Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Noel Ahern. Amendment No. 3 is related and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 3 together, of that is satisfactory. Agreed.
Private Members' Business. - Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996: Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 22, after "1997" to insert "or a tenant purchase house still being paid for or under effective control".
I am asking in this amendment that the provision be extended to include tenant purchase houses as well as tenant houses. If the provision is confined to tenant houses, the Bill may not be as effective. I know of several estates where more than half the houses are tenant houses. I am aware also of a particular tenant purchase house which, in the eyes of the local people, is the source of a great deal of anti-social behaviour. The teenagers living in these estates are very mobile and it is difficult to know which house they are living in. I fear that some may pretend to be living with their friend up the road in a tenant purchase house and the local authority will be unable to do anything about the matter. The excluding order procedure should apply also to tenant purchase houses. It is not as if such a house becomes a private house like any other private house when it is first bought by the tenant, with the local authority having no control. Permission must be sought from the local authority for the sale of such a house even years after it was originally bought out by the tenant. In that context, and for this Bill to be effective, it is essential that this section be amended to provide for the application of the excluding order procedure to tenant purchase houses.
I am unable to accept these amendments which would have the effect of applying the excluding order procedure to persons who purchased their houses under a tenant purchase scheme. A tenant purchaser owns his or her house. The advice of the Attorney General is that any proposal to extend the measures in the Bill to owner occupiers beyond the extent allowed for in sections 14 and 16 raises legal and, possibly, constitutional issues that are quite different from the issues that arise when a local authority owns the house.
Under section 14 local authorities will be empowered to refuse applications for tenant purchase and, in certain circumstances, applications to resell a tenant purchase house in cases of anti-social behaviour. This will address Deputy Ahern's concern. From now on local authorities should have a means of refusing to sell a house where the local authority is aware of anti-social behaviour.
The application of the excluding order procedure generally to existing tenant purchase houses is simply not feasible. Apart from these legal, and possibly constitutional, difficulties to which I have referred, there are also serious practical objections. First, it could have the effect of extending the scope of the excluding order provisions to a very large number of additional houses, many of which were purchased a long time ago. It would be wrong to expect local authorities to exercise control in relation to anti-social behaviour in the case of these houses. That would be totally outside the scope of their housing management functions which is the context in which the measures under the Bill are formulated and will operate.
Deputy Ahern's amendment attempts to deal with the problem of drug pushers moving not only into tenant purchase houses but into private houses. I know of one estate where six drug dealers have moved into private houses, some of which were purchased by the Corporation for the people concerned; that is a separate problem about which the local authorities are increasingly concerned. Having established residence in a community, drug pushers may not immediately push drugs in that area but will do so in an adjacent community. This practice is fairly extensive now because of the crackdown on anti-social behaviour in certain areas by the Garda Síochána.
These people are driven out, but that does not necessarily mean they are driven from the city centre to the suburbs. In my experience it means being driven from one estate to the next. They are moving down the road, staying clean, so to speak, and appearing at least semi-respectable in the area where they now live, but at the same time they are pushing drugs in their old community.We may rejoice in the fact that they have been evicted in the first instance, but they move only a small distance away and work from there. Deputy Ahern wants to extend the powers of the corporation, and that is something communities want because they are worried and at times desperate, about this issue and what could happen to their children.
A tenant purchase house is still under the effective control of the local authority. We welcome the provisions in the Bill which will be helpful. I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in the context of the powers that can be exerted in this area. However, it is something we have to address. It may mean that more time and consideration need to be given to this issue, but it remains an important issue not only in respect of tenant purchase houses where the local authorities still have some control but also in respect of private houses and corporation houses that have been sold on.
Deputy Ahern is trying to stop the plague of drug abuse and the sale of drugs and stop people hiding in communities and distributing drugs. He is concerned that when they are identified, they should be got out by legal means because there are many who would try to get them out by other means. Most Deputies have attended mass meetings of residents and concerned parents, where the control exercised by the Garda Síochána was very slight, the situation became exceptionally difficult and people were in no mood to hear about law and order, even though we had to maintain law and order and do our utmost to support the Garda in the circumstances. There is a danger that if we do not find solutions people will take the law into their own hands.
I do not know if the Minister of State has witnessed mass marches at first hand or has experienced the frightening and threatening atmosphere that results. When one experiences that, one sees how passionate people are about drug abusers, dealers and suppliers. In most cases we are talking about the middle men, those pushing drugs from a house within an estate. We must find a way to deal with this problem. I am familiar with a new estate into which six drug pushers have moved from an adjoining local authority estate. While we are delighted they have moved out of the local authority estate, they will continue to supply their drugs to that estate from a convenient location nearby. Because of the general layout of housing in local authority schemes rented, tenant purchase and private houses will be built side by side and we must prevent drugs spreading from one to the other.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendment tabled by Deputy Ahern she should at least recognise it was tabled as a result of experience. While the measures in the Bill are worthwhile and supported by all parties in the House, much more needs to be done. Will the Minister consider these practical points?
I welcome the Bill but I am not clear as to the purpose of this amendment. Perhaps I did not understand the points made by Deputy Woods because I represent a different type of constituency. I understand a march took place some months ago in his constituency, but I doubt if he supported it. Residents of a private estate were protesting about a house the corporation had purchased for a decent family who got priority on medical grounds. The family had just moved into the house. If I am correct in stating that a Member of the House participated in that march, he should be ashamed of himself.
Drug dealers are buying houses in private housing estates with their ill-gotten gains, but there is no provision in this Bill to deal with such people. Those in private housing estates want to vet local authority tenants who move into their estates, but they do not want to vet those who produce £80,000 or more in cash to purchase a house. Fortunately, legislation dealing with the seizure of assets will deal with such people.
Deputy Woods may be referring to the fact that when the corporation evict an individual or family involved in drug dealing, the health board supplies them with a house, frequently in a private estate, and subsidises the rent. Unless the Bill has been watered down — I am not a member of the committee dealing with it — it will deal effectively with that difficulty. I agree with Deputy Woods that this is a problem throughout the city.
Tenant purchasers usually get approval to purchase a house only because they have an income. Drug dealers do not have incomes which the corporation would recognise. The type of drug dealers with which I am familiar would not have an ordinary worker's income and, therefore, the question of them purchasing their houses would not arise. Corporation tenants who buy their houses should not be treated differently from others who buy houses. If Deputies Woods and Ahern want to introduce draconian measures whereby people can be thrown out of their houses irrespective of where they live, it is beyond the scope of this Bill. There may be a background to this amendment about which I am not familiar, but I have a good deal of experience of the type of difficulties to which the two Deputies referred and they are adequately covered by the provisions of the Bill.
It is important that Members are clear about the purpose of the Bill. It improves the powers of local authorities in cases of anti-social behaviour. The Deputy may not have examined the Bill adequately. We are not talking about a comprehensive strategy to deal with all forms of drug dealing. The Government is dealing with that much wider strategy in different forms of legislation. This Bill focuses on local authorities which have responsibility for local authority housing, irrespective of whether it is in private estates. Under section 3 persons who live outside a local authority estate can be excluded from the estate if they engage in anti-social behaviour. An excluding order can prohibit the respondent, for the period during which the order is in force, from entering or being in the vicinity of that house or any other specified house or being in, or in the vicinity of, any specified housing estate. That provision deals effectively with the concerns raised by Deputy Woods. We must ensure the legislation is workable, legal and constitutional.I am familiar enough with this problem to convince the Deputy this is the correct procedure and his amendment is not acceptable or workable.
I am disappointed the Minister has not accepted my amendment. In tabling it I sought to address a problem in this area. The problem does not relate to houses being bought by local authorities in private estates. That is a different issue. Approval for that measure was given in 1991 under a Fianna Fáil Minister for the Environment and that basic strategy was developed since then. We have had arguments and discussions in other places about the price local authorities should pay for private houses. The price to be paid for such houses should be controlled. At another forum I voted that the maximum price to be paid for such private houses should be £65,000, but I know Deputy Gregory would like local authorities to buy such houses at £150,000 or £200,000, and maybe he has a point.
Deputy Gregory understands this problem, although it would not arise in inner city flat complexes because a tenant cannot buy out an inner city flat. I am talking about housing estates, whether in Finglas, Cherry Orchard, Coburg Place in Sheriff Street, Gallanstown or another such area in which there is anti-social behaviour. We all know such behaviour is not confined to local authority tenants. In many cases and, in one with which I am familiar, the source of the main problem in an estate is a tenant purchase household.The parents in that household got approval to purchase their house under the sale scheme. However, that scheme does not make tenant purchasers good citizens overnight.
I accept the Bill will provide that in future, local authorities can refuse to allow a tenant to buy his or her house. Approval for house purchase may be given to parents who appear reasonable tenants when their oldest child is ten or 14, but in four years' time when that youth is 18 he or she could turn out to be the terror of the estate and we will be powerless to deal with him or her. I accept what the Minister said, but I have some doubts about it. I cannot understand why we cannot deal with the problem. If the tenant purchasers to whom I referred were to sell their house in five, ten or 15 years' time, they would have to seek approval from the local authority to do so. I cannot understand how a local authority has control over the sale of a house, but has none over anti-social behaviour that occurs in it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We now come to deal with amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 4 is related and I suggest that amendments Nos. 2 and 4 be taken by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 36, after "person" to insert "aged over 14 years".
I support the provision dealing with excluding orders, but it does not state an age limit. We are handing over control on this area to a judge in court. We would probably criticise a judge if, following the passing of this Bill, he were to issue an excluding order against a 15 year old or decide not to issue one against an 18 year old. Regardless of where we decide to set the limit some people will disagree with it. We will fail in our duty if we do not give the courts an indication of what we consider an appropriate or minimum age, otherwise we will pass the Bill with this broad provision which can be widely interpreted. I accept people will have different views on this. I do not recommend that we evict 12 year olds, 14 year olds or 18 year olds, although youths aged 12 upwards can be the terrors of some estates, but by not setting an age limit we are not giving a guideline to the courts. We should include a minimum age to provide that, say, a 14 year old or a 16 year old should only be evicted in exceptional circumstances. The legislation allows a judge discretion to evict a five year old. We are failing in our responsibility if we do not indicate our thinking on this matter.
I am surprised Deputy Ahern retabled these amendments having acknowledged on Committee Stage that he did not know what the appropriate age limit might be. This is a matter best left for the courts to decide whether it is appropriate to use the excluding order procedure in particular circumstances, including the age of the respondent. The court would have regard to the need for appropriate support to be given in the case of a young person. I do not consider it appropriate that persons aged 14 or under should be the subject of excluding orders. However, if this were inserted in the Bill, it would signal that it would be acceptable to exclude 15 year olds and that is not a message I want to convey. The inclusion of an age limit would not be the correct approach. There is a danger that if too high a limit were set it would undermine the effectiveness of the measure and if it were set too low it would put some young people unnecessarily at risk.
This is an important point. I wish to refer to a point raised by Deputy Gregory. The marches to which I referred were major events and involved lighting torches on houses. That occurred in a large estate, the name of which I do not wish to mention. It was a serious situation. People behaved in an orderly way, even though the situation was menacing. It was not in any way related to the march mentioned by the Deputy.
Does the Deputy want to tell us more about that march? Does he want to tell us about the person involved and if that person was a member of his party?
I do not know a great deal about it. I was told about people being involved in it, but that is hearsay. We should stick to the facts.
Deputy Ahern's amendment provides for the inclusion in the Bill of persons aged over 14 years. He tabled his amendment because he wanted to raise this point and have it discussed. I thank him for tabling it on Report Stage because some Members may not be Members of the committee dealing with the Committee Stage debate and if some of these issues are not discussed in the Chamber most Members will not hear or know of them.
This is a serious issue. Often drug pushers use 14 year olds to 18 year olds to do their work for them. Members may have read a recent article in a newspaper which reported that youths in Cork can earn up to £200 a day passing drugs to other children at school. That is something I am familiar with because we have has the same problem in my constituency where young people are being used to pass on drugs. They get huge profit margins to do the work. When I heard of the case in Cork recently it rang bells with me immediately.
I was involved in a case of a family being evicted by the corporation. People in the block of flats were very much in favour of that, although they were concerned that some of the children were in the ten to 12 age group. Two older boys, in the 16 to 18 age group, were involved, not other family members, yet the whole family was evicted. That is one problem that arises. The smaller children were attending school and the gardaí and the teachers were helping them. Everybody was trying to help the family and the mother was trying to establish roots in the district.However, the two older boys went to England after the eviction, and one of them has since got into a great deal of difficulty there. When it came to excluding them, the whole family had to be evicted. The tenancy went, yet the small children were not involved in drugs and everybody, including the gardaí, knew that.
The question raised by Deputy Ahern is, where does it stop? How do the authorities decide in such a case, which arises often enough, where parents are not involved but a son or daughter may be? In those circumstances how does one deal with the exclusion? It should not be open to a local authority to exclude young children. There must be other ways of dealing with their case.
As the Minister of State said, we are leaving it to the courts to decide and that may be the only real solution. This legislation will help when a problem arises but, as happened in the case I referred to the entire family was evicted, including small children. They are in greater difficulty than before, although they were not causing any trouble.
Deputy Ahern's amendment seeks to ensure that children under a certain age are not evicted from accommodation. Those are the problems that go with introducing an exclusion order mechanism.Once it is known to exist, however, it is a help because people are more likely to take action against offenders. I appreciate what Deputy Ahern is trying to do. He does not have any fixation about the age level. Different age levels are recognised in law, for example, the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16 are recognised as levels of comprehension whereby the capacity to do wrong is less the younger one is. There must be a point at which one can say there is little capacity to know what one is doing, for example, below a level of 14 years or below the minimum school leaving age of 15. We must find some other way of dealing with children under 15. At present, we leave it to the courts to decide from the age of seven upwards.
In many respects the courts are used to dealing with cases like this. As Members of the House we must have a view and must be able to say that if the child being used to pass on drugs is under 12, there must be another remedy for dealing with such cases. It is a matter for the Minister of State and her advisers to set the age, along with the Attorney General who deals with difficult legal questions and would have a view on this.
The simplistic view of leaving it up to the courts is not comforting. When one sees what is happening to small children it is particularly upsetting, especially when they are innocent. In addition, when the parents are innocent there is a difficult problem.
The legislation covers cases where an exclusion can be made against an individual, which is a big step forward. How young should those individuals be? There must be an age level below which we must find some other way of resolving the problem. That is what Deputy Ahern is trying to do in these amendments.
I am disappointed. I had thought that Deputy Woods would throw some light on the march to which I referred. It is a serious matter involving an unfortunate family. It is difficult to get a medical priority on Dublin Corporation's housing list. One has to have a serious medical problem within the family. For a family to get a medical priority, be given a house and then for a Member of the Dáil to march with others against totally innocent decent people in such unfortunate circumstances, is an absolute disgrace.
I do not have the full details of the incident but as Deputy Woods seemed to indicate that he did, I thought he might say so. I emphasise that Deputy Woods is not in any way involved in this. The marches he referred to, and in which he was involved, were community ones against drug dealers.
I do not want to give the impression I am supporting the Minister of State on everything but, on this occasion at least, I support her. The exclusion order is a welcome and necessary initiative. It is progressive in the sense that one can ensure that where an individual is drug dealing, beating up the neighbours or doing other acts of a major anti-social nature, the corporation or other local authorities can move against that individual and not against the innocent members of the family. That is a major step forward which I welcome.
As regards the age issue, I am not sure how a limit could be set. Deputy Ahern is saying they must be over 14 years. However, in the unlikely or unusual circumstances that it was a 14 years old, perhaps the local authority could bring that young person to the attention of the court which, in turn, could bring in the health board or another agency to deal with the problem. This measure would facilitate action to help the young individual and his family. That is why it is right to leave it to the discretion of the court. I have seen cases in my own constituency where parents have pleaded with the court not to release their child who has stolen cars and mugged people but to put him into care or a detention centre. I am sure that was not the Minister's intention but it would help the local authority and the parents to bring a problem to the court's attention. The court does not have to grant the excluding order, but through the probation service or the health board arrangements could be made to deal with the problem. I agree with the Minister on this occasion.
I welcome the introduction of an exclusion order. Those of us who work with local authorities are aware of the damage caused by members of some families in housing estates or flat complexes. It is of enormous benefit if drug pushers are removed from an area.
I understand why Deputy Ahern is anxious to apply the full rigour of the law at an early age. Most people become addicted to drugs, particularly hard drugs, during their teenage years. The drug barons target young people who then become drug pushers. We must look at the implications of excluding people over 14 years of age from their homes. If they are engaged in anti-social behaviour, this could aggravate it. The Children Bill ensures that parents take responsibility for the crimes committed by their children. Representations were made by Threshold about young homeless people and people at risk.
We should leave this issue to the discretion of the courts and other State agencies. The younger the respondent before the courts, the more State services must be brought into play. Parental responsibility and home school liaison services are important in these circumstances. The probation service has responsibilities within the legal framework in relation to young people. We should leave this section as it is and allow the courts and other State agencies to intervene.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(c) the person has refused to participate at pre-tenancy training courses.".
This amendment seeks to give the local authority additional reasons for refusing a letting by having pre-tenancy training courses or probationary periods.A number of local authorities has insisted that all prospective tenants must do a training course to make them aware of their responsibilities and to introduce them to their neighbours in new estates. However, if a solicitor takes a case to court, he will win it because local authorities do not have the right to refuse a tenancy on these grounds. If we are committed to estate management, there should be pre-tenancy training courses and a probationary period, if required. Local authorities believe this should be given legislative effect because it is already happening on a widespread scale. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
I am delighted to support this amendment. It would be useful to introduce pre-tenancy training courses. Some housing co-ops, for example, such as NADCO, insist on pre-tenancy training courses. As a result, tenants work together to keep the blocks of apartments in which they live in good condition. I have often argued at Dublin City Council, that Dublin Corporation should follow in the footsteps of groups like those housing co-operatives and introduce these courses. I know the Minister will tell us that there is nothing to stop Dublin Corporation doing that but the fact that it would be in the Bill would be extremely helpful.
I have argued with Dublin Corporation on numerous occasions about the matter addressed in amendment No. 6. The idea of a period of probationary tenancy is essential for good estate management because, in many instances, the local authority may not be confident that the person to whom it is giving a flat or house will be suited to that particular dwelling and will live in it like any decent person or family. The idea of a period of probationary tenancy is necessary and it would be a useful initiative.
I commend Deputy Ahern for suggesting both of these ideas and trying to have them written into legislation because anybody who has served on a local authority knows that unless such initiatives are written into legislation it is a most laborious, energy draining exercise to have them implemented through a local authority. I support both amendments wholeheartedly.
If the Minister can do something about this, she should because paragraph (a), which refers to "the interest of good estate management", presumes that tenants have at least had the opportunity of pre-tenancy training. One cannot impose a responsibility in relation to good estate management unless people have an opportunity to avail of a training course. We are blue in the face trying to get Dublin Corporation to introduce pre-tenancy training. If there were such a provision in the Bill, it would ensure that all local authorities would have regular courses for all tenants in new estates in particular. If it is possible to incorporate such a provision in the Bill at this late stage, I would advise the Minister to do so. If not, local authorities should be informed that this is what we expect under section 14.
This is a good amendment which ought to be incorporated in law. Week after week people come to my clinics wanting to be transferred not because there is anything wrong with their houses or flats but because their neighbours are subjecting them to a reign of terror and they can no longer live in such an environment. There has been a breakdown of the old system of clearly communicated and observed letting agreements. If this amendment were incorporated into law, it would state in law what ought to be done and it would be made clear to people that if they received a house from a local authority, they would not only have to treat the house in a certain way but they would have to live in a certain kind of culture with their neighbours. A number of tenants must be schooled in what that culture entails in modern times. Local authorities will state that they do not have the manpower to do this. I support the amendment and I ask the Minister to accept it. We can develop it later.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
As it is now 9.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.