Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Mar 2002

Vol. 169 No. 17

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2001: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. D. Cregan

Now that people can get a subsidy for accommodation, is the Minister prepared to recognise that this section provides an opportunity, particularly in the 20% social house area? The Bill is providing for 15% and 5%, respect ively, in the definitions of social housing and local authority housing. If people buying these houses are prepared to put their own money into it, would this section allow the Minister to subsidise their mortgages accordingly?

Is the Minister considering asking the relevant authorities, in particular the banks and the building societies, about second generation mortgages? By doing that, he would create an environment where people would find it very easy to provide accommodation for themselves. Is the Minister prepared to agree that there is an opportunity here?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

Section 7 provides that mortgage subsidies may be provided to eligible persons by housing authorities and that these subsidies may be recouped, in part or all, from moneys provided by the Oireachtas and the Minister for Finance.

First-time buyers, who qualify for the scheme and are given the opportunity to purchase a new house under the scheme, may obtain a mortgage from their local authority of up to 95% of the sale price of the house. Mortgages are advanced over a 25-year term and the amount of each mortgage will be determined by the local authority with regard to each household's circumstances.

Under the affordable housing scheme, mortgage subsidies are available to householders who have incomes of €25,395 per annum or less to reduce households' mortgage payments. The maximum subsidy payable is €2,539 and it is payable to the households with an income of €12,697 or less. A sliding scale in terms of the amount of subsidy payable will apply to households with incomes greater than €12,697 but less than €25,395. The shared ownership scheme provides rental subsidies similar to the mortgage subsidy provided under the affordable housing scheme.

Mr. D. Cregan

The Minister of State knows that the people who are making the money here are those who are providing the 25-year mortgages. A 25-year mortgage to a person who is 25 years of age will be paid when he or she is 50 years old and the people who will have made the money are the banks. The Minister of State is saying that any person earning over €12,697 per year, which is £10,000, gets a subsidy. These are people earning £200 a week.

The Minister of State must increase the subsidy. As Minister of State, he has an opportunity to do it and to demand that the Department do it. If he is seen to increase this, he will be giving people the opportunity. If a man is earning €15,000 per year, for instance, he may be entitled to the first-time buyer's grant but he is not entitled to the subsidy.

The Minister of State has a chance, in setting out the regulations, to avail of an opportunity provided by this Bill. He should look at this section again to see how he can increase the limit to give people the opportunity to provide accommodation for themselves.

Mr. D. Wallace

Naturally I cannot make any changes but I take the point that the Senator is making. There are ongoing reviews of all these subsidies and grants.

Mr. D. Cregan

He should look at it. He should not be afraid of doing it.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

This section deals with the control on resale of affordable housing. I mentioned in my Second Stage speech that there should be equal opportunity for persons in the local authority housing, affordable housing or voluntary housing sectors to buy their homes under a tenant purchase scheme. A great deal of money has been ploughed into the voluntary housing sector over the years. No doubt they are providing a great service and they are taking up the slack where the local authorities are not doing it.

To be fair to the people who are being housed in that sector, anybody who is in long-term accommodation in the voluntary housing sector should have an opportunity to buy his or her home. This is critical. In any area there can be a person in voluntary housing, another person in affordable housing and a third person in local authority housing, but the person in voluntary housing is not being treated in the same way as the other two. I ask the Minister of State to introduce an amendment or a regulation so that the person in voluntary housing has an equal opportunity to buy his or her home.

Mr. Moylan

While I agree with the clawback and I welcome that section in the Bill because there are people who purchase local authority houses, sell them at a fair profit and build another house in the same locality, there are cases where people have to move because they have been relocated in their jobs or for other reasons. Is there any way that the Department or Bill will give an opportunity to people to seek a reduction if they can prove categorically that they have to move to a new location for their jobs?

Mr. D. Cregan

Again, there is a contradiction in terms. In the Minister of State's very able-minded reply he made a point regarding the processing of voluntary housing. He said all facilities are available to a person if he or she decides to purchase a house in a joint venture. He or she is not marginalised or assessed in terms of the amount of money he or she can earn. He or she could earn £50,000 per year and still get all the benefits because he or she is coming from a voluntary house, yet the person who is not living in a voluntary house gets no benefits. The same rule should apply to everyone.

Is it not true that the person accommodated in voluntary accommodation is entitled to all facilities, to avail of the payback scheme or the 50:50 loan as we call it? He or she is entitled to all the benefits with no accountability in terms of what he or she is earning. If he or she is earning €40,000 or €50,000 per year, he or she is entitled to the benefits and we cannot question this. This is because he or she is coming from a voluntary house. Is that not true? Should it not be the same for everybody else?

Mr. D. Wallace

As Senator Cregan said, I dealt with that matter in my earlier response. I take his point. Senator Burke made the point that people in this category should be encouraged. I pointed out the incentives available to such people to vacate that voluntary property to allow somebody on a lower income to avail of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

This section deals with new house grants. Subsection (1) gives authority to the Minister to make a grant available to a person "in respect of a new house." Subsection (2) states:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations made under this section may provide for all or any of the following:

(a) the class or classes of person to whom a grant may be paid;

(b) the amount of a grant including the payment of different amounts in different circumstances and subject to those conditions that the Minister may prescribe, including conditions relating to:

(i) standards of construction of houses and the provision of water, sewerage and other services;

(ii) the efficient consumption of energy, including the use of renewable forms of energy;

(iii) sustainable building practices, including the use of recycled or re-usable building materials and the storage, removal, recycling or re-use of builder's waste.

Paragraph (c)(ii) refers to “payment of a grant to persons who have previously purchased or built another house for occupation by them.”

There is ambiguity. Subsection (1) states the grant is made available "in respect of a new house," whereas subsection (2)(c)(ii) speaks of payment of a grant to “persons who have previously purchased or built another house for occupation by them.” I thought this was a new house grant. Are we confusing this with the first-time buyer's grant, or is this a new grant available to everybody if they had a house previously and moved to a new one? I thought it would be a first-time buyer's grant and available to first-time buyers of a new or second-hand house. However, under the section it would seem that the Minister can make a regulation to give a grant to a person who already has or had a house previously, whether new or second hand. If such a person buys or builds a new house, he or she will get a grant, or perhaps I am reading the section incorrectly.

Mr. D. Cregan

The Senator is not reading it incorrectly.

Mr. Burke

I do not think I am. I would have thought that this section would have dealt with a first-time buyer's grant, whether the first-time buyer is buying a new or second-hand house. The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. D. Wallace

The main anomaly in the existing legislation relates to grant eligibility for persons who obtained legal separations following marital breakdown. The current position on a married couple who never bought a house and subsequently obtained a legal separation or divorce is that the first partner to the purchase of the new house can obtain a new house grant. However, the other partner does not automatically receive the grant. This partner must comply with section 25 of the 1988 Housing Act and prove hardship in order to obtain a grant.

The provision of subsection (2)(a) will allow the removal of this anomaly in the making of regulations governing the class or classes of persons to whom a grant may be paid. The regulations will provide for a married couple who never bought a house, split up and obtained a legal separation or divorce to be treated as first-time purchasers subsequently and qualify automatically for a new house grant.

Mr. D. Cregan

With respect, the Minister of State just said "who never bought a house". Section 11(2)(c)(ii) refers to “payment of a grant to persons who have previously purchased or built another house for occupation by them”. I understand that refers to a family. One can have a married couple who get divorced. Section 11(2)(c)(ii) should not use the word “them” but the words “him or her-them”. Again, the Minister of State has been misinformed because this will become a regulation when we are finished with the Bill. It refers to the payment of a grant to “persons” who have previously purchased or built another house for occupation by them. Therefore, both are entitled to get money if they split up.

Mr. Moylan

I take on board what Senator Cregan has said. It looks a little confusing to me. My reading of it is that one or other party will be entitled to a grant. I spoke earlier in respect of the amount of new house grants and the Minister of State replied to my suggestion thereon by saying it would only push up the price of houses. In 1972 about £952 was available for a new house grant. Now, £3,000 or €3,800 is available for those who qualify. This should be looked at.

Young couples who build houses under the permitted size – whether because of separation or otherwise – are entitled to a grant of €3,800. Young first-time buyers or builders should be entitled to more than the grant of €3,800.

From my reading of the Bill, which I hope the Minister of State will clarify, one or other party of a separated couple will now be entitled to a grant. That is proper because the party in question would have been put at a huge inconvenience in breaking up. If he or she wanted a new house and was not in a position to do so, he or she will now be afforded the opportunity to get a grant, even though one may have been obtained for the original family house.

Mr. D. Wallace

I reiterate the point that there is flexibility in respect of hardship cases. For instance, if a house is burned down or whatever, there is flexibility to give a second grant. There is provision in the Bill to allow the local authority make representations to allow a grant where hardship cases are established.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Costello

I require clarification on subsection (2)(a) which states that a Minister can pay certain moneys to bodies which would represent or promote the formation of co-operative or voluntary groups or associations which have as an object the provision of houses, sites etc. Is the Bill referring to local authorities or housing agencies in this respect? Will the Minister of State indicate if he has any intention of putting together a register of housing associations with the necessary information on who they are, where they come from, what they do, what work they have done in this and other countries, the conditions, the aegis under which they operate, and the relationship they have to the communities in which they con struct houses and for which they receive funding from the Department?

Mr. D. Wallace

My advice is that assistance can be made available to anyone providing legal advice or housing information such as housing bodies, contractors in some instances, electricians and carpenters.

Mr. Costello

That is not the question I asked. I asked specifically about money the Minister will make available under the section to housing bodies, whether voluntary or co-operative. What sort of money is he talking about and what will be known about these bodies? Will there be a register of these bodies? There are a lot of question marks over the current housing association business in regard to how it operates in a semi-private, semi-public arena as do-gooder organisations, almost as charities, some of which are excellent. We do not know who these organisations are, nor do we know anything about their boards. In many instances we do not know how they operate. I would like to know what structures will be in place if money is being made available to these bodies.

Mr. Moylan

There are many voluntary housing bodies throughout the country who do an excellent job in providing houses which are substantially grant-aided by the Minister and the Department. Section 12 spells out clearly what is intended in this regard.

Mr. D. Cregan

I understand what Senator Costello is asking. I have been a member of the housing committee in Cork City Hall since 1979. The voluntary bodies and associations have taken away the inequality in local authority assisted housing. They have helped people who are no longer tenants, particularly men who are sometimes more marginalised than women. Some single men do not take proper care of themselves or get proper recognition. From a local authority point of view, they do not receive the same recognition as women. Obviously people with young children must be accommodated first but elderly or single women get priority over men. This is why more men than women rely on the Simon Community. I am not suggesting there are no women in this situation. Unfortunately there are, but there are more men, including elderly men, in this vulnerable situation. It is sad that these people are referred to as "drop-outs" who must be taken care of. I am happy in regard to the voluntary housing groups, particularly in the Cork region, to whom the Minister has made contributions in the past.

Senator Costello made a point about housing groups in other countries, including England, where they have worked well. The questions asked and assessments carried out on these groups at local authority level are very detailed. The Department does not make money available easily unless it thinks it is right and proper. These housing groups are doing an excellent job. Residents who are provided with this type of accommodation are in no hurry out of it. The accommodation is very good, particularly for single people, especially men. I may have a soft spot for men because of the way they are pushed around. These people are much better looked after by voluntary housing groups.

Mr. D. Wallace

I concur with Senator Cregan who paid tribute to the voluntary housing associations. These associations do tremendous work throughout the country which I recognised in my statement. A housing association register will be considered.

The amount of money involved was €1 million for this sector. These bodies must be approved by the Department. The criteria to qualify for approved status are set out in the Department's circular. This must be complied with in order to be recognised as a voluntary housing body.

Mr. Costello

I would appreciate if the Minister of State would take on board the setting up of a register of these voluntary housing associations.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 13 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Costello

As I said earlier on Second Stage – it is a shame to be dealing with Committee and Report Stages in one sitting – section 21 has nothing to do with this Bill. It is about nuisance, obstruction, trespass and interference with the quality of water, sanitary, electrical and other services. There was absolutely no hint that this extraneous amendment would be introduced by the Minister. It arrived out of the blue. No one knew about it, including the bodies whom the Minister of State agreed to consult in a process which was provided for under the social partnership. Structures were put in place, and are still in place, for consultations but these have not taken place.

The problem with the legislation is that it was introduced at the last moment and we are expected to rush it through without question. The same thing happened last night on the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill when the consultation process was not entered into. How can this legislation be finalised in one day?

I listened earlier to an extremely heated argument on the "Joe Duffy Show" where the former Minister of State, Deputy Flood, was defending his position on refraining from voting in the other House on this issue. The reasons he gave were very cogent, that is, that the local authorities were negligent in the provision of housing for Travellers. Of the 2,200 units committed by the task force in 1995, only in the region of 100 have been provided. Some 95% of these units have not been embarked on by the local authorities.

A sledge hammer approach is being used in regard to all Travellers. These people are being treated in a criminal fashion in that they can be moved from a particular site within 24 hours. Some of these sites may be quite innocuous. We are not talking about wholescale encampments by Travellers. If that is what is being referred to then the legislation should be geared to deal with criminal abuse and activity, which is not the case. It is geared towards tarring all Travellers with the same brush. These are nomadic people who may move from one position on a roadside to another, particularly as the houses, halting sites, hard stands and units of accommodation have not been provided. It is a bit rich to introduce this criminalising legislation.

A later section of the Bill contains very heavy powers of arrest without warrant. How many citizens of this country can be arrested without a warrant? It would not happen to major fraudsters, paedophiles or those guilty of even the most heinous crimes, yet anybody deemed in violation of this legislation can be arrested without a warrant after 24 hours.

I do not like the manner in which this legislation is being put through. It will cause endless conflict between the Traveller community, the Garda and local authorities because local authorities will call in the Garda if they perceive breaches of this legislation. The Bill will exacerbate confrontation throughout the country. The summer months are coming, and as Senator Norris said in his fine Irish:

Anois teacht an earraigh beidh an lá ag dul chun síneadh,

Is tar éis na Féile Bríde ardóidh mé mo sheol.

The spring is coming, the days are getting longer and the spailpín fánach, the wandering labourer, is planning to travel around the country. Travellers are so-called because travelling is what they do. If they do not have a proper place or various facilities at which to stop, they will stop at the side of the road or wherever.

I support legislation that would target those who are abusing their position, who pretend to be Travellers looking for halting sites but instead establish encampments, whether on sports fields or amenity areas, and extort money from residents. That is not tolerable and has to be condemned. However, this legislation will not have such a focused impact. The trawl is so wide that every Traveller in the country will be affected by it. I advise the Minister, even at this late stage, to withdraw this legislation and to pass it on to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform so that it can be examined separately. This is already taking place under the task force monitoring group in consultation with Travellers, who are in favour of legislation specifically to deal with those who abuse their position.

Including these measures in a Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill merely exposes the erratic provision of housing for the Traveller community by local authorities. The Bill provides for heavy sanctions on the Traveller community in general and depicts all Travellers as potential criminals.

Mr. Moylan

I support the provisions in section 21, particularly subsection (c)(ii), which deals with the risk to water quality. In these encampments, we sometimes see dismantled cars, batteries, acids and so on which are often close to a water supply for a town or village. A large part of the country depends on underground water sources. Where local authorities perceive a risk to a water supply, it is only right that this section is invoked. I compliment the Minister on these measures to ensure the maintenance of water quality.

I acknowledge Senator Costello's remarks about hard stands. Much money was given to local authorities to provide these, but we failed as public representatives to take hard decisions. We took up the issue in my county and tried to establish hard stands, but the biggest objectors were some Travellers who objected to the location of the stands. We took initial steps to try to provide these facilities, but they were deemed unsuitable. We all have to work together to make progress on this issue. This legislation may appear tough, but we as public representatives have to take tough stands now and ensure that Travellers have proper areas to park.

Mr. D. Cregan

I understand Senator Costello's point of view and it is the case that the provision of halting sites in the Dublin region has progressed extremely slowly. Cork has had halting sites for the last 20 to 25 years. Cork got its house in order, making sure there was provision for Travellers coming into the county.

Senator Costello holds no brief for those who are prepared to travel around the country buying and selling carpets or whatever and taking over entire areas. I have seen parts of Cork devastated by these people. I am not talking about five or six caravans but 25 or 26, together with vans, crews and whatever they are trying to sell. They do a huge amount of damage. There is no question of these people going to a halting site; they just pull in anywhere and destroy the area. Something has to be done about it.

The Minister made a point in relation to section 24 that must also be relevant to section 21. We must ensure that we are not tarring all Travellers with the same brush. Many Travellers have been living in the same parish or, unfortunately, along the same stretch of road for ten to 15 years. We cannot come along suddenly and tell them they have to move.

I read a report in the Sunday World that it cost €2.5 million to provide a halting site in Foxrock to satisfy one family. This is an example of how certain families can use intimidation. Regardless of whether we like it, Travellers are the blue bloods of our society. They were here long before most of us and they must be recognised for what they are. However, we cannot allow a situation to develop where they do what they like when they like and destroy a city or village. I have often seen the destruction of local environments on the north and south sides of Cork city and it cost us a lot of money to sort out the problem. We constructed banks to block encampments, but we also provided halting sites. There are five or six sites in various parts of the city.

A sub-committee is in place in Cork City Hall, of which the Minister was a member for many years, which determines what actions are needed. In the Minister of State's area, a plant employing over 1,000 people was almost lost because of halting sites. We had to move them, and rightly so. The cost per head of providing halting sites in Cork is much more than for local authority tenants. One halting site for ten families costs something in the region of €2.2 million, in other words, €220,000 per family to provide a site. Questions would be asked if this type of money was spent in other areas.

Mr. Burke

I fully understand Senator Costello's point of view. My greatest fear regarding this Bill is that it would be used against Travellers who are indigenous to a particular town or county. Most local authorities have conducted surveys to establish which Traveller families are indigenous to their areas. This Bill must not be used to act against families who have lived on the edge of a town for a long time, waiting for housing or a place on a halting site. The protection of Traveller families who are indigenous to a local authority area must be spelt out in the Bill.

Mr. D. Wallace

As I have already outlined on Second Stage, this legislation is not directed at the wider Travelling community. A specific problem with illegal encampments has arisen over the last two or three years. Senator Costello himself referred to it. He outlined every detail of why this legislation is necessary.

Mr. Costello

Not this legislation. I made that very clear.

Mr. D. Wallace

Section 21 is an amendment to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992. It was introduced by way of an amendment on Committee Stage of this Bill in the Dáil. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Bobby Molloy, indicated at Committee Stage that he would bring forward an amendment to include this section in the Bill. It is not true that people were not aware that an amendment to deal with this problem was forthcoming.

Under this amendment, the power conferred on the Garda will not extend to temporary dwellings located on any public road. The extra powers provided for in this amendment will not apply to families who live on the roadside. Regarding the removal of unauthorised temporary dwellings located in public places, the existing powers available to local authorities will continue to apply to such dwellings on the roadside or on the lands owned by the local authority.

There is a significant difference between those Travellers who choose to live in large-scale unauthorised encampments and those who are forced to live in unacceptable conditions while they are waiting for local authority accommodation. In many cases, these latter families are permitted by the local authority to remain on public lands pending the provision of permanent accommodation. The presence of such Traveller families seldom gives rise to any major local objection, as they are in relatively small groups and do not engage in anti-social behaviour. Such families, encamped on the roadside, will not be subject to the provisions of this amendment because they do not come within the scope of the amendment to the public order Act. There will be no change in the legal position of these families.

Everyone who has spoken on this section of the Bill has acknowledged that there is a problem with temporary dwellings. This Bill addresses those problems in a humane manner and to the benefit of all members of our community.

Question put.

Senators

Vótáil.

An Cathaoirleach

Will the Senators who are claiming a division please rise?

Senators Costello, Henry and Norris rose.

An Cathaoirleach

As fewer than five Senators have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings.

Question declared carried.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Coogan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 22, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

"22.–No compensation shall be payable in respect of any alleged damage to a temporary dwelling or vehicle which occurs in the implementation of any provision in this Act where reasonable care has been taken by the local authority, Garda Síochána or any person acting on their behalf.".

I mentioned this in a speech on Second Stage. This happened where a Traveller's caravan was trespassing on land. When the local authority had it removed it was said there was damage done to the vehicle. The local authority denied this and said the vehicle was already in a bad state of repair. Nevertheless, judgment was found against the local authority which had taken due and reasonable care on the removal of the vehicle. This Bill allows for the removal of many things besides that vehicle.

My concern is Travellers might use the provisions of the Bill as a vehicle for financing themselves. They could put a caravan on a site, the local authority would remove it but then automatically the authority would be taken to court where it would be expected to cough up with compensation. I am genuinely concerned about this.

Mr. D. Wallace

While I accept the point made by Senator Coogan in relation to damage to temporary dwellings and possible compensation claims, I feel it is a matter that in the normal course would be subject to adjudication by the courts. This should continue to be the case and I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Coogan

Does the Minister of State realise that there must be recourse through the courts? In cases of a local authority versus any member of the public, the judgment is often given against the local authority – it is a tradition. I have examples of 13 cases brought against local authorities, some 12 of which were dismissed out of hand while in the remaining one, the judgment found against the local authority in respect of one minor aspect and awarded costs against it because it is presumed to have more money and be the giant against the pygmy. I have a fear regarding this aspect. However, it is essential that a person has his or her day in court.

Mr. D. Cregan

I am surprised by the Minister of State's reply because he must be aware of the cost to local authorities of accountability to the public. In Cork city alone, the bill for claims will be £4 million. If it is seen to be in the courts, as Senator Coogan said, irrespective of the case brought by it, the court will against the local authority, which is unfair. There are people who are rogue enough to erect a temporary dwelling on a site thinking they will have costs awarded to cover a brand new dwelling at a much higher cost. They might get away with this if they were prepared to say the matter should go to the court.

Mr. D. Wallace

Senators Cregan and Coogan have made a point with which I disagree, but we must be conscious of the right of people to seek adjudication on certain matters. For this reason, I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

While the Minister of State stated section 22 does not apply to public roads, section 24(19)(b) states, “This part does not apply to any public road within the meaning of the Roads Act, 1993.” While I do not have that Act to hand, I know the National Roads Authority specifies that temporary dwellings are illegal on national primary and secondary routes and can be removed by court order. Does section 24 (19) (b) mean that temporary dwellings on national primary and secondary routes will now be allowed? If that is the case, has the Department consulted the NRA because it has made orders to the contrary?

On Second Stage I raised the issue of access to rivers, lakes and mountains. The Minister of State said the Bill would not jeopardise such access. However, I am not convinced that is the case because, when the Bill is enacted, it will prohibit direct access to rivers and lakes. We are told it does not apply to public roads, but access to most rivers and lakes is through private property along rights of way. The Bill will greatly affect fishing on lake shores and river banks.

The Bill is draconian in this respect as it imposes heavy fines. The law can come down severely on someone who seeks access to a river or lake through private property, breaks a twig off a tree and is reported to the Garda Síochána by the landowner. That should not be the case, because our lakes and rivers are a great asset to the national economy and the people living in the surrounding communities who use them for boating, fishing and so on. In this context, some changes must be made to section 24(19)(c), because people may be prohibited from entering private property to access these amenities.

For instance, one may come across a contrary landowner or a law man. Where people have been using access points to rivers, lakes and mountains, the contrary landowner may decide to put a bush in the gap preventing access that was available for years. I hope the Minister of State will spell out this provision in detail or guarantee that access will not be prohibited if the Bill is enacted as it stands.

Mr. Moylan

In relation to the issues raised by Senator Burke, we all know of problems where the lake shore and similar places have been completely taken over to the point where one cannot get near them. We must include a particular section in the Bill to address this. In relation to the provisions of the section for the consent of landowners, in most cases – if legally entitled – there will be consent for whomsoever seeks access. Likewise, people have a legal right to use rights of way. There will be anomalous situations, but that happens with even the best of legislative planning.

In relation to what can and cannot be placed along the sides of roads, particularly in relation to the NRA's regulations, county development plans spell out in detail what can and cannot take place on and adjacent to particular roads. The law of the land and the local authority are disposed towards moving against people who park at locations where they should not. While that is my view, I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say on the matter.

Mr. D. Cregan

Strong points have been made again which were made on Second Stage. The Bill will become law once it leaves here and is signed by the President. In relation to the provision that a person, without the duly given consent of the owner, shall not enter and occupy any land or bring onto or place on any land any object, the word "object" could apply to a football. Will there be a problem with sporting activities such as hunting with dogs or drag hunting common in my part of the country? There will obviously be a problem without consent. The section is too demanding of everybody in trying to achieve its aims.

I understand what has been said about travelling people – that they could take over and occupy land, and they have done so. We should not create a situation, however, where the wrong person could become involved if, for example, an individual does not provide his or her correct name. Honest, decent people pursuing sporting activities will be caught by this provision. To avoid this, the Minister should table an amendment that is relevant to sporting organisations and which would cover fishermen, climbers, hunters or footballers. One cannot stop people from enjoying sport so something should be added to the section to provide for such activities.

Mr. Costello

Senator Dino Cregan and Senator Burke have made cogent arguments about the sweeping powers in this section, but who would ever have thought that those fine contributions would be made in the context of a housing Bill? The debate is covering a wide range of issues that have nothing to do with housing. This is a catch-all Bill which is being used as an excuse to cover a range of other areas that should not be dealt with under the aegis of this legislation.

There are many questions marks hanging over a number of these areas. What are the implications of entering land without the consent of the owner for people who have traditionally used it for fishing, shooting, walking or playing football? The Bill will tie up the use of land as per sonal, private property without any possibility of enjoyment by the public. That seems to be the interpretation of this section. The Minister is bringing everything into the net if it makes any impact on a person's ownership of land. I do not know why the Minister wants to impose such harsh penalties as arrest without warrant for fairly innocuous matters like failing to give a name and address, failing to comply with a direction of the Garda Síochána or other actions that would obstruct or impede. The Bill will have a sledgehammer effect. Presumably the Minister intends to cast the net as widely as possible to cover any illegal entry upon land in the context of the Traveller community.

As regards section 19B which refers to the Roads Act, it is not clear whether any temporary dwelling along national primary and secondary routes comes within the interpretation that the Minister has provided. As there seems to be a major question mark over that, I would like to hear the Minister's clarification. Will Travellers still be able to stop at sites along the public highway, as distinct from making incursions on to private property? It is a shame that the Minister should be trying to force such provisions through the House in the context of a housing Bill.

Mr. D. Wallace

This section does not apply to public roads. Existing powers under the Housing or Roads Acts cover local authorities regarding other temporary dwellings. Before a person becomes subject to the provisions of the new powers in this amendment, a person must have entered or occupied land without the owner's consent. In the case of hunting activities it is normal for persons involved in this sport to have either the permission of the landowners or long-standing established rights to hunt on lands. Should persons engage in hunting or shooting on land without the owners' consent or without any legal rights to hunt on such land, they could be liable under this provision. Use of the provision in such cases would be dependent on the likelihood of substantial damage being caused to the land. Unless the landowner made a formal complaint to the Garda Síochána, it is unlikely that the new powers would be brought into play.

The amendment, therefore, will apply in general terms to anyone entering land without consent. However, it is provided in the amendment that the new power applies to persons whose entry or occupation of the land, or the bringing onto the land by such persons of objects, is likely to substantially injure the land or its associated amenities. The placing of a tent on land or an overnight stay with no substantial effect on the land, in my view, will not be subject to this provision. If the placing of the tent or the presence of the person placing it is not likely to substantially affect the land, campers should not have a problem under this provision. The same would apply in the case of hill walkers.

I expect a common sense approach to be taken to the operation of this new provision. I am confident that the existing reasonable attitude of landowners and those using the countryside for recreational purposes will continue to prevail and that the new powers available under this amendment will not have any implications for those using amenities in a responsible manner.

The Government gave serious consideration to section 24. This was in response to an intolerable situation which emerged in the past few years where we have seen large groups of unauthorised temporary dwellings congregating in open spaces, playing fields and even private lands. Up to recently, the presence of unauthorised dwellings has been tolerated in many cases where the dwellings did not cause any particular nuisance or risk to amenities. This was in the context of families who are waiting for permanent accommodation from the local authority. These dwellings continue to be allowed to remain on local authority lands and on lay-bys on the roadside. I would not wish the affirmative position of families in these dwellings worsened.

The provision is not intended to deal with such temporary dwellings. These are families for which accommodation is being provided under the Traveller accommodation programme. Many of those unauthorised encampments are there for the purpose of engaging in commercial or trading activities. Many of them have permanent accommodation elsewhere in other parts of the country or outside the jurisdiction. The length of such stays has also increased. In a much publicised incident in south Dublin last year, some Travellers stayed for up to seven months. While some stayed this length of time waiting for permanent accommodation, others were engaged in commercial activities. We have seen indications of this happening again this year.

This provision was given serious and lengthy consideration by the Government, which is satisfied that this is the appropriate response to large-scale encampments.

Mr. Burke

I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. He mentions everybody but the people whose fears I raised – fishermen and others gaining access to rivers and lakes. The Minister mentioned common sense but there is no such thing in any Bill that I have seen going through the Houses of the Oireachtas. When one goes to court, common sense goes out the window. If this Bill is passed today, which it more than likely will be, does it mean that a fisherman will have to ask the landowner for consent to go through his land to gain access to a river or lake for fishing or other leisure purposes? If so, what will the consequences be for the tourist industry? How will fishermen from England or the Continent gain access to rivers and lakes? Will they also have to seek permission from landowners? This legislation will have serious consequences for the tourism industry.

The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources have both spelled out to us what the fishing industry, and associated leisure activities, are worth to the economy. I have fears about the possible effects of this Bill. If the legislative provisions are followed to the letter, it will have serious consequences in the event of an offence being committed. The Minister of State has not allayed my fears. When the Bill becomes law anyone seeking access through private ground to a river or lake must seek permission or consent to do so. I cannot accept this.

Mr. D. Wallace

Substantial damage must be caused before the provision would apply to property. I expect the current arrangement, where people may walk lands at the pleasure of the owner, to continue. I do not have the same concerns as the Senator. I do not see people who have fished in waters on private land for years being affected by this amendment. I have pointed out that it is to deal with a problem which has developed in recent years, of which everyone in the House is aware and agrees exists. We are trying to address it through this amendment.

Mr. Costello

Why does the Minister of State not introduce to the legislation that to which he refers, namely, a temporary dwelling? Why is it necessary to refer to "any object?" That is as broad as possible. The Minister of State said he understood the term to mean a temporary dwelling. He said a tent would not cause damage. If a group of youngsters pitch a tent in a field to the annoyance of the farmer, in his opinion it might be damaging a corner of his field or meadow.

Mr. Moylan

The Senator is citing extremes.

Mr. Costello

It is not an extreme situation. I point out how ludicrous it is to bring forward legislation which is supposed to deal with something which is not stated anywhere in it. A simple solution would be to have the section refer to a temporary dwelling being brought on to land.

Mr. D. Wallace

Objects could be animals or anything that would cause damage to property.

Mr. Costello

That is covered by the section dealing with trespassing.

Mr. D. Wallace

I have clearly outlined my views. The purpose of the amendment has been clearly outlined. There need not be any doubt about it in people's minds. Senators are expressing concerns which will not be realised. The amendment should be taken in the spirit in which it has been brought forward to deal with a problem which everyone, even those opposed to the legislation, agrees exists and needs to be dealt with. We are dealing with it in this manner. The Government believes this is the right approach and the most humane way of dealing with the problem. The Senator referred to the wider community getting a bad name because of a minority. We want to deal with that minority in this way. By bringing forward the amendment, we can address the problem in the way the Government intends.

Mr. Burke

A Chathaoirligh—

An Cathaoirleach

This section has been discussed in great detail. The Senator is getting into the area of repetition.

Mr. Burke

I appreciate that and do not want to labour the point. This is a long section with many parts, with the majority of which I agree. I accept the point the Minister of State made about the goal he is trying to achieve. At the same time, I have serious concerns. While I do not want to vote against the section because I agree with most of it, can the Minister of State guarantee that, if the section causes access problems for sports groups, be they fishermen, mountaineers or whatever, the Department will introduce further legislation to rectify it? I hope he can guarantee that it will be examined or at least monitored over the next 12 months to see if it causes hardship to sports groups and the fishing industry.

Mr. D. Wallace

This will be a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who has responsibility for public order.

Question put and declared carried.

Schedules 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. D. Cregan

I thank the Minister of State for his attention, commitment and, most importantly, sincerity in answering questions asked by Senators on all sides. He deserves credit for his patience and I wish him well for the future.

Mr. Costello

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their work. We agree with most of the substance of the Bill, but as he knows, there are sections with which I disagree. I hope the haste with which they were introduced will not result in their having an adverse impact. I am not happy that the Bill has been dealt with in this fashion.

Mr. O'Brien

I thank the Minister of State for his patience in bringing this much needed legislation through the House.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

I thank Senators on all sides for their co-operation and contributions to the wide-ranging debate. Housing is an important issue and the interest shown by Members shows that they recognise this. I am aware that there may be disagreements about the amendment, but its aim is to deal with a problem. I hope that, as a result of our contributions, it will have the desired effect.

Question put and declared carried.