Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997

Vol. 475 No. 2

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for a range of measures to assist local authorities in addressing problems arising on their housing estates from drug dealing and related serious anti-social behaviour. The Bill forms part of a wider range of measures which are being taken by the Government to deal with the issue of drugs and related crime. This Government is the first to seriously address the drugs problem. We recognise that the illegal drugs trade is damaging and destroying many young lives. Vast quantities of money are being made at the cost of the future of young men and women. Even babies suffer and die as a consequence of this scourge.

Our approach is multifaceted. Changes in the law are exposing those who traffic in illegal drugs. The Criminal Assets Bureau is a newly established statutory body and a package of tough legislation is in place. The ministerial task force on measures to reduce the demand for drugs was established to address issues that create a demand. Its recommendations in areas of treatment, education and rehabilitation and estate improvements were accepted fully by the Government and £14 million was allocated to carry out a programme which is based in the communities that are most severely affected.

To effectively tackle the drug problem we need to rebuild communities, improve their physical and social infrastructure and revitalise them economically. To succeed we need to create a new dynamic and trust between statutory agencies and local communities.

I have stressed to the local authorities the importance of good estate management. Tenant participation is part and parcel of estate management, as is the importance of an integrated approach which draws all interested bodies into the process. Considerable progress is being made in this regard and will continue to be made. This Bill must be seen as one element in a wider strategy which is aimed at building communities and making them safe from drugs.

There is broad agreement in the House that the extent to which the residents of many local authority estates have suffered at the hands of drug dealers and those working with and for them is unacceptable. There is also broad support for the main purpose of the Bill which is to provide local authorities with improved legal powers to help them deal with drug dealing and serious anti-social behaviour in their estates. The Bill will assist local authorities to discharge their estate management function in a positive manner so that all local authority tenants may reasonably aspire to living in an estate that is free from drug dealing and associated violence.

Before I elaborate on the specific measures in the Bill I want to outline briefly some of the background and context within which these proposals have been prepared. On 4 July last, the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs considered the issue of local housing estate management. At that time, I indicated that existing legislative provisions, drawn up when the problem of anti-social behaviour was much less serious, were no longer adequate to address the significant difficulties, often drug related, that local authorities now face. I told the committee that I had been examining possible changes in housing legislation and that I hoped to announce specific measures urgently. Subsequently, on 9 July, the Government announced a broad-ranging package of measures to respond to the wider problem of drug dealing and related serious crime. The measures in this Bill formed part of the Government's package.

Why is this legislation needed? The following quotations from a report made in June 1996 to Dublin Corporation's housing committee may help answer that question:

...the victims of anti-social behaviour (including drugs related activities) and their families endure enormous distress and are unable to enjoy peaceful occupation of their dwellings...

...anti-social behaviour reinforces the spiral of decline in certain difficult estates...

...continued toleration of drug related activity on estates and in flat complexes places tenants and their children at risk of involvement in the drugs scene and imposes an unreasonable burden on tenants and residents ...

...the perception that effective action is not being taken has encouraged the perpetrators, demoralised the victims and, thereby, exacerbated the problem.

These are not extracts from a treatise on social breakdown in the future but relate to the situation as it is now and has been in recent years in certain Dublin Corporation housing estates.

We are well aware of the serious threat drug dealing poses to individuals and to society. In areas where drug dealing gets a foothold everyone is a potential victim. There is reason to believe many major heroin dealers began their evil careers in local authority housing estates and that much of their nefarious activities are centred there. We must make it clear that the Government and the statutory agencies will no longer tolerate publicly funded housing being used as a base for drug pushing and related anti-social activity. We must ensure that a new generation of barons do not have local authority housing as a nursery in which to develop their ugly trade. We must also ensure that those who are enriching themselves by bringing misery, distress and violence to their neighbours can no longer be allowed to undermine and destroy their communities. We have a duty as legislators to see to it that communities are not denied protection as a result of deficiencies or constraints in the law.

Constraints and deficiencies have been identified through practical experience. Regrettably, the existing statutory response has been seen as ineffectual in the face of an increasing drug problem and, in recent times, some communities have sought to impose their own remedies. Particular areas of concern include the unsuitability of existing approaches in certain instances, for example, where the existing sanction of eviction may be too blunt and sweeping an instrument; no effective immediate action against squatting by persons engaged in anti-social activities; difficulties with the exchange of information between relevant authorities; slow procedures such as delays in the service of summons and intimidation and risks to witnesses. The Bill seeks to rectify these deficiencies through a combination of increased powers, targeted measures and more streamlined and effective procedures.

In preparing this legislation I have taken into account the experience of local authorities in their attempts to deal with anti-social behaviour on their estates. I met the elected members of Dublin Corporation who represent the worst affected areas and they were emphatic about the need for urgent and effective measures. I or my officials have also met representatives of other interests, including the voluntary housing sector. I have had the benefit of widely divergent views ranging from unfounded fears about the possible impact of the Bill to a concern that the measures in the Bill do not go far enough.

The definitions of "anti-social behaviour" and "estate management" in section 1 are of particular significance and are central to the purposes of the Bill. They form the basis for the application of various powers under the Bill, including exclusion orders, vetting of tenancy applications and for social welfare assistance. I have made every effort to frame these definitions as tightly as possible. "Anti-social behaviour" has been carefully defined with particular reference to drug pushing and related serious violence or threats of violence to individuals. Possession of illegal drugs solely for personal use does not come within this definition, nor does vandalism or damage to property unless the damage was being used to intimidate or threaten. There are two elements to the definition and these are essential because the measures in the Bill are designed to deal with anti-social behaviour related to drug dealing and the serious violence associated with it, both of which are offences under the criminal code. The activities included in the definition are very serious in nature — matters such as nuisance or noise are not included — and their effect must be to cause "significant or persistent" danger, injury, damage, etc. to persons rather than to property.

The term "estate management" is defined as including the securing or promotion of the interests of tenants and other occupiers, whether individually or generally, in the enjoyment of the local authority houses they occupy and the avoidance, prevention or abatement of anti-social behaviour in that context. The term "good estate management" is a long standing concept in common law and in the landlord and tenant code but has not been defined in statute. The concept is being given specific statutory recognition in this Bill in a very positive way so that housing authorities can actively promote the interests of their tenants and work towards the avoidance, prevention or abatement of anti-social behaviour. The concept of good estate management is currently used by housing authorities as a reason for seeking repossession of dwellings where anti-social type behaviour is involved.

Section 2 deals with an important aspect of legal procedures, delays and difficulties in the serving of summonses in housing cases. This section provides that, where it has not been possible to serve a summons by registered post, it may be served by ordinary post without the delay of having to go back to the courts for specific permission to do this, as is the case at present. This section also provides for summonses to be issued by a District Court clerk instead of having to be signed by a judge — a procedure that already applies in criminal cases.

The single most important measure in this Bill is probably the introduction of a new "excluding order" procedure. The relevant provisions are contained in sections 2 to 12. A local authority tenant will have a right to apply to the District Court for an excluding order against a member of his or her household who is engaged in anti-social behaviour. A housing authority will have power to seek an excluding order where it believes the tenant would be intimidated in doing so. Excluding order proceedings can only be taken by housing authorities after consultation with the tenant and the local health board.

The excluding order procedure will allow a more targeted response than is currently available to local authorities. Up to now, the only action a local authority could take in cases of serious anti-social behaviour was to seek to have the entire household evicted with, as it were, both the innocent and the guilty subject to the same legal sanction. The new procedure is intended to meet a situation where only one or some of the members of a household are engaged in serious anti-social behaviour. It also recognises the reality that there are instances where not only does the tenant not have effective control or influence over an individual in the household but the tenant and the rest of the household may be intimidated by that individual. Hence the provision for local authority intervention where a tenant is too fearful to take proceedings.

Under section 3, the court will have power to exclude a person engaged in anti-social behaviour from any specified house or housing estate and to prohibit intimidation or other interference with a tenant or other occupant of the house. Under section 4, the court may make interim excluding orders where there is immediate risk of significant harm to a tenant or other occupant. The court will also be empowered to hear excluding order cases in camera. There are a number of important safeguards such as provision for appeal and for variation and discharge of orders where appropriate. This new procedure will make a major contribution to the fight against anti-social behaviour in local authority housing, by providing a means to target the perpetrators, to protect the victims and to leave the innocent in their homes.

Under section 13, local authorities will be empowered, on grounds of anti-social behaviour, to refuse to let a dwelling or to sell a dwelling to a tenant under a purchase scheme. Consent to the resale of tenant purchase dwellings may also be refused on these grounds. This will provide valuable legal backing to the efforts of housing authorities to prevent known drug dealers from moving into their estates.

Section 14 provides for exchange of information between relevant agencies — housing authorities, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Garda Síochána, the Department of Social Welfare, health boards and voluntary housing bodies. This provision is designed to overcome difficulties created by different statutory agencies acting blindly and without access to relevant information which is available to another statutory agency. It is incomprehensible to residents that one State agency would be aware that an individual was a drug dealer, yet another agency would be totally unaware of the fact. The exchange of information in this area is essential for the operation of various measures under the Bill, such as the excluding order procedure, vetting of applicants for housing, tenant purchase or for supplementary welfare assistance towards rents of private accommodation.

Section 15 provides discretion for health boards to refuse or withdraw SWA rent or mortgage interest supplementation for private housing in the case of persons evicted, excluded or removed from, or refused local authority housing on grounds of anti-social behaviour. Health boards must have regard to any information provided to them in relation to such persons by housing authorities or other specified bodies. There has been severe criticism that, on occasion, drug pushers evicted from local authority housing, with the help of SWA rent allowance from the health board, have been rehoused in private accommodation in the same area and from which they have continued their illicit activities. Health boards argue they simply had no option but to provide SWA rent assistance in these cases. However, in future, the health boards will not be obliged to fund private accommodation in such circumstances.

Section 16 amends the Social Welfare Acts to allow, in certain circumstances, for deduction of local authority rents at source from social welfare incomes. This will allow for timely pro-active intervention when rent arrears are building up. There will be power for the Minister for Social Welfare after consultation with the Minister for the Environment to make regulations providing for mandatory deduction of local authority rents from social welfare payments where rent is unpaid for a certain period or arrears exceed a certain level. This is an important and practical measure to minimise the need for eviction proceedings to obtain payment of rents and will greatly reduce the need for local authorities to have to threaten or go to court for repossession in rent arrears cases.

Section 17 prohibits intimidation of, or other interference with, staff of a housing authority or a health board or members of their family, or intimidation of witnesses in proceedings under this Bill or in eviction proceedings. This is an important provision designed to address the sort of real difficulties which have been encountered by local authorities and tenants.

Section 18 is in the nature of a back-up to the repossession powers of housing authorities. It provides that any payment made to a housing authority by a squatter or a former tenant who has been given notice to quit but still remains in occupation of a local authority dwelling, will not create any tenancy rights in the dwelling. This is to remove a possible loophole whereby such persons might claim rights on the basis of such payments.

Section 19 provides a new power for the Garda, on notification by the housing authority, to direct people squatting in local authority accommodation and engaged in anti-social activity to leave the accommodation. Non-compliance will be an offence and the Garda will have powers of search and arrest without warrant. This is separate from, and does not affect, the due process of "normal" repossession procedures under section 62 of the Housing Act, 1966, which are excessively lengthy to deal effectively with squatting where drug dealing is involved. Existing legal powers have been found ineffective against recurrent squatting which is associated with drug distribution, drug parties and, in some instances, serious intimidation of new tenants. The new powers are designed to provide a direct and effective means of addressing this serious problem. The new powers do not apply to "ordinary" squatting cases where no anti-social behaviour is involved.

Section 20 is designed to help address the question of obtaining evidence of anti-social behaviour where witnesses are in fear of serious injury or worse. It provides for acceptance by courts of statements by the Garda, housing authority or health board officials as evidence of anti-social behaviour in proceedings for repossessions or excluding orders where the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for this and that other possible witnesses would be prevented from giving evidence through intimidation.

Section 21 is unrelated to the other provisions. It is a technical amendment to put beyond doubt that a housing authority's general power under section 11 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, to repossess, in the event of default on a loan, applies to certain loans made prior to 1986 under section 5(2) of the Housing Finance Agency Act, 1981.

Section 22 contains a minor amendment of section 3 of the Housing Act, 1966, to provide that documents such as notices and orders under the housing Acts may be served by ordinary post where a registered letter is returned undelivered. The measures being provided for will apply only in serious circumstances and will be used sparingly but where necessary. Local authorities are in the business of housing persons in need, not evicting them except where there is no other course open to them. Indeed, local authorities are often severely criticised for the length of time it takes them to act against even the most blatant and serious cases of anti-social behaviour. It is simply scaremongering to suggest that local authorities will use their powers in a cavalier manner.

The Bill is only one part of a broad ranging overall response by Government to the problem of drugs and anti-social behaviour. That broader response involves measures to tackle both the supply and demand aspects of drug abuse. The Government has put in place a package of measures to tackle the supply side — drug dealing and the serious criminal activity that it spawns.

Equally significant are initiatives to reduce the demand for drugs. These are being pursued in the context of a special ministerial task force and new structures that have been established at national and local level to ensure an effective response to drug abuse.

The task force, of which I am a member, put forward a comprehensive, co-ordinated package of measures comprising treatment, rehabilitation and prevention. The Government approved our recommendations and allocated £14 million for their implementation. These recommendations included a new local authority estate improvement programme which will improve the physical fabric and environment of local authority housing estates and flat complexes. The Government has approved an overall allocation of £3 million for this programme for 1997-8, £1.5 million of which has been allocated for this year. The programme will focus on aspects of estate design and layout that are conducive to anti-social behaviour and seek to enhance the living environment and ensure better estate management. I have already given approval in principle to proposals for a programme of priority works by Dublin Corporation for which I will provide a grant of £1.25 million. I have also approved a grant of £500,000 to Fingal County Council and a grant of £750,000 to South Dublin County Council. These grants cover 1997 and 1998 and will be matched in each case by the authorities from their own resources. I envisage the allocation of further grants to Cork and Limerick Corporations.

I emphasise that the Bill is not the total response of the Government or the local authorities to drug dealing and anti-social behaviour in local authority housing estates. Since taking office as Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal, one of my main objectives has been to encourage and assist local authorities to improve their overall estate management, not only in terms of dealing with problems but also in terms of raising standards and involving tenants positively in the management of their housing estates. To support local authorities in this respect, I have introduced a number of initiatives including a housing management grants scheme and the setting up of a housing management group to promote best practice in housing management. Authorities are also being assisted to undertake a programme of training and development for their tenants.

The housing management group has prepared best practice guidelines on housing management and workshops are currently being held for local authority officials. The guidelines are aimed at promoting new approaches to the delivery of housing services which place the emphasis on service quality and customer satisfaction. This is very much in line with the thrust of the recent policy document on the future of local government, A Programme for Change.

I am glad some local authorities have already put in place arrangements to work with representative tenant groups in the management of their estates. This involves the local authority and the tenants in a two way process of sharing information and ideas and enables tenants to deal with their local authority in a co-operative rather than a confrontational way. Tenants can thus influence decisions affecting them and their estates and bring their skills and knowledge to bear on these decisions.

Improving communication between the local authority and the tenants is a priority if housing management is to be made more responsive to needs. One means of achieving this objective is through publication of a tenant's handbook which sets out information on the services provided by the authority and the respective responsibilities of the authority and the tenants. A number of local authorities have produced or are in the process of producing tenant handbooks. This is a welcome initiative and one which has been assisted by financial contributions from my Department.

I regard improved housing estate management as a crucial step forward which will pay substantial dividends not only as fire brigade action now but, more importantly, in helping to prevent the same scale of problems emerging in the future. Local authorities deserve credit for the extent to which they have developed their estate management role over the past two years.

I have tried to give a reasonably full account of the Bill and its background. It is only part of our response to a very serious, complex and multilayered issue but it is an important and positive part of that response. The one message I want to convey above all is that the chief purpose and raison d'être of the Bill is to serve and protect the well-being of communities in local authority estates and to help ensure that their daily lives can be free from the oppression, abuse and fear that stems from drug dealing and the anti-social behaviour that goes with it. The Bill will have a strong deterrent effect and will prevent some from embarking on the type of behaviour which would be damaging to their community and, ultimately, result in their being forced out of that community. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to strong support for it and the objectives it seeks to attain.

I broadly welcome this interesting and necessary legislation.

It is also good legislation.

However, I wish to outline some of my concerns and those of interested groups.

If the Deputy was in Government he would have no concerns.

Did Deputy Eric Byrne hear the remarks of the housing committee last week?

There is a need for firm action to curb existing problems but we are being asked to put legislation on the Statute Book without knowing if it will make an effective contribution to dealing with existing problems or whether it is a PR stunt.

(Interruptions.)

Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy Ahern has only begun his speech and he should be given an opportunity to express his views.

Deputy Eric Byrne is being provocative.

Acting Chairman

I am asking for silence for Deputy Ahern.

Thank you, Chairman. We do not know if the Bill has been properly thought out or whether it provides for the necessary corrective action without going overboard.

The many individuals and groups who have an interest in the legislation range from hard pressed residents and community groups who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances in housing estates and flat complexes to local authority and statutory agencies, the owners of private rented dwellings, the various voluntary agencies dealing with the homeless which will obviously have to deal with the problem if the legislation is successful and various groups dealing with civil liberties etc. who are concerned about how the legislation will be operated in the future. The legislation could be regarded as watering down the current eviction system on the one hand, or very wide ranging, on the other. Some civil liberties groups are concerned that an individual could be deprived of the right to shelter without proper recourse to an appeals system.

Whatever about the future, we can make definite statements about the past. I welcome the introduction of this Bill and the recognition that we have a problem in our housing estates. To some extent the Minister of State has been slow to recognise it. During Question Time on 13 June 1996 the Minister of State said adequate legal powers were currently available to the authorities to take action where there was a breach of the letting agreement. She went on to say anti-social behaviour in housing estates, including drug related issues and incidents of this nature, were primarily a matter for the Garda Síochána.

Many people have been slow to deal with this problem. If the Minister of State tried to introduce this legislation ten years ago, I am sure people who share her political viewpoint would have been up in arms but they are wiser than they were then. The Minister of State's position has changed since June after the sad murder of Veronica Guerin and her meeting with the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs.

We must recognise that we are introducing legislation that acknowledges the failure of the Garda to deal with the problem of drug dealing and anti-social behaviour. This Bill ignores the central role of the Garda as the principal force responsible for ensuring the right to a drug free environment. Local authorities have traditionally enforced various regulations but it is arguable if they should be involved in studying social behaviour. There are differing views on that.

We have to reflect on what we have allowed to happen in recent years in large housing estates. I am not making excuses for anti-social behaviour. Poverty existed for decades, yet people respected their neighbours and the elderly. However, bad planning resulted in the construction of large housing estates without the necessary infrastructure, such as pubs, shops and recreational facilities. This is despite the existence since the 1930s of housing estates which matured into respectable middle class estates and did not degenerate in the way newer estates have. Building is not the entire problem. In some of these estates the law of the jungle rules and people have retreated into their homes hoping not to be noticed or appear different so as to avoid drawing attention to themselves or their families. Residents fear that if they are noticed by offenders they will be seen as being different or weak because they have a job or have hopes for their children. If they maintain some standard of decency or respect for the law or sense of community they will be targeted and their lives will be made a misery.

This may not be the time to analyse what went wrong or why certain areas have become socially excluded but, depending on our beliefs and backgrounds we would probably put forward several reasons. These include a lack of basic employment; the lack of an adult male in the household structure; a lack of discipline and a lack of hope being offered to young people. We have tried various ideas to deal with these problems. In the mid-1980s the £5,000 grant scheme was a godsend to many families, enabling them to purchase private houses and vacate local authority dwellings, but it created other difficulties. It helped to remove many employed people from estates, turning them into wastelands with only those on social welfare living on them.

There are vibrant community activists in some of these areas who are trying to pick up the pieces. They must be helped and resources have to be provided for them. Some people are very fond of blaming local authorities. We went through a spell in the late 1980s when a financial squeeze was put on local authorities. Money has never been ploughed back into them, even with a booming economy over recent years under different Governments. Other Departments and other budget headings have had resources allocated to them but local authorities have not received the money they once had. We must work with these communities and involve not just voluntary community activists. They should be employed either in full time jobs or in many of the job creation schemes available, such as community employment schemes, CORI proposals, jobs initiative or any offshoot of them. We must give hope and employment where there is none. We must take firm action and implement the proposals in this legislation against the worst offenders where they seem uninterested in conforming to the norms of the community.

Local authorities have been slow to take action under existing legislation and that has in some cases been assisted by "do-gooders" and, until recently, left wing politicians. Ten years ago when one talked about trying to evict a family it was often the left wing members of the city council who objected, but that has changed drastically. I accept that over the last five years times have changed and local authority officials, following the combined urgings of local representatives, have taken a firmer line and have commenced a process for legal evictions. They have brought about some evictions to date but unfortunately progress has been slow and the huge delays in processing cases through the courts is a big problem. These delays are most frustrating for local authority officials and for good tenants interested in improving the quality of life in their community.

This seemed to have been accepted by the Department. The first point made in last July's press release announcing this legislation was that consultations would be held with the President of the District Court to have amendments made to the District Court rules and to put in a request for separate District Court sittings to speed up procedures. What progress has been made with the President of the District Court? Currently, it takes a local authority four or five months to get an order from the District Court and it takes as long again if it is appealed to the Circuit Court. A week is a lifetime if one lives close to a tenant who engages in anti-social behaviour. We cannot expect decent tenants to put up with this behaviour for months on end waiting for an order to be processed through the legal system. We must be seen to be speedy and, while I welcome the section dealing with squatters, we must be more urgent in our action in these cases.

There is a growing drug problem, mainly located in a number of local authority flat complexes and housing estates in the greater Dublin area. This legislation is designed to deal with that problem and the anti-social behaviour emanating from it. Provision of treatment centres for addicts and greater Garda enforcement etc. have to be the main planks of Government policy but this Bill deals with estate management and trying to rid estates of anti-social behaviour. More recently, local authorities have tried to grapple with the problem in a concerted way by working with people living in harassed communities.

It is only in more recent times that the idea of estate management has been taken seriously. People now have a better understanding of what it means but in the past some thought it meant cutting the grass. Some community activists saw it merely as a way of taking over control of the budget from the local authorities. That may happen but we all must become involved in a community partnership made up of public representatives, local authorities and community activists.

Progress has been made recently on this issue and the local authority with which I am most familiar, Dublin Corporation, has achieved a great deal in this regard. The plans it is putting in place have enormous potential and more officials are dealing with the complaints of local communities. In the past the perception was that these officials were far removed from the problems experienced by communities, and they had nothing to do but sit in their plush offices.

On the £3 million allocated to the programme recommended by the ministerial task force for dealing with the drugs problem, I hope that allocation will be increased because the task force report stated that eight of the 11 areas experiencing the worst drug problems were in the Dublin Corporation area. Public representatives and officials in the corporation wanted to get their hands on that £3 million and were sorely disappointed at the way it was distributed; the majority was spent on flat complexes. Districts such as Ballymun and certain housing estates will not benefit because that money is being spent in the inner city.

They are getting £100 million.

They are knocking down the Ballymun flats.

This matter was discussed at a local authority meeting last week and there was a perception that the money was being distributed in areas with a Democratic Left representative or potential representatives.

That is totally untrue. It is an outrageous remark.

It was denied.

It was the view of some people.

It is an eccentric view.

I accept £3 million is not a large amount of money and, regardless of how it is distributed, some people will think they did not get their fair share. To be fair, it is not just Members on this side of the House who are unhappy about the way the money was distributed. Some people might be of the view that the Minister of State hoodwinked the Minister while he was distracted by the group water scheme controversy.

I do not hoodwink people. I do not mind banter in a debate but I object to such statements being made in this House. I am not in the business of hoodwinking; I am in the business of trying to sort out extremely difficult problems. I accept £3 million is not sufficient but we will continue to work on it. I resent the suggestion that I would hoodwink anybody.

Will Deputy Ahern acknowledge that the areas funded have severe drug problems?

Acting Chairman

Deputy Byrne cannot interrupt at this stage.

He appears to deny that these areas are experiencing a drugs crisis.

I accept the Minister had a difficult job but there was concern at Dublin Corporation level that some areas did not get their fair share of the money. If the Minister increased the funding to £30 million, local authorities would come forward with worthwhile suggestions to address the overall problem.

This new legislation will allow us issue excluding orders to the worst offenders and thereby rid our housing estates and blocks of flats of people involved in anti-social behaviour. I hope it will be passed, but has the legislation been thought out? I agree threats may frighten these people into behaving but they should not be issued if we cannot carry them out. If the legislation is passed and people are evicted from estates, what will we do with them? Is it right for any public authority to implement a measure without considering its knock-on effects? If a local authority cannot handle a problem in its estates or blocks of flats, how do we expect the statutory and voluntary agencies caring for the homeless to deal with it? Homeless people currently go to the statutory agencies and voluntary bodies who accommodate them in bed and breakfast accommodation or hostels, but if rent allowances are withdrawn, the bed and breakfast option would no longer be available.

The Minister of State will be aware of the resources provided for the unit for the homeless in Dublin; the numbers attending the unit recently increased. Can the existing system deal with an influx of people evicted from estates or blocks of flats? I understand various voluntary and statutory groups working in this area are concerned about the implications of this legislation on homelessness and services for homeless people. As the providers of services for the homeless, some of these agencies are concerned that this legislation will merely shift the problem on to their doorstep and that they are not prepared for the scale on which that might happen.

In recent years, traditional means of accommodation for the homeless, mainly hostels and night shelters, have been developed and given more funding to meet the needs of the homeless. Some hostels have been transformed to provide improved personal accommodation and modern communal facilities. New types of housing projects have also been built. The transformation of older hostels, however, is leading to two somewhat different types of services being offered. The services currently available to the long-term homeless would not be suitable for people evicted from local authority housing. Presumably people who have been evicted will be sent to short-term hostels or night shelters. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that when replying because we may be solving one problem but creating another. Has she considered the ramifications? Where will these people live when they are evicted?

While I am pleased that health boards have been given the power to refuse or withdraw rent allowances from persons evicted, excluded or removed from local authority housing because of anti-social behaviour, the owners of private rented accommodation want to be included under this provision. They do not want the legislation to cover one sector of social housing and not another. The private rented sector forms part of the social housing programme. Owners of private rented accommodation argue that it is not enough to say a person who has been evicted or excluded will not get rent subsidy.

I welcome the provision to withdraw rent subsidy from those evicted from local authority housing. It is unacceptable that a person evicted from a local authority house could rent a house for £100 or more per week and get a rent allowance from another authority. I will table amendments to this section on Committee Stage to ensure that the private rented sector is included.

Civil liberty and legal groups have expressed concern about certain aspects of the legislation. It has been suggested in the media that the new law is contrary to Article 40 of the Constitution in that it gives local authorities the power to deprive people of the right to public housing and financial support. It has been argued that it is unacceptable to deprive people of a home and shelter in circumstances where the facts grounding the decision cannot be tested or verified. This measure contrasts with many other aspects of life where independent appeal mechanisms have been set up to adjudicate on official decisions. It has been argued that, in seeking evictions for anti-social behaviour, housing authorities assess a person's alleged misbehaviour on the basis of secretive, primarily hearsay and untested, evidence and that the persons affected are not afforded the rights conferred by the principles of natural justice. These groups have expressed many concerns, some of which I may not share. I am merely articulating their concerns.

What concerns does the Deputy share?

I am here to represent various groups and to put forward their views.

Who is being secretive now?

Everybody knows where Deputy Ahern stands on this issue.

In withdrawing what are conceived as privileges or benefits from individuals who offend against society, is it more rational to withdraw housing than medical, social or other such facilities? We must consider in more detail the arguments put forward by various groups. I may not agree with some of the information I have before me——

Did somebody else write the Deputy's speech?

Unlike members of other parties, I do not have the privilege of somebody else writing my speeches.

Why is the Deputy hedging his bets?

Many different viewpoints must be considered under this legislation.

While we are united in trying to solve the problems in this area, when putting legislation on the Statute Book we must ensure it incorporates certain principles. I will table a number of amendments in this regard on Committee Stage.

The provisions of the legislation should extend to tenant purchasers. While it may not be possible to apply them to existing tenant purchasers, surely we can include a clause covering new tenant purchasers. A tenant excluded from his or her house under an exclusion order can pretend to live with a neighbour who may be a tenant purchaser. Most serious problems in local authority housing involve people living in tenant purchased houses. Will the Minister of State extend this provision to tenant purchasers?

Who will enforce exclusion orders? Who will report a person for returning to his or her house? I am also concerned about the age of a person who can be excluded under the legislation. Is it possible to exclude 14 or 15 year old gurriers under an exclusion order? Many of them cause mayhem in estates and believe they are immune from the law.

While I welcome the section that deals with information exchange, it must also be amended. It is appalling that up to now State agencies have not been able to exchange information. Local authorities have had difficulty getting information from members of the Garda, some of whom are helpful although others quote the Data Protection Act. This section should be extended so that landlords can obtain information.

While I welcome the Bill, we must endeavour to enact good law.

I wish to share time with Deputy Gregory.

Acting Chairman

That is agreed.

I also welcome the legislation as it represents a further attempt to tackle the awful scourge of drug pushing and peddling and I congratulate the Minister on its introduction. We must get tough with those who use local authority or any other type of house as a base for plying the evil trade of drug pushing. However, as I am uneasy about certain elements of the Bill, the Progressive Democrats will seek to significantly if not substantially, amend it on Committee Stage.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share