Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

On the loopholes around ability to pay rent, the justification offered by the Minister for the emergency period - and it is the emergency period as defined by this legislation - surely exists as long as this House believes that it is an emergency. The Minister, however, has defined it as relating to the winter. Why is it limited from November to March if it is not to do with the winter? Clearly that is the basis on which the Minister has decided the period, which is completely arbitrary. We would like it for longer and for the duration of the emergency. Given that he has done that, it is clearly linked to the cost-of-living crisis in his mind, and rightly so. People are oppressed with extortionate cost-of-living increases and, therefore, somebody who might fall behind with the rent because he or she is having difficulty paying the extortionate increases in the cost of living, the cost of heating, and the cost of electricity, might be evicted. It is a different matter if it is wilful non-payment of rent but in the situation I describe it is somebody who is just falling behind in the payment of rent. The legislation should not allow for somebody to be evicted in those circumstances.

On the overcrowding issues, again it is self-evident, as other Members have underlined. It makes even less sense to evict people who are in overcrowded circumstances. I am sure that they do not want to be in overcrowded circumstances but almost invariably people are in overcrowded situations because they cannot find anywhere else affordable to live. It hardly seems a reasonable option to then say, "I can evict you because there are too many of you in the house." So, this appears to be okay and they are not afford the protections of the legislation.

Finally, for reasons I cannot understand my amendment No. 2 was ruled out of order. I asked and I am not sure if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows why either, frankly. I do not see how it could be a charge on the Exchequer. It was simply seeking to extend the protections of the Bill to those who have already been given termination dates. How that could be a charge on the Exchequer is beyond me. It is just a mystery. I do not understand how it has been ruled out of order, but could the Minister please answer the question? I have asked three times now. What is he going to do for people who have already passed their termination date and are overholding? Could he just answer the question? Is he going to do anything or is he going to allow a situation where people could be evicted who have passed the termination date and are overholding but have nowhere to go, and who have done nothing wrong? Deputy Callaghan has pointed out an example. There is the couple that I had mentioned with their kids in my constituency. They have lived in the house since the 1950s. They were born there. They have probably paid the value of that house twice or three times over, yet they are being evicted. They have done nothing wrong. On the next point, the Minister did not answer either. He looked as though he was going to answer, for a minute, and then he veered off into something else. They are a working family and, therefore, they are over the threshold for local authority housing. The council will not entertain them for emergency accommodation, and it is not that they want to go to emergency accommodation. The council will also not entertain them for social housing. When such a family is over the threshold, would they be entertained for the purchase of the house to prevent them going into homelessness? A purchase is what should happen. What could the Minister do for a couple like that? Why do the provisions of the Bill not protect them against eviction even for the limited period it is doing for others? I acknowledge that this may be beyond the scope of the Bill, but if we are going to use the intervening period to start buying houses, which we should do, can it not be limited just to people who are within the thresholds? Can it also be for people who are above the threshold if they have nowhere else to go?

See this speech in context