APPENDIX 11
Memorandum submitted by Sinn Féin
Sinn Féin believes that the right to
affordable accommodation is a basic inalienable right and that
social policy should be centred on delivering this basic right.
While we believe that it would be far better
if the issue of housing could be dealt with by the institutions
developed as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, rather than
by a Westminster committee, Sinn Féin welcomes the establishment
of this inquiry and hopes that it will result in progress in dealing
with the many problems facing social housing in recent times.
The failure to deliver an adequate supply of
social housing in the Six Counties has long been a source of concern
for Sinn Féin. We have been to the fore over many years
in calling for more funding to be allocated to this sector to
ensure that the supply of affordable homes reflects demand. Unfortunately,
to date, this has not been the case. We believe that the problem
will soon reach crisis proportions. Moreover, the longer it is
left unsolved, the greater will be the financial cost to rectify
it. Meanwhile, thousands are left waiting for unacceptable periods
to be allocated decent accommodation. The whole problem is further
exacerbated by high rents and spiralling house prices in the private
sector.
Nor is it simply a matter of the construction
of dwellings. We are highly critical of the environmental fabric
of many of our social housing developments, which are bereft of
basic amenities and recreational facilities. We believe that any
housing authority should not only be involved in the supply of
social housing but also, in collaboration with other statutory
bodies, in the development of sustainable communities. Moreover,
it is essential that authorities responsible for social housing
should build relationships with local residents and facilitate
their involvement in the maintenance and development of their
residential area. Among other benefits, building partnerships
between residents and statutory authorities helps deal with the
scourge of vandalism and anti social behaviour.
We recognise the contribution that housing associations
have made, especially in the provision of sheltered dwellings
and other specialised developments. However, we do not believe
that the use of housing associations as the prime provider of
social housing stock has been efficient or effective. The policy
change which removed from the Housing Executive its role as a
housing provider, reducing that role to being a housing adviser
was ill judged and detrimental to the building of a sufficient
volume of social units. The consequences of this poor policy decision
can clearly be seen today.
The Housing Executive was created in 1970 to
tackle systematic discrimination in housing and address the years
of neglect. While mistakes were made, over time the Housing Executive
built up an impressive level of expertise and experience in all
aspects house building and housing development. That expertise
could be used to improve the supply of social housing if the Housing
Executive were given responsiblity for building and managing social
housing schemes. At the very least, the Housing Executive should
be allowed the same powers to borrow money as is given to Housing
Associations.
Primary departmental responsibility for overseeing
housing programmes lies with the Department for Social Development.
To the extent that adequate programmes are not being delivered,
the DSD has failed in its responsibilities. It is essential that
the Department is subject as soon as possible to the rigours of
local democratic accountability. In the meantime, there is an
immediate imperative for the Department to act, and be seen to
act, in accordance with the requirements of the equality legislation
resulting from the Good Friday Agreement.
Over the past number of years there has been
a significant increase in the number of tenants buying their own
homes. While we welcome the policy of allowing people the choice
of purchasing their own homes, we are also aware of a number of
negative factors associated with this policy. First, running parallel
with the reduction in the social housing stock there have been
continuing cuts to funding for the cyclical maintenance of properties.
This adds significantly to the run down condition of many of the
properties. In the past cyclical maintenance had the benefit of
both preventing deterioration of stock, and of providing the means
to systematically identify and rectify problems at an early stage,
thus minimising the costs of repair. Lack of finance has resulted
in these schemes being postponed for months, years, or even indefinitely.
Any short-term financial gains resulting from cutting maintenance
services will be considerably outweighed by the long-term costs
of rectifying the dilapidation of stock that will result.
Second, the combination of tenants buying their
homes and a reduction in the volume of social housing build has
led to a crisis in social housing supply. While they fluctuate
from time to time, there has been a steady trend of rising waiting
lists in the Six Counties. This increase is not evenly spread.
Rather, it is largely concentrated in specific areas. The one
thing that these areas have in common is that they are nationalist
areas with growing young populations. More and more people in
these areas require rehousing but because of a lack of strategy
to deal with this increasing demand, these areas have been left
suffering from significant overcrowding. This crisis requires
urgent attention, yet it would seem that the will does not exist
in government to provide such attention. We suspect that this
lack of will is at least partially the result of a misguided or
disingenuous view that fairness means equality of supply rather
than a the eradication of sectarian inequalities in waiting lists.
A stark example of sectarian equalities in housing
is that of North Belfast. The figures speak for themselves. In
2002, the housing waiting list for North Belfast contained a staggering
1,748 applications. Of those applications, over 80% were made
by Catholics. The figures for those classified as being in housing
stress are very similar, with 764 applicants suffering from housing
stress being Catholic as opposed to 172 Protestants. In other
words, if you are a Catholic in North Belfast, you are four times
more likely to be suffering from housing stress than your Protestant
counterpart. It is high time that such blatant inequalities are
ended. That can only be done through a unified and co-ordinated
strategy. We do not believe that the piecemeal approach of using
housing associations is capable of delivering what is required.
Part of the problem experienced in North Belfast
results from the criteria adopted for redevelopment. Eligibility
for redevelopment is related to the levels of dereliction in a
specific area. It is our understanding that long-term unoccupied
houses are classified as derelict. The consequence of including
empty houses in the criteria is that those areas where there is
overcrowding and housing shortages are disadvantaged in comparison
to areas where there is under-population and over-supply of housing
stock. In working class areas of North Belfast this inequality
maps out to sectarian inequality in that nationalist working class
areas are almost universally characterised by pressure on housing
stock, while many loyalist areas, such as those adjacent to the
lower Crumlin and Shankill Roads, do not contain a population
large enough to fill the houses that have already been built.
We believe that there should be a rebalancing of criteria to ensure
that redevelopment is not concentrated in areas where there is
already a surplus of housing stock but is used to relieve overcrowding
and lack of supply.
The continuing decline in the supply of social
housing can in many ways be attributed to incompetence or a lack
of understanding in the DSD on how to deliver a scheme of this
nature and their failure to monitor the inability of housing associations
to deliver the housing programmes allocated to them. The inability
of housing associations to meet their targeted programmes has
led to a year-by-year fall in social house building. In 1999-2000
there was DSD funding for 2,200 new build starts, but there were
only 1,800 starts—a shortfall of 400. In 2000-01 funding
was available for 1,700 starts, actual starts were 1,114, a shortfall
of 586. In 2001-02 there was funding for 1,400 starts, actual
starts were 1,005, a shortfall 395. In 2002-03 funding was available
for 1,400 starts, actual starts 900, 500 short. In other words,
over the last four years almost 1,900 houses less have been built
than should have been.
In summary, Sinn Féin believes that there
are problems with the supply of housing stock that require urgent
attention. These problems can be categorised into three broad
and interrelated issues:
1. Funding: there needs to be increased investment
in social housing to ensure that there are adequate resources
to meet the acute demand for this type of housing.
2.Management: the piecemeal management entailed
in the devolution of authority to housing associations has proved
inadequate to the task of building a sufficient volume of stock.
3.Sectarianism: there is currently a sectarian
imbalance in both the existing supply of social housing stock,
and in redevelopment schemes to improve housing stock. This is
completely unacceptable.
23 April 2004
|
