Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

While I agree with Senator Byrne on some issues, I would query one thing he said, which was the ultimate priority is still for people to own their own homes. That is one priority but the core priority of the State must be for people to have security in their homes rather than ownership. This goes right back to Davitt. Security of tenure allows people to plan their lives, decide what school their children will attend while knowing they will live near it, plan for work, have a life and know where they will live. Even if one never owns the property, one can plan one's life in a given place. Generations of people grew up in local authority housing and their children had that security, went to school and went on to do many different things. It is about security of tenure and security of life. That is an ongoing issue. That crisis was an issue during the elections, before this pandemic. The issue of security in one's home has been intensified by the pandemic because it became, potentially, an issue of life and death. It became an issue of safety. That became a concern.

We initially had an eviction ban followed by the measures to which we moved over the summer, which diluted that blanket protection and restricted them only to those who had been specifically hit by the crisis and who were in receipt of Covid payments and to those in local authority housing. These measures did not continue the security needed for all those who were already extraordinarily vulnerable and who already did not have security. I refer to those who were in receipt of the housing assistance payment, HAP, and those who were already unemployed and who may not have been entitled to the Covid payment because they were already struggling. That is a very large cohort of people who started getting eviction notices in August. There were cases of persons who were already on low incomes, and who stayed on those low incomes and were struggling, being served with eviction notices. It is extremely hard for them to find accommodation. I know because I have been contacted by people who have been looking for places to rent or to stay in since August. It is a very difficult time to be searching for accommodation and housing.

I will, of course, support the Bill and I am glad to see a blanket measure introduced for the six weeks, but the concerns I have raised are ongoing. There needs to be wider measures because, as has been mentioned, residential tenancies Bills always come through in a great rush and do one thing. Hope for a proper debate was expressed. I have tabled an amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept, which guarantees full and proper debate on the Bill and all of the issues relating to it, including the misuse of the refurbishment provisions, which it is crucial to address if we want to increase the volume of retrofitting in the coming period. We also need to discuss protections for those with Part 4 tenancies and other issues, many of which have been spoken about by others in the House. We need robust discussion on these matters but, in the interim and in the medium term, I have tried to insert an amendment to guarantee such proper discussion with regard to this Bill.

We also need to deal with the fact that this provision will expire in early December. We will be coming into Christmas, a period in which people do not have a lot of financial liquidity, and into January which is, as has been said, a very difficult time. I have tabled an amendment which seeks to deal with a big concern I had with the legislation about which we spoke previously. I refer to the matter of the 28 days of arrears and the 28 days to pay. These need to be increased to 60 days as 28 days is just not long enough. These periods are part of the general provisions and relate to the non-payment of arrears as a basis for eviction. This is subsequent to the six weeks. It needs to be increased to 60 days. People may easily build up 28 days of arrears in December and January and will really struggle to find the money to repay those arrears within 28 days. That is another measure that could be introduced to deal with this difficult time.

I have also suggested other measures. I completely support the extension of the eviction ban for six months and the measures proposed by Sinn Féin. I will also be actively supporting the measures proposed by the Labour Party with regard to restriction of movement, even at county level. While I prefer the Labour Party's amendment and its wider interpretation of the restriction of movement, I have proposed a milder amendment. My amendment simply applies to any restriction within 20 km. While the city is often the focus, evictions also take place, and housing insecurity is also present, in rural areas. In these areas, a radius of 20 km allows for quite a narrow field in which to hunt for a new home. We have had restrictions to 20 km in the past. If level 3 is introduced, but with a 20 km restriction, I want the Minister to have the power to operate this ban. I ask that this be changed in the Bill and that the Minister indicate how he might otherwise extend this provision in those circumstances through a statutory instrument.