Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Jul 1992

Vol. 422 No. 1

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1992: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 21, after "dwelling" to insert "including any flat or apartment".

Some of the definitions in the Bill are not as clear as they should be. The definition of a house includes:

any building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling and any outoffice, yard, garden or other land appurtenant thereto or usually enjoyed therewith and "housing" shall be construed accordingly;

Elsewhere the definition of "dwelling" is, "a dwelling owned by a local authority". That definition is not what ordinary people understand "dwelling" to mean. In my amendment I am seeking to clarify the definition of "house" and make it absolutely clear that where a house is divided into two or more separate parts, each flat or apartment for the purposes of this Bill will be deemed to be a separate house. The Minister said on Committee Stage that that is covered, but I am not satisfied it is. If we want every house to have an indoor toilet and bathroom the amendment I propose could be very significant. It could mean that people in flats and apartments would have a right to running water, a toilet and bathroom in the flat or apartment. Under the definition as it stands that may not be the case. My amendment does not detract from the Bill and the Minister should accept it.

Mr. Kavanagh

If a business is being carried out in a dwelling, if there is a shop plus living accommodation, I assume that for the purposes of this Bill, this is a dwelling?

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Smith)

Yes. I have very little to add to what I said on the last occasion, that a flat or an apartment is part of the building and is, therefore, covered within the existing definition of a house. Deputy Mitchell need not have any fears with regard to leaving the definition of a house, as it covers all the concerns he envisaged in the future.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy Kavanagh. Amendment No. 5 is cognate. I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 3 and 5 together.

Mr. Kavanagh

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, line 12, after "persons" to insert "as specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) to (j) of section 9 (2) of the Act of 1988".

I tabled this amendment so that the Bill, perhaps in a Schedule, would contain a list of the persons who would qualify for the shared ownership scheme and also a list of people entitled to local authority housing as set out in the housing Act of 1988. The list in that Bill seemed to cover most of the people at whom the shared ownership scheme is targeted. This Bill does not refer to the important section of the community which the local authority will have to deal with in regard to housing. It would be useful to indicate to local authorities the people who might benefit from shared ownership, those who are entitled to it. We should prioritise the people for whom this benefit is intended.

Mr. Smith

Section 3, which provides for the housing authority shared ownership system, was drafted with a view to having detailed operational matters determined by way of regulations to be made by the Minister. Such regulations will enable housing authorities to grant shared ownership leases to those for whom the system is currently intended, for example, tenants and tenant purchasers of local authority housing, persons included on the housing waiting list and other persons in need of housing with a household income of less than £12,000 per annum, as well as to such other class or classes of persons that may be prescribed by the Minister.

The effect of amendment No. 3 would be to confine the shared ownership scheme to those included on the housing list only. It would take away the flexibility that is intended and prevent local authority tenants, tenant purchasers and other persons not on the housing waiting lists, availing of the scheme. The same argument applies in the case of amendment No. 5 to section 4 which provides for the shared ownership subsidy. If accepted, the amendment would leave the section totally inflexible and prevent persons for whom the shared ownership system was intended from availing of the subsidy. The broader approach is preferable. The point made by Deputy Kavanagh is relevant to the extent that clearly the majority of people on the housing lists who live within the income limits may well be the ones who will be catered for to a greater degree. We want to ensure that there is flexibility in the regulations for the local authority to take account of all situations that might arise. That has worked elsewhere.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister's explanation is reasonable. In this amendment I wanted to achieve priority for the people on the housing lists and the people regarded by the local authorities as being in most need of housing mainly due to a lack of houses for them. The majority of people on waiting lists will not achieve occupancy or ownership of a house unless there is a drive to build more local authority houses. Failing that, I wanted to ensure in this Bill that those people would have first call on any moneys provided and on any local authority priority schemes. The Minister has told me that that will be the case when this Bill is passed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, line 33, after "house" to insert "by the lessee".

This amendment deals with the current procedures under which a tenant purchaser or somebody who owns a local authority house is required to obtain the consent of the local authority to sell the house. Certainly, tenant purchasers are aware in most cases that if they wish to sell the house they are required to obtain the consent of the local authority. However, a problem arises when the house has been sold two or three times and the local authority are still requiring the present owners of the house to apply to them for consent if they wish to sell the house. I have come across some cases where the ownership of a local authority house has changed for the second or third time and the present owners bought the house under normal market conditions but when they wished to sell it they found at the very last moment that they required the consent of the local authority in order to do so. In those cases, the people concerned felt very aggrieved because they made the very valid point that they had not bought the house from the local authority in the first place and therefore they did not see why they should have to get the consent of the local authority when they subsequently wished to sell the house. The purpose of this amendment is to confine the requirement for consent to the lessee, in other words to the original tenant purchaser and not to have that requirement in the case of persons wishing to sell the house subsequently.

Mr. Smith

First, it is not intended to continue with this restriction in the shared ownership scheme. The Deputy will appreciate there are good reasons for requiring the person who is selling a former local authority house to seek the consent of the local authority before doing so. First, it is very important to ensure that the person disposing of the house is not going to come back on to the local authority housing list, of which development we have had previous experience. It would be ludicrous not to put some brakes on that. Second, some local authority houses have potential for certain types of commercial development and people who have great resources at their disposal may wish to purchase these houses when they come on the market, and that would make it impossible for people with modest incomes, for whom these houses were intended, to acquire them. For that reason, the requirement that the consent of the local authority must be obtained means that the local authority has some say as to whether you, I or somebody else has the right to purchase the house. If this provision did not exist, the market value of the property could be inflated and this would be disadvantageous as far as the management of local authority houses is concerned. These are the two essential points, but clearly once the annuity has been purchased and the time limits have expired the normal market conditions apply to local authority houses. Gradually we will move towards that view. However as long as we have to subsidise these houses, as I have explained in the earlier debate, it is crucial that some management system operates to ensure that we serve the needs of people to the greatest possible extent. However it is not intended that this restriction will apply to houses purchased under the new shared ownership scheme.

Mr. Gilmore

By and large, the Minister has clarified the matter and his statement certainly satisfies the intent of my amendment. I fully accept there should be a requirement for the consent of the local authority when the tenant purchaser wishes to sell the house for the reasons the Minister has stated: the possibility that someone may reappear on the housing list or in circumstances where the house is being sold on very attractive terms. It is quite in order that that should be the case. When the houses are subsequently purchased at normal market value, the question of local authority consent becomes a bureaucratic condition which is not necessary. I accept what the Minister has said and therefore I do not wish to press my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Mr. Kavanagh

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 8, line 8, to delete "and the availability".

In tabling this amendment I wish to draw attention to the fact that water, sewerage and other services are not always available in isolated areas. There are some very isolated houses in my constituency and if one had to wait for water and sewerage services to be installed before the local authority would consent to shared ownership under this scheme, the applicant might have to wait many years for these services to be provided. I know in a place called Coniary in Avoca one would have to wait a very long time for these services. Will the Minister explain why the phrase "and the availability" of such services is a requirement when there may be a very long delay before they are provided in certain isolated areas?

Mr. Smith

This amendment appears to be based on a misreading of paragraph (h) of section 4 (3), the purpose of which is to ensure that the subsidy is payable only for houses of an acceptable standard. It enables the Minister by regulation to lay down mimimum standards for houses in respect of which a subsidy may be paid. This could relate to any works carried out to the house and its general state of repair and also allows a requirement that the house has adequate water, sewerage facilities or other services. I think Deputy Kavanagh would appreciate that having the power to manage these situations within the regulation takes account of the necessity to have these facilities in the house.

Mr. Kavanagh

Quite honestly, the Minister had prepared his reply before he listened to my contribution. I made the point that there are isolated homes in very remote areas and while we all agree that they should have water and sewerage facilities, sometimes they are not available. A person from the area may wish to purchase a house under the shared ownership scheme but the local authority will not allow them to do so because the house has not got proper facilities; the person has to wait until these facilities are installed and this could be a very long time. I had hoped the Minister would accept the need for some flexibility to take account of conditions pertaining in remote rural areas.

An Ceann Comhairle

How stands the amendment?

Mr. Kavanagh

I do not wish to press my amendment but I hope the Minister will take on board the suggestions I make in any regulations that he will bring forward.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 are cognate and I suggest therefore that for discussion purposes amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 11 be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kavanagh

I move amendment No 7:

In page 8, line 21, after "improvement" to insert ", extension".

It is necessary to include the word "extension" rather than the word "improvement" in these sections because many of the houses which could be purchased under the scheme will have extensions. I do not think one should regard an extension as an improvement. In some cases the extension is often bigger than the house and for that reason the word "extension" should be accepted. There may be some difficulty in defining whether an extension is an improvement. If the property is changed to allow extra dwelling accommodation, that could be regarded as an extension, while improvements might be regarded as changes to the shape and size of rooms.

I am not sure if I have covered all the areas involving the word "improvement". I tabled this amendment because the word "extension" did not cover an extension to a house which may be necessary because of an increase in the size of a family or the possibility of having to accommodate an unmarried mother and her family or younger married members of the family who are unable to afford a house. These matters should be covered in this Bill and the Minister could improve it by using the word "extension" rather than the word "improvement".

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to make some brief comments on the amendment. I agree with what Deputy Kavanagh said. My concern is in regard to the maximum loan that is available for the provision of improvements or extensions to houses under the Plan for Social Housing. This provision was to cater for housing applicants who wished to be housed by way of an extension being provided to the family home. I have no doubt there are some applicants for whom that would be an attractive proposition. However, the maximum finance available for this is £10,000 and I consider that totally unrealistic to provide an adequate extension. The minimum type of extension that one would require in circumstances like this would presumably involve a bedroom, a bathroom and some kitchen/living accommodation but such an extension cannot be provided for £10,000. The Minister when replying should address that question. The arrangements for extending dwellings will not work if the maximum loan available is confined to £10,000.

Mr. Garland

I want to check a legal matter and ensure this Bill is legally correct. I am not sure that I agree with Deputy Kavanagh's comments. This section refers to "works of improvements", and if we look at the definitions contained in section 1 we find that "improvement works" are defined but "works of improvement" are not. Do these terms have the same meaning? One would need to refer to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1979 where the definition of "improvement works" is set out. Will the Minister clarify that in his reply?

Mr. Smith

With regard to the words "works of improvement" and "improvement works", they have the same meaning.

Regarding Deputy Gilmore's point about local authority work in lieu of rehousing, the £10,000 loan figure is not sacrosanct. It is set at the average limit which a local authority would be required to make these extensions. However, in certain cases, if the local authority consider that loan inadequate the Bill provides that additional funds may be provided by way of a loan, subject to the Minister's consent. There is some flexibility there. It is important to remember that when trying to set limits a balance has to be struck; there may be certain cases where the costs will be higher and others which will be lower. A balance has to be struck and at the moment it is £10,000 with flexibility, following the Minister's consent, to allow a higher figure.

Deputy Kavanagh's amendment, is not necessary. For the benefit of the House I will read the definition of "improvement works" in section 1 (1) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1979. The term is widely drawn and covers all possible eventualities that could be envisaged in the context of extensions. That subsection states:

"improvement works", in relation to a house, includes the provision and installation of a private water supply or private sewerage facilities in the house and any works carried out to the house (whether for the purpose of extending, enlarging, improving, repairing or converting it) that, in the opinion of the Minister, are reasonably necessary for the purpose of rendering the house more suitable for human habitation, but does not include decoration;

Mr. Kavanagh

That definition is inadequate in that it does not take account of the fact that there are now specific additions to houses that are known as extensions. A wall can be extended, but an extension is the addition of extra rooms on to a house which can change the whole character of a house and would require planning permission if a large area is involved. In order to build an extension one has to apply to a local authority for approval; one would not approach the planning section of a local authority and say, I want to carry out an improvement to my house which involves an area of 6,000 sq. ft. One would have to say, I am adding an extension to the house, and in Wicklow one would be questioned about the area involved. As there is some amelioration in the plight of certain families by the addition of an extension rather than making an improvement, one would think that the concept would be accepted. However, if the Minister considers that what he has said is adequate, though I do not agree with him, I will have to accept it. It might be a good idea if the Minister would insert a new word in the Bill that would cover such a situation.

Mr. Smith

I would not like to have to go to court to try to prove that an extension is not an improvement.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister is correct; it is an improvement, not an extension.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it that this friendly duologue has finished and Deputy Kavanagh is not pressing his amendment?

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister has explained that it is covered and while I do not agree with him I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 8, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

"(d) rendering part of the house suitable for independent or semi-independent occupation by an aged person or aged persons sharing or proposing to share the house with relatives or other persons prescribed in regulations.".

This amendment, with others tabled on Committee Stage, addressed a key issue in the housing area, one which will grow as the years go by, that is, housing for the elderly. We cannot discuss the housing policy for the elderly in isolation without considering the impact of other Government rules and regulations on housing matters and, in particular, social welfare rules.

At present an old person living alone is entitled to a living alone allowance and usually to a free television licence for a black and white set, an electricity allowance, free telephone rental and, perhaps, one or two other benefits. If a family member goes to live with an elderly person living alone those benefits are lost to the elderly person. Older people, therefore, resist taking members of their family in to live with them, even though in many cases the elderly person badly needs someone to live with and look after him or her.

Apart from getting feeble, elderly people living alone are often frightened because of the crime problem yet the social welfare rules regarding living alone allowances frequently make them reluctant to take in members of their family who may be in need of housing or who may be taking up other local authority housing.

The amendment proposes the addition of a paragraph that would give the Minister a discretion to extend the provisions of section 5 so that work may be done by or on behalf of local authorities to assist in rendering part of a house suitable for independent or semi-independent living accommodation for an aged person who is sharing or proposing to share the rest of the house with close relatives or other persons prescribed in the regulations.

This is one of a series of amendments designed to try to help old people who are living alone. First, we should try to minimise the number of old people who ultimately have to seek accommodation in a hospital or a nursing home. Second, the aim should be to relieve old people of fear by having others live with them and third, we hope to relieve them of loneliness. Fourth, it is hoped they will receive the kind of assistance and attention they need while retaining a modicum of privacy and independence within their own home and also retaining the benefits that they would otherwise forego under social welfare rules.

I should like to have more time to explore the whole question of care and housing for the elderly because, as any public representative knows, this is becoming a more acute issue. I hope the Minister accepts this amendment which does not impose any duty on the Minister but merely gives him a discretion.

Mr. Allen

Deputy Mitchell has outlined the benefits of adopting this amendment. I should like to point out that a double penalty could result from an elderly person going to live with someone else. The elderly person could lose his or her benefits and the person or people with whom the elderly person went to live could also lose benefits. From my experience of Cork Corporation, I know that many old people now living alone in three and four-bedroomed corporation houses would willingly release those houses to the local authority if there was some offer available to them that would make everyday living acceptable. As Deputy Mitchell said, elderly people are prevented from moving out of a large house and going into a unit because of the social welfare rules. If provision could be made so that elderly people could move into a granny flat, for example, attached to the home of one of their children, they would certainly move out. If this amendment is accepted the overall benefit to the Department would be enormous.

Often due to family circumstances elderly people are forced into long term insitutional care when they can no longer cope for themselves. In many cases that involves a cost to the State and to the family. Acceptance of the amendment would result in accommodation for the elderly person in every sense of the word.

I ask the Minister to accept the amendment which is full of commonsense. The Minister, and his Department, would benefit from its provisions.

Mr. Kavanagh

The amendment appears to have some merit in that it moves somewhat away from the provisions of the section. It could bring in people who are not closely connected to the owner of the house being repaired. I do not know whether Deputy Mitchell intended that those provided with accommodation as a result of the amendment would pay rent to the owner. There is a danger after the local authority improving the house of the occupant making money out of it by renting it out.

Mr. J. Mitchell

No.

Mr. Kavanagh

Certainly, the idea of an old and dilapidated house which is underused attracting the subsidy in order to allow occupation by elderly people is good. However, I point out that it could make if possible for people to make money out of something that was never intended.

Mr. Garland

I broadly accept the Fine Gael amendment. The purpose behind it is excellent. We certainly need to cater as best we can for the needs of the elderly and to keep them within the family environment if that is what they and the family want. I am not clear whether the amendment is needed to spell that out. I hope the Minister will clarify the position. I commend the spirit behind it. Will the Minister accept the amendment?

Mr. Smith

The House can be satisfied that the section, as drafted, clearly allows for works, whether by way of extension or otherwise, to be carried out in order to cater for the circumstances envisaged by Deputy Mitchell and others. An amendment on the lines suggested would be inadvisable since it would be construed as limiting in some way the broad thrust of section 5 (1) (c), which allows works to be done for the purpose of rendering a house more suitable for the accommodation of its occupants. Clearly, if elderly relatives want to live in a part of a house independent of the other occupants the work necessary to achieve that is covered by the existing provision, as it would render the house more suitable for the accommodation of its occupants.

The provision as drafted is a broader measure. It takes account of the circumstances envisaged by Deputy Mitchell and it also takes into account many other matters. The purpose behind this section has been to try to meet in a much broader way the problems Deputy Mitchell outlined. For the first time we must be in a much stronger position to try to provide for the housing circumstances he and others envisaged and, by extension to allow for independence for the aged if that is what they desire.

In the context of the Housing Bill we cannot deal with the other points Deputy Mitchell made with regard to social welfare problems that can arise. Suffice it to say such matters have to be considered in the light of the available finances. There is clearly a difference between the costs to be met relating to living on one's own and those of residing with one's family or relatives. One must take account of the additional costs facing individuals when they live alone. If we had the resources available to us from the taxpayer to meet all the situations everything would be fine but we must be responsible if there are anomalies in the area the Deputy is referring to. We cannot deal with them in housing legislation. An instance of the way they might be dealt with is the carer's allowance which it is hoped to be able to improve in the future to take account of the services many families and individuals provide in looking after parents and older relatives in a very caring way. This relieves the taxpayer of the burden of the people concerned being cared for in institutions and provides a much better way of meeting the needs of elderly people. It is good that we can have a system which is broad enough to take account of the various aspects of that area. There are people who like some independence, they can be catered for. Others prefer to share facilities and they can be catered for, too. In the light of experience in the next couple of years we will see how the scheme is working and to what extent it will need to be improved or amended.

Deputy Mitchell's proposal is well intended but it is not necessary. It would limit the broader scope of what is provided in the Bill.

Mr. J. Mitchell

When I hear the sort of reply the Minister is making I am frustrated at his attitude. It is so laissez faire. Nothing the Minister has said impresses me or convinces me that the amendment should not be accepted. The section as it stands refers to the occupants of a house, not to potential or future occupants in a possible sharing arrangement, whereas our amendment envisages such an arrangement.

Second, it is far from clear from the section that there is any provision for what are known commonly as granny flats or for what we refer to in this amendment as independent or semi-independent groups. Neither is there reference in any part of this Bill or in any other housing legislation I know of to such matters. We are trying to create the concept of encouraging or facilitating independence or semi-independence where that is desired by the aged person and by his or her relatives living in the same house.

The Minister talks about cost. We are trying to save the Exchequer money. It is clear to me, and I thought the Minister was persuaded earlier on this, that social welfare rules are jacking up housing demand and therefore housing costs thereby costing the State a fortune. That does not relate just to old people living alone and reluctant to share because they would forfeit their allowances.

I mention in passing the ridiculous rule whereby, because of the application of means testing, young people who are unemployed and living at home will not get unemployment assistance if their father is working. I know of people of up to 33 years of age who are living at home, who have no income of their own but who are disqualified from unemployment assistance because of their parent's means. What are such people to do? They leave home, take a private flat and qualify for housing subsidy from the State, often £50 or £60 per week. This does not come out of the Department of the Environment budget, it comes from the health budget. It is not, therefore, a transparent housing cost, but it is a housing cost and it is jacking up the cost of flats and causing a dearth of available flats for couples. A couple with a child may try to rent a flat but cannot do so as a result of the available accommodation being taken up by so many single people leaving their parent's homes because of the circumstances I have outlined. Not only then do they get the rent subsidy, they get unemployment assistance and a medical card, which combined, costs the State about £140 a week, whereas if we gave, say, 80 per cent of the unemployment assistance to the single person living at home we would save about £90 per week. Likewise the amendment before us would have the effect of saving the State money.

If we had a scheme whereby tenants or tenant purchasers could return houses to local authorities in order to go back to live with aged parents the aged parent being provided with a granny flat in the house, or, if the aged person alternatively were to give back a house to the local authority and move in with a daughter or son whose home was provided with a granny flat for that purpose, the State would be saved a fortune. Elderly people living alone may be taking up a big house which they do not need any more and in which they feel unsafe and lonely. In addition this may lead to all kinds of problems, illness, etc. Frequently hypothermia is a factor in such cases. That leads to increased hospitalisation and increased recourse to nursing homes, all of which cost the State a great deal of money. Because, thank God, more elderly people are living longer the question of housing for the elderly is becoming a much bigger factor in our housing policy. The amendment before the House seeking to provide what I call granny flats would be widely welcomed. I am bitterly disappointed that the Minister has not the good grace to accept even one decent amendment from the Opposition.

Mr. Smith

I know I am breaking the rules here——

Mr. Allen

We are allowed to break the rules, we have something to say to the Minister.

Mr. Smith

With your permission, Sir, I want to make one or two comments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is asking the Chair to allow him——

Mr. Allen

Break the rules.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the House so agrees but I cannot depart from the rules otherwise.

Mr. Allen

The rule is he has a right to reply.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I would readily agree if I thought the Minister would be forthcoming but we have other amendments and because of the guillotine we are anxious to proceed. I do not think we can break the rules.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the House does not agree, Minister, the Chair cannot depart from the rules. I regret that. Maybe when commenting on some future amendment the Minister will be able to say what he would have liked to say at this point.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 9 not moved.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 11, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

"(11) In this section "housing accommodation" includes sites for caravans within the meaning of section 13 of the Act of 1988.".

Section 6 gives local authorities wide powers to assist voluntary bodies in respect of the provision or management of housing accommodation which would not at present include halting sites for travellers. In deference to views expressed by Deputies, my amendment will extend the scope of that section to include these as a new category. This would mean that a body providing halting sites could be considered for the full range of assistance local authorities are empowered to give under section 6, including loans, periodic contributions, grants, subsidies, etc. It would also have the effect of bringing such projects within the terms of section 15 of the 1988 Act under which the Minister may pay a grant to a housing authority in respect of any assistance the authority provides. This is the same mechanism under which the very successful voluntary housing scheme operates.

In spite of statements to the contrary, once again I have demonstrated that I listen and am prepared to improve the Bill where I can. As a result of contributions by various Deputies in the House I have responded by introducing this amendment.

Mr. Kavanagh

The debate was worthwhile as it produced this amendment. In dealing with housing problems we have talked about the inadequacy of this Bill and many of us are very concerned about the conditions under which travelling people live. There was a great opportunity in the Bill to improve their conditions. The change will go a long way towards meeting many of the concerns which the travelling movement — and many people concerned about them — expressed in relation to this Bill. They considered that it did not deal with their needs and conditions and, therefore, the Minister's amendment is welcome. I am delighted that our efforts have not been in vain.

Mr. Gilmore

I am also anxious to see some recognition of the travelling community in this Bill and an acknowledgment of their particular problems. I do not intend to hold up the debate as I am anxious to reach section 10. I am curious as to why the Minister has chosen to recognise the problems of the travelling community in this section because it deals with assistance by housing authorities to certain bodies. It permits the housing authority to assist another housing authority or a body approved for the purposes of this section in respect of the provision of housing and so on. It is the section normally dealing with co-operative housing, voluntary bodies and so on. I wonder whether the insertion of the redefinition of housing accommodation to include sites for caravans signals that the Government are changing policy in relation to the provision of sites for travellers. Does the Minister envisage an arrangement whereby the responsibility which currently exists for a local authority to provide halting sites and housing for travellers will be devolved at arm's length of voluntary bodies? It might well be a very interesting idea to explore but it is a pity the Minister did not state why he chose this section to include the recognition of the travelling community.

Mr. Smith

This section deals with the powers of voluntary bodies and I was requested, in the course of the debate, to consider whether it would be desirable to extend that range of powers in so far as it would affect halting sites and provisions of that kind; that is all I have done, there is nothing else involved.

Mr. Garland

I am very pleased with this amendment because it recognises the obligations which the settled community have to the travelling community. It is progressive and will be acclaimed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 13, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(d) In drawing up and adopting or amending a policy under this section a housing authority shall have regard to the distinct needs of and provision for members of the traveller community.".

I did not contribute to the debate on the last amendment because of time constraints and because this amendment relates to a similar area. If the Minister accepted this amendment it would, in addition to the amendment he has just accepted, be a step in the right direction to allay the considerable fears of the travelling community in relation to the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

I support this amendment. The problems of the travelling community have been referred to a number of times in the course of the debate. It would be a very defective policy statement from a housing authority which did not include specific reference to the particular problems of the travelling community and the policy of the authorities in regard to accommodation for that community. However, the difficulty arises when the statement of policy has been made.

There are many cases in which local authorities have adopted a policy in relation to the travelling community but the problems arise when they try to implement it. I am a member of Dublin County Council, who adopted a policy in 1986 which has not been implemented because it met with resistance, in some cases from local communities, and there were problems in relation to the acquisition of sites. There was also a High Court challenge which delayed its implementation for 18 months or more and it reached a point where some of the sites which had been available in 1986 were no longer available by the time the court proceedings were resolved. The policy then had to be amended; it is one thing to state a policy and quite another to put it into effect. In fairness, most local authorities have shown a willingness to get to grips with the problem of settling the travelling community but we need a national policy or plan to address the problem. Will the Minister indicate whether he has any plans to introduce a national plan in relation to the settlement and housing of the travelling community?

Mr. Garland

All that can be said and I am very anxious to get on to section 10 which deals with the problems relating to halting sites and so on.

Mr. Kavanagh

I would like to think that we will get to section 10 within the next five minutes but that is doubtful. Like the proposers of the amendment, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to outline his views and plans in regard to the travelling community. In our amendments we put forward suggestions to alleviate their plight. We were anxious to reach that section but, because the Bill is being rushed through the House, I am afraid we are not going to have a proper debate on this issue. That is both a pity and unfortunate — we have protested about it — because on the one hand there are many people who are concerned about the plight of the travelling community, while on the other, communities are upset that they can impinge on their lifestyle and invade their areas. It was said in "The Commitments" that the Irish are the blacks of Europe; in this case the travelling community are becoming the blacks of Ireland. We are, however, trying to improve on that in the Bill.

Mr. Smith

There is a tendency in debates such as this to take the view that another national plan is needed to deal with the problem of housing and settling the travelling community. However, we should call a spade a spade. We have allocated £3 million for the provision of halting sites and are extremely anxious that local authorities press ahead in acquiring suitable sites. This problem is not due to a lack of commitment on the part of the Government but rather in practically all cases to resistance on the part of the settled community to allow sites to be acquired. We should not pretend that there is a line of thinking which says that the problem should be dealt with somewhere else.

The travelling community will be expected to park in the designated sites and not close to them and that meets the concerns expressed by the settled community, where they have agreed to a site, about illegal parking. If the matter is handled properly this provision will be of help to the local authorities in acquiring sites but for Heaven's sake we should not pretend that there is a need for further legal powers and another national plan. The solution lies in the hands of the local community given that the local authorities are aware of what the needs are and that the elected local representatives are committed to solving the problem.

Mr. Kavanagh

I agree.

Mr. Smith

It should be remembered that the members of the travelling community have a different lifestyle, have a shorter life expectancy and do not have the same opportunities in relation to education and employment as compared with the rest of the community. I am sick and tired of people telling me that further legal powers are required; what is needed is a commitment from the local authorities, with the support of the local elected representatives, and greater understanding on the part of the settled community.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister should put pressure on the local authorities.

Mr. Smith

There is a need for give and take. I have explained my position fully to the eight local authorities I visited. I had to take a question——

Mr. J. Mitchell

This is Report Stage.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy has attacked me in this House on a number of occasions; I am going to finish.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Minister is guillotining the debate on this Bill.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy did not have his amendments ready even though the Bill was published on 12 March. I was asked the reason I was not in a position to announce that I had extra resources for other areas and I was able to say that I would meet the needs of local authorities. I also had to answer the question as to the reason I did not appear to give priority to this matter. That is an indication that our thinking is all wrong.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is now 12.15 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House, I am obliged to put the following question: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Enviroment and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 55.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.

Question declared carried.