Vol. 510 No. 6
34 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the number of persons evicted under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997; his views on the implementing of this Act throughout the local authority housing sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23277/99]
The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997, provides for a range of measures to assist local authorities in addressing problems arising on their estates from drug dealing and serious anti-social behaviour. It forms a part of a wider range of measures undertaken by the Government to deal with the issue of drugs and related crime. The 1997 Act does not provide for the repossession of local authority dwellings. The main provisions in this regard are contained in the Housing Act, 1966. However, one of the main provisions of the 1997 Act enables a local authority tenant, or the authority itself in certain circumstances, to apply for an excluding order against a person who is believed to be engaging in anti-social behaviour. The authority may seek such an order only after consultation with the tenant and the relevant health board.
The effect of an excluding order, if granted, is to exclude the person to whom it relates from the local authority dwelling and, at the discretion of the court, from any other specified dwelling or housing estate. This procedure allows for a targeted response to the problem of anti-social behaviour by an individual member of a household, without the need to remove the entire household. Section 20 of the Act also enables the Garda, on notification by the housing authority, to direct people squatting in local authority accommodation and engaged in anti-social activity to leave the accommodation. This has proved to be an effective means of dealing with anti-social behaviour where squatting is involved.
Information received in my Department from local authorities indicates that in the period since the coming into operation of the Act in July 1997 to the end of 1998, excluding orders were sought in nine cases, seven of which were sought by tenants and two by local authorities. In the same period, illegal occupiers were removed from local authority dwelling in 98 cases. Management of their housing estates, including dealing with anti-social behaviour is, of course, a matter for local authorities who have been encouraged by my Department to use the statutory powers available to them where appropriate.
Is the Minster of State suggesting he is satisfied with legislation that has, since its enactment, only produced nine excluding orders in a period of two and a half to three years? There are countless cases throughout the country where anti-social tenants are causing havoc in local authority housing estates.
It is for the local authorities to avail of the legislation. If there are instances of anti-social behaviour, as the Deputy suggests, it is for the relevant local authority or the tenants to take action. No local authority or Deputy has made me aware of any weakness in the legislation. I understand this is the first time the matter has been raised.
I am surprised the Minister of State is unaware of this problem. There have been high profile cases. For example, his ministerial colleague, Deputy Dan Wallace, should inform him about the Heavey case which occurred in his Cork constituency. Is the Minister of State not aware of a number of high profile cases which have come to public attention, where those served with exclusion orders have sought judicial reviews, especially with regard to section 21 of the Act dealing with the gathering of evidence? Is he prepared to consider amending legislation which will copperfasten the law and ensure we can get rid of anti-social tenants in a more speedy and effective manner?
The Deputy's question refers to the 1997 Act, not the 1966 Act with which some difficulties have arisen.
I refer to section 21 of the 1997 Act which relates directly to judicial reviews being sought in the courts. There are many cases where tenants refuse to leave council estates because they seek a judicial review of the legislation.
It is the citizen's democratic right to avail of that provision if that is what he or she wishes. I have not had widespread complaint from local authorities regarding a weakness in the Act. I would be happy to consider any request for a judicial strengthening of the legislation.
I am glad the Minister of State is considering that because I have it on good authority that there are a number of cases before the courts of people seeking a judicial review of the legislation and this is delaying the issue of exclusion orders on anti-social tenants who are causing havoc in local authority housing estates. I encourage the Minister of State to engage further in this process by asking local authorities to consider the full implementation of this Act.
The only information I have is that some local authorities are experiencing difficulties in obtaining orders for repossession under the 1966 Act, not the one mentioned in the Deputy's question.
The Minister of State should tell his officials to read the question before writing the reply. They have answered a different question.
This section has been tested in the past and has been found to be constitutional. The tendency to seek judicial reviews in individual cases adversely affects the capacity of authorities to take effective action in some cases.
