Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. My apologies for being late. Unfortunately, I have just come from a meeting to try to finalise amendments to another Bill for which amendments have to be submitted by 11 a.m. tomorrow, in spite of the fact that Second Stage of the Bill has not even started, let alone finished and, apparently, we will only be given a very short amount of time.

As regards the Bill before the House, we are dealing with two issues on which I suspect most Members present are in agreement, that is, the fair deal-related amendments and the residential tenancy amendments. In that regard, technical and significant legislative changes are being brought in and we have half an hour to discuss them while also trying to deal with everything else. I know that is not the fault of the Minister of State but he is probably blue in the face hearing me say that whenever there is crappy stuff that this collective has to deal with, he keeps getting that crappy stuff. I ask the Acting Chairman to excuse my language. The lesson in the context of the Bill is that this is stuff on which we agree with the Minister of State but if the Government does not get it right and properly consider it, that is not acceptable. My colleague, Deputy Patricia Ryan, is asking about measures, for example, to ensure that older people are protected from elder abuse in the context of the changes to the fair deal scheme. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan is asking reasonable questions about the meaning and interpretation of aspects of the Bill. For me, the real question relates to the reason for these changes, welcome and all as they are, to the Residential Tenancies Act. Deputy Boyd Barrett is as confused as I am as to which amendment we are discussing now. If the Minister of State can clarify that, it would be useful.

I have no difficulty with these amendments. I would have much preferred to have had an hour or two on Committee Stage to go through them properly and discuss them, but that is the Government's business. I am interested to know why the amendments are being tabled now. They came out of the blue. There was no consultation with anybody in the NGO sector, such as Threshold or any other tenants' rights organisations. I am not objecting to the amendments. I welcome anything that strengthens tenants' rights. My suspicion is that there is a crisis in the private rental sector. There is a dramatically increasing level of homelessness, particularly in terms of the presentation of families as homeless. This is the Government attempting to be seen to do something to address that. Of course, while the amendments are welcome, they will not do anything to address the dramatically increasing levels of homeless presentations. It might just delay them by a small number of days. From where did these amendments come? What was their origin? What is the logic and thinking of the Government in this regard? We are supporting the amendments but I really want to understand why they have been tabled in this way. Ordinarily, when changes to the Residential Tenancies Act are proposed , there is some level of consultation with the sector and some logic behind them. These amendments have come out of the blue, welcome and all as they are. Any clarification the Minister of State can provide would be most welcome.

See this speech in context