Amendment No. 15 is related to amendment No. 14. Both amendments may be discussed together.
SECTION 13.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 14:
In page 8, subsection (1), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(c) the person has refused to participate at pre-tenancy training courses.".
—(Deputy N. Ahern.)
On the last occasion we discussed the conditions under which a local authority can refuse a letting. This amendment proposes that if a person refuses to participate in pre-tenancy training courses the local authority should be able to refuse the person a letting.
A number of local authorities on a voluntary basis have tried to offer prospective tenants the opportunity to participate in a pre-tenancy training course, which outlines what is expected of tenants. Initial results have not been great. Many people are inclined to say they will do the course if the authority will offer them a letting but refuse to do it if they simply remain on the list for consideration. "Why should I bother?" is the attitude.
A training course is good idea. While one could say it should be considered a normal part of a letting agreement drawn up by a local authority, some people at local authority level believe the requirement would have more strength if it had a statutory base. That is why I recommend the inclusion of amendment No. 14.
Amendment No. 15 proposes that a local authority have the power to impose a period of probationary tenancy in all cases or in cases which are considered doubtful or suspect. The local authority could give a probationary tenancy of a number of months during which time people could prove they are good tenants. If they are not good tenants, they would be obliged to give up their accommodation after the probationary period. Both amendments would strengthen local authorities in providing lettings.
I support the concept of pre-tenancy training courses. They are a valuable part of good estate management. However, Dublin Corporation would agree that it would not be practical or possible to implement these amendments fairly.
At the Committee's last meeting, the Deputy said non-participation in a pre-tenancy course would be an indication that people would be likely to be guilty of anti-social behaviour. That is not necessarily the case. Some people do not like doing courses or they might be unable to participate in one. It is more appropriate to ensure that local authorities provide courses and encourage rather than coerce potential tenants to participate in them. That is where the future lies. While I appreciate and share the Deputy's commitment to pre-tenancy taining courses, it would not be appropriate to include the amendment as it would be unworkable.
I am disappointed with the Minister of State's response. The amendments are sensible. There is no point talking about estate management if one does not give full commitment to it. It is essential that people complete a pre-tenancy course. There is no point talking about estate management if there is not full commitment to it. It is essential that people do a pre-tenancy course, which does not necessarily have to be of a classroom nature. It is not a case of a corporation official lecturing to people. It can be done informally with the community through a tenant's association. Local authorities need backup and support in trying to do this. I am disappointed with the Minister's reaction. My amendments are sound and I would like them considered.
During my time as Minister, my commitment to good estate management and tenant training has been evident. I hope the Deputy accepts that. I have made a considerable effort to ensure we make progress with local authorities to reach our shared goal. However, we must be practical. It would be dangerous to include items in this Bill which will not work in practice or may have a negative impact on the encouragement of tenancy training.
I reject the amendments. I am using my judgment to ensure that tenancy training is a matter with which people feel comfortable rather than compelling them to do a training course by denying them a house if they do not do so.
What the Minister said about the generality of people is reasonable. The type of people who cause most destruction in housing estates in my constituency will not attend any training course. Perhaps the amendment should read "the person has unreasonably refused" or the person should have a good reason for not going. Perhaps the Minister can reflect on this on Report Stage.
There is one estate in my constituency where there are six or seven households occupied by the same family. They disrupt an entire estate of 300 or 400 hundred dwellings.
The Chairman may be aware there is a section which allows for the refusal, on grounds of good estate management, of an allocation of a house. This covers the Chairman's concern. I want to ensure that tenancy training is carried out. The best way to ensure that this becomes the norm is to have good management practice in every local authority. We have made progress on this. If a tenancy training course becomes a chore that people must do in order to get a house, it will be damaging to the training approach. That has been the experience in other areas of training and education. I cannot accept the inappropriate approach to pre-tenancy training courses in this amendment.
I do not understand the Minister's fears that the approach could be negative. A training course tries to outline to people that they are getting a house and have certain responsibilities. The money is coming from the taxpayer, the person is a member of a community which they should try to be part of and they should not be a nuisance to their neighbours. I cannot see any negative aspects to this.
The logic of the Deputy's point is that everybody who owns a house would have to do a training course in order to take up the responsibility of ownership. I do not think this is necessary and neither is this amendment. It is not helpful in ensuring that pre-tenancy training is part and parcel of better management practice at local authority level. We must assist local authorities in this. The Deputy's amendment will not do this but it may cause problems if they are dealing with people on pre-tenancy courses who do not want to be there, for whatever reason.
What about amendment No. 15 and making some tenancies probationary?
It is interesting to note that the Dublin Corporation submission on estate management and related issues to this committee in April 1996 stated that parole tenancies were considered unlikely to improve anti-social behaviour. They did not seek that measure.
The Dublin Corporation Management submission and the knowledge and experience of public representatives in Dublin indicates that the corporation management do not yet understand the scale of the issue.
Public representatives of all parties have pressed for greatly enhanced estate management. The management's proposal to use low-ranking local authority officers to deal with this problem indicated it did not realise the scale of the problem. I would hate to think that this legislation, which this committee has sought for some years, is based on a wholly inadequate perception of the problem. This is a huge issue in the working class areas of Dublin. I agree with Deputy Noel Ahern. Reasonable amendments should be considered. NABCO will not consider tenants who have not been trained. Why is this not the case with local authorities?
The Chairman should note that the matters included in this Bill are of direct relevance to the work of Dublin Corporation ensuring good estate management and have been criticised for going too far by various voluntary organisations. We have covered all significant matters raised in the various submissions dealing with anti-social behaviour. This Bill will alter the powers of local authorities, particularly in the allocation of houses, in a way never done before. I hope Deputies do not underestimate the significance of that part of the Bill which enables local authorities to ensure that allocations will not lead to serious anti-social behaviour as described in this Bill.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 8, subsection (1), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(c) the person has not undergone a period of probationary tenancy.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 13 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 8, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
"14.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Housing Acts 1966 to 1992, a local authority shall be empowered to secure and relet abandoned rented dwellings if it is of the view that the dwelling is in danger of being damaged or vandalised.".
This amendment proposes that local authorities be given extra powers to take early action on an empty house or flat where the tenant does not seem to be in residence. Due to the legal position, local authorities often seem unable to act at an early stage. They can implement security measures but seem to have their hands tied in reletting the property. There have been cases where the local authority relets a flat and the tenant reappears. Sadly, some tenants do not accept their responsibilities and often disappear for weeks on end. House purchase loans were a bigger problem but in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, officials were given extra powers which allowed them to move more quickly. However, they often lack the power to make early decisions on tenancies. Many houses or flats are in good condition but when the first stone is thrown through a window people regard the house or flat as fair game. It can be pulled apart within a few days. I tabled this amendment in the belief that if local authorities had the power, they could take it over and re-let it.
I am not aware on anything in the housing Acts which would prevent a local authority from securing and re-letting an abandoned local authority house. However, special provision was made in the 1992 Act in respect of securing abandoned private houses on which a loan was due to the local authority. This was necessary because the powers available to the housing authority in respect of its housing stock was not available in respect of private houses on which loans had been advanced. That dealt with a lacuna. Local authorities are enabled to deal with this. I appreciate there are problems and public representatives can be very frustrated but it is a matter with which local authorities have the power to deal. I hope Dublin Corporation is getting on top of problems such as this with the new approaches it has adopted.
The perception of lack of power is prevalent among officials and not just elected members. They feel they have power with regard to private houses since 1992 but that they are at a disadvantage. They do not have equal power in the case of a tenancy. This power should not apply in all cases but only in those where officials believe the house is likely to be damaged or vandalised. There is a difference in the power they have in regard to a tenant purchase house compared with a tenant house. They need the equivalent of what was provided in 1992 in regard to tenant purchase houses.
I assure the Deputy the powers are the same under section 58 of the Housing Act, 1966. I appreciate vandalism can occur quickly and if a house is abandoned a local authority has to move in fast and secure it. One is dealing with human beings who may leave a house but may not have necessarily abandoned it. There must be good management but the powers are satisfactory. I have not received feedback from officials seeking additional powers in that regard.
I had a conversation with an official. This is not something I thought up. What powers do they have? Under what Act do they have these powers? I cannot understand why they perceive they do not have the powers if what the Minister of State says is correct.
Under section 58 of the Housing Act, 1966 which states:
The management control of any dwelling, building or other land of which a housing authority is the owner and of any works or services provided by the authority under this Act shall be vested in and exercised by the authority.
Perhaps an individual challenged that and a court case resulted. The officials feel they do not have the powers but I do not know on what they base that.
The powers exist and I am satisfied they are clearcut but I will follow the matter up with Dublin Corporation if there is any doubt in the minds of officials as to what are their powers. They have not been challenged. If officials are in doubt it is simply a matter of ensuring they have the correct information and advice on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 is related to amendment No. 21 and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17;
In page 8, subsection (1), between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
"(f) a private landlord.".
This section deals with the availability of information between various bodies. Amendment No. 17 seeks to bring private landlords into the net. They are part of the social housing programme and their relationship with the Department has improved immensely in recent years. They are slightly fearful that legislation is being introduced for one category of social housing and they may suffer some of the knock on effects. They wish to be included in this section so that they would benefit. They could obtain information from the Garda Síochána, local authorities, etc. regarding those who present themselves for a private flat so that they would have some means of checking up on such individuals.
It is not appropriate that private landlords be included in this section which relates to statutory authorities such as local authorities and health boards which are enabled to exchange information. Landlords deal with many people who do not come under the social housing bracket or are guilty of anti-social behaviour. It would not be appropriate for private landlords to be empowered to request information as proposed in this amendment. They can request information and references. There is an agreement with the tenant. There are other ways for landlords to protect their interests. This section ensures statutory agencies have the freedom to exchange information and it has been sought by local authorities, who felt at a disadvantage. It gets to the kernel of the information deficit that existed for them. It would not be right to extend that to the private rented sector. That would alter the nature of this section and would not be desirable.
The Minister has not just included statutory agencies. Approved housing bodies which are not statutory agencies are included. They are in the same category as private landlords. Private landlords are an accepted element of social housing. A large body of people move from the private rented sector into local authority housing and out again. It is strange to introduce legislation to control people in one section of local housing and not to extend it to private landlords. Perhaps they need not have full access to that information but they should know whether an excluding order was issued against a person, otherwise the Bill will not work because the problem will be moved from one area to another.
The tenancy arrangements which can be made between a private landlord and his tenant can provide for that mechanism. I differentiate between voluntary bodies and private landlords because voluntary bodies must be approved by the Minister and serve a different function by providing for a particular need. They are quite different from private landlords, who may or may not provide accommodation to people receiving rent allowance, for example. Voluntary bodies involved in the provision of social housing are in a completely different category to private landlords.
The Minister said this could be done by the landlord and the tenant in a private tenancy agreement but how would that work? Even if a tenant agreed that a landlord could make inquiries on his behalf of the corporation or the Garda, would the information be given? Statutory agencies and the Garda pass information to local authorities but one reason this provision is in the Bill is that at the moment passing information depends on the mood of the garda. Many give information and then cite the Data Protection Act, putting senior local authority officials under a compliment. Information may move between the gardaí and some landlords — sometimes the landlords are gardaí— but we are debating a formal, official procedure. The garda should not necessarily have discretion about giving information, the landlord should have the right to it.
The Data Protection Act prevents statutory organisations and agencies providing information. This provision ensures this is not an obstacle but we must be responsible with information. Private landlords who require this information can take an alternative route and it is not appropriate that this wide spectrum of people should be included in this arrangement.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 9, subsection (2), line 2, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
I covered this point on the last amendment. Is it not necessary to strengthen the provision in the Bill? Will the gardaí find a way not to give this information? They are often reluctant to co-operate, even with officials. Gardaí should not be able to refuse to co-operate — the legislation says they "may" co-operate but they do not have to. The information should be given to statutory agencies and no one should have the right to withhold it.
Even where agencies wanted to share relevant information they were not able to do so because of the Data Protection Act. If we deal with it in this way we will get over the problem and ensure that co-operation is possible. We should not say we do not trust authorities and will force them to give information. Authorities are working increasingly closer together. The feedback from community organisations in the most chronically deprived areas is that gardaí are much more in evidence, are closer to the problems and things are changing. It would not be appropriate to say this "shall" be done. It "may" be done as a result of this Bill in a way which was not possible in the past because of the block imposed by the Data Protection Act.
I will withdraw the amendment but I may re-submit it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 9, subsection (2), line 3, after "it" to insert "and nothing in the Data Protection Act, 1988 or any other enactment shall be used to avoid full information between local authorities, Gardaí and other bodies".
This is another amendment to strengthen the provision because co-operation has not been great up to now. What is the Minister's opinion of the wording?
This amendment is unnecessary. The section is to ensure the Data Protection Act is not an obstacle to passing information. I cannot accept it.
The section seems to do as the Minister says but should there not have been a phrase saying "notwithstanding anything in the Data Protection Act"?
It is in the Bill — section 14(2) states: "notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment", which covers the Deputy's amendment. I hope he will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 9, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) The Gardaí shall notify the local authority where convictions are secured for drug dealing or where raids on dwellings result in drugs being discovered.".
This is also to strengthen the transfer of information between the Garda and the local authority. At present, gardaí only give information on a specific address. Not only should they give information when requested, the authorities should come together more than they do. Rather than waiting to react, the Garda should inform the local authority about convictions, successful raids or forthcoming court appearances. The authorities would not then have to re-invent the wheel and build up files separately. There would be an onus on both authorities not just to respond to requests for information but to give information relevant to the other authority even before it is sought.
It is not appropriate or necessary to oblige gardaí to notify a local authority about convictions for drug dealing. Local authorities will be empowered under section 14 to request and obtain information from the gardaí in specific cases relating to occupants, prospective occupants or applicants for local authority housing or other persons whom the authority considers to be engaged in anti-social behaviour. The arrangements can be made by the local authority with the Garda to ensure they have sufficient information. That is perfectly adequate to deal with the concerns expressed by the Deputy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14 agreed to.