Ivana Bacik

Committee Stage

Section 2

Senator Ivana Bacik:  Given that this is the definition section, it is a missed opportunity not to include within it a new statutory definition of homelessness. I made this point on Second Stage. The definition of homelessness currently does not include those who are in short-term rental accommodation. A broader definition modelled on the European-wide definition to include persons who experience inadequate or insecure accommodation, such as victims or survivors of sexual violence or so-called “domestic” violence should be included in the Bill. No formal amendments have been tabled on the definition section but it is important that the Government consider on Report Stage inserting a definition of homelessness in this section of the Bill. I hope to table amendments in this regard on Report Stage and I will also seek the inclusion in the definition section of an amendment on homeless action plans. It is important that we have a provision relating to this in the Bill.

Section 10

Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 3: In page 9, line 11, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

This amendment is intended to replace the word “may” in the section with the word “shall”. This would place a legal obligation on housing authorities to provide housing services which would significantly strengthen the legal obligations provided for in section 20, on which I have tabled amendments. Section 20 provides for the range of services which housing authorities will provide. Some of us argued for a constitutional right to housing which would be elevated above legislation. While it would not go so far, it is important to place, within this legislation, a more onerous requirement on housing authorities to provide this type of service. Will the Minister consider accepting this amendment?

Amendment No. 5

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support Senator Doherty’s amendment and I echo the words of Senator Norris on this matter. It is crucial a more comprehensive definition of homelessness is provided. I said this on Second Stage and I repeated it earlier. I am grateful to the make room campaign led by the four national voluntary organisations working in the area of homelessness and housing, namely, Threshold, Focus Ireland, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Simon Community.

They have been very helpful to several of us in working on the Bill. It is important there is a more comprehensive definition of homelessness. I say this, as did Senator Doherty, in the spirit of supporting and broadly welcoming the Bill, as I have previously said. A Bill dealing with housing in such a comprehensive manner is welcome. However, there is an omission and it would be a missed opportunity if we did not provide a better definition of homelessness.

In July of this year during a debate on housing, the Minister of State discussed the Government’s new homeless strategy and its key objectives which are the elimination of long-term occupation of emergency homeless facilities, the elimination of the need to sleep rough by 2010 and to prevent the occurrence of homelessness as far as possible. These are very important aspirations, the attainment of which could be assisted by a proper definition of homelessness.

I note the assessment of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2005 of slightly more than 3,000 people experiencing homelessness. This is regarded by those in the voluntary sector who provide homeless services as an underestimate of the number of people who should be termed homeless. These organisations are of the view that the 2002 figures, which are in excess of 5,000 persons, may be a more accurate representation of homelessness.

To conduct the necessary assessments, to further the homeless strategy and to provide a statutory basis for homeless action plans, it is important to have a statutory definition of homelessness that is comprehensive and on which everyone agrees. I urge the Minister of State to consider these comments and adopt such a definition.

. . .  

I was going to venture a suggestion on mobile homes, although not necessarily an intellectual one. Some qualifying word could be countenanced so that “mobile home” would not be included as an absolute term. One could refer instead to “inadequate”, “unsuitable” or “insecure” mobile homes, to provide for the scenario whereby people want to be in mobile homes. They might otherwise feel it is in some way judgmental to suggest that mobile homes are automatically unsatisfactory, insecure or unsuitable accommodation.

I welcome the Minister of State’s full answer but I am disappointed that he will not take on board our comments about the definition of homelessness. While he does not feel the statutory definition requires updating or changing, I understood him to say that he will review its application in an operational sense. I would like some clarification from the Minister because I am not quite sure what that may mean in practice.

Section 16

Amendment 14

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the amendment. It strengthens the notion of consultation, which is often an empty term where it involves simply providing information. The amendment strengthens the provision by ensuring housing authorities also seek responses from the listed bodies. This does not impose an onerous obligation on them but it requires that responses would be sought, which is an important improvement to this provision.

Amendment 15

Senator Ivana Bacik: I also support the thrust of the amendment which does not place unduly onerous obligations on housing authorities, which would be a concern given amendment No. 15 refers to “or any other bodies”. The amendment does not require them to provide this information to a range of bodies, which would be too onerous.

Amendment 21

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support both amendments. It is important to allow for a more concrete method of consultation to take place whereby written submissions or observations can be made. I think six weeks may not provide enough time, however, and eight weeks would allow the bodies concerned a little more time to consider the information they have received from the housing authority and to make more comprehensive and more thoughtful submissions and observations. It is not about challenging the Minister of State on his amendment, but about extending the time to eight weeks rather than six weeks. I do not see a reason for keeping within the six-week limit. A further two weeks will not impose any undue burden on the housing authority. I welcome the Minister of State’s indication that he might support this.

Section 19

Amendment 25

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the amendment. It adds an important extra dimension to the background to which the housing authority must have regard when performing its functions. Social background is a relatively broad provision, but to include “economic or cultural” extends it to encompass different groups that are already represented in our communities. I ask the Minister of State to indicate that he might perhaps consider amending the section.

Amendment 26

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the amendment. It is important to specify in this Part of the Bill that housing authorities must work to prevent and reduce homelessness. As was said in the context of earlier sections, it is important to see some reference to homelessness included in the Bill. I know the 1998 Act provides the definition and we have heard the Minister of State’s views on that. We had a vote on the issue of that definition, but some specific reference is required to the need for housing authorities to provide this sort of service. A specific aim should be built into the legislation for such authorities to prevent and reduce homelessness. We should support that important principle in this legislation.

. . .

To echo what other Senators said, I would welcome clarification from the Minister of State as to what precisely he plans to do with regard to the homeless implementation plan. While this may be my misunderstanding, I understood him earlier to say he would put the implementation plan for the homelessness strategy on a statutory footing at a later stage this year. I understood that as meaning separate legislation would be brought before this House either later this year or early next calendar year to implement the homelessness plan.

I now understand it may be put as an amendment to this Bill, perhaps on Report Stage in the Seanad or at a later date in the Dáil, or even when the Bill returns to the Seanad. We would like clarification from the Minister of State as to exactly at which stage he intends to bring forward this provision to place the homelessness implementation plan on a statutory footing.

I do not believe any of us would hold him to it, but it is simply so we have some sense of when this is coming. It would short-circuit matters because we could stop putting amendments which the Minister of State then indicates he will accept or, in any event, do something about at a later date.

Section 20

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support what the Minister of State is doing but my reading of section 20(1) is that the Minister is seeking to expand the meaning of “household” for the purpose of the section beyond the meaning contained in section 2, the interpretation section. A household is defined under section 2 as “A person who lives alone or 2 or more persons who live together”. Section 20(1) extends the definition to include two or more persons who are not currently living together but have a reasonable requirement to live together. If I am correct — the Minister of State is nodding — that is a progressive provision and I fully support it.

However, I am sorry I did not table an amendment and in the interest of greater clarity it might be preferable to provide in section 20(1) that a household shall include not only a household as defined under section 2 but also a reference to two or more persons who in the opinion of the housing authority have a reasonable requirement to live together. That would clarify that the extension of the definition in the subsection does not override the definition under section 2, which clearly includes a single person household but it also expands it to include two persons who have a reasonable requirement to live together. If the Minister of State indicates he will clarify his amendment to ensure it will always contain the additional inclusive element, I will fully support it. The problem is the subsection reads as if it supersedes the definition of “household” in section 2. I read it not to exclude single person households but to include households of two persons who wish to live together.

. . .

I am grateful to the Minister of State for confirming my interpretation is correct and the subsection includes single person households, households defined under section 2 and this additional dimension. I accept the Parliamentary Counsel approved the new wording but it still lacks clarity, as confirmed by the comments of colleagues. The definition under section 2 is subject to this section and that means there is a lack of clarity. A reader of this section at a later date might well assume subsection (1) contains a new definition of “household” that excludes single person households. Until this is teased out more carefully, it will be quite easy to interpret it as having that meaning. Will the Minister of State countenance an amendment on Report Stage that would specify this subsection includes the definition of “household” under section 2? I anticipate tabling an amendment to that effect. It is a straightforward drafting matter to remove confusion for housing authorities in the future and ensure single person households and households defined in section 2 are included.

. . .

I am grateful to Senator Ryan as I was going to make the same point. On a careful reading, it is inclusive of the definition in section 2. However, as I stated, for greater clarity I would ask that the Minister of State — to whom I am grateful for indicating he might go back to the Parliamentary Counsel — take back to the Parliamentary Counsel the wording I suggested, namely, that the reference to household shall be read as including not only a household as defined in section 2 but also a reference to two or more persons. That would establish with much fuller clarity what exactly is included in this important provision. This is the basis then from which the housing authorities will determine eligibility, etc., which we will debate.

I was also pleased to hear the Minister of State say the Minister will make regulations providing for eligibility, which we will debate shortly. It is important that they be objective and that the criteria used for determining eligibility is consistent. The criteria for determining “household” must also be consistent and we need clarity in the primary legislation just as we will need clarity in the regulations which will stipulate, for example, how a housing authority will form the opinion that two or more persons have a reasonable requirement to live together. The devil will be in the detail, but I am hopeful that we will see consistent and objective criteria used to answer the concerns expressed by Senator Norris about this.

Amendment 31

Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 31: In page 17, subsection (3), line 5, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

This amendment would make an important change to section 20(3) by providing that a housing authority “shall” rather than “may” carry out a social housing assessment. This changes the provision from facilitative to prescriptive. Clarity is of great importance in this or any other Bill and it is particularly important given the debate we have had on the need for consistent and objective assessments of individual housing needs. In his Second Stage speech, the Minister of State said that an objective and consistent assessment of individual needs is “key to providing social housing supports”. We are all in agreement on that. The Minister of State went on to say that such assessments are essential in determining a household’s priority relative to the needs of other households and identifying the appropriate supports. He remarked that section 20 is “the basis for the new assessment of need” and provides regulatory powers to set eligibility criteria, classify need and determine the form of this assessment. That is absolutely correct.

However, in the interests of making the section clearer and ensuring there is a set of objective and consistent criteria for allocating social housing supports, the wording of this provision should be somewhat stronger. That is the objective of this amendment and amendment No. 32, each of which provides that a housing authority and the Minister, respectively, “shall” carry out certain functions. Rather than simply enabling them to do so, we should make it a requirement. This will strengthen the provisions of the Bill.

Although I voted against the Government’s amendment No. 27, I am fully in agreement with the spirit of that amendment, namely, that housing authorities should be able to allocate social housing supports to households, including persons who do not currently live together but have a reasonable requirement to do so. That is eminently sensible and progressive. However, the wording could have been improved. Likewise, I support entirely the important provisions in subsections (3) and (4). All I seek in tabling these amendments is to strengthen those provisions to impose requirements rather than simply enabling. That will ensure greater consistency across different housing authorities.

There is much that is significant and progressive in the Bill. Section 19 provides for important new powers for housing authorities to provide housing supports, including the power to purchase or convert buildings and to refurbish dwellings. Given the high number of vacant dwellings in Dublin and throughout the State, it is important that housing authorities have this power. The word “may” is appropriate in some sections where we seek to empower and enable housing authorities, as it is in section 19(3). In other areas, however, we should place a requirement, as is the case in section 20(3) in regard to housing authorities and in section 20(4) in regard to the Minister. I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment and thus require housing authorities to carry out assessments where households have been in receipt of supplement.

Amendment 32

Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 32: In page 17, subsection (4), line 10, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

This amendment again seeks to change a word in the Bill, but it is an important word. This would provide that the Minister “shall make regulations providing for the means by which the eligibility of households for social housing support shall be determined…”. The amendment seeks to create an obligation on the Minister to make regulations.

I also seek clarification from the Minister of State. I understood him to say that guidelines rather than regulations would be made providing for how local authorities would determine eligibility for social housing support. It is clear in subsection (4) that the Minister has the power to make regulations providing for the means of assessment of eligibility. It is important that this would be done through regulations. There is great difficulty with this issue, as anybody who has knocked on doors during election campaigns will know. There is a lack of clarity in the criteria that are used by different local authorities, voluntary groups and the different entities that are providing housing supports to determine eligibility or housing need. This difficulty leads to much unnecessary distress and upset among individuals who are looking for housing support and the provision of services by housing authorities. They simply cannot find out what the criteria are.

I recently advised people living in my area about this. It is difficult for them to discover from their local authority where they are on the housing list, what points have been allocated to them, why certain points have been allocated to them but not to other households and so forth. It is hugely important to provide for a change in this Bill to ensure a more objective and consistent set of criteria is adopted by local authorities. It is not enough to empower the Minister to make regulations to do so. It is far more important to provide that the Minister must or shall make regulations to provide for the means by which eligibility shall be determined.

Those means are not exclusively set out in subsection (4). There is a discretion there for the Minister. There is a list of criteria by which eligibility should be determined but, clearly, he or she could add to that. Some other provisions might be included, for example, the method by which two or more persons would be determined to have a reasonable requirement to live together, as mentioned in subsection (1), to ensure that objective criteria were used in assessing persons who have sought to live together but are not currently doing so. It is important to change subsection (4) in the interest of strengthening rather than undermining the provision.

The strengthening of the provision would lie in the fact that the Minister would have to make regulations providing for the means by which housing authorities would determine eligibility for social housing support, in view of the difficulties there have been with inconsistency and the opacity or lack of clarity in the current criteria operated by different local authorities. As I said on Second Stage, the procedure for allocating housing in Northern Ireland was changed as a result of concerns in respect of different and overly selective criteria being used.

This issue will arise again in section 22, which applies to the allocation of dwellings. I will make the same points on that section. Again, subsection (4) of that section provides for an enabling power whereby the Minister may make regulations. I will ask that the Minister consider changing the word “may” to “shall”, to prescribe that the Minister must make regulations to ensure local authorities provide more consistent criteria for determining eligibility.

. . .

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that there will be regulations backed up by guidelines. I am not sure why he cannot accept that regulations should be made by the Minister. Can he give a guarantee that the Minister will make regulations, and guidelines following from the regulations? I am not sure where the breakdown between regulations and guidelines will occur. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that.