Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 form a composite motion and may be discussed together.
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Report Stage
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“ “authorised advocate” means an elected public representative, social worker, medical or legal professional or a representative of a tenants or housing rights body recognised by the local authority;”.
I have tabled these amendments on the basis that many tenants who go to local authorities to be interviewed tend not to understand what is being said and do not have the ability to understand some of the things requested of them. We need a clearer picture on who can attend the local authority interview with the person concerned. I have included a number of suggestions, including a public representative, a social worker, a medical or legal professional or a representative of a tenant housing rights body recognised by the local authority. It is important that we have a clear picture on who is allowed to attend. Some local authorities are flexible, while others are not. If it is clearly stated these are the people who can listen to what is being said and represent the tenant, it will lead to greater understanding. That is the purpose of the amendments.
I support the amendment. Deputy Dessie Ellis is correct in what he says. The people with whom we are dealing are often vulnerable and feel a need for support. They are frustrated by the system and, in many instances, believe this measure would be helpful. Deputies Dessie Ellis and Bernard J. Durkan may agree with me that, on rare occasions, we engage with local authority bodies and are told it might be better if a public representative did not get involved as the question of access to information arises. It would, therefore, be good if the Minister of State accepted this as an addition to the Bill to signal clearly to housing authorities that the idea of tenants or prospective tenants being supported in their engagement with local authorities could be part of the daily routine and was acceptable, provided that those supporting the prospective tenant fitted the categories outlined.
I support the amendment. When people arrive at the offices of the local authority, they are often in a state of crisis and require urgent solutions, some of which may not be forthcoming. As a public representative, I have found myself taking time to explain the scheme of letting priorities when I thought this would be automatic on meeting the local authority. I cannot recall one set of circumstances where this information was provided for the prospective tenants. The information makes them believe the system can operate in a fair manner. Some of this is related to the availability of staff in local authorities and the time pressure they are under. At such a time, having someone who is trusted to take the time to explain something would be good. I include advocates associated with the Citizens Information Service who are designated to deal on behalf of people with disabilities. They are often available, but people do not trigger the advocacy service when it is available to them and it should be brought to their attention.
I agree with the general tenor of the points raised by Members on the opposite side of the House. In recent years there has been a tendency for elected public representatives to remove themselves in knowing how the system works, the priorities set and the extent to which they can influence a satisfactory outcome. This has not been of assistance in the current housing crisis and the run-up to it in the past few years. There could have been greater knowledge in the hands of elected public representatives. There is a tendency for some local authorities to distance elected public representatives from the procedures used and the determination of letting priorities. This is to the disadvantage of potential tenants, the housing project and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government which has overall responsibility. Ultimately, tenants believe they have no rights, including secondary rights. Some people have been excellent tenants and looked after a property well; others have not. Similarly, tenants have abused local authority property and would benefit from the advice of elected public representatives on what could be done to address the issues presented.
I can understand from where the amendments are coming, but I am concerned to ensure the local authority communicates well with tenants. My concern is that if there was a blanket requirement to permit a local authority tenant to have an authorised delegate in all dealings with the local authority, it could hinder and delay the normal process of landlord and tenant communications. In the majority of cases the tenants can handle the issue. I accept that the advice and assistance of public representatives and other voluntary organisations are helpful and this happens in practice. The problem I have with extending it in a formal way is that it would formalise the practice of bringing in someone every time a tenant dealt with a local authority. In practice, that would delay the process and depersonalise the communication. I would prefer to see local authorities improve their communication practices, where necessary. Some are excellent. It should become the norm that the local authority, as landlord, deals properly with tenants. My concern is that formalising the practice through these amendments would create an arrangement that would become the norm, delays communication and makes things more difficult rather than better for the majority of tenants.
My amendment suggests this should be at the tenant's request. Some tenants understand what they are being told, but I have come across people who cannot even read or write. They go in to their local authorities and just sit and listen, but do not know what is going on. Practice is different across the local authorities and that is my concern. Nothing is defined. A public representative does not have to attend with a tenant if he or she does not feel comfortable. The same is true for anybody else and it is up to the individual whether to go or not. If the tenant wants somebody to accompany him, a person can be found within the confines of the groups we have outlined. The current situation in local authorities is all over the place. We need a more coherent system in terms of how we deal with tenants when conveying information to them on serious issues, which could lead to evictions. People in these situations must be made fully aware of all the ins and outs when it comes to what they are being told.
I appreciate the Minister of State has said it is the desire of every Minister and every Member to ensure that local authorities follow best practice and that if they do not follow it currently, they will establish it. However, the amendment put forward by Deputy Ellis proposes a tenant can "request" the presence of an authorised advocate. What in the name of God could be wrong with putting this into the legislation? Its inclusion would encourage best practice across the country. The only reason for refusing to include this provision, would be to facilitate the local authorities that do not want to engage with representatives or advocates on behalf of people who need assistance. That is the only reason this could be excluded. If it is part of best practice that those requesting assistance can bring that assistance with them and if the Minister of State refuses to include that in the legislation, she is de facto saying that she will not go along with developing best practice, because part of the agenda is to keep out elected Members or advocates and allow the local authorities to continue to deal with people, however vulnerable they may be, on a face to face basis.
I wish to add my support for this amendment. I do not see any reason the Government should refuse it. Sometimes when we are dealing with amendments, the default position of the Government seems to be "No", even when they are very sensible amendments. That default response should not apply to this sensible amendment.
In Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, the local authority does not generally resist any representation by me, other local representatives or other advocates. Many of the officials see the benefit of this because, for example, there are often issues of trust between the tenants and the local authority. It is important for these tenants to have a person they trust with them who can interpret what is being said and provide clarity in these often complex discussions about tenancies. For example, I am dealing with a case currently about succession of tenancy, which is labyrinthine in its complexity. The tenant feels he is being done over, but I do not believe the local authority is doing that. It is just that the case is complex. Having somebody there who can act as an independent reporter on events and who can clarify and interpret matters for the tenant can be helpful in trying to resolve the issues for all sides.
Often there are huge issues of illiteracy, where people are just not able to read the forms or understand the complexity of the process, which is often bureaucratic. People need help in such cases. Another important reason for this amendment is that there are often disputes about what has been said in the aftermath of meetings, with people making claims and counter claims. Therefore, it is helpful if somebody has attended independently and has taken notes and can confirm what was said. I do not see what the problem is with this or why the Minister of State might refuse it. The amendment is eminently sensible. It does not make the provision of an advocate compulsory, but requires that it be agreed if the tenant feels he needs this support. In many cases they do need it. I appeal to the Minister of State to accept the amendment.
The fact the Minister of State has pointed out there is a variety of experience and that some local authorities are excellent, indicates some are not. For example, the in-house language used in this regard often needs to be interpreted. Some of this has to do with ensuring a uniform standard around the country. This may be an issue of training.
There is also a vast difference in the ratio of staff to population in different areas. Let Meath and Limerick be taken as an example. In Meath, where there are approximately 30,000 extra people on authority lists, there are 620 staff. The combined Limerick local authorities have 1,075 staff. Clearly, if one has 400 extra staff and is dealing with a smaller population, one can provide a better service. This situation is replicated around the country. Therefore, sometimes there is a good reason staff around the country do not take the same approach. They simply do not have the time. The people who fall through the cracks in these situations are often those who are least able to cope with the bureaucracy.
These two amendments would enhance the Bill. We are talking here about possible terminations of tenancy and it could be argued that putting this kind of representation on a statutory basis in the general representation of people in dire need of housing would be inappropriate, because of the concern that unjustified or inappropriate preference might be given to one candidate over another on the housing list. However, in this case, we are talking specifically about terminations. My recent experience is that people are not aware of the dire housing situation that exists in the country currently in terms of acquiring a local authority tenancy and do not realise the deep and profound consequences were they to lose their tenancy under any of the provisions of section 2 of this Bill. In this context, the proposal put forward by Deputy Ellis is good and the Minister of State should consider including it in the legislation.
I support the amendment. I think it would be embarrassing if the Government did not accept this, which simply requests a facility for people to have an advocate. Some 24% of the people in my constituency are of non-Irish origin and a huge number of people on housing waiting lists are of non-Irish origin. These people have severe difficulties with language and also with accessing the bureaucracy of the local authority system. An increasing number of those with whom I come into contact are from African, eastern European and Asian backgrounds. These people need advocates. It should not be the case that advocates should be a councillor or Deputy. I am sure we all have enough to do. However, in some cases it must be one of these. The right to an advocate should be recognised as a right. I am sure advocacy is facilitated by many authorities, but perhaps not all.
The proposed amendment uses the term "A tenant in all dealings with a local authority" should have the right to an advocate. Therefore, we are talking about all dealings with a local authority, not just dealings relating to eviction.
I agree we need good practice for all and if it is necessary for me to communicate more fully with local authorities with regard to this, I will do that. However, it is the duty of the local authorities to treat and deal with their tenants properly. In cases of illiteracy, language difficulties and complex legal issues, if a tenant wants an advocate, an advocate should be present.
That is generally facilitated by all local authorities, in my experience. The difficulty with including it as a blanket requirement is that it will very quickly become the norm. Then people will think that unless they bring their doctor or lawyer along, somebody else will get treated better than them vis-à-vis a particular house or issue. That has happened in other areas whereby certain rights have become the norm. I would be concerned that this would affect the straightforward relationship between the landlord and tenant, the landlord in this case being the local authority. By and large, meetings can take place without the presence of others being necessary. Indeed, having to arrange the presence of another could be problematic too - does the tenant find the advocate or is there an obligation on the council to do so? How much additional time would that take? I am concerned at the practicalities of this and am reluctant to put into statute a provision giving tenants the right to an advocate in all dealings with a local authority. I am concerned that it is going too far and will, to some extent, tie the process up in knots and make it more difficult. Sometimes a number of meetings with the local authority will be necessary on a particular issue and I believe it is impractical to put this into the legislation.
How stands the amendment Deputy Ellis?
I wish to press my amendment because I do not accept what the Minister of State has said. As has been outlined by Members here, there are serious issues involved. Deputy Coppinger made reference to non-Irish nationals but the issues are not confined to that cohort of the population. Issues such as eviction and anti-social behaviour are very serious. In many cases, people could be facing very serious difficulties and a code of practice is needed. I do not accept the Minister of State's argument because the amendment makes provision for an advocate only when one is requested by the tenant and not all tenants will make such a request. This is so serious. People must know the full implications but many do not - that is the reality. That is why I am pressing this amendment. We must have a code.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Coppinger, Ruth.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Halligan, John.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Sullivan, Maureen.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Mahony, John.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dessie Ellis and Seán Ó Fearghaíl; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"Tenants right to advocacy
7. A tenant in all dealings with a local authority can request the presence of an authorised advocate. This request cannot be refused by the local authority and local authorities should as far as practicable engage constructively with the authorised advocate if requested by the tenant.".
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Coppinger, Ruth.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Halligan, John.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McFadden, Gabrielle.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Mahony, John.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dessie Ellis and Seán Ó Fearghaíl; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(iii) the tenancy supports that are available to the tenant from the local authority and other agencies,”.
The discussion about anti-social behaviour is a difficult area. The difficulty applies to all of us who work with local authorities. Certainly in the north inner city I have seen the effects of particular individuals who have been involved in serious antisocial behaviour, usually involving drugs and drug dealing. There is violence and we have had assaults and murders. I sympathise with local authorities which are trying to deal with this. Sometimes, however, other tenants do not see the local authorities moving quickly enough to address the matter. However, we have to balance that with the necessary supports for vulnerable people when they are dealing with accusations of anti-social behaviour.
The purpose of the amendment is to insert a measure that would add to the supports in place. It would mean the local authority would have to include external contacts on the letter of warning. External contacts such as community law centres, legal aid organisations and the Citizens' Information Board, or housing charities such as Focus Ireland, could provide support.
We are keen to ensure that everything is done so that eviction is not the recourse taken. The measure also allows for the necessary balance to push the local authority to move more quickly. Anyway, every attempt should be made to try to support people so that it does not get to that point. Including these measures in the legislation would also reinforce the welfare teams who are working on this, and it would be a reinforcement for the local authority as well. Furthermore, it would mean that when a case goes to the District Court the court could measure the level of engagement. It will not always work, but if engagement has occurred honestly and positively then it could be important.
The tenancy warning is a specific legislative measure with a particular purpose. I am adding it to the existing procedures of housing authorities to help them to deal with instances of anti-social behaviour in their housing stock. It is part of the ongoing communication, but it has a specific purpose. The purpose of a tenancy warning is to inform a tenant that a condition of his or her tenancy agreement prohibiting anti-social behaviour has been breached, to require the tenant to take steps to prevent a continuation or recurrence of such behaviour and to warn the tenant of the consequences if the breach of the tenancy agreement is repeated.
The problem is that a statement of supports available to tenants is not appropriate in a statutory warning that a tenant receives concerning behaviour and that could lead to termination of his or her tenancy agreement. Certainly, the housing authority should and does, in its capacity as a social landlord, provide all appropriate assistance to a tenant when dealing with a household member engaged in anti-social behaviour. This should be done through the many contacts available other than the tenancy warning. The tenancy warning has the specific purpose of telling the people concerned that they are in breach. It is more appropriate in the context of other communications from the local authority.
That is a pity, because we are trying to do everything to prevent it from getting to that stage.
If other contacts or agencies could be of assistance, including them in the letter of warning would be beneficial. If someone is evicted, it causes further problems in the long run in terms of homelessness. Who will pick up the pieces? Anything and everything that could be done should be done.
I accept the Deputy's point, but it is not appropriate to the letter. A council should take various measures to address anti-social behaviour.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 11, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"9. The Minister may by regulations prepare a code of conduct on the management of rent arrears by housing authorities.".
This amendment relates to the issues raised by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan in amendment No. 3. When the general scheme of the Bill was being drafted, it was put to me by the Northside Community Law Centre in my constituency that a statutory basis for a code of conduct along the same lines as that enjoyed by tenants in Northern Ireland would be advantageous. The code in the North is voluntary and covers rent arrears and other situations in which tenancies may be endangered. The Minister of State might point to Part 2 of the Bill, under which indications can be given to people regarding the conduct of their tenancies, and there are induction meetings for new tenants in the two local authority areas with which I am most familiar, namely, Dublin city and Fingal, but there is merit in the proposal that the Minister's office have a specific power to establish a code of conduct to which all local authorities would have to adhere and that would serve as a basis for the provision of information and support for tenants.
As mentioned during the debate on previous amendments, many householders in Dublin city who fall into rent arrears cannot be considered for transfers. They must have clear rent accounts for six months. There are major consequences if one is in breach of any aspect of one's basic tenancy agreement. A code of conduct on rent arrears would allow for the adoption of a consistent national approach.
As I mentioned on Second Stage and has been stated by other Deputies, another lacuna in the Bill is in the management of rent arrears by voluntary housing bodies. That the voluntary housing sector still does not have a modern legislative basis is a significant problem for tenants. Many Deputies, particularly those representing Dublin city and Fingal, have encountered instances of greatly varying behaviour on the part of voluntary housing bodies in their management of tenants in rent arrears or experiencing other difficulties. A submission was made on this matter when the general scheme was being drafted. This issue might be considered.
I am happy to support Deputy Thomas P. Broughan's proposal which makes good sense for local authorities and the country's many voluntary housing associations. In County Kildare rent collection for the local authority is conducted by its revenue collectors who were previously rate collectors. While they do a good job and are, in all instances, supportive of the tenants with whom they deal, I am unaware of any particular training they have received in dealing with tenants who are facing extreme financial difficulties and major challenges in paying the variety of bills that come their way. One is often approached by families after they have accrued significant arrears. This is also the case in the voluntary housing sector. I must declare an interest in that I am a director of and involved in quite a number of such bodies in County Kildare.
It would be good to have a national policy on best practice for local authorities and voluntary housing associations, the principal purpose of which would be to strive to prevent a situation from developing in which people would find themselves in significant arrears. When some people arrive at the point where they owe many thousands of euro to local authorities or voluntary housing associations and solicitors' or warning letters from their housing providers threaten them with eviction or legal proceedings, they do not engage for a considerable period. When they do, they will agree to practically anything, but these agreements are often broken because they are unreasonable in the first instance. People who are under pressure and believe they will have to surrender their tenancies will agree to practically anything, often to amounts that are beyond their capacity to pay. Further amendments will address this issue in terms of making deductions at source, but the Minister of State would be doing the nation some service if she and her Department devised a strategy that could be advocated to all local authorities and voluntary housing associations under which the accumulation of arrears could be minimised and a standardised approach to dealing with arrears implemented. The amendment is trying to achieve this and is worthy of support.
I support Deputy Thomas P. Broughan's amendment. We all know that different local authorities have different codes on rent arrears. In many cases, the codes depend on the individuals working in their rent sections. Often, people who are added to the list suddenly find themselves facing significant arrears because it is discovered they should have been paying more. We need to address these issues in a proper fashion. People across the board have seen their debts added to considerably and a proper code needs to be in place. It is difficult that we must rely on the whims of individuals in local authorities. That their codes can vary so much means that there is something to Deputy Thomas P. Broughan's argument.
There is another aspect to this matter, namely, the extent of addiction in the north inner city. Many children are being brought up by grandparents because of their parents' addiction. The grandchildren have grown into adulthood in their grandparents' local authority flats and houses. When a grandparent dies, the grandchild faces a difficulty because his or her needs are not matched by the housing provided. Such persons have had to deal with not having their parents; therefore, there is a need for flexibility. This suggestion could be covered by the proposal made in the amendment.
There are already guidelines in place on rent arrears which are applicable to all local authorities. I do not know how a code of conduct would be different from guidelines - they are pretty much the same. The guidelines deal comprehensively with the various aspects of rent management through rent assessment, collection and accounting and place the emphasis on rent arrears prevention and recovery. As I understand it, they are applied by all local authorities.
I can certainly remind them if there is any question that they are not being applied.
A number of issues were raised. As Deputy Ó Fearghaíl said, we deal with the issue of direct deduction later in the Bill. We are trying to put in a system that will manage people paying their rent on a regular basis and not falling into arrears. I hope that will address problems that might arise in the future. What is in place is designed to be reasonable and not impose too much hardship on people who owe a considerable amount of money for one reason or another, and to take it back over a period of time. The main point I would make is that there are guidelines and I do not know that a code of conduct would necessarily be any different from the guidelines in place already. We can examine the guidelines to see if they need to be changed or reviewed in any way.
Deputy O'Sullivan raised a somewhat separate issue in so far as it is about the tenancy rather than anything to do with rent arrears, but issues of tenancy can be difficult. We discussed succession tenancies on Second Stage and whether people should have rights even if they are not on the original tenancy but I do not believe we can deal with it specifically under this item.
What is the legislative basis for the current guidelines? By which legislation are they governed? I was reflecting a view that there should be a transparent national code to which local authorities would adhere. The Minister mentioned aspects of the management of rents by local authorities. The area of assessments, for example, is an area about which many public representatives would have concern. In Dublin city in particular people would be of the view that figures were plucked out of thin air, so to speak. Officials might have had some basis for figures, particularly with adult children, changing family memberships and so forth, but sometimes it is very difficult to see a coherent policy in the assessment area. My experience is that virtually all major rent arrears cases I have represented had to do with assessment. On foot of assessments people had been paying their rents. There is a need for greater transparency in the area and the Minister might indicate the legislative basis for the current system and whether it would be advantageous to include it in this Bill.
I support the point made by Deputy Broughan. The Minister has expressed the view that there are guidelines in place and that local authorities are implementing them. The reality is that if the practice is enshrined in legislation, it will have far more effect in local authorities than it is having by virtue of simply being a guideline that is issued to them. I envy the position the Deputy appears to have in north County Dublin where arrears only arise in situations where assessments are done. My experience is that arrears arise solely because people have not been paying their rent, and that is a real difficulty. For such people there must be urgent early intervention to address that issue because the longer the problem goes on, the more difficult it is for that problem to be solved. People who get into significant arrears in those circumstances are under pressure and they will make unrealistic commitments in terms of the moneys they say they will pay. The approach of the local authority will be to say that the tenant has been in arrears and that he or she entered into an agreement which he or she has now broken when the reality is that the tenant would never be able to keep to the terms of the agreement in the first instance.
The point is not unrelated to the earlier point made by Deputy Dessie Ellis. In engagements with the local authority there is often a need for the tenant who goes into such circumstances to be accompanied by someone who will be able to tell them not to promise to pay an additional €30, €40 or €50 per week when the reality is that they do not have a hope in hell of paying that and that it would be much better to pay an extra €5, €10 or €15 a week and be able to honour that commitment in the long term and reduce their arrears. If what is in place is not working effectively, will the Minister at least look at putting this into the legislation so it can be given added strength?
I support the previous speakers on this issue. It is a major issue, and my colleague is right that it should be dealt with at an early stage. All of us as public representatives have been contacted by people in local authority houses. In the last case I dealt with recently the rent arrears were in excess of €12,000. The arrears should not have been allowed get to that stage and there is no possibility of the tenants paying back that amount of money. What local authorities try to do when one goes in to negotiate with them is get the tenant to pay the rent they were supposed to pay, plus an extra €50 or €60, when the reality is that they cannot pay what they originally agreed to pay. When one raises this issue with the local authorities the first comment they make is that they do not have the staff to deal with rent arrears, particularly in large local authorities which have a huge number of tenants. I agree with the previous speaker that some system should be put in place to identify problems at the outset. A representative could go in with the tenant who should be let pay what they can afford. The local authority could monitor their circumstances and if they change, the rent can be increased to what they can afford to pay and not allow the arrears rise to €10,000 or €12,000 by which time the tenants are not in a position to pay such an astronomical amount.
I agree with some of the previous speakers. The ability to write off debt varies in local authorities. That is an important area because some people simply cannot afford to pay. Local authorities have added to the problem by allowing arrears to build up. If an authority has allowed arrears to build up, should it not be punished in some way or does the tenant have to pick up on the fact that the local authority did not cop on that someone was on the tenancy for which they were not being paid despite all the relevant information being put forward? We need to have codes of practice. I accept there are rules, and most local authorities are fairly reasonable, but I have found on occasion that the process is not working the way it should do. I support Deputy Broughan.
On the general point of people building up rent arrears, most Members are aware that under the new scheme proposed in this Bill there will be deduction at source and the local authorities will not be able to take more than 15% of the person's income in respect of arrears, which addresses the point about people taking on more than they can afford and trying to pay back huge amounts of money that they cannot afford. That will be dealt with for the future.
With regard to the issue around assessments, the new rent schemes will be adopted by the new councils next year and we will be providing clarity on how they assess who is and is not on the tenancy in regard to those schemes.
On the specific point about the legislation with regard to guidelines, it is section 5 of the 2009 Act that deals with the guidelines.
Debate adjourned.