Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002

Vol. 549 No. 1

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome this progressive Bill, which is necessary in the current circumstances. As I listened to many of the speeches earlier today, I was struck by how easy it is for people in public life to delude themselves. The reality and mythology of housing are interesting in terms of their contrast. My constituency colleague from another party, who was once the Minister responsible for housing, did not last five years like this Government.

The last five years have seen a record level of house building. Over 52,000 houses were built last year, which constitutes a record. Since 1997, a staggering 215,700 new houses have been built, a record which has seldom, if ever, been surpassed. Over 5,000 local authority houses were completed or acquired last year, the highest number for 15 years and certainly a far better record than that of the previous Government. Over 1,200 new houses were completed under voluntary housing programmes last year, which, again, is the highest figure in the history of the State. It is a record I welcome as a huge amount should be done in the voluntary and co-operative housing sectors.

Having said that, however, there are still huge pressures on housing, particularly social housing. A Government Deputy would be foolhardy to say there is no such problem as it manifests itself daily in our clinics, constituency postbags and the queries and requests we receive from constituents. We have to remind ourselves, however, that we are still building at a rate of 13 houses per 1,000 population, the highest level in the European Union. The demand for social and affordable housing is growing at a rate which is unprecedented in our history or that of our neighbours. We have witnessed a remarkable increase in population over a short period of time and, more importantly in the current context, seen a dramatic growth in the number of family units. The reality is that housing policies have not been able to address these challenges and traditional approaches to housing have been inadequate. An extraordinary amount of the population increase in recent years has resulted from inward migration, which has not only boosted the number of people in the country as a whole, but also the number of family units seeking housing.

The system has been incapable of meeting the demands placed on it. Two factors have come together in recent years to dramatically change the face of the housing market and the profile of those looking for social and affordable housing. Deputies on all sides have made the valid point that those looking for social and affordable housing would not have been in that market five or ten years ago. The dramatic increases in house prices have been driven by a number of factors, including inward migration, dramatically improved income levels and higher levels of disposable income. Although the latter feature is specific to certain industries, it impacts right across the spectrum. We must not forget that the housing market in Ireland is relatively small. Movements which would be considered insignificant elsewhere have a dramatic impact here.

A number of Deputies, including one of the senior spokespersons opposite, made the point that an insufficient amount of land has been zoned for housing. It is an interesting observation that has been made before. There has certainly been an insufficiency in the supply of zoned and serviced land ready for house building. The Government has moved to correct the problem, however, especially by introducing the serviced land initiative. Its efforts in that regard have not always been welcomed, however, and have been heavily attacked by certain vested interests.

The Government's most dramatic intervention has been the section 5 requirement that up to 20% of housing to be built should be either social or affordable. The effects and objectives of this policy have been misrepresented to a great extent. Members on all sides are acutely aware of Irish housing trends in the recent past. There has been a degree of social isolation and segregation, even ghettoisation, which is an unhealthy development. There has been a propensity to build houses at the upper end of the market and ignore the middle and lower ends. It is right and proper that the Government should intervene to suggest that such an isolationist approach is not acceptable. Those who have gained vastly from rezoned land will not be allowed to operate on that land. It is right, proper and fitting that society should express in legislation its views as to how those who operate in the housing market should be allowed to do so. The idea that any type of house should be built in an untrammelled way, according to the demands of the market and without any social intervention, as long as the land is zoned, is anathema to me and all Members of the House with a social conscience.

I am proud to represent a constituency which has witnessed a huge surge in housing demand in recent years and which has had a vast increase in population. It is interesting to note, if one looks at housing movements and the construction of houses in recent years, that there has been an awful lot of cherry-picking by housing developers. I do not blame people, including house builders, for fighting their corner, but public representatives have a duty to fight on behalf of those less capable of exerting pressure within society.

The Bill centres on its provisions in relation to affordable and social housing, to which I will return after I have once more outlined the real measure of the Government's commitment to the housing programme, which has been brought into question in this debate. This Administration is spending three and a half times more on housing than was the case as recently as 1997, when a member of the Labour Party was in charge of housing during the rainbow coalition. Politicians and political parties must be judged on delivery rather than rhetoric. The truth is that the record of the last Government was far from exemplary and, equally, this Government faces grave difficulties at this time. The criticisms that have been made of our performance are valid, provided they are kept in perspective. Had past policies been retained, we would face a much worse situation.

In coming to the House tonight, it was not my intention to continuously refer back to the past, as I wanted to say something positive about the Bill, its aims and objectives, and to point to a few possible areas of improvement. The Bill seeks to add a range of legislative and policy instruments to those already in operation in the housing market, which we all would welcome. It will provide for a significant increase in the borrowing limit available to the Housing Finance Agency, which offers capital to local authorities for housing, among other matters. The funding available to the agency is, therefore, of considerable significance in combating the current housing difficulties.

A second feature of the Bill is that it places the affordable housing scheme on a statutory basis, which is very important. I am sure that Members of the House and members of local authorities will recognise that many local authorities are confused about how the affordable housing scheme should be administered. It certainly seems to be the case that there is no consistency of operation across the board.

The third feature of the Bill is that it provides for a claw-back mechanism which will apply to the shared ownership and affordable housing schemes. I am somewhat surprised that a number of Opposition Deputies have criticised this measure. I cannot believe that they have given the issue any real consideration as had they done so, they would have been less critical. A welcome element of the Bill is that it introduces greater flexibility to the administration of new house plans schemes. A fifth element of the Bill is that it makes available a statutory framework for assistance to organisations providing advice and research on housing issues.

It has been my view for some time that the affordable housing scheme has not, as yet, been fully exploited by local housing authorities and has been approached in a conservative manner in many, if not all, cases. In County Wicklow I have been more than a little frustrated by the failure of local councils to exploit the scheme to the full. The councils have moved too cautiously. There has, for example, been no creative use of the dual role of planning authority and housing authority. As with many local authorities, we have been discussing the county development plans and revisions of town development plans and we have not taken a proactive role. We have not approached people with land to tell them that the land will be considered for rezoning provided a creative use is found for it and that there is some element of social integration and a degree of equity in the houses which come from the zoning. Interestingly, the only radical proposition for the use of the affordable housing scheme which I have seen in my local authority area has come from a private developer. If I was to give the name in the House it would raise more than a smile.

Section 6 is particularly welcome in that it clearly defines the basis on which the affordable housing scheme can be employed by councils and voluntary bodies. Hopefully the clarification will engender a little more activity on the part of local authorities on the ground.

Will the Minister try to establish within the Department some idea of best practice in local authorities? One Opposition Deputy made the valid point that there is a variation in the application of policies. The Department should carry out an audit of best and worst practice and we should be aiming to ensure that the best practice becomes the norm rather than the exception. If there is some form of reporting mechanism brought into place, section 6 will allow this to happen.

The following sections of the Bill are of particular interest. I welcome the clarification in section 8 which provides the basis for the establishment of schemes to determine the priority to be given to persons availing of the scheme. In County Wicklow there has been a great degree of discontent regarding the allocation of the small number of affordable houses which have been made available to date. In Kilcoole, where the council's largest scheme to date is under way, there has been grave discontent regarding the small number of local people who have been awarded houses. In parts of Wicklow where there has been a huge influx of couples forced out of Dublin by escalating prices in the housing market, there has been a knock-on effect in that local people who are trying to enter the same market are being priced out. For example, someone living in Dublin 4 or 6 who decides to sell his or her house and to retire to Wicklow will outbid any young couple looking for a house which casually comes on the market. This is the case in north County Dublin, Meath, Louth, Kildare and all the surrounding areas. More attention has to be given in the affordable housing scheme to local need.

This influx of people is welcome. New people give life to an area. They also add a sense of vibrancy and bring new money. However, it causes problems. The affordable housing scheme must be geared in a way which pays attention to local housing needs. If friction is to be avoided, the allocation system should give more consideration than the Bill provides to people who have been born and reared in a particular area. Nothing but good can come from allowing young people to settle in their own area. Living in the community with members of the extended family provided young couples with the type of social support which has been a traditional part of life.

Sections 9 and 10 provide a degree of control on the resale of houses which have been bought under the scheme. However, this provision has attracted a degree of negative comment from Deputies opposite. A situation recently arose in Wicklow which should never be allowed to happen again. A highly subsidised site in one of the most desirable housing areas in the country, in which it is impossible to get a house on the market for under £250,000, was sold by the council for under £10,000. Along with other public representatives I made sure that young couples buying into the council scheme were given the opportunity to get a foothold on the housing ladder. This site was sold for less than £10,000, planning permission was granted and a contract was signed for the development of the house on the site. However, before the house was completed it was put on the market and sold for almost £250,000. This is a classic example of what can happen if a subsidised housing scheme is introduced without some form of clawback mechanism. I advise Members opposite to talk to their party colleagues in Wicklow following which they would be less critical of this section of the Bill.

The Bill refers to new housing grants and the framework for financial assistance for certain voluntary organisations. I welcome all the Bill is doing in this regard and there has been a general welcome for these provisions. This section excited Deputies on all sides to question and comment adversely on aspects of the grants schemes currently in operation, particularly those for emergency or essential repairs or repair work for the elderly or the handicapped. I wholeheartedly support Members on all sides who raised this issue. The comments made about these issues, particularly the essential repair grant scheme, must be taken on board by the Minister and the Department. The level of bureaucracy in this area in mind-blowing.

Members on all sides have pointed out that there are extraordinary examples of disgraceful and unforgivable delays in making grants available for essential repair work. If I wished I could regale the House with a remarkable number of examples of delay and costly, bureaucratic time wasting, but I will not do so because other Members have done so adequately. However, I wish to add my voice to those who have earnestly requested the Minister to take a harsh view, particularly of the level of bureaucracy involved in the administration of the essential repairs grant scheme. This situation must be brought to an end.

One final issue which is not dealt with in the Bill, but which comes within the broad parameters of housing policy, is housing estate design. There is a temptation on councils to build anywhere and everywhere they possibly can without giving any thought to the social consequences of building huge, amorphous and anonymous estates. We have gone down that road in the past. We all recall crash programmes of house building which created problems, ghettos and areas of social stigma. We should not allow this to happen again. When we build a housing estate it will last and have an effect which is intergenerational in terms of its impact.

There has recently been an extraordinary controversy in Wicklow because of the so-called part 10 provisions and the so-called consultation which goes on. A local authority decided to build adjacent to about 200 houses, to increase the number of houses in one estate to 330 and to then build 180 additional, mostly affordable, houses adjacent to that. This would have created one large mass of council housing in an area far removed from social services, shops, schools and public transport, yet this is called good policy. This situation has arisen simply as a panic reaction that we have to build houses because of the crisis. The attitude was that the council had this piece of land on which it would build because no one else would get planning permission to do so. What was amazing was that local residents lodged the most remarkably concise response to this proposal. They did not say, "Don't build the houses." They suggested that the council should address some of their social problems and build the houses. Another Member of this House, who is not a member of my party, and I decided to make representations on behalf of the residents. We were treated to an astonishing example of bureaucratic temper tantrums. Ultimately, the Department intervened and said it too had an interest in this issue. Rather than listening to the Department, the local authority has reacted very negatively. In the past when there were housing crises major mistakes were made. It would be astonishing if bureaucratic arrogance allowed us to ignore the past and fail to absorb its lessons. This is a good Bill. I compliment the Minister on its introduction and I commend it to the House.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Healy and Ó Caoláin.

The extent of housing needs is now greater than it has been in more than a generation. The reason is that the Government failed to forecast accurately the changes that have occurred in the market. The increase in demand for accommodation in the rental sector occasioned by the introduction of workers from abroad and asylum seekers has snapped up the availability at the lower end of the market. This, coupled with the disastrous decision of the Government which resulted in the elimination of the investment sector from the rental market, has generated this crisis in accommodation needs.

I have been a public representative for more than 25 years and I have served many years – and still do – on local authorities. I hoped I had heard the last of these heart rending stories of families forced to live in over crowded conditions with poor or non-existent facilities. People regularly call on me seeking my intervention with the housing authorities in an effort to secure safe accommodation for them and their families. This Bill does not provide the response required by these people. Immediate, direct intervention is called for. This Government must empower the local authorities to acquire new home units and it must do it now.

This Bill would be well and good if we were dealing with a market that was already well-serviced. However, as we all know, this is not the reality. Councils with more than 1,000 people waiting to be housed will find cold comfort in this Bill. The people currently on local authority housing lists have no financial reserves. They see no future, nor do they have any hope. This is a generation that needs concrete action from the Government – the delivery of house units to be allocated to them as tenants so that they may re-establish themselves before moving on to purchase, whether under the shared ownership scheme or the voluntary co-operative. It is now 25 years since the first-time home-purchaser's grant of £3,000 was introduced. That was about 25% of the purchase price of an average three-bedroom house in the Dublin area. Let us intervene in the current market in the same way by increasing the grant to €50,000, or more if possible. This will restore balance in the construction industry and enable our children to obtain homes of their own.

I realise the urgent need for housing, but we should not build willy-nilly. We should not create concrete jungles or have Hong Kong type developments in the Dublin area. The Minister's guidelines on densities are a serious danger to proper planning. In my constituency we recently introduced the area action plan for the Baldoyle area. It is proposed to build roughly 2,400 houses. We in the council spoke to the manager and urged him, with the support of the local residents, to ensure that the densities suggested by the Minister, at 60 units per acre, were lowered to some 26 or 24 per acre. With proper open space and proper planning this will be a very good plan for the Baldoyle area, especially when we provide 270 acres of open space, a hundred-acre park and so on. However, just across the railway line – and we are also providing a DART station, which is most welcome – in the corporation area at Grange Abbey, Donaghmede, there is another estate in which it is proposed to develop at 60 units per acre. The matter is before Dublin City Council whose members, before the last election, re-zoned at 60 units per acre. This is outrageous planning and will have a negative impact on the communities of Grange Abbey and Donaghmede. The density is much too large for the purposes of good planning.

The urban trend towards commercial green space at the expense of household gardens will result in generations of children whose only playground will be the hallway, kitchen or sitting rooms of their homes. This is what we are offering them with this development opposite Grange Abbey. The culture of urban gardening and of growing vegetables and flowers will be lost forever along with everything else that people enjoy. Densities in the established area of Grange Abbey are roughly 20 units per acre, while on the far side of the road densities will be 60 units per acre. Estates will become separatist and elitist. We must stop this type of planning. We know there is an urgent need for housing but we should try to encompass both ideas. We should ensure that we provide housing but also that we plan our estates properly.

Nationally, there are now 50,000 families on local authority housing waiting lists; that is, anything from 130,000 to 150,000 individuals. In my constituency there are a thousand families on local authority lists, possibly 3,500 individuals. In Cahir, a small town in my constituency, a housing applicant can wait for anything from four to six years for a local authority house. That is unacceptable, particularly as there have been huge amounts of money available for house building. It is another indication that the fruits of the Celtic tiger have been squandered by this Government.

In the past we have built large housing estates without any reference to other necessary facilities. In many of our towns and estates across the country there are serious problems with anti-social behaviour. In the vast majority of our estates there is no estate management. There are no community facilities, except in a small number of estates, and we continue to build local authority estates without these. There are no community buildings or outdoor facilities. Building estates without these facilities and without proper estate management gives rise to anti-social behaviour, particularly in the larger towns. Those facilities and a higher level of estate management should be put into not only all our future estates but also our existing estates.

It should go further. This Bill should provide for communication with the Garda Síochána and work with it to provide community gardaí in our estates. Obviously that cannot be done in every estate but it could certainly be done in a group of estates. In the town of Clonmel, one of the larger towns in my constituency, and in larger towns throughout the country, community gardaí are absolutely necessary nowadays to ensure that anti-social behaviour in our estates is stopped. This Bill should provide for the appointment of community gardaí.

The housing aid for the elderly scheme is a fine scheme in principle. The idea of the scheme is that work should be carried out for elderly people in relation to leaking roofs, rotting windows, dangerous wiring and sanitary facilities. These are fine principles. However, the practical application of the scheme leaves a lot to be desired. Last year in south Tipperary there were 450 applicants for the scheme, which had a small budget. The allocation from the Department was only £237,500. This meant that 300 of the applicants were not visited or even considered for the scheme. This year it is dealing only with last year's applicants and no new applicants are allowed. The allocation is the very same as last year with no increase. If the scheme is to work and do what it is supposed to do, at least £500,000 per annum should be made available for it. Probably, £1 million per annum would be necessary, over a number of years, to make it an aid to people who have given their working lives to the country and are now looking for reasonable accommodation.

In relation to voluntary housing schemes, the Bill should provide for the possibility of purchase of houses by tenants. The way the scheme is operated does not allow tenants to purchase their houses. This is becoming a serious problem. Many housing applicants on local authority lists are now refusing to accept allocations of tenancies in voluntary schemes because they will never own the house. That should be changed and the Bill gives the opportunity to change it.

On the matter of the purchase schemes in operation, the valuation of houses has gone through the roof in recent years. The discount has not kept pace with it. It has remained at 3% per year to a maximum of 30%. This should be increased to 5% per year up to a maximum of 50%. Most local authority houses in my constituency would be valued at £70,000 which puts them out of the reach of ordinary tenants.

I thank the Deputies for sharing their time with me. This legislation will not be the housing legacy of the Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrats coalition Government. The real legacy is, and will be, the continuing housing crisis, with some 60,000 applicant units or households, representing around 150,000 people, on local authority waiting lists. Since 1996 the number on local authority waiting lists has risen by over 40%. There are, of course, many others not on local authority housing waiting lists for whom housing has become unaffordable and they, too, must be counted as part of the huge need for decent homes in our society.

I accept that the numbers in need of housing have risen dramatically during the Government's term of office and it is a real challenge to meet that need. With the resources at its disposal over the past five years no Government has been better placed to do it. Much has been done and there have been improvements in local authority provision, but this Government has been driven by a market ideology. Its housing policy, such as it is and as reflected in the Bill, relies almost totally on the market, and the profit motive of developers and the construction industry, to meet a massive social need. This policy has failed and always will.

The Bill provides a legislative basis for what is called social and affordable housing. The very terminology is an admission of failure. It reflects the reality that decent housing is beyond the affordable reach of huge sections of our society. The National Economic and Social Forum in its report on social housing concluded that "home ownership is now beyond the reach of most people on average incomes."

It is often said that some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. In the marketplace, on which the Government relies totally for housing provision, what matters most is the price of houses as products for sale and as investments, not their value as homes for real people. Perhaps the additional measures on social and affordable housing in the Bill represent a recognition of that failure, but it is a belated recognition.

The mindset of market price rather than social value is apparent in some of the objections we have heard raised against the provision of a proportion of new housing developments for social and affordable housing. So fixated with house prices have some people become that they object to what they regard as lower class housing in their neighbourhood. This is partly a product of the over-inflated prices which people have to pay for houses and, regrettably, also a form of snobbery. Elected representatives have a duty to educate and persuade all members of the community of the social value of this provision. Some elected representatives, no doubt, will be tempted to exploit fears and prejudices and thus create further division.

My own view of the scheme is that it is positive in itself but that there is an over-reliance on it by the Government. It is no substitute for an all-out attack on the housing crisis based on a comprehensive social housing programme led by the local authorities, with front-loading of funding under the national development plan.

Local authority housing continues to be the Cinderella of the system. Of the 49,812 dwellings completed in the year 2000, for example, only 3,155 were local authority housing, a sad fact. The construction industry gives it low priority and concentrates on the lucrative upper tiers of the private housing market. Local authorities, even where they have the resources, often find it impossible to attract contractors to construct housing. The existing housing stock of local authorities suffers from under-resourcing with lack of staffing and funding for maintenance, repair and refurbishment. Again, some welcome progress has been made in this area in recent years, but our local authorities, like our health system, have had to make up for years of neglect and cutbacks. More needs to be done.

When the Government has been called upon to switch the whole emphasis of housing policy to direct provision by local authorities it has repeated a mantra that it does not wish to return to the large local authority housing estates of the past with no facilities and high unemployment. This is another admission of failure. Successive Governments allowed housing estates to be built in our cities and towns with low quality housing and little or no facilities, as evidenced in constituencies throughout the jurisdiction. When people's income improved many moved out, leaving a concentration of deprivation in such estates.

We need to learn the lessons of that experience. Instead, the Government has thrown the baby out with the bath water and relegated the local authorities to a marginal role in housing provision. There is no valid reason we cannot have well planned, well constructed local authority housing, in modern well maintained estates with the best community facilities. That is the objective I hoped we could share. The disasters of the past do not have to be repeated if the political will is there. Regrettably, the Government has not yet demonstrated it. The disasters of the past do not have to be repeated if the political will is there. Regrettably, the Government has not yet demonstrated that will.

In budget 2002, the Government restored interest relief on rented residential property and reduced stamp duty rates for investors. This will worsen the housing crisis by increasing property prices. The housing charity Threshold has said that the major effect of these budget measures would be to stimulate the production of exclusive residences at the top end of the market. The Bill cannot make up for the housing failures of this Administration. Its housing record is a catalogue of lost opportunities as the tens of thousands on waiting lists know only too well.

I wish to share time with Deputy Michael D. Higgins, by agreement. I am happy to have the opportunity to raise some issues at the end of this Government's period in office. This Bill deals with social and affordable housing, shared ownership and related matters. The legacy of this Government is that in Monaghan town a house that cost £95,000 at the start of the Government's term in office was sold recently for £260,000. That is totally out of the reach of any young couple on middle income.

There is a housing crisis. One will know that if one spends time in a local Deputy's office or talks to council officials, or if one sees the look on young people's faces as they wonder how they will manage to get the flats that are available, while others face the prospect of no accommodation whatsoever. With flats costing £100 per week at the bottom end, how can any young couple save money to provide for a deposit on a house? Two people on reasonable incomes cannot afford a mortgage even in a county such as Monaghan.

There is a need for more local authority housing and this must be made available to stop spiralling prices. There is a need to speed up the provision of houses. I recently spoke to a council colleague who had been told shortly after his election that 37 houses would be built in the town of Ballybay. That development has not yet started. When will those houses be available? Will it be three or four years down the road? This is unacceptable and the system must be changed. In Monaghan town, one full year went by without one house being built because of difficulties over issues such as contracts, bonds etc. We were told that no money was lost but a full year's building was lost. The people of Monaghan have realised that ever since.

It is hard to understand why some counties have a reasonable uptake of voluntary housing. In Carlow, for example, in the last five years £10 million has been spent on voluntary housing; in Monaghan that figure is just £1 million. It is difficult to get some local authorities to act. I do not blame the Minister for this but there needs to be better co-ordination between local authorities and the Department to ensure houses are made available at a reasonable cost.

Second-hand houses are often available at reasonable cost. However, if a young couple buying their first house buy a second-hand house they are immediately loaded with stamp duty. A step must be taken to ensure that somebody buying a house for the first time does not have to pay stamp duty, be the house new or second-hand. It is only a once-off payment and there will be no difficulty finding a way to claw back the money if there is skulduggery going on.

The need for grants towards the restructuring and refurbishing of old houses is another issue. This was available under the Fine Gael led Government in the 1980s. While there may have been some problems with that, they could have been sorted out in a much better way. The measure did not have to be scrapped; limits could have been put on it and it could have been tied to the person's residence because in some cases holiday homes were being grant aided. There were many ways in which that measure could have been kept. It would have helped to restructure villages and towns, and to maintain older houses in rural areas where it is now almost impossible to get planning permission to build a house. If we are to maintain the rural population, this is something which we must look seriously at. There was relief of tax in the Shannon basin but that is no benefit to somebody on a low or middle income. It needs to be in grant form.

The essential repairs grant and the aid from the health boards is very useful and should be of major benefit. However, there is so much delay and so much red tape that whoever is in Government after the next election, and I believe that my party will be, must sort it out once and for all. A person looking for a grant for a disabled person must go through the health board and then the local authority; files are lost and all sorts of problems occur. If that person is dying of cancer, they could be dead before the authorities come around to allowing a change of bathroom or house extension. That is unacceptable and must be changed.

I am grateful to Deputy Crawford for sharing his time. A Bill that raises the borrowing limit of the Housing Finance Agency from €1.5 billion to €6 billion could be misinterpreted. Many people will think that this automatically means that a major impact will be made on the housing crisis. This is not so. I do not have the time to develop what one might expect from a Bill called the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2001, but I want to list some of the points not dealt with in such a miscellaneous title.

The first point is an important one in relation to what has happened to create the housing crisis that now exists. That point is that since the previous Government, of which I was a Member, left office, house prices have risen by about seven times the rate of inflation, by four times the rate of pay increases and by three times the rate of increase in the cost of building. This tells one how the housing situation has been allowed to deteriorate in such a way that it has torn the heart out of the economy.

One of the consequences of inflation in housing prices has been the destructive impact on social life. It may seem unfashionable to say so now, but there is something inherently wrong with a society that allows housing to spiral out the reach of couples to the extent that they no longer have a choice of one of the partners perhaps staying at home, or working at home, or spending their time with their family. There is something inherently crazy about a society where two people on average income must leave home at 6 a.m., stop at 7 a.m. to leave off their children, work until 8 p.m., collect their children on the way home, pay an enormous amount for child care, have little time for themselves or for participation in the community, and where both are contributing to the massive jam of cars on our roads.

Somehow, the housing situation was allowed to deteriorate to the point at which market ideologue suggested that it was important to allow people to move into this area of necessary social provision and make a killing. People should speak frankly. Is it any wonder that a small number of people who were involved in land speculation purchase, not necessarily builders of houses, are currently before our tribunals? What we are witnessing in 2002 is what was mentioned earlier, a change in our demographics with returned emigrants replacing what was an out migration flow for many years. However, that does not explain what has happened to the housing figures. Why are the figures not being published? If all the local authorities have made an assessment which they have sent to the Department of the Environment and Local Government, what is wrong that we simply cannot have the figures on how many people are on the waiting lists, how many people are projected to be on the waiting lists over the next few years and how many houses will be finished? These are figures to which we should have ready access but to which we do not.

Members have been speaking about their own constituencies. I represent Galway West which includes Galway city where people are told they must wait on the list for five years. One of the reasons they must wait five years is that people who previously were in the private, starter homes sector are now joining the list because homes have moved out of their reach. As well as that, there is a number of other points which are very important. How can one say one has been successful if the 25,000 houses pledged in the PPF will not be provided? If one takes the gross figure of all the houses built, is one to put Bono's new house in the same scale as somebody, for example, who is waiting five years on Galway Corporation's list? There has been a retreat from public housing and that retreat has to be reversed.

As the lists have grown, the way the people who wait on the lists are treated has not significantly improved. There are many local authorities without points systems. There are many local authorities to which people desperately go one week after another to ask the question, "Is there anything for me?". They are told, "No, go away and come back. You have only done two of your five years." That is absolutely reprehensible.

Again, there has been a destruction in the maintenance of public housing. With the tenant purchase schemes came a retreat, very often lead by management, both in terms of staff and commitment to the management of estates. Where, for example, in the Bill or anywhere else, has any opportunity been taken to upgrade all those estates built in the 1950s and 1960s before installation standards came in and to which an imaginative Minister would have returned? Where is there a dynamic system of, for example allowing innovative models of management? The Minister of State should not tell me they exist on paper; I deal with it every day and they are simply not there. We are running the housing system on a 19th century model much more akin to the Poor Law than to anything modern. Contrast the person who is well off going into an estate agent's office with the person going into a housing office in any local authority and one can answer the question for oneself.

Many Deputies mentioned the extraordinary, unnecessary delays in providing for the disabled and for the elderly. There is not a single reference in this Bill to the implementation of recommendations or a legislative response to the commission on the private rented sector which reported in July 2000. Is it of no significance that small units which cost less than £500 per month less than five years ago cost £1,200 per month today? Is it not significant that the number of evictions this year is probably greater than any year during the 19th century when people were being evicted and we had a large movement of people? So many Deputies can make good suggestions but where is the innovation in all of this such as, for example, a rural refurbishment scheme.

It is time we dealt with the housing crisis by acknowledging it, by publishing all the figures and by seeking a genuine partnership to put an end to the disgrace of homelessness. When it comes to providing a starter home, a first home, the rights of people to shelter should come before the speculators who have not only destroyed our economy but who have gone so far towards destroying our democracy itself through a mixture of bribery and corruption.

Deputy Deenihan, I understand the Minister of State is giving you a few minutes of his time.

I thank the Minister of State. I do not wish to exaggerate but there is a local authority housing crisis in Kerry. At the moment there are 1,602 approved applicants on the waiting list for Killarney, Listowel and Tralee. Approximately 400 more people have applied since these lists were drawn up. At the present rate of building, they will not be rehoused for at least another five years. It is not acceptable. There is a particular problem in Tralee town which is a growing urban area. It seems to have a greater housing problem and housing shortage than most other towns of its size. I welcome the affordable housing scheme and the provision made here. It is a very good scheme and I commend the Minister of State on it and on the efforts he has made in regard to affordable housing.

The provision of sewage treatment systems in villages and rural areas is very important in terms of the provision of affordable housing in the future and without any subsidy from the State. A site in Tralee costs £60,000 to £100,000 while a site in my village of Finuge costs £25,000. There is no sewage treatment system in Finuge, a village with, unfortunately, an decreasing population. If we had a sewage treatment system, the population of the village would quadruple within a very short period and there would be affordable housing there without any intervention from the State. I am sure that example could be replicated throughout the country. It is a big factor. I say to the Minister and to whoever is in the next Government – I hope it is my party and will say the same thing to the Minister if that is the case – that the provision of sewage treatment systems is paramount. The sewage treatment systems in many villages are antiquated and need to be replaced and extended. The solutions are there but they have to be implemented.

The rent allowance from health boards is now well over €150 million. One should think of the number of houses that could provide. If a large number of people who receive rent subsidy were rehoused, it would save the health boards a considerable amount of money.

I thank Deputies for their valuable contributions to the debate on this Bill. This Government has a clear, comprehensive and credible housing strategy backed by a record of solid and unmatched achievement over the past five years. Our emphasis has been on maintaining a high level of housing output, stabilising house prices, expanding the range and supply of social and affordable housing, developing the private rented sector and improving the quality of the management of the public housing stock.

We have backed up our commitment to housing provision with the necessary resources. Total funding for housing in 2002 is €1.7 billion which is three and a half times that provided in 1997. The overall capital provision this year is €1.6 billion, an increase of 20% on last year. The equivalent capital provision in 1997 was €442 million. The overall revenue provision this year is €113 million which is six times the amount provided in 1997.

I refer to some of the issues raised by Deputies in relation to the Bill and on housing issues generally. The proposal to extend the borrowing powers of the Housing Finance Agency for certain non-housing capital purposes is not being introduced by stealth as has been suggested by Deputies Olivia Mitchell, Gilmore and Timmins. This proposal has been well flagged and was contained in the Local Government Bill published in May 2000.

The position in relation to levying charges on non-domestic users of water services is now well established. Traditionally, local authorities have levied charges on non-domestic users of these services, although not in a uniform or comprehensive manner. Arising from a Government decision taken in 1998, the relevant authorities are now applying a water pricing policy framework which will bring much greater transparency and equity to the charging system. This framework was the subject of extensive consultation with stakeholders during 1999 and no fundamental objections have been raised to it. Arising from a Government decision taken in 1998, the relevant authorities are now applying a water pricing policy framework which will bring much greater transparency and equity to the charging system. This framework was the subject of extensive consultation with stakeholders during 1999 and no fundamental objections have been raised to it.

Regarding house price increases, it is worth noting that house prices began to accelerate into double digit growth in late 1995. When the Government came into office in 1997 not only did it recognise the importance of addressing this issue, it also took immediate action. The various measures taken by it in recent years have proven successful in addressing the outrageous and unsustainable house price increases that we inherited due to the failed policies and inaction by the previous Government. The most recent data published by my Department show that year on year average house price increases at the end of September last ranged from 3.4% for second-hand houses nationally to 6.7% for new houses in Dublin.

Total housing output reached 52,602 units last year, 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 recorded. Private housing output in 2001 was also up last year by about 2%, not down as suggested by Deputies Mitchell and Timmins. The reality is that the private house building sector is in a healthy state, due to the wide-ranging measures that the Government has taken to increase housing supply, most recently in the budget.

There were claims on the Opposition benches that there is an inadequate supply of zoned and serviced land. This is simply not the case. As well as massive investment in the main water services programme, we have also targeted investment specifically at schemes supporting housing development under the serviced land initiative. In addition, the Government has provided significant funding to support the development of small towns and villages under the rural towns and villages initiative. This investment is bearing fruit. A detailed national inventory prepared by my Department in consultation with the local authorities shows that there is about six years' supply of zoned and serviced land nationally. The supply of land in the Dublin area and other major urban areas where housing need is greatest is also sufficient. The position is set to improve significantly on the back of investment in water, sewerage, roads and public transport infrastructure under the national development plan.

As I stated previously, we had another record level of housing output last year, annual house price increases have come back to low single digits and the first-time buyer has been afforded greater space in the housing market. These positive developments allowed the Government to introduce measures in budget 2002, including the reintroduction of interest deductibility for rental property, which will increase the supply of rental accommodation, thereby moderating rent levels. I welcome Deputy Mitchell's support for this measure and the support of my colleague on the Government benches, Deputy O'Keeffe.

Increasing the supply of rental accommodation must go hand in hand with improved regulation of the sector. Deputies Gilmore and Hayes will be pleased to know that the reforms relating to security of tenure, rents, graduated notice periods, tenancy obligations and dispute resolution, contained in the report of the commission on the private rented residential sector, are included in the general scheme of a Housing (Private Rented Sector) Bill which was 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. It is putting in place procedures for dealing with disputes and, having done so, will begin to accept disputes voluntarily referred to it by the landlords and tenants concerned.

There have been various claims in this House and elsewhere as to the number of households on waiting lists for local authority housing; figures of up to 60,000 households have been suggested. The real picture will not emerge until the results of the triennial statutory housing needs assessment, due to be undertaken next month, are known. It is worth noting that the last assessment carried out in 1999 showed that the total number of applicants for local authority housing was just over 59,000. When the applicants who were not approved were netted off, double counting factored in, and other more appropriate social housing options taken into account, the net approved need amounted to 39,176 households.

Contrary to the assertions of Deputies Hayes and Gilmore, the Government has left no stone unturned in dealing with the issue of homelessness which was also raised in the debate. The Government announced its integrated strategy on homelessness in May 2000. One of its central planks is that homeless action plans are to be drawn up at local level jointly by the local authority, health board and voluntary bodies, to set out clearly what services are available for homeless persons and outline what services need to be provided for them over the three year life of the plan. The plans for the main urban areas are completed and work is well under way on those for other areas.

Deputy Gilmore claimed that during its term of office the Government has not produced any specific housing legislation. I have a clear recollection of him being in the House when Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 was being debated. Part V is a fundamental change in the housing landscape in Ireland. The housing strategies prepared under it will ensure the overall housing needs of communities are planned for in a coherent and comprehensive way. It will ensure specific targets for social and affordable housing provision are set out at local level.

It is reasonable to expect that there will be a period of bedding down in terms of the operation of Part V. My Department will shortly be issuing guidelines to local authorities on implementation issues arising in relation to housing developments under Part V. It would be unrealistic, as well as being in contravention of the Act, to exclude apartment developments from its provisions as Deputy Mitchell suggested. Apartment development is now becoming much more widespread in the major urban areas.

Deputies Carey and Timmins supported the idea of a national housing agency during the course of the debate. The establishment of such an authority was recommended by the National Economic and Social Forum in its report on social and affordable housing and accommodation published in September 2000. This question merits careful consideration and the NESF report, its recommendations and policy implications are being examined by my Department in the context of the comprehensive range of measures being taken in relation to housing. We have focused considerable effort in recent years on strengthening the structures in place in the Department and local authorities and significantly increasing the resources available to secure the necessary supply of housing.

I welcome the generally positive comments of Deputies in relation to schemes aimed at providing housing for the elderly and people with a disability. Since coming into office, the Government has greatly improved the terms of the disabled person's and essential repairs grant schemes. Payments increased from 896 in 1997 to 1,700 in 2001. Funding for the task force on special housing aid for the elderly has more than doubled from €5.2 million in 1997 to €11.9 million this year. The improvements introduced also enabled local authorities and health boards to extend the type of work that can be undertaken in individual cases, including the provision of heating systems.

Deputies Daly, Connaughton, Durkan, Neville and Ring also pointed to problems with the various schemes. It is a matter for the local authority to decide the level of grants in individual cases and the circumstances in which a grant may be paid and to ensure there are no undue delays in the processing of applications. The evidence is that, notwithstanding delays in certain cases, the local authorities and health boards have considerably ramped up activity under the schemes.

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate which ranged across a broad spectrum of housing issues, which either have been or are being addressed by the Government. There are a number of important provisions contained in the Bill which are essential to maintain and increase the output of social and affordable housing going forward. I look forward to further discussion on the Bill on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn