Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I second the amendment. There was extensive debate on these three amendments on Committee Stage, as the Minister of Stage will recall. I think he indicated at that point that he would go back to the Parliamentary Counsel about the interplay between section 20(5) to which these amendments are proposed and section 35(5), which I think is now section 34(5).

The amendments propose to allow flexibility within section 20(5), which provides that a household shall not be eligible for social housing support where, under subparagraph (b), it was in arrears of rent for an accumulated period of 12 weeks or has otherwise breached a condition of the tenancy agreement.

I expressed the view on Committee Stage that this was too absolutist in tone and that if one member of a household had breached even a minor condition of the tenancy agreement, the household would become automatically ineligible for social housing support. I was concerned about the hardship this section might impose on households. I suggested that there should be more flexibility built in. The amendments proposed by Senator Hannigan and Senator Norris, and supported by me, would allow the flexibility to the housing authority where undue hardship would be caused.

The wording of amendment No. 22 is taken from section 34(2), which currently does not seem to apply to section 20(5). When I raised this with Senators Hannigan and Norris on Committee Stage, the Minister of State indicated he would go back to the Parliamentary Counsel about this issue. What, if anything, has the Minister been advised by Parliament Counsel about whether either section 34 could be amended so that it clearly applies to section 20(5) or whether an amendment might be put to section 20(5) to give the housing authority some leeway in cases of undue hardship as a result of this provision.