Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The provision proposed by Senator Reilly is similar to the provisions in section 7(3)(c) which states a tenancy warning relating to anti-social behaviour must indicate that if the breach is repeated within 12 months the authority may apply for either a possession order in respect of the dwelling or an excluding order against the person engaged in such behaviour. The reference to an excluding order makes sense in the context of section 7, as such an order can be sought in the case anti-social behaviour. However, a tenancy warning under section 9 relates to a breach of a tenancy agreement other than anti-social behaviour. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to the excluding order option in the section. It is a question of which section is relevant.

I can see what the Senator is trying to achieve with the proposed amendment but I cannot accept it because section 9 relates to a tenancy warning for a breach of a tenancy agreement other than anti-social behaviour or rent arrears. There is no logic in referring in such a warning to the option of an excluding order, which relates exclusively to anti-social behaviour. I hope this makes sense. This is why I will not accept the amendment.

With regard to the HAP and Garda clearance, the HAP is taking over from rent supplement, whereby people sourced their own accommodation.

One of the difficulties with seeking Garda clearance in that regard is that it would delay the process, but it is something I will examine because once the tenant is under the local authority, so to speak, the local authority has obligations. The provisions of the private residential tenancies legislation are in place in terms of people who are renting privately, which provides some safeguards, but the Senator makes a fair point and it is something we will examine.