Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)

All right. We will go through this, and we can absolutely discuss further how we are going to prevent this from happening in the future.

The general administration of the court system is underpinned by legislation within the responsibilities of my colleague, the Minister for justice. I thank the Senator for clarifying that she is seeking a review of the housing legislation to ensure children do not have to attend court proceedings in respect of local authority tenancies where they are occupiers. Obviously, there is a place for housing legislation within this to try to address it.

Local authorities are responsible under the Housing Acts for the management and maintenance of their housing stock and the management of their estates, including taking appropriate measures to counter antisocial behaviour. The Housing Acts 1995 to 2024 contain a number of provisions whereby a local authority tenant and their household may interact with the District Court. A number of provisions relate to instances whereby the local authority is seeking a possession order to return the property to the local authority in cases of rent arrears, antisocial behaviour or other serious breaches of the tenancy agreement. There was no possession order in the situation the Senator highlighted.

There are also provisions whereby the local authority or, indeed, the tenant themselves are seeking to exclude a person who they believe to be engaging in antisocial behaviour, and in these situations the person in question may be under the age of 18.That does not cover the ten-year-old who received the letter in the case Senator Ruane spoke about.

Section 3 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 provides for the issuing of an excluding order through the District Court to exclude a household member, including juveniles, engaged in antisocial behaviour from the relevant dwelling, the vicinity of the dwelling and, if appropriate, the housing estate in question for a period of up to three years. An excluding order may also, if the court thinks fit, prohibit the respondent from causing or attempting to cause any intimidation, coercion, harassment, obstruction of, threat to, or interference with the tenant or other occupant of any house concerned. Breaching these orders, once in place, is an offence, with the person subject to the order liable to penalties, including fines or imprisonment, or in the case of a person under the age of 18, detention in a children detention school.

The Housing Acts allow the local authority or the tenant to apply to the District Court, but they do not prescribe that a child occupying a local authority tenancy is required to attend the subsequent proceedings. It may be that any formal invitation to attend such proceedings comes directly from the courts in order to allow that individual to respond to any allegations made which may potentially result in the issuing of such an excluding order or, indeed, a possession order.

That response says to me that the situation Senator Ruane described was wrong. It should not have happened. It was rent arrears, which is not covered unless there is a repossession. It did not involve antisocial behaviour, so it is not covered. Senator Ruane also said the letter was issued on Dublin City Council headed paper. According to this answer, the courts are responsible, so there is an anomaly. Something has happened that needs to be looked into further. I could not agree more with the Senator. She presented a situation where a vulnerable young child got a letter in the post. I can imagine the fear and anxiety that would cause. Fair play to her for raising it because it is clearly something we need to look at.