Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 - Committee Stage - 19th November 2008

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 - Committee Stage - 19th November 2008

Senator David Norris: Senator Bacik raised precisely the point I wish to raise. I find it
astonishing there is no definition of homelessness in this section. We are relying on previous
and clearly inadequate definitions. I am glad this matter has been raised and I strongly support
what Senator Bacik stated. I will table amendments and I will be happy to support amendments
tabled by Senator Bacik. It is important that this matter is cleared up and that the matter of
homelessness is made central in the Bill. Homeless action plans are inadequately dealt with in
the legislation as framed.
The Minister of State, as a former colleague in this House and as a good Minister of State,
will be receptive to these matters and I am sure he will take on board that the principle function
of Seanad E´ ireann is to amend legislation. If he is agreeable to amendments, it is in this House
they should be taken.

Senator David Norris: I strongly support Senator Doherty. He has done us a service by
providing a definition of homelessness for the Bill. I am sure Members on this side of the
House will put forward amendments and if I do not put them forward, I will certainly support
those who do.
It is essential to have this definition of homelessness. I wish to comment on the wording of
the amendment. The first thing one notices is that there is a sliding scale; it is gradated. Subsection
(a) states, “(a) a person who has no accommodation available to them other than a night
shelter, a public place or external space”. That is the extreme, but regrettably we know these
people exist. There are people within 100 yards of this building who are homeless and who
have no place to go. One such person is known to me and he has chosen to remain homeless.
It is very difficult to know what to do in those circumstances. There are others, and with the
increasingly hostile economic climate there will be many more. For this reason it is very
important we address the situation of homelessness very clearly, directly and specifically.
I agree with the definition of homelessness provided by Senator Doherty with one reservation.
I suggest when he tables the amendment on Report Stage, as I imagine he will if the
Minister does not accept it, Senator Doherty might reconsider the question of people residing
in mobile homes because there are people who live in perfectly good, adequate and decent
mobile homes. There is something unexpectedly snobbish about this coming from Sinn Fe´ in. It
is almost as if we were dealing with trailer trash. Such people are not all Sarah Palins; there
are some very decent people. I suggest Senator Doherty might re-examine the business of
mobile homes. There are very good quality, well-maintained and comfortable mobile homes in
which people live a quite adequate life. I do not believe they would be flattered by being
described as homeless. With that reservation I support the amendment.
I urge the Minister of State to consider a definition of homelessness. I believe we are only
taking Committee Stage of the Bill today and that we will not consider Report Stage. Is that
correct?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I believe that is correct.
Senator David Norris: The Minister of State will have time to consider the question of a
definition of homelessness. He would do us a service if he provided a definition and he should
not allow it to go to the Lower House. The Minister of State was a Member of this House and
we have been treated with scant respect by it in recent days. I believe he would be doing the
political system a favour if he either provided a definition of homelessness himself or accepted
the one proposed by Senator Doherty, by Senator Bacik, who has indicated she will provide
one, by me or a combination of all three with, I am sure, the support of Labour and Fine Gael
and the moral support of the soldiers of destiny.

Senator David Norris: I am heartened by some of what the Minister of State says, but I am
disappointed with his response to the definition. I would like some information on that. I know
there is a definition in the 1998 Act, but that dates from 20 years ago. We now have a more
sophisticated and targeted approach in these matters. I would not like to think that we have
not learned anything over the past 20 years that would be helpful in providing a definition of
homelessnes. I assume it is automatically carried over from that Bill. Perhaps the Minister of
State will advise me how that is done technically because I do not see any definition here. It
may be that it is included technically, but I would like to know how and where that definition
is carried over from the 1998 Act. I am sure the Minister of State is correct in saying that it is,
but I am not sure how. It would be helpful therefore if he would explain that. We will continue
with this because we are disappointed.
I completely concur with my colleagues who have referred to the work of the make room
group, as well as the four principal organisations: Focus Ireland, the Society of St. Vincent de
Paul, the Simon Community and Threshold. The Minister of State said he has been in discussions
with what he calls stakeholders, but that word can mean various things. I assume that
among the stakeholders would be this coalition of particular people who do remarkable work
on our behalf, including the menial but essential job of providing soup and blankets. Is the
Minister of State saying that the principal groups delivering services to the homeless are satisfied
with the definition? I would be very interested to know that. It will weaken our case if he
tells me that these people are satisfied because they are the stakeholders, apart from homeless
people themselves. If the Minister of State tells me that they are happy with the absence of an
updated definition of homelessness, I will take the opportunity to consult them this evening. If
the Minister of State is correct and they say “Fine”, so be it. I will have to withdraw my point.
I was pleased that the Minister of State spotted the argument about mobile homes. There
are people who are happy enough in mobile homes and that issue can be met. I am sure the
combined intelligence of my friends, Senators Doherty and Bacik, and even my own wit, might
come up with something to cope with that while still covering vulnerable people.
I was impressed by the clear way in which the Minister of State dealt with the situation. It
is obvious that he is on top of the job regarding his portfolio. I am 64 years old, however, and
have difficulty in hearing. Therefore when he is making an important point, will he emphasise
it a bit more for the elderly among us who may be hard of hearing, although not homeless or
inadequate in other ways?
I will end on a positive note. I was pleased to hear the Minister of State’s comments on
emergency accommodation. Although some people have been in such accommodation for
years, he has given the House a commitment that no Irish citizen shall be in emergency accommodation
for more than six months. That is the ambition the Minister of State proposes to
realise and I welcome it. I will be most interested to hear if his discussions with the people
who deliver these services have entitled him to say that they are happy with this definition
of homelessness.

Senator David Norris: In my discussions with the four principal elements of the Make Room
grouping, they were extremely positive about the Bill and about the Minister of State’s attitude.
There is no question of a dispute or anything like that. However, I could not help noticing that
the Minister did not actually say they are happy with the definition of homelessness. In fact,
he scrupulously avoided it. Perhaps he is correct — he has just said he cannot speak for them
— but the rest of his language is also instructive. He said they have been informed of the
decision of the Government and that they continue to work with us. That does not reassure
me 100%.
I am not suggesting there is any tension between the Minister of State and these groups
because they are all moving very much in the same direction. One of the most heartening
things is the Minister of State’s very clear commitment to an implementation plan. I would
support him in what I understand him to say, namely, that any amount of definitions are no
use unless one has an implementation plan. This House on all sides will support the Minister
of State in the most rapid development and action on the implementation plan.
If I might presume to one slight correction, when the Minister of State directed my attention
to section 10 he referred to 1998. The Act in which I am most interested is that of 1988, not
1998. It is an understandable confusion as there are so many. However, it is reasonable to let
the record show it is the definition contained in the Act of 1988.

Senator David Norris: I support the thrust of both these amendments but prefer Senator
Hannigan’s on behalf of the Labour Party because it includes Senator Coffey’s amendment
through its reference to “tenancy services”. Senator Coffey made a very good case for this and
this may be the way of the future, that more people will live in rented accommodation, as they
do on the continent. People will find it very difficult to afford houses, even with the collapse
in house prices. It is important we move to a situation whereby tenants in rented accommodation
should be also protected and live in decent conditions. The Minister has this in mind
and the Government is moving on it, which I very much welcome. Substandard accommodation
is not tolerable. I know of some appalling cases of people living in these dreadful, ghastly bedsitters.
The Government is taking action. I rent out an apartment in my house. I have just spent
\50,000 on it and it is a hell of a good apartment. I am not milking money out of it and I have
declared every penny, partly out of morality and partly because I am too stupid to fiddle tax.
I find it a much better policy to be completely open and above board about it.
The other reason I support Senator Hannigan’s amendment, which he advocated very well,
is that he anticipated a ministerial response. I am in this House long enough to know that
sometimes when one puts down such definitions the response is that the Minister agrees with
it all but that the amendment is unnecessarily limiting and the recital incomplete. Senator
Hannigan and his advisers cleverly anticipated and met this point by including the phrase
“including but not limited to” as a pre-emptive strike in amendment No. 12. That is an
important element of the amendment. I hope it will help to persuade the Minister of State to
accept this amendment.

Senator David Norris: I do not want to be tedious in taking the Minister of State up on his
reference to bedsits. I accept that this matter is not directly connected to the matter under
consideration. I hope an inspectorate will be established. Legislation to deal with substandard
accommodation is of no use unless properties can be inspected. It should be possible to put
out of business those who provide such accommodation. I suggest that the Minister of State
might use his good offices to get the inspectorate to look at Nos. 5 and 6 North Great George’s
Street. It would be very welcome if he could do that. It would be no harm if the houses could
be investigated or inspected to see the conditions inside them. I compliment my colleagues,
Senators Coffey and Hannigan, on making their points, and the Minister of State on his generous
response.

Senator David Norris: I also support the amendment because without it, the plan may remain
inert in certain aspects and we should seek active engagement with the plan. This Part is
important because it deals with the assessment of needs and the provision of a plan by the
appropriate authorities in response to that. It is a desirable objective to make the entire process
active. Senator Hannigan’s amendment goes a good distance to ensuring this will be done. All
of us are showered with documents, surveys, plans, questionnaires and briefs. It is endless and
an encouragement to respond would be no harm at all.

Senator David Norris: In general I support the thrust of the amendments because the
development of community organisations and residents associations is valuable. This has been
recognised in Dublin. For example, I am on the policing committee for the north inner city
and I find that very valuable. The city manager has Oireachtas representatives for the local
area in for lunch regularly with all the assistant city managers and that is extremely valuable.
I strongly support the sense of the amendments. It is very much part of democracy to bring in
community organisations, residents and so on because they are the people on the ground. I am
slightly entertained by all the networks, fora, doo-dahs and what nots and, therefore, I am not
quite sure about that as it is a little woolly but, on the other hand, I strongly support the
intention behind the amendment.

Senator David Norris: The Minister of State said that the phrase included cultural and economic
aspects. I am not sure if it does that. Margaret Thatcher drew a very clear distinction
between society and the economy when she said that we had an economy and that society was
a very detached object. To prevent that Thatcheriteconfusion, it might be worth looking at the
Senator’s amendment again. It is not automatic that “social” includes all these areas.

Senator David Norris: I support this amendment. It is a deficiency in the Bill that there is
insufficient recognition of the significant problem of homelessness. I know it is the Minister of
State’s intention to deal with this, as he has clearly indicated. He has ambitious plans and we
believe him, but in this section we have the matter of segregation between persons of different
social backgrounds, as well as mixed dwelling types. Other categories are clearly specified, yet
there is no mention of the homeless who are glaringly absent. Senator Coffey’s amendment is
very reasonable and I hope the Minister of State will be able to take it on board. Even if the
Minister of State regards it as redundant to a certain degree, it does not conflict with the
intention of the Bill or with his stated views in the House, as far as I understand them. If the
Minister of State accepted the amendment, it would be an indication that it is worth our while
arguing here because to date not one Opposition amendment has been accepted. I am watching
with great interest to see if any Opposition amendments will be accepted whose constitutional
remit is to amend and revise legislation in the best interests of the people.

Senator David Norris: I support Senator Coffey again on this matter. The movement from
this side of the House is in support of the Minister of State’s stated objectives. Should it come
to pass, however, that Senator Coffey feels compelled to call a vote, I suggest that we should
go through the division lobbies in light of the earlier debacle. In addition to a physical vote,
we might also secure the services of a town crier, dressed in 18th century costume, to go through
the corridors ensuring that everybody hears the division bells.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the Senator speaking to the amendment?
Senator David Norris: Yes, that is an additional flourish to the amendment. I passed a
number of people in the corridors and while I had the bells ringing in my ears, they were
unable to hear them. Perhaps if there was a visual attraction as well, along the lines that I have
suggested, they might turn up in the division lobbies.

Senator David Norris: Will the Minister of State clarify this point further? What he says is
interesting in that he suggests it is within the passage of the Bill that these regulations are
spelled out. However, I do not see them in the text of the Bill so how will that be done within
the passage of the Bill. The Minister of State has unintentionally muddied the water because I
am sure it must be after the passage of the Bill that he proposes to spell them out. The regulations
may exist on paper somewhere in the Department but, as far as I know, they have not
been laid before the House, although I could be wrong on this. I would welcome the Minister
of State’s illumination on this point.

Senator David Norris: Not before the passage of the Bill. I think the Minister of State intends
that the Bill should pass in anticipation of these matters, but those will not form part of the
Bill. That is the point I am trying to clarify.

Senator David Norris: Will that happen in the Seanad? Will this come as an amendment
from the Minister of State on Report Stage, given it is not in the Bill at present, or does the
Minister of State anticipate that the Bill will take longer than just this afternoon and he will
have an amendment for us the next time the House sits to discuss this matter?

Senator David Norris: This is unsatisfactory. It is the responsibility of the Minister of State’s
Department to present a complete Bill to the Seanad. While I am sorry to have to say this
because I know he is working hard on this, as are his staff, the Minister of State has produced
an incomplete Bill, which is not appropriate. I repeat that the Minister of State is attributing
to the Da´ il functions that properly accrue to Seanad E´ ireann. This Bill should be presented in
this Chamber in full with all its working parts and not left as a kind of half moth-eaten document
to be completed by the Da´ il. It is not painting by numbers.

Senator David Norris: I will conclude because Senator Bacik and I have teased out the issue.
Our difficulty is that while we welcome the implementation plan, this is all theory unless we
put something into action. However, the Minister of State appeared to suggest that when it went
to the Da´ il, there would be a further legislative development which had not been considered at
that point by this House. That is inappropriate and nothing the Minister of State has said so
far has convinced me otherwise.
When will the Bill go to the Da´ il? I presume it is not a matter that can be left forever
because once this Bill passes in the Seanad in the next week or so, it will then go to the Da´ il.
The Minister of State is anticipating it being law by Christmas so it might very well go to the
Lower House very rapidly. I want to know why we are not given the opportunity to scrutinise
something that will apparently be scrutinised as part of the Bill in the Da´ il.
I have been, as Senator Coffey very kindly pointed out, long enough in this House to know
the way legislation works. If it was just a question of a completely separate set of regulations. It
would not be an issue because provisions are frequently made for regulations to be determined
afterwards by the Minister. This seems to be something more than that because the Da´ il is
being given the opportunity to consider it but we are being deprived of that opportunity,
perhaps as a sop. We may get an opportunity to put the Bill through on the nod, as amended
by the Da´ il, but that is not what this House was intended to do. I regret to have to say this to
the Minister of State because I know he intends the best. We want to support him in this,
particularly in dealing with the situation of homelessness.

Senator David Norris: Senator Doherty has very succinctly expressed what I would like to
find out. With regard to the Minister of State’s wonderful jigsaw analogy, he will not win any
prizes for a jigsaw that, as he admits, has a significant piece missing. I have done jigsaws in my
misspent youth. The whole point was to get them finished. The Minister of State will not get a
prize for an incomplete jigsaw, either in the real world or in this Chamber.
Senator Dan Boyle: It is only the corner piece.
Senator David Norris: How green does Senator Boyle think this eye is? I will make one
constructive suggestion and not continue with this matter. We must get ahead and have our
vote. When the Minister of State has answered Senator Doherty’s very reasonable questions
and if it turns out that this material part of the Bill will not be given primary consideration in
this House but left to the other House, I suggest the appropriate approach would be to go
through the Bill to its conclusion of Committee Stage today, the next day or whenever but delay
Report Stage, which will be gone through fairly rapidly, until this amendment is produced, at
which point it can be discussed, as it should be, in this House. That is a compromise that allows
the Minister of State to complete Committee Stage today and then introduce Report Stage. I
imagine the period between when it is completed in this House and then goes to the Da´ il will
only be a matter or days. For the sake of a few days can we not have a complete Bill in this
House if, as Senator Doherty has asked, this plan is to be an integral part of the Bill as passed
by the Oireachtas?

Senator David Norris: I asked the Minister of State a specific and clear question and I would
like an answer to it. Is he prepared to postpone Report Stage? It cannot affect the timetable
for the passage of the Bill in any significant sense if he delays Report Stage until this House
gets an opportunity to discuss it. Otherwise, I will begin to suspect the Minister of State’s good
faith in this respect. What is the point of sacrificing Seanad E´ ireann to which I know the
Minister of State has some vestigial loyalty. He spent 14 years in this House and he was a good
and valued colleague. Why are we not being given sight of an integral, significant part of the
Bill until it goes to the Da´ il? Why are we being requested merely to rubber-stamp it? That is
not the function of this House.

Senator David Norris: Senator Bacik’s explanation was lucid and engaging. I am quite sure
she is right and I hope the Minister of State will confirm that. It is important, however, that,
as was intended by the amendments tabled by my colleagues, we continue to take into account
the plight of single people and I understand the Minister of State has this very much in mind
because we have been dealing with the question of the homeless for some time. Homeless
people are not usually part of a couple. However, I would very much welcome a very clear
statement by the Minister of State outlining what “a reasonable requirement to live together”
means so that there can be no post facto revision of this. Will two or more persons having a
reasonable requirement to live together include a committed couple of the same sex? The
reason I ask for this to be spelled out is the Government’s history regarding the Equality
Authority and the mean-minded way it acted to deprive same sex couples of rights to which
they were found to be entitled by the authority. I want to make sure “reasonable requirement”
covers people who have a commitment and relationship and that they will not be deprived of
it because their need to live together is not seen to be a reasonable requirement. In other words,
I ask the Minister of State to spell this out and state that such couples shall be interpreted as
being covered by this provision. If not, I shall table an amendment on Report Stage.

Senator David Norris: Or sexual orientation. Let the record show the Minister of State
nodded.

Senator David Norris: I am a little more concerned now and I shall certainly table an amendment.
I am grateful to Senator Hannigan for drawing our attention again to section 20(1),
which states: “For the purposes of this section a reference to a household includes 2 or more
persons who, in the opinion of the housing authority concerned, have a reasonable requirement
to live together.” That envisages differing opinions by different housing authorities and, therefore,
no absolute or objective criteria are in place.
In certain parts of the country there might well be a housing authority which had on it
persons of strong views — views of this nature have been expressed not far from where I stand
in this House — to the effect that one would need to be careful about encouraging persons of
the same sex to enter into relationships and live together. We really need a clear guarantee,
first, that there will be a uniform standard and, second, that this legislation clearly encompasses
same sex relationships. It is not just a question of sex; it is a question of sexual orientation
as well.
I would say to the Minister of State that since our battles in the 1980s when we got sexual
orientation included as a matter of course in legislation, this applies automatically. It will not
conflict with Government policy over the past 20 years but it should be clearly spelled out.
There should be no wriggle room for homophobes in this legislation.

Senator David Norris: I support the amendment. It should be a necessity that housing authorities
carry out these assessments. Subsection (3) is disastrously unclear. The Minister of State
should bear in mind what has been said on this side of the House about Government amendment
No. 27. Some of us voted against that amendment not because we considered it a bad
amendment but because we felt it could be better. Although the legal position could, after
considerable thought, be teased out and was made clear by a combination of the contributions
of the Minister of State and Senator Bacik, who has significant qualifications in the legal profession,
the average lay person would find great difficulty in doing so. There must be an attempt
by the Government to make legislation clear and accessible to citizens, where possible. In the
case of this provision, seasoned legislators who are not lawyers did not find it easy to
understand.
Subsection (3) states: “A housing authority may carry out a social housing assessment where
a household has been in receipt of a supplement under section 198(3) of the Social Welfare
Consolidation Act 2005 towards the amount of rent payable by the household in respect of the
household’s residence for such period as may be prescribed.” There are at least half a dozen
ideas in this one sentence. Why is this subsection not split into shorter, simpler sentences?
There is a grammatical conflict in terms of which verb governs which noun. As somebody who
taught English, it reads to me that a housing authority may do this, that and the other for such
period as may be prescribed. I assume this is not what is meant and that the phrase “for such
period as may be prescribed” refers to the rent payable. However, the meaning of the sentence
is that the assessment shall be for the period prescribed. It would be far clearer if the ideas,
instead of being rammed together, were put into a series of short, simple and clear sentences.
I realise we cannot go through the entire Bill to tease it out and put it into plain, understandable
English. However, I put down a marker in this regard. We should attempt to make
legislation as accessible as possible instead of being larded with this type of gobbledegook. It
is like Handel’s Messiah.

Senator David Norris: The tenor never comes to the boil at all. No, Ulysses is perfectly clear.

Senator David Norris: Clearly, the Minister can do it when he tries. It was perfectly obvious
from the way he said it but it is not obvious in the Bill.