Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

A number of amendments agreed in the Dáil can be categorised under the miscellaneous heading. Within this group there are some substantive changes, to which I will refer briefly. There was a considerable debate on subsection 25(5) during the Bill's passage through the Seanad. The intention of section 25 is to underline the seriousness of actions such as non-payment of rent or breach of tenancy agreements by specifying them as matters which disqualify households from eligibility for social housing support in the context of section 20 assessment procedures. In particular, concern was expressed at the non-discretionary nature of the provision and also at the broadness of the breach of tenancy condition, that is, that any breach of an agreement, regardless of its seriousness, could result in a household not being eligible for social housing support.

There was also discussion on the interaction of section 25 with section 34, which sets out arrangements for the operation of a hardship clause where money is due to a housing authority. The tenor of the argument was to point out the contrast of discretion allowed for in section 34 and no discretion in section 25. In response to the debate in the Seanad I indicated that my Department would examine the matter in consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel. Having done so, I moved amendment No. 26 on Committee Stage in the Dáil to moderate the measures somewhat by substituting a new subsection (5). The new provision refers to the issue of rent arrears only and does not now refer to the breach of tenancy. In addition, while the amendment maintains the mandatory feature of the disqualification of social housing support, it is tempered by linking the provision to the measures contained in section 34.

The net effect of the amendment is to provide an applicant for social housing support with the opportunity to avoid the sanction of disqualification from eligibility if he or she enters into an agreement with the housing authority for the payment of outstanding money due. I think this is a fair reassessment of the provision and I thank the Senators, particularly Senators Bacik and Norris, who raised the matter with some vigour on Committee Stage.