Ivana Bacik (Independent)

There will be difficulty in interpreting how this subsection, together with section 33, is to be read. I am delighted to hear the Minister say that section 33 is intended to cover and perhaps provide discretion, but there does not appear to be discretion in subsection (5). I am concerned about the way in which it is drafted. The reason I am so concerned is not just the use of the words "shall not be eligible" in subsection (5), but also the statement in the new paragraph (b) that the household shall not be eligible either where it was in arrears for the period stipulated or where it had otherwise breached a condition of the tenancy agreement. There are many different types of condition in any tenancy agreement. Of course the housing authority should have the power to withhold housing support where a household has been in breach of a material or fundamental condition or where there has been some major breach, but it seems that this removes discretion from the housing authority for any breach of a condition. That seems to be far too absolutist in tone and I would have a real concern about the hardship that households might well suffer if this is passed into law. I ask the Minister of State to consider the points I have made and to consider the difficulties a court might have in seeking to interpret section 20(5) as against section 33, which appears to give the discretion — subsection (5) of section 20 does not appear to allow discretion and this is the difficulty with it.