Private Members' motion in the House on 6 February this year and again at the start of the debate today, I underlined the unprecedented priority attached to housing during the term of the Government. We have been tireless in the pursuit of a fair, equitable and sustainable housing market, in terms of both private and social housing and have set out our aims and systematically achieved them. Our emphasis has been on the attainment of a high level of housing output, stabilising house prices and expanding the range of supply of social and affordable housing, as well as developing the private rented sector and improving the quality of the management of the public housing stock. In all of these we have been remarkably successful.
The central plank of the Bill is the provision of increased funding to the Housing Finance Agency, which now stands at €6 billion. The increased borrowing capacity and the more flexible lending capacity capabilities of the agency will ensure that the housing targets of the national development plan are met and will help to consolidate and improve on the record levels of output achieved over the past number of years.
Since the Bill was first published we have introduced an important provision by way of an amendment to the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, to deal with the problematic issue of unauthorised encampments. The existing law in this area had been overtaken by circumstances. In particular where large-scale encampments were involved, it was felt to be inadequate to deal with all situations involved in such encampments. The inclusion of these provisions in the Bill provides the necessary legislative support to sustain the effort being made by Government which has recently given rise to much genuine concern.
Total housing output last year reached 52,602 units, up 5.6% on the previous year. Last year was the fifth successive year of record housing output under the Government. Housing output in the greater Dublin area reached almost 16,500 units, the highest level ever. Private housing output was also up last year, by 2%, not down as was suggested in some quarters. The private housing building sector is healthy due to the wide range of measures to increase housing supply introduced in the recent budget.
Since the Government came into office, housing output has increased by over 33% and our record speaks for itself. Senator Coogan queried that record and I agree that it takes time to increase output. He also queried research, but the Bill's provisions in this regard are wide ranging and consolidate a number of existing provisions. It is necessary, for example, for housing associations to carry out research to assess housing needs, which is important if we are to continue to increase housing output. Research may also be undertaken in relation to training and housing policy development.
The question of a purchase scheme for tenants in rental subsidy scheme houses was raised. There is, advisedly, no provision in the voluntary housing schemes for the purchase of individual houses by tenants. A tenant purchase scheme is not desirable at this stage in the development of the voluntary housing sector, as the sale of individual housing units would undermine the capacity and the resources of voluntary housing bodies to manage and maintain their estates and to continue to provide further housing projects to meet pressing needs.
Residents of rental subsidy houses who have been in them for more than one year and wish to become owner occupiers may, on surrendering their house to the approved body, qualify for special mortgage allowance over five years to assist with mortgage repayments. They may also qualify for the shared ownership scheme, without having to satisfy the income eligibility criteria, for improvement works in lieu of schemes in respect of the dwelling they are acquiring, for low-cost housing site schemes and for exemption from the income limit for local authority housing levies.
First-time buyers were referred to by a number of Senators and it has been one of the principal objectives of this Government to help those buyers to access the housing market. Since coming into office, the Government has introduced a successful range of targeted measures to increase affordability for lower-income and first-time purchasers. These measures include abolition of mortgage or interest relief for investors in the residential housing market and the introduction of stamp duty on new houses purchased by investors. Stamp duty payable on second-hand houses was changed in favour of first-time purchasers and the resulting moderation in house price increases indicates the success of such a measure. Further changes to stamp duty in favour of first-time buyers were introduced in Action on Housing, published in June 2000.
Under this Government, the local authority shared ownership scheme was improved, the qualifying income limits were increased, the mortgage subsidy available under this scheme to lower income households was improved and on-site subsidy has been made available. An affordable housing scheme was introduced in March 1999 with the same qualifying income limits as apply under the shared ownership scheme. Along with the availability of a site subsidy, other improvements include an increase in the maximum local authority house purchase loan and a doubling of the mortgage allowance scheme.
Senator O'Toole referred to the performance of local authorities in the housing area. The impact of the Government's social housing strategy, set out in the national development plan, is now apparent in the provision of local authority housing. We introduced the multi-annual local authority housing programme for the first time, from 2000, to run to the end of 2003. Under the multi-annual programme we aim to provide a total of 25,000 local authority housing starts. The multi-annual approach was introduced to allow for greater forward planning and efficiencies of scale with the introduction of increased local authority housing targets. Local authorities completed some 5,000 units in 2001 and commencements of new house starts this year are estimated at 7,000 units – the highest level of starts over a 15-year period.
Regarding Senator Costello's comments, this Government has left no stone unturned in dealing with the issue of homelessness. One of the central planks of the Government strategy is the homeless action plans, which have to be drawn up at local level, by local authorities, health boards and voluntary bodies, to set out clearly what services exist for homeless persons and to outline what services will be needed over the three-year life of the plan. The plans for the main urban areas are already completed and work is well under way in other areas.
The Government has also made substantial additional funding available to ensure that the recommendations in the homelessness strategy are implemented. Capital funding for direct provision of local authority accommodation for homeless persons is being doubled from €25 million to €50 million over the next five years. Current funding has already been increased by €7.6 million per annum to increase bed-night contribution rates to voluntary bodies and to fund local support and settlement services. Additional funding of €7.6 million is also available from the Department of Health and Children to fund the provision of in-house care in hostels which provide accommodation for homeless people. The Government's preventative strategy, which is the final key element in the overall homeless strategy, was launched recently.
Senator O'Toole also referred to the increase in housing supply. Increase in the supply of rental accommodation must go hand in hand with improved regulation of the sector. Senators will be pleased to know that the reforms relating to security of tenure, rents, graduated notice periods, tenancy obligations and dispute resolution, which were contained in the report of the commission to inquire into the private rented residential sector, are contained in the general scheme of the Housing (Private Rented Sector) Bill approved by the Government in January. Pending the enactment of the Bill, the private residential tenancies board was established on an ad hoc basis last October and is currently putting in place procedures to deal with disputes. Having done so, it will begin to mediate disputes voluntarily referred to it by landlords and tenants.
Several Senators referred to unsatisfactory progress in the provision of accommodation for Travellers. The large-scale encampments on public and private land do not arise from a lack of accommodation in all cases. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to the speeding up of provision of permanent accommodation for Traveller families. To this end, officials of my Department have, in the course of discussions with senior local authority officials, continued to expedite implementation of programmes. In consultation with the national Traveller accommodation consultative committee, we have initiated and improved reporting procedures for local authorities which will facilitate more effective monitoring, under which progress in implementing programmes can be better evaluated. Progress by local authorities in the implementations of their programmes depends on a number of factors, such as the availability of land, planning procedures and local objections which sometimes lead to lengthy legal proceedings.
It is important to recognise the frustration local authorities experience where, despite their best efforts, attempts to provide halting sites and group housing for Traveller families are thwarted. However, I am happy to see that in the first two years of the Traveller accommodation programme, a total of 550 families have been accommodated in standard local authority housing and group housing, as well as in halting sites and housing provided by voluntary bodies with local authority assistance.
Total capital expenditure to provide and refurbish Traveller accommodation has amounted to €72.5 million since this Government took office. In 2001 alone, €23.7 million was spent to provide new and refurbished Traveller-specific accommodation and a further €15.7 million has been spent on the management and maintenance of Traveller accommodation, costs of recruitment of social workers, as well as on the national Traveller accommodation consultative committee. The expenditure of €23.7 million in 2001 represented expenditure in the order of €6 million in excess of the original provision. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform provides funding for the Pavee Point mediation service and the citizen Traveller campaign amounting to over €500 million this year.
It is clear that this Government has adopted an integrated approach to the provision of Traveller accommodation. The accommodation provided is reducing the numbers on the roadside. The last two years have seen the first reduction in those numbers for a number of years, with the annual count for the year 2000-2001 showing a total reduction of 119 families on the roadside. This reduction is welcome when viewed in the context of an increase in the overall number of Traveller families of 360 in the same period. Our priority is to build on this progress and to achieve even more significant reductions in the number of families on the roadside this year and in the remaining years of the accommodation programme.
This Government remains committed to the provision of accommodation to Traveller families and it will give local authorities the support they need to meet the assessed needs. I assure the House that the necessary funding will be made available. Since 1997 a total of 1,290 new or refurbished units of accommodation have been provided for Traveller families. Of these, 531 were new standard houses, 166 were new halting site bays and 195 were new group houses. A further 398 halting site bays or group houses were refurbished.
The new provision in section 24 will apply to any person who, without the consent of the owners of the land, enters or occupies such land or brings any object on to the land where it is likely to substantially damage the land, prejudicially affect any amenity associated with the land, substantially interfere with the land or amenity or the lawful use of the land or amenity. The amendment will therefore apply in general terms to anyone entering land without consent.
However, it is specifically provided in the amendment that the new power applies to persons who occupy the land or who bring on to the land objects that are likely to substantially injure the land or its associated amenities. The placing of a tent on land for an overnight stay, with no substantial effect on the land, will in my view not be subject to this provision. Campers should not have a problem under this provision. The same would also apply to hill walkers.
I expect a common sense approach to be taken in the operation of this new provision. I am confident that the existing reasonable attitude of landowners and those using the countryside for recreational purposes will continue to prevail and that the new powers available under this amendment will not have any implication for those amenities. The same applies to activities such as hunting or fishing.
Before a person becomes subject to the new powers under this amendment, a person must have entered or occupied land without the owner's consent. In the case of hunting and fishing activities, it is normal for persons involved to have either the permission of the landowners or to have long established rights to hunt on the lands. Should persons engage in these activities on land without the owner's consent or without any legal rights to hunt on such land, they could be liable under this provision. Use of the provision in such cases would be dependent on the likelihood of substantial damage being caused to the land. Unless the owner made a formal complaint to the Garda, it is unlikely that the new powers would be brought into play.
Senator Ormonde asked about enforcement of the provision. It is a matter for the Garda Síoch ána to ensure that this legislation, like any legislation which its members are required to implement, is enforced in an effective and fair manner. The Garda Commissioner is responsible for all operational matters. Any practical difficulty, such as the availability of storage facilities, etc., which might prevent the provisions being enforced immediately following enactment of the Bill are matters to be addressed by the Garda authorities in consultation with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Bill provides that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government may make orders for the commencement of certain sections of the Bill. It is envisaged that the commencement of this provision would be subject to consultation with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Once the provisions are commenced, the Garda will, as in the normal course of events, enforce breaches of public order legislation when they are brought to their attention.
In some cases, it might be the owner who complains to the Garda that persons entered his or her land without consent. In other cases it might be the residents who complain about persons on open land in their neighbourhood. In the case of public open spaces and parks it is expected that the relevant public authority would take the initiative on enforcement.
There may be cases where the owner does not object to the presence of temporary dwellings on his or her land and may not complain to the Garda. There may also be cases where a local authority will not take the initiative where a Traveller family or families are on land under the ownership or control of the authority and they are there with the authority's permission pending the provision by the authority of permanent accommodation for them.
Senator O'Toole complained about the lack of consultation with Traveller representatives. The issues arising in relation to unauthorised encampments were referred to the committee monitoring the implementation of the task force report on the Traveller community by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last year. This committee set up a sub-committee to examine the matter. The sub-committee comprised representatives of my Department, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Traveller representatives, the Garda and the private sector. It was charged with seeking a consensus on how the issues could best be approached. This included possible changes to the legislation on unauthorised encampments.
The sub-committee has not yet reported but the indications are that there will not be a consensus on changes to the legislation. While the Government would prefer consensus on such changes, it cannot refuse to legislate just because a consensus has not been reached. To proceed on that basis would mean that the Oireachtas would find it difficult to legislate for any other issue.
Senator Costello raised the issue of housing associations. A number of the housing associations that have commenced operations here originated in Britain and Northern Ireland. These bodies have to be separately registered here as a company or a trust. They must not distribute any profits, which must be used for housing matters. These housing associations have provided a valuable boost to the capacity of the sector and will facilitate the achievement of the targets set in the national development plan with regard to the voluntary sector.
Senators asked if there were any proposals to change the floor area limits for grant purposes. It is possible to provide a reasonably sized four bedroomed house within the current upper floor area limit of 125 square metres. There are no proposals to increase the maximum floor area limit for new house grant purposes. Increasing the new house grant above the current grant level of €3,810 would have no additional benefit for first time buyers as an increase would be likely to add to the inflationary pressures in the new house market. There are no proposals to increase that grant.
There are no provisions in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act in relation to social and affordable housing, although the provisions in the Act in relation to the preparation of a master plan for the Dublin dockland area include the development of housing for people of different social backgrounds and other social objectives consistent with an urban renewal project. The master plan has a stated target of 20% of residential units in developments to be provided for social and affordable housing.
This Bill strengthens the general range of the provision for social and affordable housing. Its importance is reflected in the fact that we wish to secure its passage through both Houses before Easter. I thank Senators for their co-operation in this regard. I thank them for their contributions and commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.20 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.