Housing Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2008 - Committee Stage Debate - 3rd November 2008

Housing Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2008 - Committee Stage Debate 2008
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 33:
In page 17, subsection (4)(e), line 27, after "alternative" to insert "and appropriate".
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure "appropriate" is inserted after the word "alternative" to ensure accommodation would be not only alternative but appropriate to the household. It is not a large amendment, but it is sensible to make the provision to ensure accommodation is specifically appropriate to the needs of the household. It is a qualification of the existing word, but it does not change in any way the thrust of the section.
Senator David Norris: I support the amendment.
It seems eminently sensible that accommodation should be tailored to the needs of the person or persons seeking it.
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): This amendment is unnecessary because the requirement to have regard to alternative accommodation appropriate to the household's needs is adequately reflected already in paragraph (e) as drafted, that is "the availability to the household of alternative accommodation that would meet its housing need;". In those circumstances, I ask Senator Bacik to withdraw her amendment.
Senator David Norris: I wish to comment on that response, although I will, of course, defer to Senator Bacik if she wishes to withdraw her amendment. The Minister of State has expressed a very minimalist view. The phrase "meet its housing need" does not really carry the force of "appropriate". The response is a little bit grudging. Has the Minister of State accepted any amendments so far?
Deputy Michael Finneran: Yes, I was very generous on my previous visit to the House.
Senator David Norris: I cannot quite recall the detail. How generous was the Minister of State?
Deputy Michael Finneran: The record will show that I was generous.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I ask the Minister of State to indicate that he might at least consider accepting this amendment and that we might resume our discussion on it on Report Stage. As Senator Norris has said, to reject this amendment is somewhat grudging. While the terms of subsection (4)(e) clearly specify that the alternative accommodation would meet the housing need of the household, to say it also would be "appropriate" to that need is an important qualification.
Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.
Senator Ivana Bacik: It does not alter the tone or main thrust of the provision but gives it a nuance which would be important for particular households in seeking accommodation.
Senator David Norris: I wish to give a clear and specific example, if I may. I knew of a young man who had various difficulties. He had been subjected to aversion therapy because he was gay. His family was from rural Ireland and was very harsh in that regard. He was seriously distressed by this but, with great courage, pulled himself together. He was allocated a flat in the inner city which certainly met his housing needs. However, some of his neighbours learned of his sexual orientation and made his life a misery. They put excrement through his letter box, tried to burn him out, stole his post and so forth. Eventually I managed to get him accommodation in a sheltered housing complex in Donnybrook which transformed his life.
This is precisely the kind of case that would be addressed by Senator Bacik's amendment. The authorities could clearly say his housing needs were met in that they provided him with an adequate flat which had a kitchen, shower, bedroom and so forth. However, because of the hostility of his neighbours, the accommodation did not prove to be appropriate. He moved into a complex largely occupied by old ladies and got on like a house on fire. They adored him and he was great at doing bits and pieces for them.
That is an example which puts a human face on the issue. It may seem like a slight amendment with which the Minister of State need not bother but Senator Bacik has hit on an important point here. I ask the Minister of State to reflect on the case history I have given in considering this amendment. Of course, he does not have to say "yea" or "nay" now. He can always say he will think about it and we can do battle again on Report Stage.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to Senator Norris for providing a very pertinent example of the sort of situation where the authority might be meeting housing needs objectively but, in fact, those needs are not being met in an appropriate way. I ask the Minister of State at least to consider taking on board our comments and revert to the issue on Report Stage. I would be very grateful if he would do so. It is part of the process of debate in this House and I would be grateful if rather than rejecting the amendment out of hand, he might indicate his willingness at least to consider the need for this extra nuance to the provision.
Deputy Michael Finneran: The purpose of the entire section is to ensure needs are met appropriately. This is the essence of why we are changing the way needs are assessed. Therefore, the word "appropriate" is superfluous in subsection (4)(e). We are changing the law to accommodate all situations.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?
Senator Ivana Bacik: Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 34:
In page 17, subsection (4), between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"(h) additional needs of the household including medical, education, social, and cultural needs required to promote social inclusion and the development of sustainable communities.".
This amendment is more substantial than the previous one. It inserts a new subsection (4)(h) in section 20 with the purpose of broadening the definition of need to include medical, education, social and cultural needs. It addresses how the authorities carry out needs assessments and has a similar purpose as amendment No.33 in that it aims to ensure authorities make a comprehensive needs assessment to allocate accommodation which is appropriate to the needs of individual households. It also requires local authorities to consider the promotion of social inclusion and the development of sustainable communities, which are important aims to include in this legislation. It is important housing authorities would have regard to those aims.
The Minister of State has said that some considerations clearly are built into section 20 already. I am seeking to make them more explicitly thus. I do not think anyone would disagree with the rationale for this proposed amendment, although the Minister of State may not wish to accept it. The aim of the amendment simply is to make explicit something which is an underlying theme already in this legislation. I welcome that and do not want to appear to be critical in a non-constructive way. I am seeking simply to make more explicit the need to ensure needs assessments are carried out comprehensively and in a way which takes into account of all the needs of the household and which ultimately will promote social inclusion and the development of sustainable communities.
Senator David Norris: I support this amendment and wish to return to the case history I related some minutes ago. That unpleasant business might have been avoided if an appropriate assessment of needs had been done in the first place. The young man of whom I spoke would not have been placed in an inappropriate environment. I am all in favour of comprehensive assessments which would include consideration of social inclusion and the development of sustainable communities. That would have solved the problem to which I referred earlier. Consideration of cultural needs, for example, is also important given that our society is much more complex than in the past. In that context, this amendment is appropriate.
Deputy Michael Finneran: This amendment is not appropriate to subsection (4) which deals with the eligibility of households for social housing support by virtue of their current circumstances regarding income, availability of alternative accommodation, etc. The description of the particular housing needs in terms of medical needs and so forth is covered by subsection (6), which provides that:
The Minister may make regulations providing for the matters by reference to which a household’s need for social housing support and the form of such support shall be determined including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:
(a) the description and classification of household need;
(b) the description of specific accommodation requirements according to different categories of household need;
(c) the description of accommodation need based on the composition of the household.
The proposed amendment also refers to the promotion of social inclusion and the development of sustainable communities. These aspects are more appropriate to housing strategies and, in the context of the Bill, to allocation policies as set out in section 22. In those circumstances, I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I accept there are other places in the Bill where these points could be made but I believe it is useful to insert them at this point in section 20. I have tabled amendments to further sections.
I note the Minister of State's point regarding the regulations provided for in subsection (6) providing for matters by reference to which a household's need for social housing support will be determined. However, subsection (4) is important and is perhaps key to the reality of life for people in households awaiting the allocation of housing.

I note that social housing support has a broad definition in the Bill and therefore this will be a key provision for households that are awaiting supports or the allocation of housing. It would be useful to insert here, as I said, something with which nobody could have a fundamental disagreement. These are policy aims that everybody would support. The aim is to make these explicit in the provision giving the Minister the power to make regulations about how eligibility for social housing support will be determined. It is a crucial subsection for households that are awaiting supports because it gives the Minister the power to make the regulations providing for these criteria. Thus, it is important to include these criteria in the subsection. I will press the amendment.
Senator David Norris: The Minister's response was inadequate and evasive because he relies on sections further on in the Bill, on general and vague phrasing and on ministerial regulations. I have been long enough in this House to know about ministerial regulations. The Minister's hands are not tied in this matter. There is no requirement in this legislation that these things should be included. We rely on the Minister's goodwill. I believe the Minister as I have worked with him in this House for many years, but who knows what the future holds? He might not be there, decent man and all as he is. Since, as Senator Bacik has said, there is no conflict or difficulty in putting it in and reassuring the House, it will not cause any further problems. The only way in which it could cause a problem would be if the Minister did not intend to include this in regulations and strategy and all the other things he mentioned. This is a matter of policy that could appropriately be included at this point.
In light of the Minister's refusal to take on board the previous amendment about appropriate housing, despite the fact that I put on the record what I thought was a very clear case history in which the absence of this kind of provision militated against a citizen of this country, it is all the more pressing that he should accept this amendment. Even supposing it was redundant, it is not doing any damage. The planet will not collapse because of a couple of extra words in ink on a piece of paper - about a quarter of an inch of text. There are no strong, persuasive arguments against accepting it. I will say one thing in which I hope I am not being indiscreet. Both Senator Bacik and I have been extensively briefed by a coalition of groups who work at the coalface. They probably have a fairly good idea of the practical realities on the ground and the need for the inclusion of provisions such as these. They are not inventing amendments just for the hell of it. The Minister did not even take up my hint on the last amendment that he might say he was considering it, even if his tongue was licking his tonsils as he said it. He just ruled it out. That is a little disappointing.
Deputy Michael Finneran: The list suggested by the Senator is drawn from the 1988 Act which, in light of changing housing needs, has proved to be limited in terms of providing an accurate picture of both the nature of housing need and the relative priorities. Indeed, people may have multiple needs which are not adequately captured by the current statutory definitions. The proposed revised classification based on the FEANSTA approach provides for a more developed approach, reflecting the urgency and persistence of different types of needs. This will provide the basis for the development through regulation of a better measure of need in the future. The Senators will know that we are changing from what was in the 1988 Act, and section 20 reflects that. It allows for a broad approach to appropriate need.
Senator David Norris: When will we see the regulations?
Deputy Michael Finneran: Regulations are implemented subsequent to enactment of the legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38 are alternatives to No. 35 and should be discussed with that amendment as they would not otherwise have an opportunity to be debated. Is that agreed? Agreed. If amendment No. 35 is agreed, amendments Nos. 36 to 38, inclusive, cannot be moved.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 17, lines 36 to 45, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
"(5) A household shall not be eligible for social housing support where the household or a member of the household---
(a) was at any time a tenant of a dwelling or site owned or provided by any housing authority under the Housing Acts 1966 to 2008 or provided under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
(b) during the 3 years immediately before the carrying out of the social housing assessment, was in arrears of rent in respect of the dwelling or site for an accumulated period of 12 weeks or has otherwise breached a condition of the tenancy agreement in respect of such dwelling or site.".
The intention of section 20(5) is to underline the seriousness of actions such as a breach of tenancy agreement or non-payment of rent. The consequences of these actions are that they are to be taken into consideration by a housing authority in determining that household's eligibility for further support. The subsection as it is currently drafted provides that a household that was previously the tenant or owner of a local authority dwelling or site and was either in arrears of rent for an accumulated period of 12 weeks during a three-year period prior to the carrying out of a social housing assessment, or breached a condition of the tenancy agreement, will be deemed to be ineligible for social housing support.
While it is clear from the text that the rent arrears must have arisen in a three-year period prior to the assessment for ineligibility to arise, it is somewhat ambiguous as to whether the period also applies to a breach of a tenancy agreement. Thus, I am introducing an official amendment to make it clear that only breaches of a tenancy agreement that occurred in the three years immediately prior to the carrying out of a social housing assessment will render the household ineligible for social housing support. This will bring the proposed provision for taking tenancy breaches into account in social housing assessments in line with that for rent arrears. The existing subsection (5) does not confine the breach of a condition of a tenancy agreement to a three-year period immediately prior to the assessment. In view of this, I ask Senators to withdraw amendments Nos. 36 and 37.
With regard to the proposed amendment No. 38, which will include new provisions in this section on moneys due to housing authorities, I do not consider an amendment is necessary. Section 20 does not provide housing authorities with the power to charge rents, sell sites or dwellings, make tenancy agreements etc. These powers are exercised by authorities under other housing Acts and, in the case of charging of rents, under section 31 of this Bill when enacted. Moneys owed to the housing authorities and any provisions in that context are dealt with by section 33 of the Bill, which includes a provision allowing authorities to enter into various repayment arrangements with households regarding moneys owed where undue hardship would arise. I am satisfied that the proposed arrangements provide a sufficient level of relief for the circumstances envisaged by Senator Norris and in view of this I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I would like to raise a couple of points about the Minister's amendment. Senator Norris will speak about his own amendments, although I support them.
My difficulty with subsection (5) is that it does not appear to contain any discretion.
Senator David Norris: Exactly.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I take the Minister's point that section 33, particularly subsection (5), allows an authority, where it is satisfied a household would suffer undue hardship if it owes money, to enter into an arrangement with the household. My concern is that without Senator Norris's amendment, the Minister's proposed subsection (5) appears to rule out discretion on behalf of the housing authority to do this.
Senator David Norris: Exactly.
Senator Ivana Bacik: There will be difficulty in interpreting how this subsection, together with section 33, is to be read. I am delighted to hear the Minister say that section 33 is intended to cover and perhaps provide discretion, but there does not appear to be discretion in subsection (5). I am concerned about the way in which it is drafted. The reason I am so concerned is not just the use of the words "shall not be eligible" in subsection (5), but also the statement in the new paragraph (b) that the household shall not be eligible either where it was in arrears for the period stipulated or where it had otherwise breached a condition of the tenancy agreement. There are many different types of condition in any tenancy agreement. Of course the housing authority should have the power to withhold housing support where a household has been in breach of a material or fundamental condition or where there has been some major breach, but it seems that this removes discretion from the housing authority for any breach of a condition.

That seems to be far too absolutist in tone and I would have a real concern about the hardship that households might well suffer if this is passed into law. I ask the Minister of State to consider the points I have made and to consider the difficulties a court might have in seeking to interpret section 20(5) as against section 33, which appears to give the discretion - subsection (5) of section 20 does not appear to allow discretion and this is the difficulty with it.
Senator David Norris: Senator Bacik has hit the nail on the head. The whole purpose is to provide discretion. I refer to the two amendments, amendment No. 37, the changing of "shall" to "may" and the substantive amendment No. 38. The whole point of it was to enable a housing authority and the tenant together to make arrangements for the payment of arrears owed and at the same time to allow them to be in receipt of social housing support. That is not included here and I will most definitely put that amendment to a vote. This is absolutely disgraceful. It is dealing with people who are in a real situation of hardship and this very severe penalty could be imposed on somebody if they kept a parrot, a dog or a cat and there was a condition of that kind. They would be debarred from getting the social housing support at the same time as they were being forced to pay the arrears. I wonder if the penny has dropped in the Department as to the kind of economic times into which we are rapidly moving. Many people will be caught in this situation and it is absolutely unacceptable that the Minister of State should take this view and tie down the hands.
The Minister of State asked us to withdraw our amendments. I can tell him I will not be withdrawing this amendment. I am asking the Minister of State to withdraw his amendment and substitute ours, in the interests of decent treatment of these tenants. There are plenty of ways of dealing with tenants who get into arrears and all those powers remain with the local authority. All we are asking for is a bit of flexibility in economic circumstances which cry out for flexibility.
Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of order and to assist Senator Norris, I note that section 33 explicitly does not apply to section 20. Subsection (1) of section 33 lists the provisions to which it applies but section 20 is not included.
Senator David Norris: Exactly.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Subsection 20(5) which provides the flexibilities states that where there are moneys due under any of the provisions-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is a point on the Bill, not a point of order.
Senator Ivana Bacik: It is a point of assistance to my friend.
Senator David Norris: It is a point of great assistance and I am grateful to my learned colleague. Section 33(5) states: "Where there are moneys due and owing by a household to a housing authority under any of the provisions to which this section applies and the housing authority is satisfied that the household would otherwise suffer undue hardship the housing authority may, at the household's option, enter into arrangements with the household for the payment of those moneys (together with any interest that may have accrued under subsection (2) by such instalments and at such times as the housing authority considers reasonable in all the circumstances in addition to any rent, charges, fees or loan repayments that the household is paying to the authority."
Senator Ivana Bacik: That does not include section 20.
Senator David Norris: Exactly. They can moderate their demands for repayment but there is nothing there that covers the question of social housing support. I would certainly be of the view that this is an amendment on which this House should be quite firm.
The Minister of State says he has accepted amendments but I cannot remember any of them.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: He accepted a small number.
Senator David Norris: He accepted some of Senator Hannigan's amendments, which I welcome, and that is why he remembers them, but he did not accept any of ours. That means there is no technical difficulty. The Bill has been amended so the question of not amending it because of pressure of time does not arise. I appeal to the Minister of State to look at this again. This provision will pinch people quite hard. I know local authorities are anxious to get arrears of rent and they are entitled to them. However, the whole question of the social policy of Government is involved here, not just the collection of arrears. We are not just dealing with the creation of a debt collection agency, we are dealing with real human problems. The Government's amendment is a mess and I will certainly be voting against it.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: I agree with my colleagues. I remain unhappy with the Government's proposed amendment. However, I must admit that our amendment No. 36 is not as clear as it could be and we will not move that amendment but will reserve the right to retable it on Report Stage.
Senator Paudie Coffey: I ask the Minister of State to clarify paragraph (a) of Government amendment No. 35. Is this amendment intended to avoid any duplication of tenancies? Does it exclude or deprive anybody from seeking a transfer to adjacent local authorities? For example, if somebody is in a tenancy in a city housing authority and they wish to apply for a house in the adjacent county council housing authority, does this amendment preclude them from being assessed by the county authority?
Deputy Michael Finneran: I appreciate Senator Norris's concerns but it is worth putting the issue surrounding rent arrears in context. The differential rent scheme operated by housing authorities is based on the fundamental principle of ability to pay in that the rent is related to the household's income. That is a very affordable form of housing. Research carried out in 2001 on Dublin City Council tenant population suggested that the differential rent scheme plays an important role in combating poverty. Where people get into difficulty in paying rent, ample opportunity is provided for tenants before consideration of the serious step of termination of tenancy.
The provisions in section 31 envisage that a rent scheme would include provisions for temporary waiver of rent on hardship grounds and section 33 includes provision for instalment payments of money due under that section and where hardship arises. These form part of a process of encouraging people to keep up their rent repayments on one hand and having a balanced and fair approach when difficulties arise for a household. Against that background it is only reasonable that a person who is being evicted for arrears would not be immediately considered for another letting, otherwise there would not be an incentive to pay rent. That would not be particularly fair to the majority of tenants who keep up their rent payments. However, I think it is reasonable that this period of ineligibility should be limited and that is the reason I have put forward the official amendment to clarify that consideration would only be given to arrears in a tenancy over the past three years. In light of this clarification, which I believe improves the provision, I ask that the Senator withdraw amendment No. 38.
In response to Senator Bacik, the intention of section 25 is to underline the seriousness of actions such as a breach of tenancy agreement or non-payment of rent. The consequences of these actions are that they are to be taken into consideration by a housing authority in determining the household's eligibility for further support. I wish to put this explanation on the record. While the amendment proposed by the Senators seeks to include some discretion for local authorities in application of this provision, this desire needs to be balanced with the requirement for clarity about eligibility requirements. For that reason, the wording in the official amendment improves the situation.
Senator David Norris: I acknowledge that the Minister of State has made some degree of movement in providing the amendment and that is in response to the amendment that has been put down. However, my problem is that under my amendment local authorities can still do what the Minister of State has just spoken of - they can still evict and charge arrears.

I do not see how under my amendments a local authority would be coerced into immediately rehousing a bad tenant who has been consistently, habitually and deliberately acting in bad faith by not paying rent. The Minister of State's concerns are catered for in the amendments.
I do not think I will press the amendment at this point. I will return to the groups which briefed me on these provisions, present the Minister of State's amendment to them and ask them if they are satisfied with it. I will be surprised if they are for the reasons given. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a ministerial amendment in response to an amendment we tabled and may claim. It might be no harm for all sides to take further advice on the issue.
Senator Ivana Bacik: The Minister of State raised the issue of the interaction of section 33 with section 20. I said a court would have difficulty in reading the two together. On careful reading, it would actually have no difficulty. The provisions of section 33 clearly do not apply to section 20. Section 33 specifies those provisions of the Bill to which it does apply and section 20 is not included among them. Therefore, the discretion allowed to housing authorities under section 33 cannot be incorporated into the provisions of section 20.
My concern about section 20 is that it gives the housing authority no discretion. There is not even a qualification or material condition, to the effect that where a tenancy agreement has been breached by any member of a household, the household becomes ineligible for social housing support, to include dwellings, sales of dwellings, rental accommodation, caravan sites and so forth. Is the Minister of State suggesting there is residual discretion given to the housing authority? If so, I would welcome it but I do not see it mentioned in his amendment. No court would think for one moment that section 33 could apply.
I take Senator Norris's point that he does not wish to press the amendment.
Senator David Norris: I do now.
Senator Ivana Bacik: It needs to be voted on if the Minister of State will not indicate that he might at least look at the points I have raised about this interaction, given that he first mentioned section 33. I do not see how the provisions of that section in its current form could possibly apply to section 20.
Senator Paudie Coffey: Will the Minister of State clarify if the Government's amendment to section 20(5)(a) will have an impact on the transfer of existing tenants from one housing authority to another?
Senator David Norris: I will be pressing my amendments for the simple reason that the Leas-Chathaoirleach has explained to me that if the Government's amendment is allowed to go through, I will not have an opportunity to resubmit my amendment on Report Stage. From brief consultations I have learned, as I imagined, that the amendment is regarded as significant.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris will be able to resubmit his amendment on Report Stage by virtue of the fact it has been discussed in the House on Committee Stage.
Senator David Norris: Even if the Minister of State's amendment is passed.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Yes.
Senator David Norris: We shall see. It is an important amendment and the Minister of State has not satisfied me with regard to the question of discretion. He has answered other points but not the ones in which I am interested.
The Minister of State should take carefully into account the interpretation of legislation by my eager young colleague, Senator Bacik, who is a brilliant professor of law at a distinguished university. The Seanad is lucky to have such legal expertise among its ranks. This is the type of thing which the Seanad is for. We have lost Dr. Mary Henry who brought to this House considerable expertise in medical matters but now have someone who can be helpful in advising. I agree with Senator Bacik on how these sections interact and there is a gap.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am grateful for those entirely undeserved and kind comments. If it is not possible to make an amendment to this provision on Report Stage, the Minister of State might consider addressing the issue in a different way by amending section 33 to make it explicit that it applies to the power of housing authorities to determine whether households are eligible for social housing support under section 20. Section 33 could equally be amended, given that it contains the discretionary provision that Senator Norris wishes to have inserted in section 20.
Deputy Michael Finneran: Regarding Senator Coffey's concerns, it will not apply to transfers between housing authorities. Section 20 does not provide a housing authority with the power to charge rents, sell sites or dwellings, make tenancy agreements, etc. These powers are exercised by authorities under other housing Acts and, in the case of the charging of rents, section 31, when enacted. Sections 31 and 33 deal with rent arrears before eviction. Section 20 deals with situations after eviction for the non-payment of rent arrears. This is an important clarification.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I know why section 33 specifies "where there are moneys due and owing by a household to a housing authority under any of the provisions to which this section applies...". It applies to earlier legislation under which money may be owing and so forth. My difficulty, however, is that section 20(5) gives no discretion to a housing authority. It simply states a "household shall not be eligible for social housing support where the household or a member of the household was ... in arrears of rent in respect of the dwelling or site ... breached a condition of the tenancy agreement". Section 33(5), however, does give discretion but its provisions do not apply to section 20. The provision which Senator Norris wishes to have inserted essentially replicates the discretionary provision of section 33(5) in section 20. I accept section 20 does not give a housing authority power to charge rent and so forth but it does give power to withhold social housing support. Beyond this, it determines the conditions for eligibility. It is too absolutist. No one is denying a housing authority should have the power to withhold social housing support for breaches or the non-payment of rent arrears. Senator Norris's amendment would provide some leeway. The presumption applies that the household would be ineligible but there would be some scope for a housing authority in cases where it felt hardship was involved, particularly in these recessionary times, and could enter arrangements for the payment of moneys. Given that an authority can do this under section 33, I do not see why it cannot be imported in section 20. It would clarify that there was some discretion that a household would not be ineligible in every situation where there were arrears or a breach of a tenancy agreement. My concern is that a housing authority's hands will be tied.
Senator David Norris: Under my amendment, all the powers the Minister of State seeks for a housing authority would survive. It could evict and charge for arrears. Under the Minister of State's amendment, an authority will be required to remove social housing supports. The whole matter of flexibility is left in abeyance. The language in the section of facilitation is taken directly and specifically from other sections; therefore, it is the language used by the Parliamentary Counsel. The Minister of State should be in a position to accept what is, in effect, the very language in which the Bill is drafted. The effect of the Government's amendment does not go fully to meet our objection to the narrowing, constriction and tying of the hands of the local authorities. We seek flexibility and discretion

Deputy Michael Finneran: I acknowledge the sentiments and concerns raised. However, the proposed amendments would raise issues regarding the exercise of any discretion in respect of eligibility. Given the importance of the matter, I am prepared to consider further the mandatory nature of the provision. I propose to undertake this in conjunction with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. I ask Senators to accept the Government amendment and withdraw their amendment. I will see what I can do following consultation with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.
Senator David Norris: That is very welcome and I thank the Minister of State for his flexibility. I hope there will be further flexibility. Does this mean the Minister of State is pressing amendment No. 35 or are we all withdrawing amendments so that he can come up with something better?
Deputy Michael Finneran: I am asking that amendment No. 35 be accepted and I will examine how we can accommodate the sentiments and concerns raised by the Senators.
Senator David Norris: Does that specifically relate to discretion?
Deputy Michael Finneran: The proposed amendments would raise issues concerning the exercise of any discretion in respect of eligibility.
Senator David Norris: They would not tie the hands.
Deputy Michael Finneran: I will refer it to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am grateful that the Minister of State has indicated he will refer it to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. I ask that the latter might advise on the interaction between section 20 and section 33 and whether it would be possible to import some measure of discretion into that currently absolutist language in section 20(5). If the Chief Parliamentary Counsel will advise on this, we are prepared to reserve our position on this until Report Stage.
Senator David Norris: I want to add an additional rider. This has been a valuable debate and I ask the Minister of State to make available to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel the text of the debate on this section so that our concerns can be taken into account in the context of the debate. I would not be happy if it was a question posed to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Is the Minister of State prepared to allow the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to review the debate? It is only half an hour of debate.
Deputy Michael Finneran: I do not see any problem with that. It is only appropriate that the Chief Parliamentary Counsel would acknowledge the broad-ranging debate. I am prepared to examine the issues. While I cannot give guarantees, I will seek further advice from the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 to 39, inclusive, not moved.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 40:
In page 18, subsection (6)(b), line 3, to delete "need;" and substitute the following:
"need. In particular housing need assessments must have regard to the need for housing of people who-
(i) are homeless,
(ii) are members of the Travelling Community,
(iii) are living in accommodation that is unfit for human habitation or is materially unsuitable for their adequate housing,
(iv) are living in overcrowded accommodation,
(v) are sharing accommodation with another person or persons and who, in the opinion of the housing authority, have a reasonable requirement for separate accommodation,
(vi) are young persons leaving institutional care or without family accommodation,
(vii) are in need of accommodation for medical or compassionate reasons,
(viii) are elderly,
(ix) are disabled,
(x) are, in the opinion of the housing authority, not reasonably able to meet the cost of the accommodation which they are occupying or to obtain suitable alternative accommodation;"
This seeks to insert a new provision in section 20(6) which is based on previous legislation and provides that the Minister would be empowered to make regulations providing for the matters by reference to which a household's need for social housing support and the form of such support would be determined. There is already a list of three such matters and my amendment inserts a further provision that housing needs assessments must have regard to the need for housing of people who are homeless, members of the Traveller community, and a list of other factors such as where accommodation is unfit for human habitation, overcrowded or where accommodation is shared. It sets out in a more specific way the list of persons especially in need. The existing provisions are returned to the Bill, providing a better foundation upon which the Minister may base regulations.
As Senator Norris has said, I am very grateful to the Make Room coalition which comprises Focus Ireland, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, the Simon Community and Threshold. These front-line housing agencies and homeless support agencies have been very helpful in giving us information. They are of the view that this should be re-inserted into the Bill and would be of assistance to the Minister in outlining the needs to which he or she must have regard.
Deputy Michael Finneran: This amendment is not necessary. Section 20(6) provides that the Minister will make regulations providing for the description and classification of household need. It is intended that these regulations would include a revised classification system for housing needs centred on the severity and persistence of need. It is proposed to base the revised classification system as much as possible on the model devised by FEANSTA, a European body representative of national organisations working with the homeless. The proposed classification system has already been the subject of extensive consultation with the social partners and housing authorities from the perspective of the general and special housing needs. These groups, on the whole, have been in favour of the proposals. Providing the details of such a classification system in regulation will allow the necessary flexibility to adapt the model over time as circumstances and priorities change. This flexibility is not as readily available in primary legislation. I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I do not intend to press the amendment but I reserve the right to come back to it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 41:
In page 18, subsection (7), line 6, to delete "may" and substitute the following:
"shall, within one year of the commencement of this section,".
This is self-explanatory. It seeks to amend section 20(7) not to make any change to its purpose of but to provide a time limit within which it would take effect. I have changed "may" to "shall, within one year of the commencement of this section,", changing from the facilitative, which allows the Minister to make regulations on carrying out social housing assessments, to the mandatory, which requires the Minister to do so within one year of the commencement of the section. Its importance is that it provides that new needs assessments will take place within a year of this section being commenced. Clearly, there is discretion as to when the section will be commenced and we are all realistic about that since it happens with most legislation. There is discretion as to when section 20(7) will take effect but this amendment is to strengthen its purpose, given how important it is that these regulations are made, by ensuring they would be made within one year of commencement. I do not see this as unduly restrictive of the Minister, given that there is always some flexibility as to when the section will be commenced. It provides a timeline for when the regulations will be drawn up in respect of new social housing assessments.
Senator David Norris: I support this valuable and practical amendment. Senator O'Toole tabled a similar amendment with a time requirement in respect of other legislation and it was accepted. In this debate the Minister of State has relied extensively on a promissory note to the effect that this will be dealt with in the regulations. In return for that, it is fair enough that we are given a timeline. We cannot have an indefinite situation where we are waiting for these regulations to be made.

All too easily it could turn into a continuous deferral of matters that are very substantial to the Bill. The Minister has relied extensively on postponing directly addressing certain issues until his regulations come into effect. For that reason, it is incumbent on the Minister to give a target date by which this work must be done. It must not be long-fingered, and the Minister would not wish it to be, but this would provide that degree of impetus.
We are all human. One of the achievements of which I am proudest is that for three and a half years I contributed a page every Thursday to a tabloid evening newspaper, the Evening Herald. I like to think I raised its tone somewhat. I tend to postpone things. I am, by nature, what Sean O'Casey would call a "prognosticator". I am proud that I met the deadline every week for three and a half years. I would have put things off, but the deadline was a help and an incentive. In light of those various factors I would like the Minister to seriously consider this matter. If, upon advice, he finds six months are too short he can return with his own timeline. We must know when this material will come into operation, since the Minister has relied on the regulation provisions so extensively.
Deputy Michael Finneran: This amendment is not necessary. Subsection (7) empowers the Minister to make regulations to set out how an individual assessment of housing needs must be carried out on a household.
Senator David Norris: The Minister is becoming repetitive.
Deputy Michael Finneran: While it is the intention to introduce such regulations as quickly as possible, as discussed regarding other amendments which seek to place an obligation on the Minister to make regulations, this section follows the normal drafting convention to provide the necessary powers. In that circumstance I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I reserve my position until Report Stage and will not press the amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 42:
In page 18, subsection (7), line 7, after "of" to insert "annual".
This amendment appears somewhat similar but is much more forward-looking. It provides, again, for an amendment to subsection (7) that the Minister would make regulations on the carrying out of annual social housing assessments. The purpose is to ensure there is a more regularly updated review of housing assessments. I mentioned this in my speech on Second Stage. There is a serious issue-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 42 and 44 are related and may be discussed together.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I should have said the two amendments are being discussed together because amendment No. 44 would delete paragraph (d), which refers to the frequency of reviewing and updating assessments. This is a particular issue because the review and updating of assessments is carried out only every three years. That does not take into account changing circumstances. We are all seeing how rapidly the economic climate, property prices and people's ability to make repayments are changing. Events are moving very quickly and in the real world these matters will move quickly. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has adopted an annual review of needs assessments. In this jurisdiction we need a much more regular system of reviewing assessments. That is why I asked for the word "annual" to be inserted and for paragraph (d) to be deleted, almost as a corollary of that.
We have a problem with a lack of objective criteria for needs assessments across local authorities. That is probably uncontroversial to say; it is widely accepted. I welcome the general tone of this Bill, which I hope will provide for a more consistent set of criteria. The Bill still leaves ultimate power to local authorities. The powers of the Minister to provide for an overall national system of needs assessment should be much more strengthened in the Bill. That is what I seek to do in this series of amendments, briefed by the agencies I mentioned in the Make Room coalition.
The Northern Ireland model is useful for us because it shows the Housing Executive has recognised that to perform annual reviews is a better and more efficient way to ensure needs assessments are up to date. In Northern Ireland there are also quarterly updates. On Second Stage I said there is a problem generally with this in terms of collecting data from local authorities and I can see how that might be a problem in carrying out reviews. I proposed that the Central Statistics Office, CSO, might have a role here, as it does on Garda figures.
As a criminal lawyer I am very conscious that until very recently crime figures were kept and collated by the Garda Síochána. A very short number of years ago the CSO took over responsibility for collating and keeping a national database of crime statistics. Everybody, including the Garda, regard this as a much better method of keeping crime figures. There is room here for us to also change how we collate our housing data. This would assist in ensuring we could have annual reviews of needs assessments. I ask the Minister to indicate that he might consider inserting the word "annual" into this provision to bring us to an equivalent situation with Northern Ireland and ensure we can keep more efficiently up to date with changing economic circumstances for people in need of housing support.
Senator David Norris: I support this amendment. Senator Bacik made an effective political point when she talked about aligning the legislation in this part of the island with that in the Northern part. It should be particularly keenly felt by a member of Fianna Fáil, which has the aim of reuniting the national territory. That is a good political point. An even more urgent point is the fact that, as Senator Bacik has indicated, the compilation of these statistics is a significant element in policy formation. To formulate policy accurately one needs the most up-to-date statistics and this would assist with that. I support her on this.
Deputy Michael Finneran: I assure the Senator that Minister Margaret Ritchie and I have a good working relationship. She has been in the Customs House with me and I have visited the Bogside and Creggan areas with her.
Senator David Norris: For the sake of balance the Minister will also have to visit the Shankhill
Deputy Michael Finneran: This amendment is not appropriate to this provision. Subsection 7 empowers the Minister to make regulations to set out how an assessment of housing needs will be carried out on an individual household including the form of that assessment and the period within which the housing authority should carry out the assessment after receiving an application. Paragraph (d) of this subsection already provides that the Minister, through regulation, can set out how often an assessment of the circumstances of particular households should be reviewed or updated. It is the intention to move more timely reports on needs than the current tri-annual assessments. Amendment No.44 is related. In those circumstances I ask that the Senator withdraw the amendments.
Senator Ivana Bacik: While I hear what the Minister says, it is important to be a little more specific about how regularly updates and reviews take place. Paragraph (d) refers to frequency of reviewing and updating assessments but it gives no commitment to more regular updating. The tri-annual system is not efficient enough and does not take into account changing circumstances. I would like the Minister to consider what I have said about the CSO. That might be a useful way to collate statistics. I will not press the amendment but reserve the right to do so on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 43:
In page 18, subsection (7), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(c) the maximum period in which an applicant for social housing or housing support shall stay in accommodation designated as emergency;".
Again, this seeks to amend subsection (7) by inserting a new provision specifying that the Minister, in his regulations, would specify the maximum period in which an applicant for social housing or housing support shall stay in accommodation designated as emergency.

This is an important amendment which would commit the Minister to providing for a maximum period after which a housing authority would have an obligation to provide a household with alternative long-term housing accommodation. It is consistent with Government policy. This is a significant amendment that would provide for an important and enforceable new provision. It is important that it be made because it would give teeth to the Government's homelessness strategy. While it would be a departure - I do not pretend it would be something new to the Bill - it would also commit the Government to that to which it is already committed politically in the homelessness strategy which states households should not be left in emergency accommodation beyond six months. There is an aspiration and a political commitment to adhere to a maximum period beyond which households should not be left in emergency accommodation. In the amendment I am seeking to give to teeth to this commitment and have specified in the legislation that the Minister would designate a maximum period. The Minister could choose to designate a longer period. It may not need to be as tight as six months but that is the period at which the Government is aiming. There is no justification in a developed country in 2008 for leaving households longer than six months in emergency accommodation.
This is an important provision that would give teeth to the legislation. It would deal somewhat with the issue of homelessness which we raised in earlier debates on Committee Stage. Many of us have suggested there might be more in the Bill to tackle homelessness but this measure would give teeth to an important commitment the Government has already given. It is not against the Government's strategy. I, therefore, ask the Minister of State to consider inserting in the legislation the power to specify a maximum period. Given that the legislation states the Minister may make regulations, it would not tie the Minister's hands. I am not seeking to do this, rather I am asking that the Minister consider that within the regulations there should be the power to specify a maximum period beyond which households should not be left in emergency accommodation.
Senator David Norris: Again, I find myself in strong agreement with Senator Bacik. Six months is plenty of time for it to be considered an emergency but I warn about one aspect. We have had emergency legislation on the Statute Book since the time of the Second World War. For political purposes, therefore, emergencies can be lasting. I support and reinforce what Senator Bacik said because I have a personal memory, as I am sure the Senator does, of hearing the Minister of State speak effectively and tellingly on the precise subject of the Government's aim to move people out of emergency housing within six months. That is what he said in his Second Stage contribution a week or two ago in the House.
It is important to register again that the Minister would not be required to do this if it presented an awkwardness but it would facilitate him in doing it. I cannot imagine an objection, therefore, and will be profoundly shocked if the Minister of States says the amendment is not necessary. We are developing an oral formulaic response, whereby I could practically parrot some of the Minister of State's replies in advance. I ask him to consider the amendment. The Minister was extremely good on this issue on Second Stage but for persons in bed and breakfast accommodation who have to be out on the streets of a city all day and for part of the evening, particularly those with families, six months is a very long time to have to endure such hardship.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: On these grounds I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment which would not tie the Minister's hands. It may not be necessary but it depends on the Minister of State's view of necessity. Nothing is necessary. We are not necessary. This Parliament is not necessary for the continued functioning of the universe. It all depends on how lasting the Minister of States's view of necessity is. I hope he will not start his reply by saying the amendment is not necessary. In the universal scheme of things it may not be necessary and the inhabitants, if such there be, of Mars are unlikely to be affected by it but people in this limited jurisdiction would be in a practical way. I believe the Minister of State would want to move in that direction.
Deputy Michael Finneran: The proposed amendment is not appropriate to the subsection.
Senator David Norris: At least, it is a variation of the theme.
Deputy Michael Finneran: Subsection (7) empowers the Minister to make regulations to set out how an assessment of housing need will be carried out on an individual household. The aim of housing policy is to provide accommodation for households not in a position to provide it for themselves. In this context, the particular goals have been set in the new homelessness strategy, The Way Home, relating to the elimination of long-term occupancy of emergency homeless accommodation. It is appropriate to set such goals as policy rather than a legislative objective. Eliminating long-term occupancy of emergency homeless accommodation will require careful planning and organisation at local level with support from central government. It will be achieved by an adequate supply of long-term housing in each local area to address current and projected needs, adequate community support services for households vulnerable to homelessness, accessible mental health and addiction services, and effective interventions by the homeless services.
As I explained to Senators on the previous occasion, The Way Home contains a number of actions, the majority of which have deadlines for completion under each strategy aim. It also includes performance indicators relating to each strategy aim. These will form the basis of a more detailed implementation which will assign lead roles and specific timetables to achieve the important national objective of ensuring that by 2010 no one will be in emergency accommodation for more than six months. A range of actions are required to make this and other elements of the strategy work. One of the most important issues from the legislative perspective is the commitment to introduce statutory local based homeless action plans. In practice, implementation has already started. A circular has been issued to all local authorities providing further details of action plans and advising them to commence work on updating their existing plans. It also advises them about their local homeless forum and the formation of the management group for each local homeless forum.
We are working on bringing forward a necessary legislative provision in conjunction with a more broadly based implementation plan. It is envisaged in The Way Home that these plans, as well as containing an overall vision and objective, will include output targets and timescales for achievement. The associated actions to be included in the plans must take account of the local position, as the experience of the homeless varies throughout the country. The plans must have regard to the national implementation plan and the guidelines that will be issued by my Department. In the light of this ongoing work, I ask the Senator to withdraw her amendment.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister of State for his full response. However, I am concerned to hear him say that he would prefer to see the laudable goals outlined in The Way Home, the homelessness strategy, which I welcome, as policy rather than legislative objectives. That may undermine significantly whether these goals are achievable because if they are not given legislative backing, they will remain only as aspirations. The Minister of State might clarify this because he went on to say he envisaged some legislative provision. I accept that local considerations need to be taken into account. I was glad to hear the Minister of State say he wanted plans at local level to include output targets and timescales. I would like him to clarify whether the plans will have legislative backing in other legislation.

Even taking into account variations in local areas and in the meaning of emergency accommodation, we all are well aware such accommodation has meant families with young children being forced to stay in bed and breakfast accommodation and having to wander the streets aimlessly between breakfast and bed time. That is not in anyone's interest.
Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.
Senator Ivana Bacik: As Senator Norris said, six months is too long a time for any parent of young children or any individual to be left in such emergency accommodation. I will consider what the Minister of State said because I do not want to dismiss it out of hand, but I am concerned he said these important goals such as limiting the time people spend in emergency accommodation would be policy aspirations rather than legislative objectives. Will he clarify whether legislation will be introduced to give teeth to this goal in the homeless strategy?
Senator David Norris: I support Senator Bacik. The Minister of State has explained this as a policy whereas legislation is the implementation of policy. He has been very clear in this area about the policy he strongly advocates and it would be a pity to miss this opportunity to implement the policy or at least to provide a framework within which it can be implemented. I am a little disturbed at his reluctance to accept an amendment that is in clear alignment with his own policy. It proposes to implement the policy, which is the purpose of legislation. If the policy only exists as a pious aspiration, it will have no impact on the lived experience of people in Dublin.
Deputy Michael Finneran: There is a commitment to introduce statutory-based local homeless action plans. The way to give legislative effect to this goal is to put those plans in place. We are working on the legislation.
An Cathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am obliged to the Minister of State. In that circumstance, I will not press the amendment but I reserve the right to do so on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator David Norris: The Minister of State will presumably be laying the draft regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Perhaps he will clarify whether this will happen and whether this will be taken with debate because we are familiar with a number of situations where matters were taken without debate. I am assuming that these regulations will be laid before the Houses, although not perhaps in draft form. It may be that the advice of a committee that has a focus on this area, among others, would be very helpful at the draft stage before they come to the House, which might make for a more efficient management of business. It seems an appropriate amendment and I support it.
Deputy Michael Finneran: This amendment is not necessary. Section 3(3) provides that every regulation under this Act shall be laid before the Oireachtas and resolutions may be passed to annul the regulation.
Senator Paudie Coffey: I concur with Senator Norris. In my short time in the House, I have often encountered situations where regulations are brought before the House without debate and we do not get the opportunity to further consult on and debate the various issues. We in Fine Gael believe it would be appropriate that any draft regulations should go before the joint committee. This would enhance its role in consulting with the various stakeholders and would assist the Minister in finalising his regulations in that it would have a broader and more consultative basis before he finalises them, which would be appropriate. For that reason, I will be pressing the amendment.
Deputy Michael Finneran: As I have said, the amendment is not necessary. The regulations are laid before the House and the House has the entitlement to pass the resolution to annul the regulation. That is the democratic right of the House.
Amendment put.
Amendment declared lost.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 53:
In page 20, subsection (5), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(d) allocation on the basis of need.".
This amendment proposes that allocations be made on the basis of need. This requirement must be enshrined in law so that all housing authorities are clear in this regard.
Deputy Michael Finneran: This amendment is unnecessary. The principle upon which housing authority schemes are founded is allocation on the basis of need, as provided for by section 22 as a whole. Subsection (5) provides a mechanism whereby, within a general allocation on the basis of need, housing authorities may reserve a portion of dwellings within the stock to cater for particular groups with particular types of needs, including the homeless, Travellers and single-adult households.
Senator Paudie Coffey: I thank the Minister of State for his explanation. I withdraw the amendment on the basis that it may be resubmitted on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 54 in the name of Senator Norris is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Senator David Norris: Will the Leas-Chathaoirleach explain how this is so? The amendment relates to the establishment of an appeals commission.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The legal advice I have is that it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 54 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Senator David Norris: I regret that my amendment No. 54 was ruled out of order. It is most frustrating. I strongly object to the notion that it cannot be moved because it would involve a charge to the Exchequer. Does this refer to the establishment of the commission, the payment of salaries and so on? We routinely pass similar provisions in the House. The decision to rule the amendment out of order highlights the farce under which this House is precluded from discussing any proposal involving money. The time for a re-examination of this restriction is long overdue and it should be done within the overall review of the working of the Seanad.
This is an issue the House should debate. Even though my amendment cannot be taken, I have a perfect entitlement to discuss the need for an appeals commission, as provided for in the amendment, in the debate on the section. Some 21,000 people applied for support during a previous regime, of which 9,000 were declared ineligible. No analysis was done of the reasons for these rejections. Some may have arisen as a result of non-delivery within the postal system of the correct forms. In many cases, applicants were deemed ineligible because they did not reply to letters and circulars from the authorities. This raises the question of literacy, particularly in the case of homeless people. There may well be a concealed problem of illiteracy which accounts for the fact that some applicants did not reply to certain correspondence.
Will the Minister of State consider my proposal to establish an appeals commission notwithstanding the ridiculous situation whereby I am precluded from doing so on the basis that it might create a charge on the Exchequer? That restriction is a farce and it makes the entire proceedings of this House ridiculous.
Deputy Michael Finneran: It is open to any member of the public to present concerns on issues such as this to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Senator David Norris: That is a weak response. The Ombudsman is not the answer to everything.
Deputy Michael Finneran: Section 22 provides that housing authorities put in place an allocation scheme for the provision of social housing supports to eligible households. It replaces section 11 of the Housing Act 1988.