Deputy Sargent was in possession, but as he is not present I call Deputy Browne.
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
(Wexford): I welcome the Bill. It goes some way towards dealing with the problems in housing estates. It gives rights to the many thousands of decent law abiding tenants in our communities. It will give local authorities an opportunity to effectively tackle some of the major problems in this area.
The Bill is intended to deal mainly with drug-related problems in Dublin. However, the problem of anti-social behaviour in housing estates and other communities is not confined to Dublin. The same type of anti-social behaviour is a problem in large rural housing estates.
Drugs were mentioned as the source of one of the main problems giving rise to anti-social behaviour. In my constituency there are other major problems including that of young people on motor bikes racing through housing estates at 2 a.m. or 4 a.m. Old cars that are no longer road-worthy are used by young people to terrorise young and old people. They have races through housing estates and are a cause of concern to parents who are worried about the safety of their children and the public in general.
It has always been difficult for a housing officer or a local authority to deal with those problems. This is a worthy Bill. However the problem with Bills that devolve more powers to local authorities is that they are usually not backed up by the necessary finance for local authorities to take on additional staff and to have the wherewithal to put in place the project set out in the Bill. Housing officers in local authorities find it difficult to cope with the additional legislation and the problems arising from the management of housing estates. A housing officer in County Wexford, Niall McDonald, adopts a hands-on approach to all the problems in housing. If he was to work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., he would not be able to carry out his duties properly. Time does not matter to housing officials who work unsociable hours while visiting communities in their attempts to initiate and focus housing operations. Housing officers must negotiate house building projects with the Department, help allocate housing, meet housing applicants and deal with travellers, estate management and housing repairs. Their workload has increased to such a degree that it is almost impossible for them to deal properly with these various problems and issues.
It is fine to introduce legislation which expresses the aspirations required to deal with this problem. However, the Minister of State must make finance available to local authorities to enable them to employ additional staff to deal with specific areas. I am not calling for a wholesale recruitment of staff by local authorities. However, there is a need to deal effectively with existing problems and the Minister of State, in cooperation with the Minister for Finance, should consider the allocation of personnel to specific areas such as housing.
With regard to the role of the Garda Síochána, legislation is enacted by the House and passed on for implementation without the appointment of additional gardaí or the provision of additional finance. Members of the force are in a practically impossible position when trying to deal with the large volume of legislation for which they are given responsibility. That legislation deals with issues which were not relevant ten years ago, such as problems with drug abuse and anti-social behaviour.
With the Minister of State provide clarification in respect of some of the sections of the Bill and how they will be implemented? For example, the Bill states that a local authority tenant will have the 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. That is an acceptable aspiration but who will pay the fees charged by a solicitor or barrister responsible for taking a case to court? The Minister of State is aware that 60 to 70 per cent of those living in local authority housing estates are unemployed. These people do not have the financial resources to employ a solicitor. Will free legal aid or local authority funding be made available to people who wish to apply for an excluding order? Will the Minister of State clarify the position?
Another area to which the Minister of State referred involves stopping rent at source. It would be far better for people claiming social welfare benefits to have their rent stopped at source on a weekly basis by the Department of Social Welfare for payment to local authorities. This is happening in specific and rare cases at present. I believe the Department of Social Welfare is reluctant to become involved in this area because of the problems that might arise. However, it would be of major benefit to local authority tenants. If people do not pay their rent it is allowed to run for between four to 12 months until they build up arrears of £1,200 to £1,500. They find it impossible to pay such arrears because they have no source of income other than social welfare benefits. They then face court orders and eviction.
Members are aware of the emotions which surround evictions and tenants usually put pressure on politicians to ensure that they do not lose their homes. In the case of an eviction, local health boards must pick up the tab and provide housing for the spouse and children of the evicted tenant. It is ridiculous that, on one hand, tenants are evicted by local authorities while, on the other, health boards must pay the price. The children of evicted families have the right to be cared for and not merely thrown on to the streets.
The Minister of State's sentiments in respect of stopping rent at source are worthwhile. This provision should be extended to all local authority tenants who want to avail of it. If people get into difficulties with arrears, the stopping of rent at source should be given immediate consideration. In conjunction with local authorities, the Departments of Social Welfare and the Environment should develop a practical scheme. I believe tenants would welcome it because they could rest assured that their rent would be paid weekly. Every householder wants to ensure that they will not be evicted from their homes. Will the Minister of State give serious consideration to this problem?
Members received documentation from the Franciscan social justice group which is concerned that the Bill may increase the numbers of homeless people. The problem of homelessness is largely confined to Dublin but it is extending to rural areas. The problem is escalating and becoming widespread for many reasons and young people in towns such as Enniscorthy and Wexford are living rough. Will the Minister of State comment on the observations made by the Franciscans that this Bill may lead to a further escalation of the problem? The Franciscans are concerned that, instead of the local authorities and the Departments of Health and the Environment dealing with the problem, it will be loaded on to voluntary bodies and groups. These organisations do not have the financial resources, manpower or accommodation to deal with the problem of homelessness among young people.
With the introduction of a public order Act and the establishment of a section in the Environmental Protection Agency to deal with noise control, etc. I had believed that adequate legislation and measures existed in this regard. However, the local authorities do not appear to be interested in becoming involved in the personal problems experienced by people living in housing estates under their control.
The Minister of State referred to housing estate management. I appreciate that she allocated money which has been put to worthwhile use by various local authorities which drew up priority lists for the upgrading of housing estates. However, this could be made more flexible. The local authority in my constituency has provided new footpaths, roadways and, in some cases, windows. I do not want to say much more about that because I may be overstepping the terms of the provisions set down by the Minister of State.
More often than not, housing estate structures are maintained to a good standard and the local community plays its part by cutting the grass and keeping estates in a respectable condition. However, in most housing estates there are three to four families with eight to ten children who live in overcrowded and unsuitable conditions. The Minister of State must take account of the social problems caused by overcrowding in some houses. In managing housing estates, the local authority should look also at the structure of housing some families are living in and should be given the leeway to modernise and extend them to make them more suitable for large families. In most housing estates, there are not many large families, but in two of the housing estates on which money was spent last year to bring them up to standard, we still could not deal with the problem of overcrowding in two or three houses. The Minister of State must look at all of the problems within a housing estate. In addition to making them look well from the outside, we must deal with the personal problems of families. Allocations to local authorities should be more flexible to enable them to do that.
Although drugs have become a problem not just in Dublin but right around the country, there are other problems that must be dealt with, for example, speeding cars and motorbikes, noise late at night and in the early hours of the morning etc. I welcome the Bill which will strengthen the powers of local authorities, but I would like to know how it will be determined that a family is engaging in anti-social behaviour. Will it be up to the local people to finger those involved in undesirable activities, or will it be up to the housing officer or the Garda Síochána? How can one be certain one has a foolproof case? Few people would want to take on their neighbours in court if they were not sure of winning. In the past it has proved impossible to deal afterwards with families who had been unsuccessfully brought to court by the local authority and their neighbours. The Minister should define what would amount to a foolproof case and who will make the final decision on whether to go to court. Generally speaking, if a complaint is made to a housing officer about a family, he will give them a warning or threaten them with eviction. In rural Ireland at least, that usually brings them to heel. Perhaps the existence of the Bill and the threat of legal action might make people behave more responsibly.
There are problems in housing estates that have to be dealt with. The Minister of State is going the right way about it, but she must provide more finance to local authorities to deal with them. Currently a housing officer and three or four clerical staff deal with all the problems of housing. Perhaps the Minister should consider introducing a scheme such as one which operates in the voluntary sector. I am sure the Minister is aware of the Respond housing operations in the south-east where the management of the housing scheme is operated by the tenants who run a strict regime. The tenants in such a scheme are made very much aware of their responsibility for their own house and their neighbour's, and of their responsibility to collect rent and maintain law and order. In Enniscorthy town we have a very fine Respond scheme. The tenants in that scheme will not tolerate other tenants stepping out of line and that is because these tenants were called together at the beginning and made aware of what the Respond organisation expected of them and the penalties involved. It was made clear to them that the scheme was theirs and that they were responsible for it. Politicians working on local authorities should, perhaps, adopt the same attitude and become more ruthless in dealing with tenants. We should make it clear when houses are allocated that we will not tolerate abuse by tenants of their own or their neighbours' houses.
It should be possible to implement what the Minister of State has in mind. Every local authority has revenue collectors calling from door to door to collect rent, and they would be very much aware of it if a family were engaged in unacceptable behaviour. This should be nipped in the bud and not allowed to drag on so that the people involved feel they have a right to continue with their abuse of their neighbours and their anti-social behaviour. When this Bill is passed the Minister of State should call the county managers and housing officers together and explain to them what she expects from them. The revenue collectors have a major role to play. They are probably the people the Minister of State should speak to first because they deal on a daily basis with the tenants of our housing schemes and can get the message through to tenants that we will no longer tolerate the type of anti-social behaviour that has been prevalent in recent years.
The Bill is a good one, but the Minister of State still has work to do to convince local authority personnel that they need to be more vigilant and concerned, and more caring about the very good tenants that live in our housing estates. She also needs to make more funds available to local authorities to enable them to fulfil the aspirations in the Bill.
This Bill is very welcome because it addresses the very serious problem of anti-social behaviour in housing estates which has been crying out for a solution for many years. It seeks to correct and limit the most appalling misery which a small number of unscrupulous people have visited on those who live beside them. It seeks to address the use of local authority housing estates as a base for illegal drug dealing. It seeks to put an end to the ability of a small group of very well advised gangsters to use a veneer of impoverishment to support illegal activities that they have engaged in from housing estates. It is, indeed, indicative that most of the leading drug barons are local authority tenants, despite the fact that some of them are multimillionaires. The Bill is welcome because, at last, it seeks to address outrage in a meaningful way. It is time we analysed and fully understood the nature of the forces and the personalities that allowed such a ridiculous situation to continue for so long.
The Bill is also welcome for more fundamental reasons. It sets about creating a balance between the rights of tenants in local authority estates and the obligations and duties of these tenants to respect the valuable property they have been entrusted with and to behave in a civilised manner towards their neighbours. I hope it marks an end to the era where those who led opinion did so by advocating untrammelled rights for the individual with no reference to their obligations to their communities and to their neighbours. I hope we have seen the end of an era where those with influence saw fit to constantly harp on about the rights of offenders with near total disregard for the rights of law-abiding citizens to live their lives without fear of intimidation and harassment by people who are simply, in many cases, just thugs and gangsters. Perhaps an illustration or two of the type of realities I am alluding to might be useful. Week in week out people come to my advice centres begging me to intercede with the local authority to get them transferred out of their present dwellings because their lives have been made intolerable by the activities of some of their neighbours. The housing in which these people live is quite good, indeed in some cases excellent. It is centrally located and would be in great demand if the tenants did not have to suffer aggravation from anti-social louts.
Week in week out people tell me of their intense misery because their neighbour happens to be a drug dealer, with all the attendant intimidation and the constant stream of drug addicts seeking a fix and prepared to do anything to get one. Yet, despite their consuming anxiety to be transferred to a drug free zone these tenants are not prepared to give the name of the drug dealer because they are too afraid. Such intimidation dominates their lives and they illustrate their misery with tales of strung out addicts on landings, discarded syringes and accounts of the truly awful behaviour of demented addicts. It is remarkable that it has taken until now for action to be taken to curb such behaviour. The fact that it has taken so long gives credence to the adage that one half of society does not know how the other half lives.
This Bill lays a firm basis to curb the use of local authority housing estates for drug dealing. It prepares the ground to make effective action possible against those who are involved in harassment and anti-social behaviour. It is another clear indication from the Government that there will be no toleration of drug dealing and that every strategy will be used to eliminate it. The Bill accords with the well established principle that careful management of housing estates can contribute to curbing the drug menance.
The Bill is sophisticated to the degree it recognises that in some households the problem may be the behaviour of one or two individuals who are engaged in unacceptable activities. It provides for specific orders to be targeted against those individuals who are a menace to the community without penalising the remainder of the family who may be fine people.
The provisions designed to deal with the intimidation of witnesses are necessary as are those which allow evidence in court to be accepted from the Garda, housing officials and health board officials. Intimidation, including death threats, has been used effectively by those engaged in criminal activity to terrify their neighbours into not giving evidence against them in court or to go to the Garda. The provisions for the efficient exchange of information between the various agencies, especially between the Garda and the housing authorities, are an important step forward. They should greatly improve the capacity of the agencies to confront crime together.
The definition of anti-social behaviour is somewhat restrictive. It is surprising that it does not embrace the concept of zero tolerance of anti-social behaviour. We must ask what level of anti-social behaviour is tolerable and why. Why is damage to property accepted to a degree? Is a signal being given that a certain level of vandalism is acceptable or that the possession of drugs for personal use is acceptable? The Minister of State should clarify these matters in her reply.
The provisions in the Bill which give local authorities the power to refuse to sell or let a dwelling because of evidence of anti-social behaviour on the part of a tenant or a prospective tenant are an important improvement. A clear message must be sent to the minority who, with skill and encouragement from certain quarters, exploit the good nature of local authorities. There should be no hiding place for those who are not genuine in their relationship with local authorities. It is important that the Bill makes provision to sustain that principle.
The introduction of the mandatory deduction of rents from social welfare payments is also welcome and I agree with the points made by Deputy Browne. It was daft that one arm of the State could allow its contribution to the welfare of society to be exploited and to militate against the effective operation of another part of the State's apparatus. The provisions which deal with squatters are necessary and enlightened. The Bill is coherent in its attack on unacceptable behaviour in local authority estates. This is an important message to a small number of people who have exploited the system by squatting to further their sinister objectives. It is essential that no doubt is left that such activity will not be tolerated.
Some aspects of the Bill need further clarification, particularly estate management and tenant participation. I welcome the initiatives taken on these matters but there is scope for further development. It is fundamental to progress in this regard to get the concepts and practices right. It is important that those who seek to exploit tenants' organisations are prevented from doing so. Some people with carefully designed political agendas seek to exploit and manipulate tenants' organisations. It is important to have clear definitions which will work for tenants and their participation in tenants' organisations and participation in those organisations should be restricted to those who live in the defined community. People from outside the area should not be allowed to worm their way into the communities and manipulate events by direct or indirect participation. Unless we can achieve good practice in this regard there will be serious problems in the future.
The capacity of estate managers to carry out their functions will be fundamental to the success of this Bill. The Minister of State should put special emphasis on the need to train managers in the science of estate management. There is great scope for improvement in this regard and a great need for an emphasis to be placed on direct and rapid action to deal with problems. The inability of local authorities to act decisively and quickly lays a foundation for further anti-social behaviour. It is essential that a clear signal is given that anti-social behaviour will be tackled rapidly, effectively and fairly. The Department should convey this message to the local authority officials charged with the management of housing estates. This Bill gives them the tools to do the job and action should be taken rapidly.
One of the main problems in estate management in Dublin city is the perception that the local authority was not able to deal with those who behaved outrageously and there is a good deal of evidence to support that view. Such people were allowed to continue their behaviour while the local authority was for the most part paralysed and unable to respond. Some of that paralysis was generated by the legal framework within which the local authorities work. However, they could have been more vigorous in tackling the problem. I hope the Bill will deal with this shortcoming.
I agree with Deputy Browne on the need for the Minister of State to impress upon those charged with the responsibility of estate management that they have an obligation to see that the Bill is implemented. This Bill is a good step forward and has the potential to improve greatly the quality of life of a large number of people resident in Dublin.
I congratulate the Minister of State on this Bill. She has been one of the more reforming Ministers of State and made a considerable contribution on a number of issues. This is an important much needed Bill. Those of us who represent local authority areas have experienced the difficulties the Bill seeks to address.
I resent this House and the institutions of the State not being able to defend the rights and entitlements of individual residents, particularly in local authority housing estates. We cannot continue to allow elderly people, who have made an outstanding contribution to the State and who have probably reared their families as well adjusted and good citizens, to live in circumstances of great unhappiness. Will this legislation deal effectively with that issue? I am not sure it will. The Minister will be dependent on other arms of the State which, until now, have not been able to respond properly.
That the drugs problem in housing estates is being tackled is good. This Bill will be a powerful weapon to the Garda and the courts in dealing with that issue but it is a small part of the problem in local authority housing estates. The big problem concerns intimidation of people in their homes. It is not associated with drug taking or drug abuse. It takes several forms. For instance, a family may want a house in a particular housing estate for a family member. They will initiate a procedure of intimidation so that the house they want will be vacated. They do not expect to win at the end of a week or a month but they intimidate a family relentlessly. The family ends up in the clinic of a public representative seeking a transfer. Frequently the perpetrators of intimidation succeed in their objective to have the house vacated and then persuade either the letting authorities or vetting committees that the applicant they have in mind should be accommodated. It is unfortunate that has happened. That is one element of intimidation.
Another area of intimidation relates to the infamous gangs of youths who congregate outside individual houses. The Garda say they can do nothing because these youths have not committed a crime. However, the householder concerned lives in fear. Many decent families have been intimidated out of housing estates. This is likely to continue because of the hierarchy of crime the Garda has to deal with. I do not know whether we can do anything about it. Recently, a family who had lived happily in a local authority housing estate, which I represent, for 20 years threw in the towel and left to move into insecure accommodation.
It is necessary to put another incident on the record because those who are not directly affected or are not concerned with either representing or working in these areas cannot comprehend what precisely is going on, apart from the drug issue, which is frequently highlighted for the wider public. It concerns a family who requested and got a transfer within a housing estate. Their lives turned into a nightmare. For three years neither the Garda, the housing authority, the welfare adviser or the Eastern Health Board could solve the problem. The householder simply asked gangs of youths to move away from his property to give his family some peace. That gave rise to tirades of abuse against him, his wife and children as they went about their business and the householder was beaten up on a number of occasions. The family reported incidents to the Garda but in the scale of crime it did not appear that important. The gardaí probably did the best they could but nothing happened to remedy the problem. This is all about the effect of anti-social behaviour on individual families in housing estates. Recently the householder asked the gang to stop tormenting the family cat. A member of the gang took the cat off the wall and threw it to an Alsatian who mauled it to death in front of the family. On the scale of crime that may not seem a major issue but it was for that family. When they reported the matter to the Garda they were told it was not a matter for them but for the ISPCA. That is what we have to deal with in this legislation.
I have given a pen picture of what I consider anti-social behaviour, apart from the drugs issue. Fear is also an issue. Can this legislation deal with this anti-social behaviour? If a gang of 20 sits on an elderly person's wall at 2 a.m. shouting, laughing, drinking, throwing cans and rubbish across the wall, can we deal with that issue under this legislation? We have been in touch with the Garda about it but they can do nothing. They can speak to and discourage the youths but as soon as they leave the youths return and cause havoc for an elderly person living alone. Let us not give the impression that we can solve these issues, through this legislation, if we cannot. This is good legislation but the Minister will be dependent on the Garda, the courts and the local authorities to ensure it can be dealt with.
The concept of an excluding order is a good one because it seeks to pluck from a household somebody who may be causing a problem either in the household or the neighbourhood. That is a good advance and will make a difference.
I am concerned about good estate management. This is a vague term which is open to interpretation. The Minister and I have a commitment to housing travellers. I am concerned the Minister may hand to local authorities and communities a stick with which to beat him. They may begin to quote good estate management as something to be used against accommodating traveller families. I would hate to see that finding any credence in legislation. That is not the Minister's intention but it might be used to put pressure on local authorities to take that interpretation of good estate management.
I will refer to the deduction of moneys from social welfare to make up local authority rents which are not paid. I am surprised the Minister has not gone further and dealt with people in waged employment who have rent arrears. A distinction should not be drawn between social welfare recipients and those in waged employment when dealing with rent arrears. When one considers the position of social welfare recipients, there does not seem to be any justification for people in waged employment to have rent arrears. No distinction should have been drawn in the Bill between them. The provision under which health boards will have their right to refuse or withdraw a rent supplement for private accommodation will be welcomed by those involved in the management of estates and residents.
To what extent does the legislation cover private estates in which the local authority has purchased one or more houses? In cases where a significant number of houses have been purchased by the local authority one could deem the estate to be a local authority one.
This is good legislation but its implementation will be heavily dependent on the support of State agencies. The Bill is welcome in so far as it seeks to improve the lot of local authority tenants, but I question whether it can achieve this for the reasons I outlined. The problem in many estates is at a crisis level and the good and decent residents have lost faith in the ability of State institutions to provide protection for them so that they can get on with their lives with some degree of security and freedom from fear. We will have to wait to see whether the Bill achieves this.
The one point about which I am certain is that if we do not take significant action to improve the environment in these estates and increase the educational and employment opportunities the problems will escalate. The Garda, welfare officers, education officials and teachers in my constituency are extremely concerned about the number of youngsters in some estates who are out of control and slipping through the various nets. By the time many of them are teenagers they are capable of committing serious crimes. A 15 year old youth from a housing estate in my constituency who had been detained in a detention centre for various reasons managed to escape. The local community lived in fear of that individual who had guns in his possession. Yet he was allowed to roam about freely for a week before he was eventually returned to the detention centre. I could give many similar examples to illustrate the serious problems in many estates in my constituency.
This Bill on its own will not tackle the problem. If the Minister does not have the support of the Garda, the local authority and the education authorities in implementing the Bill in local authority estates then she will not make much progress. The Bill is a step in the right direction but adequate resources must be provided if it is to be fully implemented. I will look with great interest to see how it improves the lot of residents of local authority housing estates. I am interested in hearing the Minister's response to these points.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I wish to share my time with Deputy Creed.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome this Bill as a member of Dublin City Council, one of the largest local authority landlords in the State which has housing estates in the county and city. The pressure for this legislation has come from members of local authorities in Dublin and, in particular, the Dublin Corporation housing committee because most of the problems associated with housing estates have arisen in Dublin. Dublin Corporation has responded to this by setting up a housing estate management section. It is beginning to build up a database of cases and this legislation will allow it to tackle this serious problem.
The problem is mainly drug related. This Bill will allow local authorities to target drug related anti-social behaviour in estates in Dublin. A report in the Evening Herald on Friday 14 February referred to the seizure of £10,000 of heroin in a flats complex in Kilbarrack and the arrest of a couple in their thirties. This case is typical of the problem which this legislation attempts to address. The people involved were in prison previously but are still tenants of Dublin Corporation. Families living in the same complex are going through a nightmare as there is constant traffic to and from one flat where people acquire drugs. These families live in terror, with constant fighting and Garda raids.
In the past the corporation has attempted to remedy the situation via the courts. Last week a case was adjourned until May because of legal problems that frequently arise when this type of problem is tackled. In one or two cases, the corporation has successfully dealt with such a problem but it had to do so through other mechanisms. A proposal, with which the Minister of State is familiar, to carry out refurbishment work in the flats complex in Kilbarrack had to be abandoned. The corporation and the Department of the Environment agreed that the complex should be demolished and the people rehoused in standard housing accommodation. However, the problem remains of what to do with those tenants involved in anti-social behaviour.
This Bill will allow the corporation and other local authorities to deal with tenants who have used their accommodation, provided by the taxpayer, as a base from which to trade. Over the past year we have witnessed the anti-drugs campaign, which sprang up spontaneously as a reaction to the inability of local authorities and other agencies to deal effectively with the problems caused by drug dealing and drug addiction. I pay tribute to Operation Dóchas which came into operation late last year and has been very successful. The momentum has to be maintained. The setting up of the Criminal Assets Bureau and the results achieved so far to break up the top layer of drug barons through the seizure of their assets are welcome. Communities affected by the drug scourge and devastated by drug barons strongly believe assets seized by the bureau should be ploughed back into the communities. These resources should be used to provide facilities to train and educate young people and to repair the damage caused by this trade.
It is not exclusively a local authority problem. Drug dealing takes place in the private rented sector and this Bill should be extended to cover it. Private landlords should act more responsibly when renting their properties. At one time prospective tenants had to provide landlords with a reference but that day is probably gone. That was an attempt to prevent anti-social behaviour. I have received reports from constituents who have been kept awake at night because of fights, drug dealing and other forms of anti-social activity.
I welcome the section which allows for the exchange of information between health boards, local authorities, other agencies and in particular, the Garda. Local authorities will be able to collect evidence to enable them to deal with anti-social tenants. The absence of such a provision in the past has been a severe handicap. I also welcome the provision dealing with the collection of rents from people who receive payments from the Department of Social Welfare. Dublin Corporation receives £25 million in rent annually. Its last report listed rent arrears of £5 million which is 20 per cent of annual revenue. In the past some categories of social welfare recipients were able to pay their local authority rent through a budget system. That scheme was limited and I welcome the fact that it has been extended. It will allow those who fall into arrears through bad housekeeping or budgeting to pay their rent through the social welfare system instead of rolling from one financial crisis to another or receiving eviction notices or ending up in court.
I look forward to the early enactment of this legislation as it has been in the pipeline for a long number of years. It will result in better estate management and will improve the image of local authority estates which have taken a bashing. A previous speaker referred to social integration policy which is a hot potato in my constituency as I am sure it is in others. People who examined local authority estates and saw these problems unfairly associated the problems with local authority tenants. This has led to a resistance to the policy of social integration. The sooner we have legislation in place that allows local authorities to get tough with people who use local authority housing to engage in criminal behaviour, the sooner we will have a better housing estate management system. We will then be in a position to improve the image of local authority housing estates.
I welcome the Bill which is a measured response to a problem that afflicts not only large urban estates but every urban and rural parish. Those who believe it is solely an urban problem are seriously mistaken. I represent one of the most rural constituencies and it has a serious drugs problem. Deputy Kenny referred to recent drugs finds in his constituency that were reported in a local newspaper. Two weeks ago cannabis resin to the value of £500,000 was found in my constituency. The drugs problem affects everybody and the Bill seeks to address it as it manifests itself in a particular area.
The hallmark of the Government's policy in this regard is recognition of the threat posed by drugs to our communities and the adoption of a multifaceted approach to address it. This is not stand alone legislation but part of an intricate web of measures the Government has put together to provide for intervention at appropriate stages through the education and health systems and the allocation of additional resources to the Garda.
I welcome the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau headed by Barry Galvin. Almost on a weekly basis we hear about the assets of drug barons being targeted and seized by the CAB. These criminals have acquired lavish lifestyles on the backs of drug addicts and their pushers and it is heartening to see progress being made in this area. The drug barons are being hit where it hurts most — in their pockets. I favour targeting the resources seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau on communities that have been most affected by the drugs problem.
To a certain extent we are now reaping the reward of poor local authority housing planning over the past 20 or 30 years. The hallmark of local authority housing, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, was an almost ghetto-like concentration of persons of the one socio-economic class in communities with high levels of unemployment, little motivation and even less community spirit. These communities were easy targets for drug pushers. It is interesting to note the methods used by some of the more high profile drug barons in recent times. Many of them identified these areas as easy pickings and acquired, through various means, local authority houses to use as bases to peddle their trade.
I welcome the change of emphasis in local authority housing plans. The plan for social housing published some years ago by the then Minister for the Environment, Pádraig Flynn, moved significantly away from the excessive concentration of large local authority estates and changed local authority housing policy in a way that will make it more difficult for this type of problem to arise in future to the extent it has in some of the older estates.
It is important that this legislation is not used as a big stick by the local authorities but we must encourage tenants in their own communities to avail of it. They will feel intimidated on occasions and may not wish to avail of it but we must empower those communities to take steps to protect their own interests. It is heartening to see what is happening in Dublin in particular where local communities are standing up to drug pushers in their areas.
In availing of this legislation it is important to ensure there is as much consensus in terms of approach as is possible. The "them" and "us" attitude that existed in the past between local authorities and their tenants will not arise if action is taken under the provisions of this legislation. The Bill represents a challenge to local communities and to individuals in so far as they must be responsible for their own acts and face the consequences if those acts fall foul of the provisions of this legislation.
I have some reservations about the Bill which may be unfounded, and perhaps the Minister of State might address them when replying. Concern has been expressed that we may be solving problems in local authority housing estates but creating others in the private rented sector. It is important that persons identified as engaging in anti-social behaviour and who, under the terms of the Bill, have been excluded from local authority estates cannot avail of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to obtain rent subsidies from health boards and move into private rented accommodation where they can continue to peddle drugs. That is passing the problem from one community to another. That concern is widely shared, particularly by landlords in the private rented sector.
The sharing of information will mean that owners of private rented accommodation can find out from local community welfare offices if a person seeking supplementary welfare allowance towards the cost of private rented accommodation has been excluded from a local authority estate. That sharing of information is essential.
I welcome the definition of "anti-social behaviour" in the Bill which is drug related only. The point raised by Deputy Flood is valid in that there is a danger the provisions of the Bill may be used to discriminate against travellers in particular. There is often hostility in local authority estates towards members of the travelling community who are accommodated in their areas. If the definition of anti-social behaviour was not as focused as it is in the Bill, it might be availed of in certain circumstances to discriminate against the travelling community.
I welcome the Bill. The Government has introduced many measures in its response to the drugs problem and this is another essential element of that response. I compliment the Minister of State on her foresight in that regard.
While I welcome the principles of the Bill, I have reservations about its constitutionality and the rights of individuals under Article 40 of the Constitution. Under the legislation local authorities will have the power to go to the District Court for an exclusion order to exclude mainly drug dealers from their homes. I would prefer if resources were given to the Garda under the Criminal Justice Act so that the people concerned could be dealt with effectively in the courts and put behind bars, if space is available for them in our prisons. That would be a much more effective way of dealing with such people.
The Minister of State stated that this is the first Government to seriously address the drugs problem. That puts a question mark over the credibility of the rest of her contribution. It is not true that this is the first Government to seriously address the drugs problem. If I were a member of the Government I would be slow to make such a statement. It addressed the problem last year — one and a half years after coming into office — after voting down nine Bills introduced by the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Justice, Deputy O'Donoghue. In a knee-jerk reaction to the appalling murders of Jerry McCabe and Veronica Guerin, the Government accepted most of what our spokesperson had asked it to accept the previous year.
Why did the Deputy's party not introduce those measures before 1994?
A great deal was done before 1994. As Minister of State in the Department of Health, Deputy Flood introduced many measures in this area. Some of the measures introduced by Deputy O'Donoghue are now on the Statute Book.
Why did the Deputy's Government not introduce them before 1994?
They could have been on the Statute Book two years ago if the Government had accepted them when they were first introduced.
When people are excluded from their homes for anti-social behaviour, is some State agency not obliged to house them under legislation on the homeless? When local authorities evict people for non-payment of rent, the health boards are obliged to step in and it can cost a great deal more than keeping them in local authority housing. Some families have to be put up in hotels until the local authority finds alternative housing for them. What will happen to a person who is rendered homeless under this legislation? While I presume people have a right of appeal to the courts, have they a right of appeal to the Minister? Each of the 88 local authorities applies its own standards.
On 29 January 1997 I tabled a parliamentary question about a person whose marriage had broken up and the family home — a local authority house bought through the tenant purchase scheme — had to be sold. When the house was sold the woman concerned had approximately £1,000 and no home for herself and her child. The local authority was not prepared to place her on the housing list because she had got a local authority house in the past. The reply from the Department stated it was a matter for each local authority to assess housing need and to make a scheme of priorities for the letting of houses under sections 9 and 11, respectively, of the Housing Act, 1988. The reply also referred to the guidelines issued to local authorities in this regard. The woman concerned had no comeback other than to go to the courts. Most women whose marriages break up do not have the necessary resources to take a matter to court and free legal aid is not easily available. It is important that the legislation we enact is enforced in a proper manner. It is not sufficient for a Minister to state that issues of fundamental concern are a matter for local authorities. I am sure all Members would agree that people should not be prohibited from putting their names on the housing list merely because they have been housed by a local authority in the past.
I welcome the section dealing with the right of a local authority to deduct rent from social welfare allowances. It should not be necessary to evict people for non-payment of rent for a local authority house. Some 83 per cent of people in local authority housing are in receipt of a social welfare allowance. Under some social welfare schemes rent could be deducted from payments and every tenant in a local authority house should be given the option of having their rent deducted in that manner. The payments could be transferred to the relevant local authority and it would not be necessary for people to collect rent each week.
Many tenants would like their rent deducted in this way. There have been court cases in my constituency for non-payment of rent to the local authority. A deserted wife in receipt of approximately £110 per week who was evicted from her home would have loved to have her rent deducted from her social welfare allowance. She had difficulty managing her budget because of the number of children she had. While I welcome the section that deals with this matter, the Minister should given people the option of paying their rent in this way.
As in urban areas, problems such as marginalisation are experienced in some estates in rural Ireland. The Bill deals with the physical management of estates and I would ask the Minister, under peace and reconciliation funding, to select flagship projects to improve estates — for example, in areas where people are reluctant to take houses and where houses are boarded up. That funding is specifically earmarked for social inclusion, and to provide for one major flagship project would be of more benefit than paying out small amounts of money to various projects. The objective should be that by the year 2000 any of us in this House would be glad to have our name on the housing list for those estates. That issue, which is a major problem in cities and urban areas, should be addressed by us as legislators. To the extent that funding is available under the peace and reconciliation programme, and with the focus on social inclusion, the Minister should talk to ADM and the Combat Poverty Agency to see if it is possible, even by way of a pilot project, to revitalise and raise the standards of estates.
It is 27 years since health boards became independent of local authorities, a move which I supported. In that context one area that needs to be addressed is care of the elderly. In some cases health boards believe that because people in local authority houses have a roof over their heads they need not be concerned about them, while local authorities believe that people in psychiatric hospitals and homes for the elderly, even thought they may be ready for discharge, are already housed and are not a priority. There is need for greater co-ordination and integration of services in providing care for the elderly. That is an issue that must be addressed in the coming years because the number of elderly people in society is increasing repidly while the number of young people is rapidly decreasing. Traditionally, families have taken on the role of carers, but that position is changing. That issue must be addressed. The Minister should consider the adoption of an integrated approach to care of the elderly — I refer specifically to the role of local authorities and health boards. If this were a health debate I would have much more to say on the matter.
I welcome the Bill as part of a package of measures to tackle the growing drugs and crime problem. While I commend the Minister for the speed with which she has acted in this important area in the past year or so, a crisis has developed as a result of widespread neglect of local authority estates during the tenure of successive Governments. Many local authority estates in the Dublin area have become ghettos and no-go areas. There are many reasons for that. There has been lack of proper management of those estates for many years. While I put the blame squarely on the local authorities concerned for their lack of priority in estate management, there has been lack of support from the Department of the Environment in prioritising this matter and supporting local authorities who wished to take action on it.
This problem is symptomatic of the neglect of poverty stricken areas, principally local authority estates. There has been a lack of political will over the years to tackle problems relating to poverty such as unemployment, lack of education opportunities, poor housing conditions, poor design of local authority estates, lack of infrastructure and facilities and inadequate funding of services by local authorities. Some local authority areas have been well maintained while others have been virtually ignored for years.
To listen to Deputy O'Hanlon and some of his colleagues talk about the number of Bills they tried to introduce last year one would imagine the problem could be dealt with by legislation alone. If that were the case the drugs and crime problem would have been solved a long time ago. This complex problem must be tackled on various fronts. Substantial investment is needed in education, health services and training as well as housing. People should not try to hoodwink the housing. People should not try to hoodwink the public in terms of the mountain that must be climbed to come to grips with the drugs and crime problem.
My remarks are not directed at the present Minister or at the Department of the Environment. This is a multi-faceted problem, part of which results from inadequate policing of the areas concerned. If the Garda had been more pro-active in dealing with anti-social problems, the present crisis would not exist. The attitude adopted by the Garda is similar to that adopted by local authorities, where there is one service for middle class areas and a different and inadequate service for poorer areas. I have seen the Garda react differently to problems in middle class estates and those in local authority estates.
There has been failure to tackle problems affecting local authority estates. An example is the problem of roaming horses which emerged five or six years ago. There was no political will to tackle that problem and it was impossible to get a hearing from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry or the Government in general. While legislation has been introduced recently in this area, it has not been implemented yet. In my constituency roaming horses destroy green spaces, school and church grounds and so on.
It has now become established practice for young people to own horses and to keep them in their gardens and elsewhere, which is dragging down the local authority estates. This is an example of a problem in local authority estates which could have been tackled earlier but which was ignored for so long that we now have a crisis which will be difficult to deal with. A similar problem with juveniles driving stolen motorbikes and cars over open green spaces was also ignored. We have a mountain to climb in trying to come to grips with the crime and drugs problem in local authority estates.
The sense of lawlessness in most local authority estates, particularly in Dublin, is demoralising for the vast majority of people who are trying to live peaceful lives and to rear their children. Neglect by Government has led to a great sense of hopelessness and helplessness among law-abiding tenants. It is difficult to defend the record of previous Governments in this regard. As other Deputies said, those of us working in the Dublin area are inundated with pleas to arrange transfers out of estates which have become intolerable because of the level of lawlessness and drug dealing. People want transfers to quieter areas which are not as badly affected so they can live in peace with their families. It is difficult to represent these people properly when we cannot get a proper hearing at official level.
I welcome the introduction of this important legislation. We need to adopt the carrot and stick approach. Because this problem has reached such proportions, we need to take a hard line on drug dealing and general anti-social behaviour among local authority tenants in order to protect the rights of the vast majority of law-abiding tenants.
Greater emphasis has been placed on estate management in recent years and this is a welcome development. The key to improving local authority estates is to empower the tenants to play a greater role in the management of their estates. Otherwise, people who are or have the potential to be good community leaders will give up on their areas and ask Deputies to get them transfers to other estates. This has happened in too many estates. We need to put more resources into providing training for tenants organisations. Local authorities must focus their attention on the importance of estate management. In the past many critical decisions were made at local authority level without any reference to the people affected by such decisions. There was no tradition of consulting with tenants about what was best for their areas. However, we are gradually realising that those living in local areas are the best people to advise on how to proceed in relation to the type of structures needed to deliver good management of local authority estates. We need to put more resources into the development of estate management.
I look forward to discussing the Bill in more detail on Committee Stage. The provision for exclusion orders is welcome. We are all familiar with the situation where an individual is involved in anti-social behaviour or in drug dealing, but the local authorities are slow to evict them because there may be a partner and children living with them. I am glad local authorities can now remove the individual concerned from the home while the rest of the family, who are often living in fear because of intimidation, can remain in the house or flat. However, I am concerned that this does not get to the nub of the problem. I am familiar with a growing problem of young men involved in the drugs trade who have no fixed abode. Some local authority areas have many lone parents who are vulnerable and who are living on the margins. They are often targeted by people involved in drug dealing and offered money in exchange for allowing an address to be used or a dealer to live in the flat or house while he carries on his trade. Many of these people are not registered for rent. We need to tackle this problem which is bigger than the use of exclusion orders suggests.
As regards evictions, too often local authorities have concentrated their efforts on people with big rent arrears. There is no doubt that rent arrears in the Dublin Corporation area are out of hand. Many people are in serious financial difficulties as a result of bad management and they often have rent arrears of £2,000 or £3,000 before the local authority takes action. We should not evict people solely on the grounds of rent arrears. While recent developments are welcome, such as the setting up of MABS, I would like rent deductions from social welfare payments to be extended to anyone on social welfare. In addition, this Bill should allow the Department of Social Welfare to put an order on somebody's payment when their rent arrears are £300 or £400, before they get into serious difficulties. Local authorities should be able to step in at an early stage.
The provisions for the exchange of information between different agencies are important, but do they go far enough? The Bill states that local authorities may request information. However, it will still be difficult for the gardaí to pass on information about a person's record. We should consider including a separate clause in the tenancy agreement under which prospective tenants would give their permission to allow information to be exchanged.
Health boards are obliged under law to provide a rent allowance to those who are unable to provide accommodation for themselves or obtain local authority housing. This is a source of much concern in certain areas and the health boards in general — I am a member of the Eastern Health Board — are getting a bad name as a consequence, although they do not have any role in policing the arrangement. Under the Bill they will have the right to refuse to provide a rent allowance to those who have been evicted from local authority housing. The Bill should be extended to allow them to refuse to provide a rent allowance to existing tenants in the private rented sector who are know to be engaged in drug dealing and anti-social behaviour.
On housing policy, the details of this year's allocations under the house building programme were announced in recent days. There is a need to rethink, particularly in the Dublin Corporation area, whether it is right to continue building new houses to a high standard when there are local authority estates which have become no go areas. We should consider transferring funds from the house building programme to the estate improvement programme to bring every housing estate up to an acceptable standard to allow tenants to live in peace and quite. Many of these estates are of poor design. The "no man's land" between estates is a breeding ground for anti-social behaviour.
I welcome the allocation of £3 million announced recently by the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, to tackle the drugs problem. Dublin Corporation is to receive £1.25 million of this which it will match from its own resources. It is essential, however, to accelerate the programme of improvement works if law and order are to be restored in local authority estates.
No policing or estate management programme will solve the problems in Finglas South in my constituency where there are estates to which one cannot gain access by road and where, following construction, mounds of rubble were left and seeded which now provide a perfect playground for those on motorbikes and people with horses as well as hiding places for those engaged in drug dealing. There is a need to rectify these design problems if we are ever to resolve the general problem of lawlessness.
The provisions in the Bill dealing with squatters, some of whom are engaged in drug dealing, surprise me. Squatting should be classified as an anti-social activity. It is a source of many problems in the Dublin area.
I welcome this overdue Bill and I look forward to dealing with its many provisions in dealing on Committee Stage.
I welcome the Bill. A few months ago the Minister of State advised the select committee of which I am chairperson that she would deal with this problem.
The matter before us is, in many ways, one of the most difficult issues we have had to face for some time. On the one hand, nobody can deny that anti-social behaviour by neighbours is making life miserable for large numbers of people throughout the country. Most individuals and families have enough problems to deal with, in terms of finance, employment and health, without having to put up with constant aggravation from one or more neighbours. It is almost impossible to over-estimate the potential of persistent anti-social behaviour to inflict serious and sometimes permanent damage on innocent parties.
On the other hand, as we strive to improve legislation to deal with anti-social behaviour, we must adopt a prudent approach and ensure that the basic human rights of all individuals are protected. In other words, we must take every possible step to ensure new provisions are fair, effective and feasible. Therefore, any changes to local authority housing legislation must maintain the delicate balance between the rights of each individual to a peaceful and non-threatening environment while at the same time making sure the law is not used to unjustly victimise individuals who are seen to be social misfits.
I have every sympathy with the Minister of State as she addresses this sensitive issue because the many problems of anti-social and criminal behaviour are being further aggravated by the menance of illegal drug usage. The drugs problem has given us not one but many groups of individuals with the potential to create enormours social disturbance and upset. The drug barons and dealers, without the slightest sense of human compassion or care, use the absolute misery of the drug addict as a direct route towards personal advantage and financial gain. They are without the slightest element of pity or consideration for their many victims. Far more numerous, we have the ever increasing number who have destroyed their lives as a result of developing a drug addiction. Most of them have almost lost their sense of self-preservation or respect and simply live for the temporary physical life which they can get only from a drug fix.
Three extremely worrying trends are evident in relation to the drug abuse problem. Drugs seems to have become more widely available by the years. A few short years ago one tended to associate the selling and use of drugs with a relatively small number of outlets, mainly in our larger cities, but it now seems that drugs are available almost on demand at many events such as discos which are attended by the vast majority of our young people. This is an appalling scenario.
The variety of available drugs is ever on the increase. In recent times, our health and social services seems to have been almost totally overrun and are not capable of dealing fully with even a fraction of all drug abusers. The all important integration of the efforts of the different agencies of State seems to be missing, which is a tragedy for all concerned.
It is good idea to tackle a single troublemaker who may cause misery for a number of people and families. The victims are often the most vulnerable, the elderly or young women living alone or with their children. However, there is a major danger that the Bill will withdraw all support from those who are proven troublemakers. This is a clear recipe for adding significantly to the numbers of homeless on the streets. We must find new and effective ways of dealing with people who have major difficulties and cause this kind of disruption in the community.
There has been major social change in Ireland and, unfortunately, much of it has not been good. I agree with many of the points made by Deputy Shortall. She may be critical of previous Governments, and we can all be critical, but the issue is much wider. We have sought this legislation for a long time. It is important that when the Bill is enacted there is hope for the people in the communities affected by the current situation.
Last week two young women came to my clinics to tell me of their experience of intimidation and abuse in the community. A husband and wife with three young children were at breaking point because of the conduct of neighbours. We all know about it. It has gone on for a long time. We must tackle the problem and, therefore, I welcome the Bill. At the same time, we must remember that these problems exist due to neglect, social exclusion, bad planning over the years and the fact that people have been marginalised. We have spoken about them for many years and I am sure the Minister of State spoke about them when she was in Opposition.
I am critical of the way local authorities build houses. In one instance we built 600 houses without a shop, a church or a school. I understand that some of these things must follow but in the initial stages if a person wanted an aspirin or a bottle of milk he had to go nearly half a mile down the road. That was the result of planning which was before our time in public life and we are now paying dearly for it.
In making these points, I am very conscious of the rights of the individual. While I am in favour of giving more power to the local authourity, we must not lose sight of the role and the responsibility of the Garda. The case of an elderly person who lives alone comes to mind. The person has terrible problems with people who live on the floor above. This woman's life has become a pure hell because of these problem people who were moved there by the local authority. I have been in contact with the local authority but what can they do except talk to them? Effective action is What is needed in such instances. I know I am not talking in a vacuum because most Deputies who contributed have said likewise.
Huge resources must be invested in the estates. The open spaces which were to be used for recreational purposes and the alleyways are all now being used by the drug pushers and people engaged in anti-social behaviour. People come to us regularly complaining about young people congregating in the alleyways. They drive motorbikes and cars stolen in other parts of the cities and taken to these areas. There must be a co-ordinated approach and I share the concerns expressed by others already.
Estate management which was mentioned is very important. Houses and flats were built many years ago in an area in Mayfield, Cork, to respond to the housing needs of the day. In the short time that I was a Minister with responsibility for this area, I initiated a new development for this area, I initiated a new development there and it is being continued. Many people are looking to this legislation to solve these problems.
Every Deputy has stated that 99 per cent of people in those communities are excellent tenants and neighbours, and I accept that. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable that such a large number of people seek transfers because of a small element of troublemakers. We must ensure this Bill, while giving protection to those who may be affected, sends out a clear message that troublemakers will be taken on once and for all and removed from the community in which they have created the problem. People must not continue to live in a hell for the rest of their lives because of troublemakers. The local authority says hundreds of people are seeking transfers because of them and they cannot agree to them all. It is unacceptable for this House to allow that situation to continue.
Aspects of the Bill can be teased out on Committee Stage. I hope at the end of the day the Bill will reflect the need in the community and give hope to the families and people who are suffering torture because of disruptive tenants or unsocial neighbours.
This is a difficult and complex Bill. The Minister of State has tried to do something in the context of the urgency particularly with regard to the anti-social behaviour associated with drugs as defined in section 1 (1) (a).
There is a presumption that the crisis is only in urban areas. A 20 year old girl from a midlands town in my constituency was the subject of blackmail 12 months ago. As a result and in the context of a relationship, she was recorded on video which was shown to these horrific operators who enjoy a quality of life which is unparalleled in the legitimate professional areas. She had not disclosed the matter to her family because of the fear. She was used for seven or eight months before she eventually went to the Garda. Shortly afterwards, the persons, on whose behalf she had been required to leave for Dublin by train on a Friday evening and go to the Botanic Gardens and the Phoenix Park to collect drugs for distribution in the midlands, threatened her verbally and, subsequently, one of her suppliers accosted her as she walked home. She was stabbed and had to have nine stitches. That is not a rare occurrence. That girl comes from a stable background and a respectable area. Through no fault of hers she was involved in very anti-social behaviour. That example illustrates there can be major difficulties in defining and establishing what is anti-social behaviour, particularly when the courts are excluded from a role beyond that provided in section 3, which gives them a certain authority.
There is a presumption in the Bill that people who are anti-social come from a certain area and social class; that they may be tenants in a county council estate. The Bill does not acknowledge that many successful people involved in the drugs trade come from well to do areas, live in big houses and have a quality of lifestyle that is above and beyond that enjoyed by the middle or wealthy classes. The poor can be forced into anti-social behaviour and criminal activity, but we should not tolerate that behaviour simply because people are poor. Protection of people and their property is enshrined in the Constitution but we must be careful to ensure that people are not forced into homelessness because of their anti-social behaviour. I am sure that is not what the Minister intended.
Section 1 (1) (b) states that anti-social behaviour is any behaviour which causes or is likely to cause any significant or persistent danger, injury, damage, loss or fear to any person living, working or otherwise lawfully in or in the vicinity of a house provided by a housing authority. Who defines what is significant, persistent or a danger? Will those accused of such behaviour have a right of appeal? A definition of anti-social behaviour is often based on the opinion of a person who does not have professional training. Section 3 deals with excluding orders. Under that section there is an advantage in that one must go to court to apply for an excluding order in the same way as one must go to court to apply for a barring order. I remember the debate on that legislation because I was Minister when it was introduced.
This Bill is intended to mainly address the drugs crisis. However, there are many other anti-social behavioural problems. We see children begging on the streets, but because of the difficulties faced by gardaí in dealing with them they often have to leave them there. Boys and girls are involved in prostitution, many of them to feed a drug habit. Prostitution, soliciting and importuning are illegal but young people sell their bodies to obtain money to buy drugs. They may walk quietly, and almost respectfully, back to their council estates, nevertheless their behaviour is anti-social. Local authority officials can decide their behaviour is anti-social and evict them from their homes. These matters are of grave importance. Those engaged in a drug promotion campaign here are the fat cats.
The Bill should consider anti-social behaviour in a wider light. We have been proud of our athletes over the years. I do not recall any of them undergoing random tests that showed they were drug users or abusers and that is to their credit. However, some rock bands that have come here in recent times have published their support of drug use and abuse. Those rock bands play to large crowds for which planning permission is now required. Members of rock bands should subject themselves to random tests to establish if their behaviour is anti-social, otherwise much behaviour is desguised. There will be an opportunity to consider the Bill in greater detail on Committee Stage. We should not diminish the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens in favour of something that is not properly defined.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Boylan.
Acting Chairman
That is agreed.
I compliment the Minister on this excellent Bill. Many local authorities have waited a long time for such legislation to come before the Dáil. I have been involved in the local politics since 1979 and members of local authorities are aware that problems in most towns are caused by anti-social behaviour, some of which is drug-related and more of it is not. Local authorities have not had the power to evict tenants who engaged in anti-social behaviour and their neighbours have had to put up with all types of disturbance, including late night music, parties, etc.
People, irrespective of where they came from, who were given a council house, say, 30 or 40 years ago had respect for their homes. Many fine families were reared in council houses. I was reared in a council estate in Father Angelus Park in Westport and I am proud of that. There are 40 houses in that estate. I should not give away my age, but I was the first baby born in that estate.
Acting Chairman
They might name it after the Deputy.
At a later stage, I hope. Speaking as an auctioneer, I can tell Members that the houses in that estate are selling for £60,000. That is because the tenants had respect for their homes, their neighbours and the general community from the day they moved in.
Westport is a beautiful town and it attracts many tourists, some of whom, when they see the beautiful scenery, decide they want to live there. I hope at a later date the Minister might introduce legislation on how local authorities allocate houses. They do their best with the procedures in place. A points system does not operate in my constituency. Housing officers in my area consider most people on the local authority housing list are entitled to houses, but sometimes the present procedure is not fair because local people do not live in poor accommodation. In the past people from other towns, cities and countries have lived in caravans in the Westport area — I am not speaking about itinerants. They know that local authorities will provide houses in the near future and move into accommodation which is in bad condition. Often we do not know from where these people come but they are housed nonetheless. Local people then discover that they cannot obtain housing. They must move their families into alternative accommodation, which is not as bad as that occupied by the first group, and pay high rents. This problem must be given due consideration.
In the past I raised the issue of rent arrears with my local authority. I am glad the Minister of State made provision in the Bill to allow people to pay their rent from their social welfare benefits. This should be extended to those whose rent is not in arrears but who wish to pay it that way. It is very important that people feel secure in their homes. However, it sometimes happens that those experiencing financial difficulties will not pay their rent because they live in local authority housing. Therefore, it is a good idea to deduct rent at source because local authorities often experience difficulties with people paying rent. People should pay their rent and, to be fair, local authorities make every effort to assist those who attempt to pay rent arrears. The section of the Bill dealing with deduction of rent at source by the Department of Social Welfare should be implemented immediately.
It is time to reconsider the amount of money —£10 per person, 25 per cent of which is paid on rent — people are allowed against their rent by local authorities. This should be increased. People who receive and increase in social welfare benefits often lose it when their rents are assessed. It is wrong that people who receive a social welfare increase of £3 to £4 to purchase clothes or shoes for their children should have to pay £2 of it to the local authority. Will the Minister of State ask the local authorities to increase the amount? It has stood at £10 since I became a member of my local authority and it should be increased to £15.
This is an excellent Bill and I compliment the Minister of State and the Government on its introduction. The Minister of State recently visited Westport and opened three beautiful housing estates, each of which offers accommodation on a per with that seen in private estates. An auctioneer would have no difficulty selling those houses. Taxpayers provide the money to build such houses and it is right that tenants respect them. However, we should deal with anyone who abuses a local authority house.
The local authority in my area has a major problem with people who, for various reasons, move out of the houses it provides and leave them in such a state that it costs £20,000 to £25,000 to repair them. The Bill should include provision to prosecute people who destroy local authority houses, which are public property. We should deal with people who do not respect their homes or damage them. It is time that legislation was introduced in this regard and consideration should also be given to the issue of people on social welfare who decide to live in isolated areas of County Mayo, having holidays there. Such individuals benefits from a good social welfare system and they like to live near the sea. I call on the Minister of State to look into this matter which is becoming a problem in Westport.
For many years there have been calls for legislation to deal with anti-social behaviour. Other Members stated that drug abuse is no longer an urban problem and I confirm that. On Monday last, local radio news reported a major seizure of ecstasy in Westport. I compliment Superintendent Malachy Mulligan, Sergeant Willie Keaveney and Garda Hyland who visited schools in the area to advise young people not to use drugs. A message has gone out that drug abuse will not be tolerated in our town. We must deal with this problem.
Excellent legislation was introduced during the past two years in respect of the problem of illegal drugs. This matter was debated by the House last week in connection with prisons and legislation introduced by the Government, which identified and dealt with the problem. Past Governments were aware of problems with drugs, housing and other issues but they did not deal with them. The Minister of State has come to grips with the problem of housing and introduced some excellent schemes.
The majority of local authorities experience difficulty in purchasing land to build houses. Legislation must be introduced to prevent developers making quick bucks by buying such land and building houses on it. Westport, Castlebar and other towns have experienced problems with major developers because the property market is buoyant, the economy is booming and there is no difficulty selling houses. People are now in a position to buy two or three houses. Local authorities cannot compete with the major developers in respect of purchasing land. There is a need to introduce legislation to provide that a certain proportion of property for sale should be made available to local authorities to build housing.
Like other towns, Westport has a housing problem. However, the construction of 100 houses in County Mayo was announced earlier in the week. Major funding has also been made available for social housing schemes in Castlebar, Mulrany, Claremorris and Kiltimagh. This is good news because people will be removed from the housing list when these houses are built.
The Minister of State has a great understanding of her brief and is aware of events. This is an excellent Bill and I am sure she will consider any changes which might be required on Committee Stage.
My final point relates to the lack of green spaces provided in certain local authority housing schemes which has caused many problems. Such spaces must be provided for children to play football, etc., when they come home from school. I understand that this cannot be achieved in respect of urban housing schemes but legislation should be put in place to ensure that green spaces are allocated to major housing estates.
The Minister of State has done well and she should keep up the good work. She understands this area and has dealt with many of the problems discussed by local authorities in the past. I have no doubt that she will return next year to complete her work.
Hope springs eternal.
I compliment the Minister of State on introducing this important Bill. I accept her bona fides in this area but perhaps the focus of the legislation is somewhat narrow because it might appear that we are focusing our attention on one section of the population. This is a widespread problem and it is as prevalent among the middle and upper income groups as among those on social welfare.
I congratulate the Minister of State on the quality of housing that has been designed and built by local authorities since she took office. The quality of such housing was always good but there have been improvements in design. Local authority houses were always straightforward in construction — four walls and a roof. However, beautiful designs are now utilised and the use of brick and other modern materials developed in this country have enhanced the appearance of these houses. So much so that one often cannot distinguish between local authority and private houses. In many cases the local authority houses surpass those built by private developers.
I live in Cavan town and my local authority hopes to invite the Minister of State to open a development of two-storey, red brick houses before the general election. Strangers inquire who the developer is and whether the houses are for sale. That is a welcome change and the people who are allocated those houses will take pride in them. It is only fair to say that the great majority have been good tenants but, as in all walks of society, there are some abusers. In this modern decade, abuse takes the form of drug abuse, drug pushing and using homes as a base for business without obtaining planning permission. We can deal with that in the context of council housing, and I would make no apology for turfing people out on the side of the road if they dare to use what has been provided by the State as a base for peddling drugs or for any other anti-social activity. I fully support the granting of any powers that are necessary to deal with that.
People also get involved in other activities such as dealing in scrap or timber. To the annoyance of their neighbours they use their front lawn or back yard. They may repair cars on the side of the street and cars are parked not only in front of their own house but are lined up in front of their neighbours' houses. It is only a small number of people who do this, but it causes annoyance, anger and rows, and must be stamped out. We have the means of dealing with that in this Bill, and I fully support it.
Good people sometimes have difficulty in managing their income. Many couples would like their rent deducted from their social welfare payments. They would know then where they stood financially; the rent would be paid and they could live on what was left. It should be possible to bring in a provision to enable that to be done.
We frequently read in the papers about people from middle and higher income groups, and some very well known high society people, being brought to court for drug abuse. They are obviously somebody's neighbours and are engaging in this activity. If it can be proven that those people had a housing loan from a local authority, and it would be easy enough to prove, the loan should be called in. That would be a way of getting at those people who would dare to abuse the privilege of a loan they received from the council to set up a home and use it for a purpose for which it was never intended.
The other side of the coin is that a planning permission states exactly what it is for. The planning permission for a house states that it shall be used as a private dwelling and for no other activity. Anyone who wishes to set up a business in a private house has to apply for planning permission for change of use. If, for instance, a person sets up a panel beating business without planning permission, he will be served with a notice from the planning officer, and if he does not heed it and close down the business he will be brought to court. Activities like drug peddling are a dirty illegal business, worse than an illegal panel beating business or shop. They are in contravention of the planning laws and should be dealt with in that context. People have told me that their neighbours are causing a nuisance and want to know if there is anything the State can do. The Garda Síochána can be called in, but they are often powerless to do anything. However, if it can be proven that their activities are in contravention of the planning laws, it should be possible to broaden the base of this Bill to deal with the matter.
There are many fine families living in local authority houses — Deputy Ring was proud to state that he came from a local authority house — but, as in all walks of society, there are bad apples and they must be dealt with no matter where they live. They should have no place in this country to ply their evil trade. This Bill is a start in dealing with the problem. There is a concentrated effort to stamp out drug pushing and people are helping the Garda Síochána with information.
There was a major seizure of drugs in County Cavan. I join in complimenting Superintendent Jack O'Connor on his marvellous work. The drug problem exists not only in large cities. As the Garda Síochána move in on them in the large urban areas, the people involved in the drug trade move to the country hoping that their activities will not be detected and that they can draw younger people into abusing drugs. I am delighted that on this occasion the Garda were able to nip this in the bud.
I again compliment the Minister of State and I look forward to her visiting my county. Given all the invitations she has received, she will be very busy, but she is obviously a very popular Minister who is doing a good job. The quality of housing being built under her stewardship is commendable. Long may her good work continue.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.
The purpose of the Bill is laudable and it should help local authorities to deal with difficult situations. However, even before it gets off the ground, legal questions arise. I am sure they will be dealt with by the legal eagles in due course.
Estate management should begin before any building takes place. In planning large housing estates we should first provide shops, health facilities, a Garda station, etc. We went wrong in the past by building large housing estates without putting in proper services. When problems arose the Garda Síochána and other facilities were not near at hand to deal with them. In small communities everybody knows everybody else, but it is now common not even to know one's neighbour.
It was interesting to hear how different types of anti-social behaviour can arise, and how people try to acquire a second or third house in a housing estate by intimidating their neighbours. This is common not just in the city but throughout country areas. If people want to get a house for their son or daughter they harass their neighbours by having noisy parties with loud music, throwing rubbish on to their neighbour's property and engaging in other types of intimidation. It is not an answer to transfer the neighbour to another estate. We must tackle the problem head on and deal with it without fear or favour.
Halting sites are also a problem. Is it fair to put a halting site beside an estate in which people have lived for a long time? This problem must be looked at from the point of view of the settled community as well as that of travellers. Settled people must be consulted. I do not believe halting sites are the answer in many situations. Many people are now of the view that small group housing estates would be a better solution because of the possibility of having health, education and other facilities near at hand. There is plenty of money for halting sites. The Minister should think again and consider the settled community. It takes years to develop a proper community and it would be unfortunate to upset communities at the stroke of a pen, especially at a time when a lot of money is available to local authorities for such developments.
I praise the provisions on the attachment of money from social welfare allowances. Perhaps the Minister of State would go a step further and tackle those who have incomes and are in arrears of rent. Everybody should be seen to pay their way to at least some degree. Waiver arrangements exist and the local authorities always consider cases of hardship sympathetically. However, the attachment provisions are welcome because it is difficult to accept that people may spend money on frivolous times but will not pay rent arrears to the local authorities. The provisions to deal with squatting are also welcome because it presents problems for local authorities. Any measures to assist the local authorities in this regard are praiseworthy.
Another problem which arises concerns people who move out of local authority houses but retain a legal hold on them. They often leave the houses in bad repair and they cannot be used by other tenants. Perhaps legislation should give the local authorities powers to repossess houses which are not properly looked after and to reincorporate them in the housing stock.
The Bill has good aspects, although it may encounter some legal difficulties. I hope it will not leave people homeless and, thereby, exacerbate one problem by tackling another. The resolution of local authority housing and tenant problems requires an interdepartmental approach.
This Bill highlights starkly the differences between the ideal and the real. The Bill's ideals are shared by us because we have experiences of anti-social behaviour in estates. However, I am not sure of the definition of anti-social behaviour and its consequences. If it refers to dealing and using drugs and the consequent problems, we are at one with the Minister of State. However, if the definition seeks to go beyond that there may be problems with the constitutionality of its interpretation.
Every year millions of pounds are spent on repairs to local authority houses. Why? Have good management practices been put in place by the local authorities in question? When a person is offered a tenancy there are conditions to which he or she must agree. Do the local authorities carry out their functions in good estate management? In the past the person who collected the rent from the local authority tenants could report on houses that were not being properly looked after and constructive action could then be taken to avoid further decline.
It can take six to nine months for a local authority to repair houses after tenants have left. There are no obligations on those tenants who leave houses in bad condition, some of whom buy new houses. The Minister of State should communicate with the local authorities to find out how they are performing their functions as they have abrogated their responsibilities. Valuable resources are wasted carrying out repairs and valuable income in rent is lost on properties which are empty and prone to further vandalism.
It is laudable to take action against people who misbehave but the Minister of State should reconsider the definition of anti-social behaviour. She should also consider the effects of the Bill. Its provisions require very little proof or evidence and much of that can be based on subjective hearsay. For example, a person in an estate may be considered to be involved in anti-social behaviour which may amount to no more than idiosyncrasies which are not to the liking of his or her neighbours. If a residents' group reports the person to the local authority it may take action on the basis of that evidence to remove the person from the tenancy. However, that person may be mentally deficient and need the support of other community services.
There are about 5,000 homeless people and if the anti-social behaviour definition is applied to the extreme many more could be added to that number. It is possible that families could be divided if, for example, a husband is acting in an anti-social manner and separated from his wife and children. Is that not detrimental and anti-social in itself? We must examine the consequences of the steps being taken by legislation.
At a conference in Dublin a local authority housing officer spoke on how this Bill would be dealt with. I was concerned it was indicated that housing officers would rely on information gleaned from the residents in estates. Residents' associations could provide such information. It could also be provided by vigilante groups who, although they are well intentioned, are subjective in the views they may express to the manager. Is the manager to take action on the basis of something that is subjective rather than objective?
I refer to the legal and constitutional issues that may arise. Article 40.3 of the Constitution states: "The State ...guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right".
In the landmark decision in Ryan v. the Attorney General in 1963 the issue of the unspecified personal rights arose, in so far as it was claimed that the right to bodily integrity was a specific personal right latent in the general expression. It was held by the High Court and endorsed by the Supreme Court that the personal rights which may be invoked to invalidate legislation are not confined to those specified in Article 40 of the Constitution but that they include all those rights which result from the Christian and democratic nature of the State. In the further High Court case Mr. Justice Kenny cited a papal encyclical in support of his argument that the guarantee in Article 40 is not confined to the rights specified in it but extends to other personal rights, such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care and the necessary social services — the rights which are necessary and suitable for the proper development of life.
When this is combined with the general spirit of the Housing Acts, 1966, 1988 and 1990 which embody a commitment to the provision of housing for those in need, it creates a framework within which the local authority must operate. The Housing Act, 1988, also defines a homeless person. Its provisions enable housing authorities to secure a range of suitable accommodation for homeless persons and to alleviate homelessness as far as possible. The Bill appears to be contrary to the spirit of existing legislation and the Constitution. It was drafted in response to the issues identified and the recommendations of various interested parties under the housing management initiative, set up by the Minister. An extract from its report states:
Anti-social behaviour will be carefully defined so as to focus especially on drug pushing and related activity, including serious anti-social behaviour, such as violence, threats, intimidation or coercion. It will not, therefore, cover all forms of anti-social behaviour and for the purposes of general housing management however a wider more inclusive definition should be used by the authorities.
It further recommended there should be a co-ordinated multi agency approach to dealing with problems of anti-social behaviour.
In the Bill the term "anti-social behaviour" has been loosely defined. It includes a wide range of behaviour which may or may not be related to drug dealing. There is no provision for an alternative means of dispute resolution. Eviction exclusion orders, which should be a last resort, appear to be the only option. The explanatory memorandum describes it as forming part of a wider range of measures being undertaken by the Government to deal with the issues of drugs and related crime.
The Bill attempts to regulate the behaviour of local authority tenants by imposing severe sanctions on those who are believed to behave in an anti-social manner. While the new legislation is important — we welcome part of the response to the issue of drugs and related crime — it does little to affirm the role of local authorities whose function is to provide housing for those in need. Generally the regulation of anti-social behaviour is a matter for criminal law and not appropriate to civil law. While a case may be made for society to have available to it protective measures, such as exclusion orders, these measures should be capable of being applied to all citizens in special and defined circumstances. The Bill imposes severe sanctions which are applicable only to local authority tenants. Surely this constitutes an unfair and unjust attack on the rights of local authority tenants?
There are general concerns about the Bill. The standard of proof required in respect of anti-social behaviour is particularly low and applicable only to local authority tenants. The definition of "anti-social behaviour" is much wider than anticipated. The provisions of the Bill, combined with existing powers for local authorities, can serve to remove all access to housing. Those on low incomes who have obtained local authority housing on the basis of need can be evicted and, effectively, thrown on the voluntary organisations to deal with them. The local authority can go back over a number of years if it considers the person is or has been engaging in anti-social behaviour. It is possible that people may have been involved in anti-social behaviour but the time span needs to be examined.
The Bill provides a narrow range of punitive legal sanctions, including eviction orders and the removal of entitlement to rent allowance. There should have been a much wider range of options. I ask the Minister to examine other options of dispute resolution before eviction is considered.
This legislation is an important and practical measure to deal with one of the problems of the day. I wish to refer to exclusion orders and compulsory deductions in respect of housing authority rents. In relation to exclusion orders the Minister began by saying that, broadly speaking, the Government is tackling the drugs problem. In the past, successive Governments have adopted various measures and proposals to deal with the drugs problem and I am certain that Governments in future will do the same. This is a problem which affects all parties. It is over and above politics and all parties must support the necessary measures, otherwise we will not find solutions.
I realise we are getting near an election. The Minister began by saying that this Government is the first to seriously address the drugs problem. Which problem? There are a series of drugs problems. It is a good PR statement but please let us get away from that in relation to drugs. Let us have a responsible attitude to one of the most pervasive and dangerous problems that face youth, especially in areas of great disadvantage. The Minister is familiar with those areas and sympathetic to dealing with the issues arising in areas of great disadvantage. No one or two measures and no division between people will help in tackling this problem. If we are to tackle the problem in areas of great disadvantage we need project teams who will tackle the different issues. We are slowly achieving this. The difficulty is not a lack of funding as the Government and its predecessor provided funding for health board programmes but rather securing the co-operation of local communities. Regardless of the number of officials appointed or laws in place it will be impossible to wipe out the drugs problem without the support of local communities. We must start at the bottom, by which I mean local communities, and work upwards. Public servants in all sectors must work with and support communities in their areas and not merely visit them from time to time. All the indications are this co-operation will pay dividends.
This is not to take from the work being done by the Garda, health board officials, local groups, health boards and local authorities. These bodies find it difficult to deal with the problem on their own and I appeal to the Minister to ensure a co-ordinated approach at all levels. Otherwise we will only fool ourselves and will not solve the problem. I make these points on the basis of my experience in this area. Regardless of the statements made or the number of officials who visit areas to see the problem at first hand, we will not solve the drugs problem in areas of intense disadvantage without a co-ordinated approach which has the support of the Government and all the parties involved. Measures to deal with educational deprivation and other types of disadvantage must be implemented at the same time. Some schemes and measures are a step in the right direction but we must ensure they eliminate problems so that they do not emerge again six months later. The Government and its predecessor invested much money in child care and in the implementation of the Child Care Act. However, one still sees a small number of children begging on the streets of Dublin, while others are involved in prostitution. How can these problems still exist when millions of pounds have been allocated to deal with them? The same applies to the drugs problem, which is why project teams must be set up in communities. Children involved in drugs normally have a long history of deprivation and disadvantage. The different aspects of the problem must be tackled and the only way this can be done is by the establishment of project teams. If necessary the public servants on these project teams should be paid extra or rewarded on the basis of what they achieve. If they are to properly tackle the problem they must live with it until it is solved.
The public is aware of the measures being taken to deal with this problem, yet it still sees evidence of it on the street. Many of the housing and economic problems have been dealt with but many more problems still need to be tackled. This Bill is only one of the measures needed to help the Garda and local communities deal with this problem. If one person in a flat complex deals in drugs he can take over the entire complex and put the other residents through so much torture that they leave. Law and order does not prevail in such cases. I was involved in an experiment where local gardaí carried out intensive policing outside and inside a flat complex over a period of six months. There was virtually no problem during that period, after which the gardaí were deployed to other duties. It has now been decided to demolish the complex. This will probably make it easier for the gardaí to deal with the problem but it represents a defeat for those people who believe in democracy, development and good housing estate management.
The exclusion order may seem draconian but it is necessary to deal with people in flat complexes who are involved in drugs. Previously entire families were evicted because of the actions of one person. The eviction of an entire family meant that the local clergy and teachers could no longer help the other children who sometimes also became involved in drugs. The exclusion order will be very helpful to Dublin Corporation and other local authorities which deal with these problems on a daily basis. Difficulties arise in terms of where these people subsequently go, but one must be able to take the necessary action. Communities affected by drugs will very much welcome this measure, which also covers people who engage in anti-social behaviour.
Section 16 amends the Social Welfare Acts to allow for the deduction of local authority rents at source from social welfare payment where arrears exceed a certain level or are unpaid for a certain period. The amount deducted cannot exceed the weekly rent payable. I would be very worried if it could exceed it given that local authorities and landlords always want their money in a hurry. There are measures to allow for such deductions on a voluntary basis and they have been successful. A method of dealing with these problems which suits everybody involved has been built into the system and if there are outstanding issues they can be dealt with. It strengthens the position of local authorities and helps to deal with poverty. Questions were raised when this was introduced on a voluntary basis and the record will show that members of the Labour Party and Democratic Left questioned me comprehensively about it.
Community welfare officers, rent supervisors of the local authority, organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent De Paul and others helped to solve the problem. It was found that with a budgeting approach the outstanding problems were isolated. When a budgeting approach was not used everything was a problem and nothing was kept in order. When people tackled problems using a budgetary approach they saw what was needed and could do their jobs better. The money advice and rent deduction systems have worked well.
I am wary of this proposal because a compulsory power will be given to local authorities to make deductions. There should be consultation with the groups involved before a compulsory power is agreed to ensure we do not allow something the Minister of State does not intend. It is a question of linking this compulsory power with the community welfare officer and the budgeting system operated by the Department of Social Welfare. It is wise for the Minister to place an upper limit on deductions.
The explanatory memorandum points out that the operation of these arrangements, including the circumstances in which the deductions may be made, will be subject to regulations made by the Minister for Social Welfare after consultation with the Minister for the Environment. When the regulations are drawn up it may be possible to tie in everything.
The Bill allows health boards to refuse or withdraw supplementary welfare assistance towards private accommodation in the case of persons convicted, excluded or removed from, or refused local authority housing, due to anti-social behaviour. It gives health boards a degree of control. Unfortunately, it is necessary. I agree with the Minister on that. These measures should not have been brought in ten, 20 or 30 years ago, as has been suggested, because the same problems did not exist then. At that time, we had transfer orders, leases and ground rents which were supposed to control behaviour on estates.
Most of these measures are gone and as a result there is severe anti-social behaviour restricted to particular areas to a large extent. However, that is a subject for separate debate on the current operation of the social housing policy. Certain communities are concerned about the operation of this power and while all parties support it, its operation needs to be examined.
I welcome the measures. Questions have been raised about their constitutionality but our learned Attorney General can sort those out for the Minister. These are good, practical, important and immediate measures to tackle problems in estates, especially in Dublin, where drugs are a problem. The exclusion order, in particular, will help those interested in solving these problems.
(Laoighis-Offaly): As a member of two local authorities I welcome the Bill. This legislation has been needed for years. I am satisfied it will be applied with sensitivity and care but it is necessary to restore a balance in the right of people to housing and to live in peace and expect their neighbours to make an effort to live in harmony with them.
Will the Minister examine the lack of protection for long-term residents of, for example, mobile home parks when considering this or subsequent legislation? It affects a small number of people but I have come across two serious problems in my constituency. Many of the people involved are Irish who have retired here from England on the basis of advertisements placed in Irish newspapers in Britain. There have been great advances over the past two years in controlling conditions and protecting tenants in private rented dwellings but the people in mobile home parks do not fall within the protections already enacted. They buy or rent a site from the owner of a park and return to Ireland on the basis of advertisements which guarantee them peace, security and various types of back-up in their retirement. A number find that what has been promised is not available and they have no redress in law to follow it up.
I have followed one case for the past year. We tried in the first instance to get the local authority to use powers under current housing legislation to enforce minimum standards and conditions and to ensure registration of such properties. We found legislation did not allow the local authority to do that. We were then referred to the Environmental Protection Agency in regard to noise regulations and the Director of Consumer Affairs to see if the advertisements through which these people were first attracted to sites could have been deemed to be false advertising. We followed these tangents to try to get some relief but none was forthcoming. It is not a huge area of need but I expect it to increase as our elderly population grows. I know the Department is reluctant to give any recognition to temporary dwellings but in these cases the dwellings are long-term; many of them are in better condition than some houses in similar areas. I ask the Minister of State to examine the needs of these vulnerable people and ensure they are afforded the same protection as people who live in standard rented housing.
I thank all the Deputies who participated in the debate and appreciate their support for the Bill. The fact that the debate was so comprehensive is an indication that housing is an important part of the daily lives of our constituents, some of whose communities are facing serious problems including drug dealing and other anti-social behaviour which is clearly defined in the Bill. It is also clear from the debate that this House is sending out a clear message to drug dealers that their activities will no longer be tolerated. We are also sending out a message of hope to communities currently in the grip of heroin.
I outlined the reasons for the Bill in my opening contribution. It is not a panacea for all the ills people are experiencing but part of a strategy to deal with the drugs crisis affecting, in particular, estates in our cities. One element of that strategy is the question of estate management which applies not only in these communities but in all local authority estates. Estate management was referred to by many speakers and it is an aspect of housing policy to which I am committed and wish to see developed in the future.
Deputy Woods made the point that we can only succeed in this strategy if we have true partnership and co-ordination between the statutory agencies and local communities. That is the fundamental principle upon which our approach is based. We must have unity of purpose and the unity of purpose displayed in this debate will enhance the possibility of our succeeding in the fight against the serious problems facing communities.
I want to address some of the concerns raised and the hypothetical implications of some aspects of the Bill. A number of Deputies were concerned that the definition of anti-social behaviour was too broad and that at some time in the future these measures might be used for unintended purposes. The definition of 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 is being used to intimidate or threaten. It also avoids vague concepts such as nuisance which could be taken to include issues such as playing loud music late at night.
Deputy Quill suggested that the problem of anti-social behaviour be left to the operation of the criminal code, a point echoed by other Deputies. Those involved in anti-social behaviour may be subject to sanctions under the criminal law, but criminal proceedings are not primarily the answer to the problem this legislation is designed to address. To take that approach would be a betrayal of local authority tenants by local authorities and a cop-out on our part. It is essential that effective measures are available to protect the rights of tenants by dealing speedily with the problem rather than depending on the threat of prosecution. Tenants are looking to local authorities to uphold their rights to the quiet enjoyment of their estates.
Some Deputies voiced concern regarding the possible constitutional or civil liberties implications of the measures. Most legislation is likely to involve some degree of intrusion into individual freedoms, but the key consideration is to strike a balance between individual rights, whether enshrined in the Constitution or elsewhere, and the public interest. The peaceful enjoyment of one's home is a basic civil right. The legal issues in the Bill have been carefully considered in my Department and by the Office of the Attorney General in its drafting. The provisions are limited to specific circumstances and are designed to address clearly identified problems.
Deputy Noel Ahern expressed concern that the Bill would result in wide-scale evictions and extreme pressure on the agencies providing accommodation to the homeless. That is not the case. The Bill will not make any change in the fundamental legal provisions relating to repossession of local authority houses under the Housing Act, 1966. More importantly, the new measures will be used sparingly. They will apply only to serious activities and used only as a last resort. Local authorities do not have any vested interest in evictions. The deterrent effect of the Bill is possibly its most important attribute. It is important to bear in mind that those excluded under the Bill will have considerable resources available to them; some will have used their local authority dwelling as nothing more than a base for their drug pushing activities.
In relation to the exclusion order, we must ensure that where the last resort is taken and an individual is excluded from a household, the remaining members of the household will not be evicted. That is a protection to ensure unnecessary numbers of people are not evicted if such a course is adopted by a local authority. I want to allay people's concerns in that regard and point out that considerable progress has been made under the homelessness initiative to ensure the service is streamlined, that it is meeting a need and is supported both financially and in terms of good administration.
Deputy Ahern also raised the question of delays in the court process including the question of amendment to the District Court rules and arrangements to speed up proceedings in the District Court. Section 2 effectively amends the District Court rules to provide 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 currently the case under provisions in the court Acts and the District Court rules. This will help to address a major delay local authorities experience in dealing effectively with tenants engaged in anti-social behaviour where such tenants refuse to accept the service of summonses by registered post and the local authority is forced to go back to the court.
On the question of speeding up access to the District Court, administrative arrangements are being pursued with the District Court to ensure cases involving alleged serious anti-social behaviour get priority in court lists. A weekly sitting of the District Court already deals with Dublin Corporation housing cases, and all aspects of court procedures affecting local authority housing cases generally, such as court sittings, listings, districts, appeals and related matters, will be kept under review. Other measures to reduce delay in the court process are already in place including the increase in the number of judges and support staff announced by the Government last July.
Deputy Ahern also raised the question of tenant purchasers. That matter is dealt with in section 13.
Deputy Lenihan queried the basis on which the consent of a local authority is required for the resale of a tenant purchase house. The statutory basis for this is section 90 of the Housing Act, 1966 as inserted by section 26 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992. The sale of a house to a tenant by a local authority is subject to certain statutory restrictions; the house must be used as a normal place of residence and should not be resold without the consent of the local authority. These conditions generally apply for 20 years after the original sale of the house. Under section 13 of this Bill the housing authority, in circumstances where consent is required, can refuse such consent where, for example, the tenant purchaser is a drug pusher.
Deputies Lenihan and Ahern raised the question of appeal procedures. The Bill provides for extensive appeal procedures including appeal against variation and quashing of exclusion orders. Decisions on social welfare allowance will be subject to the Department of Social Welfare's appeals system. Moreover, all decisions by local authorities are subject to a range of accountability procedures, including judicial review, investigation by the Ombudsman, general supervision by the Department of the Environment and, most importantly, oversight and policy control by the elected members who play a crucial role in ensuring fair treatment by local authorities.
Deputy Haughey raised the question of tenants giving evidence in proceedings. Section 20 provides that the courts may accept statements by gardaí or officials of the local authority or health board as evidence of anti-social behaviour. This will mean tenants will not have to appear before the courts and is an important protection because of the serious incidents of intimidation in this regard in the past. In some cases the courts have in practice accepted evidence from an official of the housing authority or a garda, but it is desirable to provide statutory backing for this as practice can vary widely and such evidence may be challenged as hearsay. Local authorities that have been reluctant to take cases relating to anti-social behaviour because of the danger to witnesses will now be in a position to act.
Deputy Lenihan questioned the making of interim exclusion orders on an ex parte basis. As he acknowledged, the interim order procedure is designed to deal with emergency cases and making interim orders on an ex parte basis is justified in that context. The Domestic Violence Act, 1996 contains a parallel provision and it is a matter for the courts to ultimately decide on the seriousness of particular circumstances.
Many Deputies referred to estate management, a key issue in resolving problems on estates. I have already provided funding for pilot schemes to develop estate management programmes and this has enabled tenants to participate in the management of their estates. I have also provided training for housing officials and urged county managers to adopt a new approach to estate management. This approach is bearing fruit. I am pleased Dublin Corporation has accepted this challenge and is making great progress.
Deputy Browne referred to the question of additional resources. The Bill was introduced as a result of requests from local authorities and in itself is a resource to enable them to act properly, effectively and in a targeted manner. He also raised a question of legal costs in exclusion order cases. The provisions that apply to free legal aid in the Domestic Violence Act will also apply in this case.
Deputy Flood queried if house purchases by local authorities are covered under the legislation. I am pleased to confirm that is the case. He also proposed that an attachment of earnings should be produced before making deductions for rent arrears. Unfortunately, this could be a slow and costly procedure and would not facilitate prompt intervention. I hope the other points raised can be dealt with on Committee Stage.
This Bill is a necessary measure designed to protect communities and it incorporates a good balance since we must ensure that people's rights are not unduly affected. It is a product of practical experience. It was introduced to deal with the difficulties faced by communities and local authorities in trying to resolve problems. Some Members referred to the old days when the elderly were respected and the young protected. In those days the challenges were different. The TB epidemic destroyed the young, the vulnerable and the poor. Heroin is now destroying the young, the vulnerable and the poor and we must ensure our legislation meets that modern epidemic. The response of Members to the strategy outlined by the Government and the approach incorporated in the Bill reflects a unity of purpose inside and outside the House to meet that challenge.
Question put and agreed to.