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

We are all trying to achieve a fair balance between giving people due warning while at the same time ensuring that where there are serious problems, the local authority has some powers to deal with them. In some ways this amendment is going in the opposite direction to the previous amendment in so far as the Bill states that the housing authority must give the household at least two months before requesting possession on foot of a court order whereas this amendment would allow them to move more quickly in cases of anti-social behaviour. It is a matter of judgment for all of us to decide the length of time that should be given to people in those circumstances. The previous amendment provided for more time to be given to them in the early stages of the process. In this amendment we are giving them less time after the possession order.

I would contend that, as provided for in the Bill, two months in respect of a request for possession on foot of a court order is the minimum period required by a household to make arrangements for alternative accommodation. I do not think it is reasonable to provide for a shorter period, even in exceptional cases. Also, if the household refuses to give up possession voluntarily to the housing authority, the District Court must make an execution order whereby possession is effected by a sheriff, which is a process that inevitably takes time. I believe one month is a little short in that it could result in people, who would otherwise have had two months to make alternative arrangements, becoming homeless. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment.

See this speech in context