Ivana Bacik (Independent)

Yes, they are related amendments but they relate to the provisions of section 33 as it currently stands. Amendment No. 72 aims to insert a new section 34 but has nothing to do with anti-social behaviour. I wish to make that clear because I have tabled amendments to the existing section 34 dealing with anti-social behaviour but I do not propose to address those in speaking on amendment No. 72.

Amendment No. 72 also raises an issue discussed earlier during the debate on section 20. The Minister of State referred to section 33 as offering a discretion to a housing authority where a household was in arrears, had moneys due and owing but would suffer undue hardship in paying such moneys. In that situation, a housing authority could make arrangements with a household for payment in instalments or other similar arrangements. I welcome that provision. However, I note that amendment No. 72 provides for a similar discretion but, just as with the point I made regarding section 33(1), the proposed section 34(1) contained in amendment No. 72 does not apply to section 20 of this Bill. The Minister of State has already indicated that he will be referring that matter to the Parliamentary Counsel for advice as to whether the apparent absolutist nature of the provision in section 20(5) might be mitigated by some similar sort of discretion. I am grateful that he has agreed to do that.

I am speaking to amendment No. 72 lest it be assumed that I am simply accepting it as it stands. I would like to see amendment No. 72 altered so that it also applies to section 20 of this Bill. The same points I made earlier in respect of section 20(5) and section 33(1) would also apply to amendment No. 72.