Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Jul 2014

Vol. 233 No. 1

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Committee Stage (Resumed)

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, to the House.

SECTION 39

Amendment No. 19 is out of order.

Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Section 39 agreed to.
Section 40 agreed to.
SECTION 41
Amendment No. 20 not moved.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 50, line 27, after "period" to insert "not less than 2 months".

The amendment sets a maximum period of two months from the commencement of a tenancy within which an inspection of a home must take place.

The purpose of prescribing the appropriate period in regulation, as opposed to primary legislation, is to allow, if needed, for flexibility to change the period set if it becomes impractical.

While I accept the principle of the Senator's proposal to ensure there is minimum disruption or confusion for the household concerned, this must be balanced against practicality for the housing authority. The period that will be prescribed under this section will be set in consultation with housing authorities and can be the subject of review once the scheme is operational to ensure the correct balance between the needs of the housing assistance payment, HAP, recipient and consideration of the housing authority's practical requirements has been struck. Prescribing the period, as suggested by the Senator, makes it more difficult to follow through on the outcome of any review for the period set.

We intend to review this because it is a major change in the provision of housing. There will be a review and we will have an opportunity to ensure that what is set in the regulation is appropriate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 22 to 25, inclusive, not moved.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 52, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

"(c) proof that any other dwellings under the ownership of said landlord which are occupied by a private tenant or other household within Housing Assistance Scheme have their tenancy registered with the Residential Tenancies Board."

This relates to the Private Residential Tenancies Board and would stipulate that landlords involved with the housing assistance payment scheme would have their other properties registered with the board. The Minister of State has indicated that this is already generally provided for in the Residential Tenancies Act but it is important we ensure the Department will not pay moneys to landlords who may be in violation of this law. How are we ensuring the money paid is not going to landlords which may have other properties that are not registered?

Again, I accept the principle of what the Senator is trying to achieve. Nevertheless, it replicates a provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, namely section 134, which requires the landlord of a dwelling to apply to the PRTB to register the tenancy of any dwelling. It is the statutory function of the PRTB under section 144 of that Act to ensure that tenancies in the private rented sector are properly registered. As housing assistance payment, HAP, tenancies will be governed by the Residential Tenancies Act these requirements will also apply to HAP tenancies.

Rather than replicate an existing provision, what I have provided for in section 55 of the Bill is specific provision for the exchange of information between housing authorities and the PRTB as a named "relevant person" under that section for the purpose of enabling both to carry out their statutory functions. In that context, I would expect housing authorities to provide a list of properties in respect of which HAP payments are being made to the PRTB periodically in order for the PRTB to ensure these tenancies are appropriately registered and to allow the PRTB to fulfil its statutory function where the tenancies have not been registered. In the context of the existence of legislative provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act which already give effect to the thrust of the amendment proposed, I suggest that the Senator's amendment is unnecessary.

Given what the Minister of State has indicated, particularly with regard to section 55, I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43
Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 54, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"(e) The Minister shall review the maximum amount of rent referred to in paragraph (b) every three months in each municipal district as defined under Part 3A of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended), and, where evidence compiled indicates that less than 10 per cent of available rental accommodation units may be accessed by an individual or a family receiving a payment under this Part, shall initiate a review of the effectiveness of the present maximum amount of rent for that area.".

This Bill seeks to limit the maximum amount available for the HAP, which could be seen as potentially problematic or dangerous, given the problems we currently face with rent supplement due to housing shortages and high rents, which do not seem likely to be resolved soon. Rents must be regularly reviewed throughout the State in order to understand what is available and needed as otherwise we are in danger of seeing people being put out of their homes due to rent hikes. This should in itself inform Government policy in a drive to address the shortage of publicly-owned social housing.

I must oppose this amendment. Aside from the disproportionate administrative burden that this would place both on the Department and on housing authorities, it must be accepted that the main focus of any rental limit review process is to ensure that pricing of maximum rental limits does not distort the market, while at the same time providing opportunities for tenants to acquire accommodation. That is a difficult balance at times. Due care needs to be taken that pricing be established at natural supply and demand conditions, as opposed to by reference to the State’s intervention, in order to avoid setting maximum rental limits that could force families, especially those on low incomes, into competing with pricing floors they cannot afford.

The current policy for maximum rental limits within the rent supplement scheme is an 18-month cycle. The timing represents a balance between the rental arrangements of tenants - tenancy agreements are normally for approximately a year - and the need to ensure sufficient reviews to keep apace of the market. A shorter period to review maximum rent limits, such as quarterly, would place a significant degree of ongoing pressure to change rental agreements mid-agreement on tenants and landlords alike. If there is an agreement between tenant and landlord for a year, this amendment may require intervention in such agreements.

Additionally, quicker review times would make the Department more reactive to the market as opposed to helping to hold the market steady during inflationary rental periods. Conversely, it would then be more aggressive in declining markets, where tenants will be forced to consider alternative accommodation as landlords continue to seek previous rents agreed. It must be remembered that rents can both increase and decrease. Reviewing maximum rent limits quarterly would not allow the market any time to adjust naturally to the imposition of new limits, therefore distorting the natural market rent level. The effect of a shorter review period would not lead to an overall increase in rental supply available to HAP recipients but would instead create adverse pricing impacts on the rental market, which could do more harm to households seeking accommodation in that sector. The frequency proposed in the amendment would not be practical.

I thank the Minister of State for her response. I will not press the amendment but I reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage should I see the need. I will consider the amendment again in light of what the Minister of State indicated in her comments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 43 stand part of the Bill."

I have a brief comment regarding Senator Reilly's amendment on periods of review of rent levels. I take on board the Minister of State's comments about Senator Reilly's amendment but the current system, whereby rents are reviewed annually under the Residential Tenancies Act and rent supplement is reviewed over 18 months, is entirely unsatisfactory. The Minister of State neglected to mention that she is currently reviewing the law on rent certainty and I hope, down the line, we will have a better rent system that will reflect better what Senator Reilly aspires to. The reality of the market is that low-income households in particular are finding it very difficult to access and retain accommodation.

I accept the point that both Senators Reilly and Hayden make on the difficulty people have in accessing affordable rent in the private sector, and particularly those in receipt of rent supplement. As Senator Hayden mentioned, we are examining what controls can be applied to rent. There is a limited amount of control now and a landlord with an agreement with a tenant cannot increase rent by more than the market rate. It is a very limited form of rent control. As I have stated, we need to figure out what can be done, and the PRTB is doing work in that regard, along with the Housing Agency. We are actively examining the matter.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 54, line 30, after "offers" to insert "not less than 3".

This short amendment would have the limit set for the number of offers a social housing applicant can refuse at no fewer than three.

The purpose of prescribing the appropriate period in regulation, as opposed to primary legislation, is to allow if needed for flexibility to change the period set if it becomes impractical. I am of the view that two refusals, the current general rule, is a reasonable number so as not to disadvantage other households on the waiting list from being offered available accommodation by the housing authority, where a household with higher priority continues to refuse reasonable offers of accommodation.

It should be remembered that a reasonable offer from a housing authority must be in the household's area of choice and must meet their housing needs. It is important that people realise this. It is difficult to see how a household could reasonably refuse an offer that meets both of these criteria. I therefore remain of the view that two refusals of reasonable offers of accommodation by a household maintains the appropriate balance required. Notwithstanding this, what the Senator proposes would make any review or amendment of this time period more difficult as it would require an amendment of primary legislation each time. This, as I have said, is impractical. In that context I would ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 45 agreed to.
Sections 46 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 62, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“52. (1) The Minister shall, six months after the coming into operation of this Part, cause a review to be conducted which shall assess the effectiveness of the measures contained in this Part under the following categories:

(a) the net effect on the numbers of families waiting for accommodation to be provided to them by a housing authority in each local authority area;

(b) the net number of individuals and families who are on the emergency accommodation waiting lists in their respective areas;

(c) the number of local authority staff required by each housing authority for the optimal administration of the measures under this Part;

(d) the funding required from the Central Fund or the local government fund for the optimal delivery of the measures under this Part.

(2) The Minister shall compile the data and analysis undertaken under subsection (1) into a report which shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and transmitted to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, or its successor committee.”.

This amendment allows the Minister to review the effects of the policy behind this section and to produce a report on the data.

I gave an undertaking in the Dáil that I would report back to the Cabinet committee after the end of the first wave of the HAP scheme. I will honour that and will report to the Cabinet sub-committee on the implementation of the HAP scheme.

There are already significant structures in place to ensure the HAP scheme is properly managed with regard to development, implementation and monitoring arrangements. This is all part of the plan that already exists. Detailed business processes have been developed within which the roll-out of the scheme must operate. It is intended to review the pilot phase by the end of 2014, at which time I will give consideration to the need, if any, for additional legislative provisions to enhance overall implementation of the scheme. We want to treat the first wave as a learning process so if some elements are not working I will use the legislative mechanisms at my disposal to make the necessary amendments. This may require use of a different piece of legislation.

The pilot phase will also play a key role in setting out the level of additional detail required for ongoing monitoring and reporting of the scheme. The intended review would have regard to all operational aspects of the scheme, including implementation by the local authorities and the overall costs associated with delivery of the scheme. It is expected that periodic reports will be made available to the Government and the relevant Oireachtas committees for consideration.

Based on what the Minister said and the role she foresees for the Houses of the Oireachtas and the committee I will not press this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 52 agreed to.
SECTION 53

Amendments Nos. 34 to 38, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 63, to delete lines 31 to 34 and substitute the following:

“(2) (a) A housing authority may, if a tenant has refused to pay rent for a specified period of no less than 3 months and has refused to engage with the relevant authority, make a request to the Minister for Social Protection to deduct from net scheme payments the amount of rent payable to the authority by the relevant recipient concerned and to transmit the amount deducted to the authority.”.

These amendments relate to the topical and controversial issue of rent reductions. Amendment No. 34 limits the authority's ability to seek deductions to cases where tenants have refused to engage and there has been no payment for three months.

Amendment No. 35 states that deductions cannot be made if, under reasonable consideration, they would cause undue hardship. Amendment No. 36 seeks to limit the authority's ability to seek deductions to cases where tenants have refused to engage on rent arrears over a period of three months. Amendment No. 37 limits the amounts that can be charged as a deduction for rent arrears to no more than 5% of a person's income and amendment No. 38 states that deductions cannot be made if, under reasonable consideration, they would cause undue hardship.

As Senator Reilly said, this is a controversial measure. The Minister of State may sympathise with an aspect of these amendments, namely, the Minister for Social Protection should, as far as practicable, notify the tenant of the authority's requests ten working days before the commencement of a deduction. Can the Minister of State clarify the process relating to the deduction between the tenant, local authority and Minister once this is initiated?

I will reply to each amendment individually as they are quite detailed. The effect of section 53 is to meet a person's housing need on a continuous basis by providing a mandatory rental deduction facility whereby the person does not fall into arrears, which would also have the effect of reducing financial liability for local authorities for rent arrears. Where a mandatory direct deduction facility was not available this would have serious consequences for a household in allowing arrears to develop in the context of creating a poverty trap for the households concerned and potentially jeopardising the ongoing availability of their accommodation.

In addition, the introduction of systems that will ensure that rental contributions due from tenants who are on social welfare are paid directly to the housing authority is central to the successful implementation of HAP. In recent years the extent of rental arrears from social housing tenants has been rising. At the end of 2011 the extent of the accumulated rent arrears across all housing authorities was €53.25 million. At the end of 2012 this figure had risen to €56.4 million. Notwithstanding local authorities writing off an element of these arrears each year as bad debts, it is clear that the problems associated with arrears are increasing year on year which makes it critical that systems are put in place to avoid even greater levels of rent arrears.

It is important to note that both my Department and the Department of Social Protection have engaged jointly with the Attorney General on this matter. The Office of the Attorney General has agreed with the principle of a mandatory deduction of rents, specifically where the customer's social welfare payment may be reduced below the statutory minimum on the basis that the requirement for accommodation is a basic human need. The same advice also stated that there is no legal requirement to have a limit in place as to the amount to be deducted from a social welfare payment provided the tenant recipient is aware of the deduction and the deduction is calculated in accordance with the local authorities differential rent scheme. The Office of the Attorney General has further advised of no legal impediment to deducting a rental payment at source for the provision of social housing support and or to making the tenant HAP recipient pay the full rent amount on the basis that the tenant is entering a binding contract on the provision of support and therefore has a legal obligation with respect to the payment of rent.

It is very much evident that a clear basis exists for the deduction of local authority rent from social welfare payments by virtue of the fact it meets one of a customer's basic needs, which is contemplated within the current statutory minimum. In terms of arrears, we have also been advised that there is no legal impediment to the deduction of rent arrears from a social welfare payment, provided the local authority is satisfied that the rent arrears deduction, particularly where combined with a Department of Social Protection, DSP, deduction of overpayments, will not reduce a tenant to the point where he or she does not have sufficient means. That is an important point.

The amount of rent arrears to be deducted will be limited in a manner similar to social welfare overpayments, namely, a maximum of 15% of the personal rate will apply. This is designed to be realistic rather than punitive in terms of representing what a householder can reasonably be expected to pay. We are very conscious that we are dealing with people who have very limited income and we do not want to take more than 15% of the personal rate as this is the current practice in the Department of Social Protection.

In terms of reporting, as I indicated in my response to amendment No. 33, it is intended that extensive monitoring will be carried out in respect of all operational aspects for the HAP scheme, including the direct deduction facility. It is expected that periodic reports will be made available to the Government and the relevant Oireachtas committees for consideration.

On amendments Nos. 35 and 38, in so far as they provide for the Minister for Social Protection to notify the tenant of the authority's request for a deduction in respect of rent or rent arrears, the Minister for Social Protection will facilitate the request for the deduction of rent and-or rent arrears from a social welfare payment on receipt of the instruction from the housing authority. As this information will have already been provided to the customer by the housing authority, it would not be necessary or administratively efficient for a further notification to issue from the Department of Social Protection. The customer will already know.

In respect of amendment No. 37, as I have advised Deputies in the Dáil, I cannot accept this amendment. The ceiling in the Bill of 15% of the weekly personal rate of a social welfare recipient for deductions in respect of social welfare overpayments and rent arrears is the same as the ceiling for recovery of social welfare overpayments only in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. The 15% ceiling was set in consultation with the Attorney General's office as a realistic limit, rather than a punitive limit, on the deductions concerned. It is considered to be the appropriate limit on deductions to avoid the social welfare recipient falling into destitution. "Destitution" is a terrible word but this provision seeks to ensure that people do not have too much money taken. In practice, the maximum deduction that could be made for social welfare overpayments and rent arrears under the 15% ceiling varies from €27.90 for a person on supplementary welfare allowance to €34.55 per week for a person in receipt of a contributory State pension. The combined deduction of social welfare overpayments and rent arrears will not exceed a total maximum of 15% of the personal rate of social welfare payment and this will afford the necessary protection to customers.

The combined effect of rent arrears and any overpayments will still only be 15%. It is not the case that one can take 15% for one purpose and take more for another, the combined amount is 15%.

I hope that addresses the various issues. I know this is a difficult issue because we are speaking about people on very limited incomes. One of the Deputies in the Dáil told a story about a husband and wife and their family in his constituency. His wife certainly believed that he was paying the rent, but in fact he was not and they got notice of owing a very large amount of money. Under the provisions of the Bill that situation will not arise. While I know it is difficult, it is important to have a system whereby people do not fall into serious rent arrears and therefore put their whole family under stress. In the balance of things, I think it is appropriate that we do this.

Is amendment No. 34 being pressed?

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 64, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(e) No single deduction permitted under subsection (2) and (3) may be made if it would reasonably cause undue hardship or suffering to the tenant concerned or their dependents.

(f) The Minister for Social Protection will as far as is practicable notify the tenant of the authority’s request 10 working days before any commencement of deduction.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 64, to delete lines 22 to 25 and substitute the following:

“(4) (a) A housing authority may if a tenant has refused for a specified period of no less than 3 months to enter into a rescheduling arrangement with the authority, make a request to the Minister for Social Protection to deduct from a relevant recipient’s net scheme payments an amount in respect of rent arrears due to the authority by that recipient and to transmit the amount deducted to the authority.”.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 64, lines 38 and 39, to delete “15 per cent” and substitute “5 per cent”.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 65, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“(e) No single deduction permitted under subsection (4) and (5) may be made if it would reasonably cause undue hardship or suffering to the tenant concerned or their dependents.

(f) The Minister for Social Protection will as far as is practicable notify the tenant of the authority’s request 10 working days before any commencement of deduction.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 53 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
Sections 54 to 58, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 72, after line 31, to insert the following:

“Amendment of Domestic Violence Act 1996

59. The Domestic Violence Act 1996 is amended by inserting the following section after section 8:

8A. An applicant shall not, by virtue of the applicant’s legal or beneficial interest in the residence in which the applicant resides or previously resided with the respondent, be prohibited from consideration for social housing by a local authority.”.”.

These are very specific amendments and deserve great merit. There exists a gap in the legislation, where a victim of domestic violence who is living with the abuser in the family home or another property as a joint owner of the property, is currently prohibited from being considered by the local authority for social housing due to the part ownership in the family home or property in which he or she resides or resided with the perpetrator.

The objective of amendment No. 41 is to ensure that a victim who applies for a barring or protection order shall not, by virtue of his or her part ownership in the residence in which the applicant resides or previously resided with the respondent, be prohibited from consideration for social housing by a local authority. The amendment does not state that a victim must automatically get a social house but it does state that a victim shall not be discriminated against based on his or her part ownership of the property where the domestic violence occurred. In many cases this discrimination also includes children. I know the programme for Government contained a commitment to introduce consolidated reforms of domestic violence legislation to address all aspects of domestic violence and did contain a commitment to protect victims. This amendment is intended to close one major gap in the legislation and provide support for victims of domestic violence.

Amendment No. 42 is based on the recommendation of Women's Aid that an integrated and co-ordinated response to women out of home because of violence is needed and has been shown to work in other jurisdictions. A report by Women's Aid from 2006 states that a co-ordinated approach involving local authorities, other statutory agencies and the voluntary sector has been demonstrated as the most successful strategy in the United Kingdom. A framework has already been proposed and much work has been done already, but it is important that the Minister takes the initiative and issues this framework as a directive to local authorities.

The intention, which I share, of amendments Nos. 41 and 42 is very positive, but some of the proposals in these amendments are not under my remit. The specific reference in amendment No. 41 to the Domestic Violence Act 1996 comes under the stewardship of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality. While I am happy to discuss what is proposed in this amendment with her, I unfortunately cannot accept an amendment to the legislation without consulting the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, in advance and giving due consideration to the complex legal matters involved.

The issue of domestic violence and the access of people to housing has been raised with me on a number of occasions and I very much want to address it in so far as we can. It will involve other Departments.

At present a housing authority may provide short-term emergency housing to persons who are forced to leave their homes because of domestic violence without having to assess their eligibility for social housing support or include them on the authority's housing waiting list. In the longer term victims of domestic violence may qualify for social housing support and be entered on the waiting list where they meet the eligibility and need criteria set down in section 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 and the Social Housing Assessment Regulation 2011. Notwithstanding this, I have in section 46(e) of the Housing Bill provided for the amendment of section 20 of the Housing Act 2009, to provide for situations where a housing authority cannot determine if a household qualifies for social housing support because a household member is separated and has a claim on the family home which has not yet been resolved in some form of legal judgment or agreement. This could also apply in cases of domestic violence. This would be in situations where there is no clear path as to what the future will be for the family.

The amendment to section 20 will provide that, where such a household is otherwise qualified for social housing support, the household will be able to avail of a housing assistance payment, HAP, or accommodation provided under a rental accommodation arrangement until such time as the claim on the family home has been determined. The decision to provide this type of support will be reviewed periodically pending the resolution in respect of the claim on the family home. It will be reviewed from time to time depending on what happens with the family home.

A household in this situation will not be able to apply for a transfer to another form of social housing support during this period but if, ultimately, the household is determined to qualify for social housing support, the total period for which the household availed of HAP will reckon for the purposes of a transfer application, in accordance with the issue we discussed earlier about people availing of housing assistance payment keeping the points they have built up in their application in accordance with the terms of the housing authority’s allocation scheme.

In respect of amendment No. 42, while my Department provides some funding towards the operational costs of domestic violence refuges, the primary funder of such facilities is Tusla, the Child and Family Agency. Responsibility for the development and provision of services to support victims of domestic abuse rests with the Minister for Health and is delivered through Tusla. In addition, Cosc, the National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence, which was established in June 2007 as an executive office of the Department of Justice and Equality, works to ensure the delivery of a co-ordinated response to issues of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence across Government. Actions to ensure effectiveness and consistency in housing responses for victims of domestic violence are set out in action 10 of the National Strategy on Domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. My Department is developing the necessary guidance to implement this action.

I accept this issue crosses over a number of Departments and what we want to achieve is more co-ordination between Departments in terms of the outcomes for such families. I have taken the opportunity to do a certain amount in this Bill. I will undertake to talk to the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald and other Ministers as well because both the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Flanagan, and the Minister for Health will be somewhat involved in this area. I recently attended a meeting on the cross-departmental issues that surround domestic violence.

For a long time there has been an issue with regard to short-term access to housing when somebody has to leave their family home due to domestic violence. How does he or she access somewhere to live while figuring out the next step to take? People in that situation must address a variety of complex issues and that is why these measures, to which I referred, have been included. We are working on at least finding a way to address short-term needs and re-evaluating needs generally as families make decisions about their future.

Domestic violence is a subject close to my heart and one which I have raised here on a number of occasions. I welcome what the Minister of State has said about the progress she is making in this legislation regarding this difficult issue. Unfortunately, it is true that many women who are subjected to domestic violence are unable to access anything other than emergency accommodation because they have a legal or beneficial interest in a family home. They are very much left outside the system in terms of sourcing any type of semi-permanent accommodation for themselves and their children.

I take on board what the Minister of State said about the measures she is putting forward to deal with this difficult situation but it may not be a matter for this legislation. I am concerned that there may be provisions in the housing code that prohibit anybody who has a legal or beneficial ownership of property from accessing social housing. That legislation is very discriminatory against women in particular, and particularly against women who experience domestic violence. We need to examine the legislation in more detail. I am thinking of the 2009 legislation which provides a disregard, for the sake of argument, for people in certain housing situations. I have long argued that a similar disregard needs to be applied to people who suffer domestic violence, the majority of whom are women. It is not a question for the legislation we are debating now but we must look at it with greater clarity.

I would like a specific cross-departmental review of how women and children experiencing domestic violence access housing. The issue of domestic violence is not just related to social housing but access to the rent supplement and clearly it will be about access to HAP down the line. I would like to see a concerted interdepartmental report prepared on this difficult subject.

I thank the Minister of State for her response. I will not press my amendments. I know there is a lot of cross-departmental work to be done but I do not want this matter to fall between two stools. It is important that we keep it on the agenda and that the Minister of State with responsibility for housing does what she can to ensure that victims of domestic violence are not discriminated against in housing legislation. I accept what she said about the work she has done and her undertaking to consult with the Minister for Justice and Equality and other relevant Ministers. Therefore, I will not press my amendment.

In the context of the Minister of State's response and the amendments, how does she think this matter will pan out? Which Department will be involved? Will the Department of Justice and Equality frame legislation to address the issue? Will it be framed within her own mandate? She said that the matter is cross-departmental which complicates it somewhat. Clearly it requires legislation. How will the matter be resolved in legislative terms?

There are elements in housing and justice. I would particularly like to raise one area with the Department of Justice and Equality. By and large, it seems that in the current system the victims of violence and sometimes the children - it can be a male as well as a female victim - are the ones who must leave home while the alleged perpetrator, at that stage, stays in the home. I do not know whether something can be done in justice legislation - I am straying outside my area of responsibility here - that would alter the balance in some way. That situation has been raised with me by people who work in the area of domestic violence.

With regard to Senator Mooney's question, the situation is difficult. We cannot provide long-term social housing as a default position if we do not know whether there is a long-term housing need. We can provide short-term housing and review the provision. However, we must have a mechanism to assess whether a long-term need exists. Sometimes these situations are fluid and, therefore, we do not know if there is a long-term need. That is why we are doing what we are doing here. It will address the immediate need and we will keep it under review.

To answer the Senator's question directly, there is an element of housing legislation and an element of justice legislation involved in this issue.

I thank the Minister of State. The fact that a victim of domestic violence must leave their home raises the need to have a sanction. Let us assume that the victim of the violence in the home takes the case to court and the perpetrator is prosecuted successfully. What is the victim's status in terms of agreement with the local authority? The balance should move in favour of the victim. I mean by this that the victim should be allowed to return to the family home and the perpetrator should be moved out. Does an area exist for such provision under the Minister of State's mandate in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government? I am referring here to an agreement between the tenant and the local authority which comes directly under the remit of her housing section. Can we debate legislation that would address this issue? I refer to cases where a prosecution has taken place and been successful. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as things stand the tenant can stay in situ and the victim is left out in the cold and out of their house.

The court would play a role in determining the arrangement and in that sense it is a matter for justice legislation. We will examine elements of housing legislation because I acknowledge that this matter is related. We have got better at cross-departmental actions in a variety of areas but this is one area where some work needs to be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 72, after line 31, to insert the following:

“Provision of housing units

59. In the provision of housing units, a local authority shall give priority to persons that have been responsible tenants in leased accommodation under the Rental Accommodation Scheme.”.

Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 26.

  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • O'Sullivan, Ned.
  • Walsh, Jim.

Níl

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Brennan, Terry.
  • Burke, Colm.
  • Coghlan, Eamonn.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Comiskey, Michael.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • D'Arcy, Jim.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Gilroy, John.
  • Hayden, Aideen.
  • Heffernan, James.
  • Henry, Imelda.
  • Keane, Cáit.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Landy, Denis.
  • Moloney, Marie.
  • Moran, Mary.
  • Mulcahy, Tony.
  • Mullins, Michael.
  • Noone, Catherine.
  • O'Brien, Mary Ann.
  • O'Keeffe, Susan.
  • O'Neill, Pat.
  • Reilly, Kathryn.
  • van Turnhout, Jillian.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paschal Mooney and Ned O'Sullivan; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 16 July 2014.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Barr
Roinn