Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Let me explain exactly what an excluding order for a minor can and cannot do. Under an amendment to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997, included in the Bill, an excluding order cannot exclude a minor from the family home. This is critical. What it can do is exclude a minor from being in another house or place such as a green area or set of local shops where anti-social behaviour is known to take place. As responsible, statutory social landlords, it is appropriate for the housing authorities to have power to exclude minors who have engaged in anti-social behaviour from where such behaviour tends to happen or where there is an opportunity to indulge in it. The provision in question is essentially an estate management tool that does not have the effect of removing the minor concerned from his home or locality. I am sorry for using the word "his" as I am sure minors are not all male.

I recognise the point Deputies Catherine Murphy, Thomas P. Broughan and Maureen O'Sullivan are making, that is, that there are much wider issues than simply excluding a young person from a particular area. These issues need to be addressed holistically. We addressed this issue on Committee Stage, particularly in dealing with Deputy Catherine Murphy's amendment. We are developing communication protocols with the relevant agencies in regard to the Children Act 2001. I agree that we need to do a lot more in this regard. With regard to regeneration, in particular, there is a much more holistic approach to the areas in question which, by and large, are local authority housing estates. There is a very strong social element to regeneration, in addition to the physical element. These are the models we must consider. We see them in RAPID areas and in other provisions.

We need to see much more of the type of engagement described, but I am not accepting the amendments because they are specific to the tool of being able to exclude a young person from a specific area where there is trouble - not from their home or immediate community. I am suggesting this is a useful tool, but it involves striking a balance between the rights of the respondent and the rights of the local community. The adjudication on the balance to be struck in an individual case is most appropriately determined by the court which should not be influenced in striking that balance by a statutory provision giving the rights of one party priority over those of the other. I made this point and Deputy Catherine Murphy has referred to it. Unfortunately, therefore, I will not be accepting the amendments.

See this speech in context