Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are related and we can discuss them together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 38, after "person" to insert "aged over 14 years".
What the Minister said on the last amendment changes my point slightly. The Bill does not specify any age above which a person may have an excluding order served upon him or her. My amendment specifies 14 years but it could be 12 or 20 — I do not want to be accused of introducing a draconian provision. What is the Minister's thinking on this? We hear cases where 14 year olds cause mayhem. It is not drugs related in all instances. At my clinic this morning a constituent claimed someone is organising a gang of 14 and 15 year olds to break every window in his house on the grounds that no one could touch kids of that age. At what age can a local authority or a tenant seek an excluding order against a person? Is it 18 or can it be 14 years? I accept there may be a problem with excluding a person aged 14 but nothing is written into the Bill.
The reason no age is specified has been given by the Deputy. It is not possible to pinpoint a date at which a person comes into this category. We have not included an age limit because it would be difficult to find the right one. I do not accept these amendments. It is a matter for the courts to decide whether it is appropriate to use the excluding order procedure and the age of the respondents in particular circumstances. In addition, the court must have regard to the need for appropriate support for a young person. It is not appropriate that persons aged 14 or under should be subject to excluding orders. If this was inserted in the Bill, it would suggest that it is all right to exclude 15 year olds or people aged 14 and three days. It is not the right way to tackle this matter. There is a danger that if the age limit is too high, it will not work and if it is too low, we will put young people at serious risk by applying the excluding order to them almost as a matter of course.
We know the problems in this area. This legislation will be here long after us so we have a responsibility to ensure it makes sense. If we do not include an age limit in the Bill, we must trust the court to interpret it correctly. However, it might not take the same commonsense approach we would take. I do not know what the age limit should be. I would like to lock up certain 15 year olds but I cannot say that too loudly or I will be accused of all sorts of things. It could be dangerous to pass this Bill without including an age limit because someone could interpret it in a way other than that intended. I tabled this amendment because we often get complaints about people of that age. No matter what the age limit is, it will send a message to somebody six months younger that they are immune to the law. Parents must understand that some 14 year olds need to be threatened. It is important to include an age limit in the Bill, so perhaps the Minister could consider that.
I have experienced the same problems as the Deputy. It is impossible to find a cut-off point which does not have inherent dangers. It is a matter of striking a balance. We did not include an age limit because it would be more dangerous to include it than not to do so. It is better to allow the court to judge cases on an individual basis. Even the Deputy, who has thought long and hard about this matter, cannot decide on the right age. That shows that while it might sound like a good idea, it is not a practical one.
Under this Bill, a ten, 14 or 16 year old could be excluded. Is that correct?
The court will make a judgment as to whether an excluding order will be applied. I do not favour the idea of ten year olds being excluded from their homes. I do not think any reasonable person would regard that as a method of dealing with a ten or 12 year old child who is out of control. It is an inappropriate use of an excluding order. There are other ways to address this problem. We must also cater for the needs of ten or 12 year olds.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) Appropriate sanctions such as withdrawal of mortgage relief/rent allowance shall be imposed against private householders guilty of anti-social behaviour.".
Perhaps the Minister will say this is not the purpose of the legislation. Someone said this is discriminatory legislation because it only imposes sanctions on people in local authority housing, although people also live in private housing and rented property. If people in private housing, who receive State aid, behave in an anti-social manner, their reliefs or allowances should be withdrawn so that we are not accused of acting in a discriminatory manner. Neighbours can take a civil action against them, but is it not possible to send them a message that such behaviour will be punished under this legislation?
Section 15 provides for the withdrawal of rent or mortgage supplementation in narrowly defined circumstances. In any circumstances where this decision is taken, it will be in respect of privately rented or owner occupied accommodation. If a private landlord has a tenant who is causing problems, they can deal with it under their agreement.
Deputy Ahern's amendment duplicates to a considerable extent section 15, but it does not indicate who will take the appropriate sanctions to which he referred. Is it Deputy Ahern's intention that private landlords should be able to make this decision?
I am not talking about a landlord but about somebody in a private house. A person with a mortgage who gets State aid through mortgage interest relief on income tax may be accused by the Garda or the local authority of anti-social behaviour. Since we are using housing as a means to control behaviour, is it fair to do so in a discriminatory way? The legislation provides for local authority tenants and, to some extent, tenants in private rented accommodation. Why should there not be a means to withdraw State aid from somebody living in private accommodation? If a person is getting tax relief, should it not be withdrawn if he or she is accused of or is found guilty of anti-social behaviour?
I cannot accept that the Revenue Commissioners would have a role in deciding what constitutes anti-social behaviour. There is some logic in the Deputy's argument but he could not seriously suggest that the Revenue Commissioners should decide whether a person availing of tax relief is involved in anti-social behaviour. There would be no legislative basis on which to refuse mortgage interest relief on such grounds. We must be practical about what we are doing. We are talking about local authorities managing their estates to a better standard than in the past. We cannot extrapolate this to a point where the Revenue Commissioners are using a sanction because somebody is guilty of anti-social behaviour. How could we expect the Revenue Commissioners to become involved in such a project? From a practical point of view, I cannot accept this amendment.
A speaker from FLAC mentioned that rent allowances would be refused to people moving into the private rented sector who had been evicted or excluded, which is not strictly accurate. Health boards would have a discretion which they do not have at present. That it is very different from automatically withdrawing supports at all levels.
Drug dealers, who have been excluded or who may leave a local authority flat or house, could buy a house and receive mortgage interest relief. To some extent, this Bill uses housing as a policing measure. I accept the Minister of State's point about the Revenue Commissioners and I do not know how they could be included. The intention behind the amendment was that somebody living in a private house with a mortgage would face the same threat as a person in a local authority house and if they behaved anti-socially or were involved in drug dealing, the State would have some means of withdrawing support, namely mortgage interest relief. To get mortgage relief, however, a person must pay tax and perhaps some of these people do not pay tax.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.