OPPOSITION deputies welcomed a Government proposal to evict drug dealers from local authority houses. They warned, however, that an appeal's procedure was necessary so the system would operate fairly.

Introducing the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Minister of State for Housing, Ms Liz McManus, said it was part of the wide range of measures being implemented by the Government to deal with drugs and related crime.

Under the Bill local authority tenants could be evicted for "anti social behaviour", which was defined as drug pushing and serious threats of violence to individuals. Possession of illegal drugs solely for personal use did not come within the definition, nor did vandalism or damage to property unless the damage was being used to intimidate or threaten.

A new "excluding order" was being introduced, allowing local authorities to apply to the District Court to exclude any member of a household engaged in anti social behaviour. The housing authority "would have power to seek an exclusion order where it believed the tenant would be intimidated from doing so.

The procedure was intended to meet a situation where only one or some members of a household were engaged in serious anti social behaviour. "It also recognises the reality that there are instances where not only does the tenant not have effective control or influence over an individual in the household but the tenant and the rest of the household may be intimidated by that individual."

The District Court would also be given power to exclude named individuals from a housing estate or from interfering with other occupants of a house.

The Garda was being given power to direct squatters in local authority accommodation to leave if they were involved in anti social behaviour. Non compliance with "the Garda would be an offence and the Garda would have power" to search and arrest without warrant.

The powers proposed would be used sparingly. "Local authorities Fare in the business of housing persons in need and not, except where there is no other course open to them, in the business of evicting people." It was scaremongering to suggest the authorities would use the new powers in a cavalier manner. They were often criticised for being slow to act against blatant and serious antisocial behaviour.

Mr Noel Ahern (FF, Dublin North West) said the problem with going through the courts was the inevitable delays. "A week is a lifetime if you are living beside someone engaged in anti social behaviour." The Minister should look at the possibility of an appeals mechanism because officials might be acting on untested evidence.

Eviction threats should not be issued unless it was intended to carry them out. He wondered if the implications of the Bill for the voluntary agencies dealing with the homeless had been thought through.

The Minister should consider extending the Bill to the private sector landlords who could also find themselves helpless against drug pushers.

Ms Mairin Quill, Progressive Democrats spokeswoman on the environment, said she fully supported the moves to protect the interests of law abiding tenants. "It is clearly unacceptable that many families throughout the country are currently attempting to raise their children in close proximity to houses and flats which are being used to sell and use drugs."

Existing laws could lead to tighter controls if they were effectively enforced. The term "antisocial behaviour" in the Bill would need to be tightly defined. "It is, after all, on this issue that somebody stands to lose their home." She urged that an appeals procedure be provided. "Unless these problems are addressed now this Bill could well be rendered ineffective during protracted legal appeals."

Mr Tony Gregory (Ind, Dublin Central) said the Bill had been demanded by the disadvantaged people in the inner city who only wanted to live in their homes in peace and quiet.

The one thing drug dealers feared was the loss of their homes and when the Bill became law it would have an immediate deterrent effect. It was outrageous that the State should be subsidising drug dealers by providing them with housing. When Dublin Corporation moved to convict them it was delayed and cases against some dealers were still "winding their tortuous way through the courts with appeals and so on".

Mr Joe Costello (Lab, Dublin Central) said that if the Bill succeeded in fast tracking eviction, proceedings against pushers a major part of the battle against drugs would be won. Dublin Corporation was engaged in time consuming, frustrating proceedings against known pushers in St Joseph's Mansions, Killarney Street, but the cases had been put back for hearing until May because of the illness of an official. Meanwhile, plans to refurbish the flats had to be postponed.

The power to exclude individuals from estates was a welcome one which communities coping with drugs problems were crying, out for. "We should not give a moment's rest to the pushers."

Mr Eamon Walsh (Lab, Dublin South West) welcomed the power in the Bill which would allow the health boards to withdraw rent subsidies from pushers living in private accommodation. The health boards should not be "rewarding" pushers.

Mr Noel Dempsey (FF, Meath) said the problem was not confined to Dublin. Elderly people in isolated rural areas lived in fear of young people robbing them for money for drugs. He welcomed the Bill, but asked why the Garda was not using the draconian measures already available to provide more protection.