I move amendment No. 23:
In page 9, line 22, after "authority" to insert "or a body approved of for the purposes of section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992".
SECTION 15.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 9, subsection (2), line 37, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
This amendment refers to the provision of rent allowances by health boards. Are we saying health boards may refuse rent allowances to a person who has an excluding order issued against him? There is almost no point in doing this if we find out in a year's time that health boards have not done it in half the cases. How strict will the Department be?
The provision enables the health boards to have discretion. At the moment they have no discretion — if somebody qualifies he has to be provided for. It is quite a step to enable health boards to have such discretion. The Deputy should not underestimate it. It means health boards can judge cases in the light of the history of anti-social behaviour. That is an important discretionary power which health boards have not had up to now. We should not go a further stage and say "shall" because the discretionary power is what was sought.
I am beginning to wonder how useful this Bill is because we are watering down every provision. The situation up until now has been ridiculous. Health boards could not refuse rent allowances to even major drug dealers. What is the Minister of State's wish in this regard? Will the health boards refuse one or 100 cases a week? How strong will this be? Discretion in itself is no good.
This relates to the issue of private landlords. If the health board can use its discretion to say no occasionally, it will give rent allowances in many cases. Landlords will have no way of finding out whether a tenant has been excluded. What is the Minister of State's interpretation of the legislation? How often will the health boards use this discretionary power? Will the Minister of State draw up the guidelines?
The vast majority of people who seek rent allowances from health boards are not covered by this provision. It provides powers to health boards to allow them to refuse allowances to people referred to in subsection (1). It is not a question of watering down the legislation; that is the important change being proposed in the Bill. Health boards have no discretionary powers at the moment, even in the kind of cases referred to in subsection (1).
I cannot tell the Deputy how many cases will be refused. I can say, with justification, that the number of people referred to in subsection (1) will be small in comparison to the overall number of people applying for rent allowance, but they are the people who will be affected by this discretionary power. The staff dealing with rent allowances are extremely professional and experienced. They will use this discretionary power as needed. We must understand how these systems work. This is a significant new power when one considers the consequences for somebody who is refused rent allowance.
Health board staff are professional people who will work according to guidelines drawn up by the Minister of State. I would like some indication of her wishes in regard to how many cases will be refused. I would have thought that once a person was excluded, the health board would have to automatically refuse rent allowance and would have no real discretion in that regard. I would like some indication of how strong this will be.
My views are evident in this Bill. I am presenting a Bill which will enable local authorities to take action, in a way never before allowed, in relation to people guilty of drug dealing and associated anti-social behaviour. That is a clear indication of how serious I am about tackling this problem. I am giving the local authorities more powers in this regard than they had before. Under this section, the health boards will have a new discriminatory power. The social welfare officers are obviously answerable to the Department of Social Welfare rather than the Department of the Environment.
The Bill is of significance in tackling the problem of anti-social behaviour. Its greatest influence may be one of deterrence. I cannot foresee how many cases will be dealt with in this way in 1997. However, this is a new discretionary power for welfare officers which is of major significance in determining whether somebody should get rent allowance. I expect them to use that power appropriately.
We should have some indication of what that discretion is likely to be.
It is a matter of saying "yes" or "no".
The Minister of State will draw up the guidelines. Does she think they will apply to one, 50 or 99 cases out of 100? There must be some indication of how this will be interpreted. It is fine to give discretion but somebody must give some indication of how it will be used. It could be great or it could be useless.
There is already very clear guidance in that community welfare officers are being given a totally new discretionary power in relation to people categorised as being anti-social. We are taking this kind of anti-social behaviour extremely seriously, to the point that people who qualify for rent allowance can now be refused it. I expect that discretionary power will be used by community welfare officers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 10, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(6) Where an excluding order has been issued, the refusal or withdrawal of rent allowance shall be taken as factual and not necessary or subject to the Health Board having to prove the issue again.'.".
This amendment deals with cases where excluding orders are issued, following which applications are made to the health boards for a rent allowance. It allows officials to use their discretion to refuse the rent allowance. Officials in the health board have expressed concern over their use of discretion in refusing applications for rent allowances on the basis of excluding orders having been issued. They do not want such decisions to be appealed.
There is no question of health boards having to return to court to prove a case of anti-social behaviour. The amendment is unnecessary.
Will the Minister of State prove her assertion?
Section 15(4) states:
In making a determination under subsection (2) or (3), the boards shall have regard to any information provided by a housing authority or a specified person referred to in section 14 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1996, in relation to a person to whom this section applies.
This is all they must do.
Does that take the purpose of my amendment on board?
The boards can use their discretion in refusing a rent allowance. They do not have to return to court to prove a case again. The only requirement on them is set out in section 14(4).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.