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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, to delete line 24 and substitute the following: “ “dwelling” means any property prescribed as such by the Minister by way of regulations;”.

This is another one of those amendments that is of a technical nature. It inserts into the definitions section a different definition of "dwelling". One of the many concerns that homeowners have is that the definition of "dwelling" in the Bill and the subsequent regulations is too restrictive. Apartments, duplexes, nursing homes, other congregated settings and other non-principal residences in a variety of exceptional circumstances are not adequately covered. One of the fundamental problems with this scheme is that it is too narrow in scope. For example, with respect to exceptional circumstances, there could be circumstances in which somebody is living in a property which he or she does not own but which is, for all intents and purposes, his or her principal residence, although it belongs to another person, perhaps because of special needs or caring responsibilities. Given the way the Bill is set up, such people will not be able to apply for redress under the scheme because they neither own the property nor are they a tenant. If we were able to deal with the issue of exceptional circumstances as was done in the Pyrite Resolution Act 2013, this issue could be addressed. What does the Minister have to say to those homeowners who believe the definition of "dwelling" set out in the Bill is far too restrictive and will leave many homeowners behind in excluding them from the scheme, particularly those who would have been able to avail of the exceptional circumstances provision under section 17 of the Pyrite Resolution Act? What type of pathway to redress is he going to provide for those people, who are clearly excluded from this Bill?

See this speech in context