In my experience, local authority housing evictions are not very rare. Even as we speak, there are many Traveller families being evicted. This is the harsh reality for Travellers. I do not mean to sound in any way disrespectful to the Minister of State and it is not personally meant, but I am here and I know exactly what I am talking about. The Civil Engagement Group worked really hard over the last week with the Irish Traveller Movement. We did not do it by ourselves but worked alongside other organisations to pro…

I wish to address a few of the amendments. To respond to the Senator's comments, what would we call it if it was not called eviction? Would we call it "putting people out"? Changing the name would not mean it is not happening, unless it is stopped - full stop. Amendment No. 8 removes all but the more serious grounds for eviction. Under the current provisions, a tenant could be evicted for painting a wall or for doing something in a house that was not approved by the landlord. A landlord could look for any old excus…

I do not understand what the Minister of State does not get about amendments Nos. 10 and 11. They are so simple. As an example, if I live in rented accommodation and paint the walls after the landlord agrees that I can do that, the landlord could later use that as an excuse, even if it came out of my pocket, and say he or she never gave me permission to paint the walls. That is only an example but I could be evicted for that. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 seek to protect renters such that they cannot be evicted for, sa…

It is only some people-----

We cannot say everybody. It is an inequality to say everybody when we are not including everybody. It is inequality. Do not say everybody. It is some people, not all. We are excluding the Travellers.

It does. It is not like saying a name or anything.

She should name it and say it for how it is.

It is.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 4, to delete lines 12 to 16.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 4, line 14, after “under” to insert “paragraphs (f) and (h) of”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply in cases where non-compliance with relevant obligations was previously established and no notice was subsequently issued in respect of that non-compliance before the date of the passing of this Act.”.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply in cases where non-compliance with the ground for termination specified in paragraph 2 of the Table to section 34 of the Act of 2004 was previously established and no notice was subsequently issued in respect of that noncompliance before the date of the passing of this Act.”.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply in cases where there is a failure by the tenant to pay rent, taxes or charges due if a tenant can supply evidence of financial hardship, can supply evidence that paying rent would leave them unable to afford other necessities, or can otherwise demonstrate an inability to pay.”.

It is not agreed. Can I say a few words on this section, please, or am I allowed to?.

I want ordinary people to know that I am in support of this Bill but we are all liars if we say that it protects Travellers because it does not. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, being ruled out of order due to the fact-----

I am going to still do it because if I have to be put out of this House today-----

----- because it is discrimination and I am going to keep on saying it because it is exactly what it says on the tin.

Whether the Senator likes or does not like it, it is exactly what it says on the tin, and it is discrimination towards my community and I will not stand for it. Okay, end of story.

Oh my God, I will keep at this.

A Leas-Chathaoirligh excuse me for a moment but you do not understand what it is like to be in here to represent-----