Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I want to reflect on a number of issues that were raised in the earlier part of the debate. One was the decision by the Oireachtas housing committee to waive pre-legislative scrutiny. As Vice Chairman of that committee, I want to put on record the reason for that is that we wanted to ensure the maximum number of Deputies in the House had the maximum amount of time to debate the Bill in full, rather than a smaller number of us getting that, with the risk of the protection expiring or it being pushed through. That stands, and the length of the debate we have seen on this has proved it. There will be far more Deputies speaking against this Bill than there will be actually voting against it.

On the points raised by Deputy Eoin Ó Broin and other Opposition Deputies, I am scratching my head a little. This is the fourth time we have brought in protections. None of the claims, even late last year, that renters would be thrown to the wolves, that Fianna Fáil was not protecting renters or that we were putting people at risk, have come to pass. I would say to those Deputies that this Bill is extending protection for renters. The 5 km protection, as long as that stays in place, protects renters, and other legislation was introduced prior to Christmas which also protects renters.

Who does it not protect? It is clear from the sections of the Bill that deal with this that the people it does not protect are those who refuse to pay rent even though they have not been financially impacted, who refuse to engage in a process to resolve this or who are engaged in areas like anti-social behaviour. We want to protect renters and we have protected renters, but that should not mean there is a blank cheque for people not to pay their rent when they have not been financially impacted by the crisis. They should not be protected if they are engaged in anti-social behaviour, such as illegal drug dealing, the unofficial sale of alcohol or other anti-social behaviour.

I thank the Minister for protecting renters and for again bringing this forward. As to the point on why it is only three months, Opposition Deputies in this House state continually that we need a referendum on the right to housing. I agree and so does the Minister. However, they cannot have their cake and eat it and pretend this is not needed when the Minister can only introduce a three-month ban. There is a constitutional issue that needs to be dealt with, and that is why the three months is there. They should not pretend in this House that does not exist when they are seeking a longer period.

See this speech in context