Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 May 1997

Vol. 151 No. 7

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1996: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, subsection (1), between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following paragraph:

"(c) the person has refused to participate at pre-tenancy training courses.".

This amendment concerns people who refuse to participate in pre-tenancy courses. Future tenants of houses should be brought into the local authority office for a training course. It would also help them get to know their neighbours better. I am not talking about running a course over a couple of weeks but rather providing for tenants to be told what is expected of them in giving them tenancy of a house. It should be stressed that they are being given a home for their family which, if they do not respect, could be taken from them.

There should be a probationary period for certain people moving into local authority housing so that the local authority could review after one year the manner in which people treat their homes. My town is small and we do not have the same problems that are evident in the city. However, it often amazes me, especially at election time when I go from door to door during the campaign, to see nine of ten houses kept beautifully — properly painted and with nice gardens — and then a family house with broken glass in the front door and rubbish thrown around the garden. For some reason they do not seem to care; they are not house proud.

I do not wish to delay the House but this amendment would ensure such people are brought into a local authority office in groups of 11 or 12 — although the groups would be larger for Dublin — and told what is expected of them. This would make a significant difference. They should be told that ignoring such advice or warning would result in eviction. This is not a major problem but it is happening. However, there is no legally binding threat a local authority officer can issue to tenants regarding the upkeep of their home. This is why the pre-tenancy training course and the probationary tenancy mentioned in my second amendment are important.

I do not wish to pick out particular people in society but those who have lived in caravans all their lives, going from post to pillar, and travellers not used to living in the one place, should be told what is expected of them. I can only speak with authority about my own, very caring, council. At present, a letter is sent to the future tenant saying the agreement must be signed and that the rent collector will call. The agreement is signed, the keys are handed over and the tenants are then left on their own. Nobody goes into the house with them to show them where the stop cock for turning of water is or where the fuses for the different lights are located.

I do not want training courses to be akin to tenants returning to school. I am talking about making legal provision for local authorities to organise training courses if they deem it necessary. By inserting this provision in the Bill, local authorities will be given legal clout to do this and to warn tenants.

Regarding the probationary period, there are cases where local authorities need to examine how a tenant is running their home and be able to issue a legal warning to them. At present local authorities have no legal powers to say it is not happy with the way the house is being maintained. The Minister must have seen local authority houses with a piece of cardboard stuck in the window and a towel sticking out through a hole in the glass while nearby there are beautifully kept houses.

While I accept the points raised, pre-tenancy training courses and probationary tenancy are important issues best addressed by local authorities in the context of their management practice. A report made in June 1996 to the housing committee of Dublin Corporation on proposals for the implementation of the estate management initiative stated that the corporation could make the completion of a pre-tenancy training course an essential requirement for the allocation of a dwelling. The report concluded, however, that it might be difficult to refuse to house persons in need simply because they had not attended a course.

It would be wrong to infer that, because a person failed to undergo a pre-tenancy course, he or she is likely to engage in anti-social behaviour. There may be other genuine reasons for non-participation. I do not want pre-tenancy courses to be seen as a negative instrument for vetting tenants. Where there is a serious risk of prospective tenants engaging in anti-social behaviour, the provisions of section 14 as it stands allow the housing authority, for the first time, to refuse or defer the making of a letting.

I accept the Deputy's points on good estate management and I encourage local authorities to carry out pre-tenancy training. It is more beneficial if there is encouragement of and by local authorities and it would not be appropriate or helpful statutorily to require tenants to undergo pre-tenancy training because persons in need of housing could not be refused on these grounds alone.

As to probationary tenancies, Dublin Corporation's submission on estate management to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs in 1996 stated that parole tenancies were unlikely to improve anti-social behaviour. While I accept the Senator's points on estate management, this Bill is not the vehicle to put it into statute. That would be unhelpful in achieving the goal he has outlined.

I thank Senator Fitzgerald for his views. I am a member of the housing committee of South Dublin County Council, which has put in place an estate management programme which ensures that young people who become tenants in our catchment area are given training. It is probably not happening at the same level around the country nor to the extent which the Senator would wish. Dublin Corporation has returned some 12,000 local authority homes to South Dublin County Council since last January, so our courses are run much more regularly than heretofore. I agree with the Minister that it is best left to local authorities to set up such courses and ensure the correct people attend.

I accept what the Minister and Senator Hayes say but, unfortunately, the county council has no legal clout to enforce these schemes. It is totally voluntary and tenants might laugh off a threat from the council because there is nothing in legislation to back it up. However, so be it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, before section 15, to insert the following new section:

"15.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Housing Acts, 1966 to 1992, a local authority shall be empowered to secure and relet abandoned rented dwellings if it is of the view that the dwelling is in danger of being damaged or vandalised.".

This amendment was first moved in the Lower House and is moved again because we think the process of retrieving an abandoned house is too slow. A person may leave a house for various reasons and once it is vacant, it could be stripped or vandalised within a week. This problem may not be as great in rural towns as in Dublin. This new section would give local authorities the power to act quickly.

If the same provisions applying to houses with outstanding loans were applied to these houses, as is suggested in my amendment, such houses could return to local authority control in a short time and would not be abandoned for a long time. Under present law, it would take up to 18 months for a local authority to retrieve an abandoned house. Section 12 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992 provides for security of abandoned dwellings where a local authority or the housing finance agency had made a loan and believed that the dwelling has been or is in danger of being damaged or trespassed upon. This Bill should provide a similar procedure for dealing quickly with abandoned rented dwellings.

Similar rules apply to any loan on a house. Some years ago I took out an Irish Permanent Building Society loan on my house. I made alterations to the house, including changing my boundary slightly. My neighbour had also applied for an Irish Permanent loan, so this change came to the building society's notice. I immediately received a solicitor's letter, asking how I dared make any alteration to my house or property without the authority of the building society. I was sorry I had done anything without first asking the Irish Permanent, which was within its rights.

The Minister knows better than I how long a local authority must wait before regaining possession of an abandoned house. This section would mean that the same provision would apply to such houses as to houses which are subject to a local authority loan, so that the authority could move to protect its property. Letting a house is a financial transaction, just like giving a loan. The only difference is that in one case the council provides finance to build a local authority house and rents it to the tenant, in the other the council provides the tenant with the finance to build his own house. A local authority can take immediate action against a person who has taken out a loan and abandons his house, but cannot act against a person who is the tenant of an abandoned house.

This would be a good provision and would speed up the process, especially in Dublin and the other cities. Senator Hayes would be much more familiar with the problems caused by squatters and the vandalism of empty houses, which are not necessarily local authority houses. I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendment because it would be a major step towards improving the Bill.

Maybe there is some confusion about this.

Maybe there is.

The power in relation to abandoned houses on which a local authority had advanced a loan is based on their power in relation to rented houses, namely section 58 of the Housing Act, 1966. I am satisfied there is nothing in the Housing Acts which would prevent a local authority from securing and reletting an abandoned local authority house. It is important to stress that a local authority can move to secure a house. Obviously, there are rights of tenancy which must be dealt with properly. However, I assure the Senator that local authorities have sufficient powers under section 58 of the Housing Act, 1966, to secure their rented houses.

My Department has made extensive inquiries on the matter with a number of local authorities which have confirmed the adequacy of the powers under section 58 of the Housing Act, 1966, to secure vacant dwellings where necessary. I am aware that housing authorities have regularly taken prompt action to secure abandoned houses where this is considered necessary because of serious risk of damage, illegal occupation or use for drug dealing and anti-social activities. This can be done immediately while steps are taken to locate the tenant or to repossess the dwelling with a view to reletting where this is necessary.

Apart from any legal considerations, local authorities should, as far as possible, avoid boarding up dwellings. While it may, in some circumstances, be necessary to secure a house pending reletting or where serious damage has already occurred, refurbishment, boarding up or security drilling a house for any length of time can lead to serious problems. It serves to draw attention to the fact that the house has been abandoned and can act as a magnet for anti-social behaviour.

Where a local authority dwelling has been abandoned, the priority should be to relet the dwelling as soon as possible. I believe local authorities are aware of the need to secure speedy reletting. However, I will consider bringing the matter to their attention in the context of guidelines to be issued following the enactment of the Bill. Where there is no option but to secure the dwelling for a period of time, the local authority has adequate legal power to so do.

I do not dispute that local authorities have the necessary powers — I am arguing that it takes too long to implement them. However, local authorities can immediately move in cases where there are local authority loans involved. Why not have the same law apply to both cases? The local authority spends the same amount of money in both cases. In one case the building of the house is financed by the local authority and the Department and in the other case the local authority provides the finance to buy the house.

If a house on which there is a local authority loan is abandoned the local authority can repossess the house in a matter of days or weeks. In the other case, a lengthy legal process must be gone through before the authority can take over, protect and relet the house. I do not see why the same law could not be applied to both cases. The Minister of State is right in saying that the powers exist, but one process is very slow, taking up to a year or a year and a half, while the other is instant.

I agree with Senator Fitzgerald. The amendment makes good sense and I cannot see why the Minister of State should have any difficulty in accepting it. Senator Fitzgerald is right that there is no difference between rented local authority accommodation and accommodation mortgaged through local authorities. In some housing estates, half the accommodation is rented from the local authority while the other half is owned. In fact, in most reasonable estates almost 75 per cent of the houses are owned. The problem is that, in the huge conurbations which were built years ago, stretches of houses are allowed to deteriorate and are boarded up. It is all very well for the Minister of State to say the local authorities have adequate powers in such cases but they do not actually have those powers because if a tenant returns after three or four months they will say they did not abandon the house and will demand it back.

The Minister of State should have no difficulty inserting this qualification into the Bill. It does not harm the Bill but strengthens it from the point of view of the Government and the taxpayer. I ask the Minister of State to consider that by accepting the amendment she would strengthen her own hand and that of the suppliers of the money, the taxpayers. The delays which have occurred in cases involving rented accommodation have been much longer than those in cases involving mortgagees of local authorities.

I assure the Senator that the process is the same in both cases. The confusion seems to be arising about the power to secure the property and the legal process which must be gone through to take back the property. Section 58 of the 1966 Act provides local authorities with the power to secure their property. It may be the case that Senators have experience of local authorities not availing of that power in certain instances and that complaints have been made to Senators about houses which were not secured. However, the reality is that local authorities have the power to secure their property, obviously without prejudice to the outcome of a case if they are going through the normal court proceedings. Delays of a year or a year and a half in these court actions are not the experience at local authority level.

The powers in relation to houses on which there are loans is based on the powers which were already in place in relation to houses rented from a local authority. It is unnecessary to add this amendment because the power already exists.

I would be very interested to hear of examples of local authorities not availing of the power to secure their property if Senators wish to provide me with that information. I will send out a circular with guidelines on this. I would like to ensure that local authorities are making estate management work and using their existing powers.

There is sometimes a tendency to think that additional legislation is required. However, the legislation and powers are in place. The normal protections are also in place because we are dealing with people who have rights — there must be court procedures with regard to taking back a house. In the meantime, the power to secure lies with the local authority and is effectively the same as the other example mentioned by the Senator. If it is not being used appropriately I would be happy to take that up on the Senator's behalf because I want to ensure that estate management is effective and of a high standard across the board. To ensure this, the powers at the disposal of local authorities need to be used, and used effectively, from time to time.

While I accept the Minister of State's comments, would it not be more appropriate to have the other legislation to which she refers incorporated in this Bill? I have no knowledge of abandoned houses, but I am informed that they are widespread in some local authorities. Houses are boarded up for protection, which indicates that there is something wrong with the legal process of reletting or repossession.

A very small number of local authority houses are boarded up because when previous tenants do not look after them they must be repaired. In many instances it can take a considerable period of time to bring the property back to an acceptable condition for the next tenant.

In large urban areas huge numbers of houses have been boarded up, some as a result of the sale of local authority houses to tenants. Tenants did not buy their houses in certain areas and this led to various social problems. A huge number of estates in Dublin, Cork and Limerick are boarded up, giving them a bad reputation. When this happens, people will not move into them.

Proper estate management is probably the answer to this problem. Under existing legislation, county councils and urban councils have the right to establish estate management groups and become involved in estate management between the tenants and local authorities. Proper estate management in all local authority areas would prevent the problems described by Senator Fitzgerald coming to the fore.

Huge social difficulties are associated with allocating houses. There are also difficulties connected with mixed estates and with the way in which people manage their houses. Houses on estates become abandoned when people wishing to live a "normal" life move out. The boarding and securing of such houses by local authorities exacerbates the problem and these houses become the target of anti-social activities.

I am not sure how we can deal with this. However, if a house is abandoned the sooner it can be returned to the status of a dwelling house the better. In this regard, the amendment seeks to speed up the process of renovation.

I hope the Minister of State will circulate a letter to the housing sections of local authorities pointing out that legislation is in place to address the speedy taking over of these houses.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 15.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and both may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, subsection (1), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following paragraph:

"(f) a private landlord.".

The destruction that drug abusers, pushers and barons are wreaking on society, including maiming, murder and other related activities must be addressed. The Bill provides that an exclusion order can be brought against those involved in these activities, which is welcome. It is time that a "get tough" approach was taken and that what may be described as draconian laws were introduced to discourage these people from interfering with society and with our families. Their activities have created fear in the country. They must be excluded from society and I would support the efforts of any Government in this regard. Virtually every crime involving the taking of money is drug related. Not a day goes by without hearing reports on drug abuse and associated problems.

The Bill provides for the issuing of exclusion orders to people renting accommodation from local authorities. If they are excluded, where will they go? Landlords are within their rights to investigate whether an exclusion order has been served against a prospective tenant. This could be done confidentially through the Garda Síochána, health boards or housing authorities. No respectable landlord would wish to see an excluded tenant within an ass's roar of his or her property.

Landlords or estate agents have the right to protect their property from drug pushers. A record of exclusion orders served by local authorities should be maintained. Computer technology should make this register instantly available to landlords. It would enable landlords from different parts of the country to check on exclusion orders wherever they were served. Many people are leaving the cities and seeking refuge in rural areas, particularly in the west of Ireland. Local communities do not know where these people come from or who they are. They go into social welfare offices and claim the dole. I am not suggesting that these people are pushing drugs. However, landlords in rural areas should be able to check whether an exclusion order was served against an individual. That should be the only information available to them. This should be inserted in legislation rather than having it done behind closed doors. If we do not do this we are simply moving the problem from local authority houses to another location.

I have a difficulty with this section and the Bill. My concerns relate to the Homeless Persons Act.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are discussing amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

There is a relationship between this legislation and the Homeless Persons Act. I understand the reasoning behind this section in which an individual can be excluded and refused reallocation of another house by a local authority as a result of drug pushing or anti-social behaviour. However, these people then become homeless.

The Bill does not clarify the circumstances under which people can be excluded. Are they excluded following court proceedings? Are they excluded because someone has suggested their involvement in drugs to the local authority? What are the criteria for exclusion? Who will be excluded? For example, if the husband is excluded what is his wife's situation? If a husband is excluded is he no longer entitled to a house? Under the Homeless Persons Act are people entitled to appeal the exclusion and their subsequent ineligibility for a second house? What criteria will be used to reverse an exclusion order so that people can be rehoused? This Bill contradicts the Homeless Persons Act so one of these pieces of legislation is flawed.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

These points are more relevant to the section than to the amendments.

There is no such thing as a private landlord in 90 per cent of lettings. Ninety per cent of social welfare lettings are part paid for by the health boards. Private landlords are now State aided. If someone is excluded from local authority housing can health boards pay a subvention towards that person's private rental costs? If they can, the Bill is a nonsense. What effect will the Bill have on private rental accommodation in which health boards pay so much of the costs? Private landlord should have access to the same information as local authorities when considering the suitability of a tenant.

There is a degree of confusion. I am not sure if this is self-induced. I am opposed to including private landlords in this section. Supplementary benefit is paid directly to claimants who then organise their own rented accommodation. Benefit payments are not made to landlords.

There is a problem in Dublin where most landlords do not meet local communities and refuse to follow up queries from communities where a tenant breaks a tenancy agreement. Section 15 is a sensible section and brings the relevant parties around the table for the first time. That is the important point. We now have the relevant parties discussing this and I do not believe we should have the private landlords at those discussions.

A number of points have been raised but I do not consider it appropriate that private landlords be empowered to request information along the lines proposed. The exchange of information provided for in the Bill is between statutory agencies and other agencies subject to Ministerial approval. Private landlords are in neither category and it would be inappropriate to extend this power to them on that account.

The exclusion orders are modelled on the barring orders in cases of domestic violence. They target people in a household who are guilty of antisocial behaviour. A local authority can issue an exclusion order and the case can go to court, where the court decides whether the exclusion order will be made or not. There will be also be a time limit on the exclusion order. There is an improvement in the Bill on the current situation, where if one member of the family is guilty of antisocial behaviour, the entire family can be evicted. Under this Bill the perpetrator is targeted more effectively.

In relation to the social welfare payments and rent allowance, the health boards are being given the discretion to decide whether or not to pay rent allowance to someone with an exclusion order against them or who is considered guilty of antisocial behaviour. Before this Bill was introduced there was no discretion, which was a big problem in this area. People who were dealing in drugs were being evicted from local authority estates but were able to move in nearby by availing of a rent allowance and set up shop again. There is a new and important power in this Bill relating to rent allowances and supplementary welfare allowances.

Another difficulty addressed by this section relates to an information deficit that exists because of the Data Protection Act and confidentiality. Statutory agencies have certain statutory controls that mean they cannot communicate information to each other when it is necessary. This section has an enabling provision that means they will have the right to exchange and pass on information as is appropriate and needed.

Private landlords are under no statutory obligations to provide accommodation for anybody. I was interested to hear the Senator mention a figure of 90 per cent. That is not my view of how many people are availing of rent allowances. A landlord can refuse to provide accommodation for a prospective tenant or he or she can require that person to provide such information, for example, that proves the person has not had an exclusion order issued against them. The applicant must then get the necessary information from the local authority.

Accordingly, there is a difference between statutory agencies who are obliged to provide accommodation and who require this information exchange, and private landlords, who have a different relationship with tenants. They need a different facility to ensure they have the information they need before entering into any tenancy arrangement with an applicant as it is a different relationship. The purpose of this Bill is to enable local authorities to manage their estates and to deal with serious antisocial behaviour that arises from drug dealing. The Bill does not deal with the drugs menace no matter where it occurs. We have a range of measures and all sides of the House are aware that there is no single piece of legislation that will solve this problem. This Bill gives local authorities enabling powers to target and deal with antisocial behaviour. That needs to be remembered when amendments are being discussed, because we are talking of statutory agencies which have obligations to people regarding housing. We need to ensure that their information exchange is working properly.

The Minister of State says that this Bill relates to local authorities but everything must work together. People cannot be taken out of local authority housing and farmed out to the rest of society. It does not matter if it is included in this Bill or others, but people should have the right to information. If I want to know about the Minister of State I can go to the library and get all the information about her.

Not all of it.

Or all the information about myself. Why should the drug dealer or person excluded from local authority housing be different? This is a Bill to give enabling powers to local authorities, but this section was brought in because of the opposition of residents to drug dealers. I was worried that this would flare up into more crime and killings. When I mention private landlords, I am referring to myself or Senator Lanigan, if we had a house to let.

If the Senators have, I hope it is registered.

If we had a house, we still deal with a local authority because it can demand that house. If there is a shortage of accommodation and our house is vacant, the local authority can demand it. The Minister of State's advisers disagree, but that is the impression I had, though I will not labour that point.

This would protect society. If a person wants to let a house, they should be able to ask the Garda if their prospective tenant has had an exclusion order served against him or her for selling drugs. I do not think the Minister of State will accept this amendment, but I wish she would.

This is a very discriminatory Bill. It deals with local authority housing tenants and exclusion orders can be granted against them. The same exclusion cannot be applied to those who are not in local authority housing. It is being suggested that most of the problems arising from drug dealing are coming from local authority housing areas and that by excluding specific people from these areas this situation will change. What will happen to somebody who has been convicted by the courts and sent to prison? The Minister of State said they will be excluded from getting rented accommodation through the local authority. I presume they will not receive a subvention from the health board for private rented accommodation but if they do, what is the point of this? Where will we house such people? Will we dump them on the street because they have been convicted of anti-social behaviour? Will they end up back in prison?

Zero tolerance.

Zero tolerance will apply after they have been convicted. We are excluding these people from society. How does the Minister of State intend to rehabilitate these people if they have been excluded from society and have no place to live?

If an exclusion order is served on somebody, he or she must leave the local authority house. They will then seek a payment from the Eastern Health Board for private rented accommodation. Is it correct that under this legislation the Eastern Health Board has the power to refuse to give that person supplementary benefit? Why is there a difficulty with that because it does not involve private landlords?

Where will we house these people?

I come from a constituency riddled with drugs and most people in the community would not give a fiddle what happens to these people.

That is the problem.

Will this happen before or after these people return from their holidays in the Canaries? I ask that because drug barons have considerable sums of money. If the local authority and the Garda have information which will remove this scourge from our society, they should give it to others. As Senator Lanigan said, this is discriminatory in that a local authority can obtain an exclusion order but the owner of private rented accommodation cannot. What good is that?

On the question of homelessness, I was conscious when we drafted this Bill that we did not give a wide definition to anti-social behaviour which would lead to the outcome Senator Lanigan described. The definition is focused and clearly relates to drug dealing. A young drug addict living at home in a local authority estate will not come under the remit of the Bill. The legislation relates to drug dealing, violence and intimidation. Women living in local authority estates in Dublin are terrified by what is happening around them. Drug barons living in the Canaries are using their estates as bases from which to run their businesses. We must deal with that problem.

I do not accept that many people will be excluded as a result of the Bill, which is a deterrent and clearly sets out the limits to which people can go. If somebody decides to deal in drugs, intimidate or act violently towards people in the interests of selling drugs, they must pay a high price which includes losing their home. Such people may end up in a shelter for the homeless for whom there is accommodation. The rights which people should be able to avail of, whether local authority housing or rent allowance, will be denied to them because of their activities. That is an important message to send.

I am not in the business of excluding people from their homes but the drugs crisis obliges us to deal with this problem. The provisions of the Bill home in on individuals making money from death and who will never be homeless. This is a big business and a considerable amount of money is being made from drugs. I cannot imagine drug dealers wandering the streets cap in hand. These parasites are feeding off young lives and we must make it clear that will not be tolerated. I have no time for zero tolerance but certain aspects of the social ills which exist require zero tolerance. We must make it clear that the Government and the Opposition, which shares our view, are serious. I am glad this Bill has been generally welcomed. I appreciate Senator Lanigan made those points in that spirit.

There are no statutory obligations or controls on the private rented accommodation sector and the Ombudsman has no role in this regard. The private landlord has absolute power in relation to his or her property and does not have to let it. I was fascinated by Senator Fitzgerald's view in this regard. I wish he would not give me ideas because I might act on them.

I hope the Minister of State will act on them.

I am advised that one would have to go through compulsory purchase order proceedings to interfere with the right to private property in that way. I was not aware a local authority could simply move somebody into private rented accommodation, it is news to me. We are dealing with a failure of communications between statutory agencies which have the responsibilities about which Senator Lanigan spoke, that is, to house the homeless and provide rent allowances. That system is in place to help people in need but it must work effectively when people use the system to peddle death.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 9, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) The Gardaí shall notify the local authority where convictions are secured for drug dealing or where raids on dwellings result in drugs being discovered.".

It is common sense that local authorities be kept informed of anything of this nature. Some estates in Dublin are enormous. I remember spending four hours trying to find the way out of one when canvassing for the Seanad. It is impossible for local authorities to know of everything happening on estates of that size. If the Garda uncover criminal activity they should inform the housing officer that an undesirable is operating from a local authority house. This provision is in line with what is sought in the section in terms of exclusion orders being served against such people.

I cannot accept this amendment. This Bill has arisen out of considerable consultation with local authorities on deficiencies in current practice. The Senator's proposal was not requested by the authorities, although the deficiency in information exchange was raised. I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to oblige the Garda to notify the local authority of convictions for drug dealing. Authorities will be empowered under section 15 to request and obtain information from the Garda in specific cases so that access to such information exists if needed. It is important to remember that this Bill relates to the management of social housing. A procedure whereby the Garda would be obliged to notify local authorities of all convictions for drug dealings and all raids on dwellings resulting in drugs finds would go beyond the scope of those objectives.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 10, lines 36 and 37, to delete "exceed the amount of the weekly rent payable" and substitute "be less than the amount of the weekly rent payable plus £1".

Where people are in arrears with their rent, it is not enough to deduct their rent from their social welfare payments. A small sum should also be deducted for the payment of rent arrears and the amendment specifies £1 per week. Otherwise, those people will never clear their arrears and the debt will continue to increase.

The purpose of this section is to ensure arrears do not build up to unsustainable levels rather than for recovery of existing arrears, which remain a matter in the first instance for arrangement between the housing authority and the tenant. There is no question of arrears being ignored. The practices of local authorities for recovery of arrears will continue to apply. However, the section should help lessen the incidence of arrears problems in future and lessen the evictions resulting from such situations.

Why is this section included in the Bill?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not dealing with the section yet, Senator Lanigan, we are dealing with the amendment.

Why has the section been inserted? It seems more appropriate to the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act.

Arrears are often known to be as high as £800 to £900. A person paying £1 per week would take 800 weeks to clear their arrears but an effort would at least be made. It would be a way of educating such people that they cannot allow arrears to build up, that they must be responsible, that they are fortunate to have accommodation and a good home and that they must pay for it. In addition to their rent being deducted from their social welfare payments, arrears, where owed, should also be deducted at £1 per week.

This Bill deals with good estate management but does not cover all aspects of it. I spend much of my time encouraging and developing policies with local authorities to ensure they manage their estates better and that tenants are included in that process as far and as realistically as possible. I have held seminars and have met with city and county managers to convey the message of the need for better management. I asked them to ensure it comes from the top down as well as at housing official level.

This section enables local authorities to use an alternative to eviction where rent arrears exist. It does not mean people will avoid paying rent——

They do. That is the problem.

——while still having arrears. It is up to a local authority to ensure rent arrears do not build up. That is a management issue and one about which I have been concerned since I became a Minister. Certain local authorities have not been sufficiently well managed to ensure rent arrears were dealt with at an early stage and evictions have been used as a big stick to deal with the issue. It remains the ultimate power but this section provides another route which is more preferable and ensures the local authority receives the rent to which it is entitled. It can also go to court to obtain it.

Many people are living on very low incomes and arrears which build up should not get out of control. The local authority has a major part to play in this. As time goes on and the system is enforced, the likelihood of rent arrears building up to a high level will decrease. This is a good measure to deal with a management issue. It is not related to drugs dealing and the Senator is correct when he stated it does not focus on anti-social behaviour. It focuses on good estate management and is an opportunity for local authorities to address the issue of rent where needs be, such as when people do not pay their rent. It also allows them to address it in a way which meets their needs and protects innocent family members who may not be responsible for the rent arrears but still end up evicted. I find that unsatisfactory and this is an attempt to ensure it is minimised and eliminated, if possible.

I agree with what the Minister said but I do not agree that this section should be in the Bill. I also agree with her sentiments about the containment of rent arrears and that good estate management should eliminate that. In the past the State suffered huge losses in tax receipts because the tax authorities dealt inadequately with defaulting customers. They have now got their act together and make prompt tax demands. The trauma of the build up of arrears can be caused by one person in the family being under the impression that somebody else has been paying the rent. Suddenly there is a huge build-up of arrears. This problem is indicative of bad management within the household and equally bad management on the part of certain local authorities.

My local authority is exceptionally good at maintaining person to person contact and carrying out weekly collections. If that type of estate management were introduced this provision would not be necessary. It is unfortunate a Bill must be introduced to target people whose rent is in arrears as it probably could have been dealt with by another means. However, I agree with the Minister of State that good management by local authorities is the answer to this problem.

I agree to a large extent with the sentiments expressed by the Minister of State and Senator Lanigan. Does the Minister of State have an estimate of the total arrears owed to local authorities?

We must look at how legislation deals with all sections of society. A publican who has not paid his or her tax on time will not get a licence for the next year. If a farmer has not paid his tax on time, his grants will be seized by the Revenue Commissioners. There are no ifs or buts and the Revenue Commissioners do not seize just a percentage of the grants. All grants are seized. I am aware of one man who had grants amounting to £27,000 seized. Perhaps he had plenty of money, but the seizure of that money broke him. I estimate that millions of pounds in arrears are owed to local authorities.

I agree that the way to deal with this problem is by proper estate management and by calling every week to collect the rents. However, the money is not collected and no effort is put into collecting arrears. They tend to be written off and that practice is accepted. The rent collector or the county manager will tell councillors they are doing their best, but then they shake their heads and say the money is gone forever. I do not wish to labour the point, but why cannot an extra few pounds be collected to clear arrears?

Obviously, there are unfortunate people who find themselves in difficulty and I am not seeking to crucify them. However, many people have plenty of money to go to the local pub but they have no money to pay for their houses. The first payment deducted from my cheque each month is my mortgage payment. Then I must pay my VHI, the telephone bill and the ESB bill. There is usually no money left and it was a great deal worse this month.

My heart bleeds for the Senator.

We must face these responsibilities. I am sorry the Minister of State has made up her mind about this matter. An effort should be made to collect arrears from whatever benefits the tenants receive.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Section 17 agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.

Amendment No. 9 is related to amendment No. 8 and both amendments may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 11, subsection (1), lines 8 and 9, to delete "or a person who has failed to vacate a house on termination of a tenancy".

Section 20 defines a good squatter and a bad squatter. A squatter is somebody who takes over property without authority. It makes no difference to me whether a squatter is a drug abuser or a person moving from place to place, the person is still squatting. The amendment seeks to remove that distinction.

Section 20 (a) states: "a house provided by a housing authority or any part thereof is occupied, whether continuously or otherwise, by a person (other than the tenant or a person who has failed to vacate a house on termination of a tenancy)". That means the person is a squatter. Section 20 (b) states: "a member of the Garda Síochána has received notification from the housing authority that the authority believe that the person is or has been engaged in anti-social behaviour and that it is necessary in the interest of good estate management that the said person be required to leave the house". My interpretation of that paragraph is that if the Garda believe a squatter is causing trouble, they will notify the local authority. However, if the squatter is not causing trouble the Garda will not notify the local authority.

It is clear paragraph (b) should be deleted. A squatter is a squatter in every sense of the word. Paragraph (b) means the Garda will report to the local authority that an undesirable person is squatting in house No. 10 — I do not mean Tony Blair — and is carrying out illegal activities. They will advise that the squatter be removed. However, in the case of paragraph (a), it appears the Garda will not report the presence of a squatter to the local authority. The section appears to imply there are two types of squatter. In one case, the Garda notify the local authority of the squatter's presence but in the case of the other squatter the local authority finds out itself. If the latter is not causing trouble, it will take about 12 months to remove the person from the house. By then the squatter will have located another house in which they will squat for another 12 months. Senator Hayes is more aware of this problem than I because he must deal with it more often. These squatters can move in circles. Why are there two categories of squatter? Amendment No. 9 seeks to delete paragraph (b).

The Senator appears to have misinterpreted the provision. The section provides that the local authority will notify the Garda. These are exceptional powers to deal with exceptional circumstances so the Garda can deal immediately with a situation where anti-social behaviour is taking place. The usual powers in relation to squatting will remain in place but this provision facilitates an immediate response by the Garda to deal with drug dealing and anti-social behaviour.

Technically, a squatter is a squatter. However, from the point of view of a community, there is a difference between a squatter and somebody who is squatting in order to secure a base to deal in drugs, to intimidate and break down people's doors, to terrify potential witnesses and to act violently against people. We are ensuring the gardaí can act immediately in these circumstances so that we can deal with the scenario where a person can move from one place to another and use the courts system to delay action.

Senator Fitzgerald is right about drug dealers moving from place to place to extend their time as long as possible. This is an effective but exceptional power which ensures that gardaí can ensure that someone leaves a house or flat. If a squatter who is guilty of anti-social behaviour refuses to do so they will then be guilty of an offence. We are targeting this serious issue which should not be taken lightly.

The Minister is right but a squatter is a squatter in the eyes of a court.

I do not argue with that.

They should be treated in the same manner. There is a contradiction in what the Minister is saying. I tabled an amendment providing for the gardaí to notify the local authority but the Minister did not accept it. Now she is talking about the local authority notifying the gardaí. Section 19 (b) states "a member of the Garda Síochána has received notification from the housing authority..." This is included in the Bill to cover anti-social behaviour by drug pushers. Why did the Minister not accept my amendment which asked for the gardaí to notify the local authority? Why can there not be two way traffic?

If it was not so late in the evening and so many people were not out canvassing, I would push these amendments.

The Senator is being magnanimous.

I know Senator Hayes wants to go canvassing so I will let him off the hook.

This is Fianna Fáil's effort to win two seats in my constituency.

We support the Bill but there is a contradiction in it. A squatter is a squatter. According to Dublin county councillors, Senators and Deputies, squatters are the scourge of housing authorities regardless of whether they are drug abusers or criminals. They are squatters and trying to get them out of a house takes about a year by which time they have seen another property in another estate and they move into it. These people are as well known to the local authorities as television personalities because they meet them every day.

I cannot understand how this section states the local authority shall notify the Garda Síochána when my amendment suggesting the Garda Síochána should notify the local authority was not accepted.

I have gone over this ground already. I do not argue with the fact that a squatter is a squatter. However, we are dealing with exceptional anti-social behaviour which has a negative impact on communities. We are introducing exceptional powers to target this behaviour.

I do not agree.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Section 20 agreed to.
Sections 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Despite the arguments I have had with the Minister, I welcome this Bill. I do not think the Minister will encounter opposition in either House against what she or the Government is trying to do, which is to make this country a better place in which to live. Law and housing can be confused and this Bill tries to clarify the matter.

Even though Senator Lanigan and I disagree with certain aspects of the Bill, we did not set out to deliberately upset the Minister or affect the Bill. We are trying to make it better, if that is possible. I hope the Minister accepts my contribution in the spirit it was offered. If we wanted to withdraw our co-operation we could have called for divisions. I am still interested in the Bill and what it is trying to achieve. It is a good Bill and we welcome it. We hope it will achieve what it sets out to do.

I congratulate the Minister and her officials on this Bill which is another part of this Government's programme. It is welcomed by all sides of the House. The Bill will make a difference to a small percentage of the population who are living in misery because of the drugs menace.

I thank the Senators who contributed to this debate. I appreciate their co-operation and the goodwill towards the Bill. People understand the necessity for it. It is a sad reflection on society that we have to introduce a Bill of this type. However, it includes measures which are necessary to empower local authorities to deal with serious social problems. I appreciate the energy Senators have put into the debate. It has given me food for thought on the guidelines I will give to local authorities. At the end of the day, they will operate this Bill and it is important that its implementation is as good as the Bill itself. I thank my officials for the work they have done on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Next Wednesday at 1 p.m.

Top
Share