Mr. Peter Dorman:

I thank the Chairman. Community Action Network is a community development organisation that has been working to resource local communities over the past 25 or 30 years. In recent times we have been asked by the policing forum based in the south inner city of Dublin to look at how the experience of community safety issues on the ground might be brought to bear on legislation. The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014 is important in that regard. The policing forum is a multi-agency group comprising community workers who have been involved in their communities for many years, Dublin City Council, the Garda, the Canals Communities Partnership, the drugs task force and so on.

There is significant local authority housing in the canals area. Community safety is a key issue for residents, as they do not feel safe in their communities. The policing forum has come across a number of issues that can only be resolved through legislation. The committee will be familiar with the contradiction between the European Court of Human Rights and the power of the District Court to deal effectively with cases of anti-social behaviour and we understand the Bill is trying to address that. The concern of the communities is the time it will take. Our understanding is the legislative process can take up to two years. I have submitted figures on evictions. We do not wish to see evictions but, in some cases, it is the last resort in pursuing anti-social behaviour. Our concern is not that the issue is not being addressed but the time it will take to address it.

It has also been suggested within the policing forum that a dedicated court is needed because the experience is court cases can take a long time and judges who are not familiar with the cases act on them and things get lost, especially the right of appeal. The cases are appealed almost automatically. We suggest that the committee considers a dedicated court to consider estate management matters perhaps once a month overseen by a judge who is familiar with the experiences of people living on local authority estates.

We also recognise that people feel they know what is going on in their communities but nothing ever happens to those who are causing difficulties for whatever reason. As well as using hard evidence, provision should be made for local knowledge or soft intelligence that people have about what is going on.

Exclusion orders are an important tool in combatting anti-social behaviour. They are usually for one year but can be applied for three years. They are often made and the person could be in prison. The order continues to run but the process has to start again. We would like the committee to consider a proposal for the person to enter a bond whereby the exclusion order can be reimposed if the person acts out in the area from which he or she has been excluded.

Another concrete difficulty that is experienced is somebody, for example, selling drugs or involved in serious anti-social behaviour away from his or her own dwelling. This is a common experience where they move to another place. The hands of Dublin City Council are tied in terms of calling these people in and making a provision against their tenancy because they are acting out like this. We would like the committee to consider expanding the definition of the word "vicinity" to mean other areas generally where there is local authority housing.

Local authority housing is increasingly being taken over by approved housing bodies and this needs to be streamlined so that, for example, if somebody from a local authority estate is acting out on a Clúid housing estate, the local authority should be able to act and cannot just say, "They are up in Clúid so we can't do anything about them".

The committee might consider a reasonable probationary period for tenancies specifically related to anti-social behaviour. There should be provision to act on serious anti-social behaviour such as drug dealing which usually shows up within the first year of a tenancy.

I referred to the need to streamline the rules applying to local authority housing to approved housing bodies as well. There is also concern that a plan to deal with anti-social behaviour originating in private housing on local authority housing estates where people own their own houses or in private rented accommodation needs to be devised and implemented. The committee is overseeing the private residential tenancies Bill, which contains a provision for complaints to be made to the Private Residential Tenancies Board, but we are concerned about the power the board might have and the need to consider other actions to address the problem of anti-social behaviour emanating from privately-owned and privately-rented dwellings.

A great deal of work in the canal communities area has gone into providing support for families. Much of the anti-social behaviour is a result of the social inequality that exists and the fact that people are often in chaos and crisis. In particular, where children are involved, there should be a provision to refer those cases to an inter-agency body. We have at work a family welfare initiative and there are similar bodies around the country. For those facing eviction or exclusion orders, supports should be available for the families.