I am pleased to present to the House the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996, a measure that will help strengthen our capacity to tackle one of the most serious social challenges of our time. The Bill's primary purpose is to provide for a range of measures to help local authorities in addressing problems arising on their housing estates from drug dealing and related serious anti-social behaviour. The Bill forms part of a wider range of measures which are being undertaken by the Government to deal with the issue of drugs and related crime.
Before I elaborate on the specific measures in the Bill I wish to outline the background and context within which these measures are being brought forward. Every Member of the House is aware that the illegal drugs trade has damaged, even destroyed, many young lives and threatened the peace and stability of whole communities. The Government's approach to the problem is multifaceted. A package of tough and effective legislation is in place to expose and deal with those who traffic in illegal drugs.
The ministerial task force on measures to reduce the demand for drugs recommended a range of measures in areas of treatment, education and rehabilitation and estate improvements. These recommendations were accepted fully by the Government and £14 million was allocated to carry out a programme which is based in the communities that are most severely affected. To tackle the drug problem effectively we need to rebuild communities, improve them in terms of the physical and social infrastructure and revitalise them economically. To succeed we need to create a new dynamic and trust between statutory agencies and local communities.
I have repeatedly stressed to local authorities the importance of good estate management. Tenant participation is part and parcel of estate management, as is the importance of an integrated approach, drawing all interested bodies into the process. Considerable progress is being made in this regard and will continue to be made. The Bill must be seen as one element in a wider strategy which is aimed at building communities and making them safe from drugs. There is, I believe, broad agreement in the House that the extent to which the residents of many local authority estates have suffered at the hands of drug dealers, and those working with and for them, is unacceptable.
There is also, I believe, broad support for the main purpose of the Bill, which is to provide local authorities with improved legal powers to help them deal with drug dealing and serious anti-social behaviour in their estates. The Bill will assist local authorities to discharge their estate management function in a positive manner so that all local authority tenants may reasonably aspire to live in an estate that is free from drug dealing and associated violence.
We are all aware of the serious threat that drug dealing poses to individuals and to society. In areas where drug dealing gets a foothold, everyone is a potential victim. There is reason to believe that many major heroin dealers began their evil careers in local authority housing estates and that much of their nefarious activities are centred there. A Dublin Corporation report put the matter very well when it stated:
The victims of anti-social behaviour (including drugs-related activities) and their families endure enormous distress and are unable to enjoy peaceful occupation of their dwellings.
We must make it clear that the Government and the statutory agencies will no longer tolerate publicly funded housing being used as a base for drug pushing and related anti-social activity. We must ensure that a new generation of barons do not have local authority housing as a nursery unit in which to develop their ugly trade. We must ensure that those who are enriching themselves by bringing misery, distress and violence on their neighbours can no longer be allowed to undermine and destroy their communities. There is a duty on us as legislators to ensure that communities are no longer exposed to the menace of drug dealing by any deficiencies or constraints in the law.
Constraints and deficiencies have been identified through practical experience. Regrettably, the existing statutory response has come to be seen as ineffectual in the face of an increasing drug problem and, in recent times, some communities have sought to impose their own remedies. Particular issues of concern include: unsuitability of existing approaches in certain situations, for example, where the existing sanction of eviction may be too blunt and sweeping an instrument; lack of effective immediate action against squatting by persons engaged in anti-social activities; difficulties with the exchange of information between relevant authorities; slow procedures, for example, delays in service of summonses, and intimidation and risks to witnesses. The Bill seeks to rectify these deficiencies through a combination of increased powers, more targeted measures and more streamlined and effective procedures.
In preparing this legislation I have taken into account the experience of local authorities in their attempts to deal with anti-social behaviour in their estates. I met elected members of Dublin Corporation who represent many of the worst affected areas. They were emphatic about the need for urgent and effective measures. I or my officials also met representatives of other interests, including the voluntary housing sector. I have had the benefit of widely divergent views ranging, on the one hand, from unfounded fears about the possible impact of the Bill to, on the other, a concern that measures in the Bill do not go far enough. There has been extensive discussion of the measures in the Bill in the Oireachtas and beyond. I have given full and detailed consideration to the many views expressed. I was particularly pleased to be able to respond positively by way of amendments on Committee Stage in the other House to requests from the Irish Council for Social Housing to extend certain provisions of the Bill, notably the excluding order procedure, to housing provided by approved voluntary housing organisations. I was also pleased to be able to extend the provision preventing payments by squatters, etc., from creating tenancy rights to rented housing generally including lettings in the private rented sector.
The definitions of anti-social behaviour and estate management in section 1 are of particular significance and are central to the purposes of the Bill. They form the basis for the application of various powers under the Bill including excluding orders, vetting of tenancy applications and social welfare assistance. I have made every effort to frame these definitions as tightly as possible. Anti-social behaviour has been carefully defined with particular reference to drug dealing and related serious violence or threats of violence to individuals. I emphasise that possession of illegal drugs solely for personal use does not come within this definition, nor does vandalism or damage to property unless the damage was being used to intimidate or threaten.
There are two elements in the definition. This is essential because the measures in the Bill are designed to deal both with anti-social behaviour related to drug dealing and the serious violence and intimidation that is associated with drug dealing, both of which are in themselves offences under the criminal code. The activities included in the definition are very serious in nature and their effect must be to cause significant or persistent danger, injury, damage, etc., to persons rather than to property. Imprecise or potentially less serious concepts such as "nuisance" have been avoided in framing the definition.
The term "estate management" is defined as including the securing or promotion of the interests of tenants and other occupiers, whether individually or generally, in the enjoyment of their local authority houses and the avoidance, prevention or abatement of anti-social behaviour in that context. The term "good estate management" is a long standing concept in common law and in the landlord and tenant code, but it has not been defined in statute. The concept is being given specific statutory recognition in this Bill in a very positive way so that housing authorities can actively promote the interests of their tenants and work towards the avoidance, prevention or abatement of anti-social behaviour. The concept of good estate management is currently used by housing authorities as a reason for seeking repossession of dwellings where anti-social behaviour is involved.
Section 2 will help to reduce delays and difficulties which have been experienced in the serving of summonses in housing cases. This section provides that a summons may be served by ordinary post without first having to attempt service by registered post or any other method. The section also provides for summonses to be issued by a District Court clerk instead of having to be signed by a judge, a procedure that already applies in criminal cases. The wording of the section is in line with recently made rules of court in relation to the Domestic Violence Act, 1996.
The single most important measure in this Bill is probably the introduction of a new excluding order procedure. The relevant provisions are contained in sections 2 to 12. A local authority tenant will have 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. A housing authority will have power to seek an excluding order where it believes that the tenant would be intimidated from doing so. Excluding order proceedings can only be taken by housing authorities after consultation with the tenant and the local health board.
The excluding order procedure will allow a more targeted response than is currently available to local authorities. Up to now the only action a local authority could take in cases of serious anti-social behaviour was to seek to have the entire household evicted with both innocent and guilty subjected to the same legal sanction. The new procedure is intended to meet a situation where only one or some of the members of a household are engaged in serious anti-social behaviour. It also recognises the reality that there are instances where not only does the tenant not have effective control or influence over an individual in the household but that the tenant and the rest of the household may be intimidated by that individual. Hence the provision for local authority intervention where a tenant is too fearful to take proceedings themselves.
Under section 3 the court will have power to exclude a person engaged in anti-social behaviour from any specified house or housing estate and to prohibit intimidation or other interference with a tenant or other occupant of the house. Under section 4 the court may make interim excluding orders where there is immediate risk of significant harm to a tenant or other occupant. The court will also be empowered to hear excluding order cases in camera. There are a number of important safeguards such as provision for appeal and for variation and discharge of orders where appropriate. I believe this new procedure will make a major contribution to the fight against anti-social behaviour in local authority housing by providing a means to target the perpetrators, to protect the victims and to leave the innocent in their homes.
Section 13 extends the application of the excluding order procedure in sections 3 to 12 to houses provided by voluntary housing bodies.
Under section 14 local authorities will be empowered on grounds of anti-social behaviour to refuse to let a dwelling or to sell a dwelling to a tenant under a purchase scheme. Consent to the resale of tenant purchase dwellings may also be refused on these grounds. This will provide valuable legal backing to the efforts of housing authorities to prevent known drug dealers from moving into their estates.
Section 15 provides for exchange of information between relevant agencies, namely, housing authorities, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Garda Síochána, the Department of Social Welfare, health boards and voluntary housing bodies. This provision is designed to overcome the sort of difficulties experienced by different statutory agencies acting without access to relevant information which is available to another statutory agency. It is incomprehensible to local residents that one or more State agencies would be aware that an individual was a drug dealer, yet another agency would be totally unaware of the fact. The exchange of information in this area is essential for the operation of various measures under the Bill, such as the excluding order procedure, vetting of applicants for housing, tenant purchase or for supplementary welfare assistance towards rents of private accommodation.
Section 16 provides discretion for health boards to refuse or withdraw supplementary welfare assistance rent or mortgage interest supplementation for private housing in the case of persons evicted, excluded or removed from, or refused housing on grounds of anti-social behaviour. In line with the extension of the excluding order procedure to voluntary housing, the discretion to refuse or withdraw supplementation will also apply where persons have been evicted or excluded from a house provided by a voluntary housing body. Health boards must have regard to any information provided to them in relation to such persons by housing authorities or other specified bodies. There has been severe criticism of the fact that, on occasion, drug pushers evicted from local authority housing have, with the help of supplementary welfare assistance rent allowance from the health board, been rehoused in private accommodation in the same area and from where they have continued their illicit activities. Health boards argue that they simply had no option but to provide SWA rent assistance in these cases. However, in future the health boards will have discretion for the first time to refuse to fund private accommodation in such circumstances.
Section 17 amends the Social Welfare Acts to allow, in certain circumstances, for deduction of local authority rents at source from social welfare incomes. This will allow for timely pro-active intervention where rent arrears are building up. The Minister for Social Welfare will have power, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, to make regulations providing for mandatory deduction of local authority rents from social welfare payments where rent is unpaid for a certain period or arrears exceed a certain level. This is an important and practical measure to minimise the need for eviction proceedings in order to obtain payment of rents and will, I believe, greatly reduce the need for local authorities to have to threaten or actually go to court for repossession in rent arrears cases.
Section 18 prohibits intimidation of or other interference with staff of a housing authority or a health board or members of their family or witnesses in proceedings under this Bill or in eviction proceedings. This is an important provision designed to address the sort of real difficulties which have been encountered by local authorities and tenants.
Section 19 provides that any payment made to a housing authority or other person acting in the capacity of a landlord by a squatter or a former tenant who has been given notice to quit but still remains in occupation of a dwelling will not create any tenancy rights in the dwelling. This is to remove a possible loophole whereby such persons might claim rights on the basis of such payments. The original provision in the Bill was amended to extend it from local authority housing to rented housing in general.
Section 20 provides a new power for the Garda, on notification by the housing authority, to direct people squatting in local authority accommodation and engaged in anti-social activity to leave the accommodation. Non-compliance will be an offence and gardaí will have powers of search and arrest without warrant. This is separate from and does not affect the due process of normal repossession procedures under section 62 of the Housing Act, 1966, which are excessively lengthy to deal effectively with squatting where drug dealing is involved.
Existing legal powers have been found ineffective against recurrent squatting which is associated with drug distribution, drug parties and in some instances serious intimidation of new tenants. The new powers are designed to provide a direct and effective means of addressing this serious problem. They do not apply to cases of squatting where no anti-social behaviour is involved.
Section 21 is designed to help address the question of obtaining evidence of anti-social behaviour where witnesses are in fear of serious injury or worse. It provides for acceptance by courts of statements by gardaí and housing authority or health board officials as evidence of anti-social behaviour in proceedings for repossession or excluding orders where the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for this and that other possible witnesses would be prevented from giving evidence due to intimidation.
Section 22 is unrelated to the other provisions of the Bill. It is a technical amendment to put beyond doubt the fact that a housing authority's general power under section 11 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, to repossess in the event of default on a loan applies to certain loans made prior to 1986 under section 5(2) of the Housing Finance Agency Act, 1981.
Section 23 contains a minor amendment of section 3 of the Housing Act, 1966, to provide that documents such as notices and orders under the Housing Acts may be served by ordinary post where a registered letter is returned undelivered.
The measures being made available in this Bill apply only in serious circumstances and will be used sparingly, but where necessary. We must always remember that local authorities are in the business of providing housing not, except where there is no other course open to them, of evicting people. Indeed, local authorities have in the past been severely criticised for the length of time it takes to secure action against even the most blatant and serious cases of anti-social behaviour. I do not accept that local authorities will use their powers in an arbitrary or cavalier manner.
The Bill is, of course, just one part of a broad ranging overall response by Government to the problem of drugs and anti-social behaviour. That broader response involves measures to tackle both the supply and demand aspects of drug abuse.
The government has put in place a package of measures to tackle the supply side — drug dealing — and the serious criminal activity that it spawns. Equally significant are initiatives to reduce the demand for drugs. These are being pursued in the context of recommendations by the ministerial task force on measures to reduce the demand for drugs. New structures have been established at national and local levels to ensure an effective response to drug abuse in society. The report of the task force, of which I am a member, put forward a comprehensive, co-ordinated package of measures comprising treatment, rehabilitation and prevention. The Government approved our recommendations and allocated £14 million for their implementation. Arising from these recommendations, I have introduced an estate improvement programme which aims to assist in tackling environmental and related problems in severely run-down local authority housing estates and flat complexes in certain disadvantaged urban areas thereby enhancing the living environment for tenants and improving estate management. The £3 million Exchequer funding being made available for this programme over the period 1997-98 will be at least matched by authorities from their own resources. Work to the value of more than £6 million will, therefore, be carried out under the programme and will have a significant beneficial effect on the areas in question.
I again emphasise that this Bill is not the total response of the Government or local authorities to drug dealing and anti-social behaviour in local authority housing estates. Since taking office as Minister of State responsible for housing and urban renewal, one of my main objectives has been to encourage and assist local authorities to improve their overall estate management not just in terms of dealing with problems but also in terms of raising standards and involving tenants positively in the management of their housing estates. To support local authorities in this respect I have introduced a number of initiatives including a housing management grants scheme and the setting up of a housing management group to promote best practice in housing management. Authorities are also being assisted to undertake a programme of training and development for their tenants.
The Housing Management Group has prepared best practice guidelines in housing management and workshops are currently being held for local authority officials. The guidelines are aimed at promoting new approaches to the delivery of housing services which place the emphasis on service quality and customer satisfaction. This is very much in line with the thrust of the recent policy document on the future of local government, A Programme for Change.
The officials who attended the workshops are broadly supportive of the approach being adopted in the guidelines and are committed to their implementation. However, this commitment must be matched by practical support at the highest levels to ensure that they are effective. For this reason, I arranged a seminar earlier this week for county and city managers to discuss housing management issues and to ensure their support for the measures now being developed in this area. I also stressed to the managers the need to adopt a co-ordinated approach to estate management which involves tenants, other statutory agencies, including the gardaí, and community and voluntary organisations.
I see improved housing estate management as a crucial step forward which will pay substantial dividends not just as fire brigade action now but more importantly in helping to prevent the same scale of problems emerging in the future. Local authorities deserve credit for the extent to which they have developed their estate management role over the past two years.
I have tried to provide a reasonably full account of this Bill and the background to it. As I indicated, it is only part of our response to a serious, complex and multi-layered issue, but it is an important and positive part of that response. I am pleased, therefore, to commend the Bill to the House and look forward to strong support for it and the objectives which it seeks to attain.