Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 38.
“It would mean they are not allowed to disclose information and there are none of the exemptions that are attached to the office disclosing that information. A consultant should not have leeway to say he or she is disclosing confidential information for the purposes of any of these functions that are in the office. Amendment No. 37 b seeks to prohibit the disclosure of confidential information where it is done in the performance of a function to promote AI innovation. I hope the Minister of State will accept these amendments, or at least give them very serious thought, because there are gaps in terms of a regulatory system and where one creates ambiguities, gaps or areas with lack of oversight, it opens the system up to potential abuse or even perceived abuse.”
“Can we have clarity around how confidential information will or will not be shared with companies to incentivise them to stay in Ireland or to encourage them to expand their interests in Ireland? Can it be shared by consultants who have been employed without checks as regards conflicts of interest? I have serious concerns around the discretion the Bill gives to consultants to disclose confidential information and to have as a cover this function of promoting AI. The same discretion is given to the CEO and staff of the office. That is problematic in itself but it is particularly concerning when persons who are acting without a proper screening for conflict of interest may be in a position to disclose that information. Amendment No. 37 a seeks to prohibit entirely consultants from being able to disclose confidential information.”
“What are the limits? Is a consultant allowed to divulge confidential information to the CEO of a multinational tech company if he or she believes the disclosure of that information will foster or promote AI innovation? The AI regulation unit has stated that retaining these companies in the country is an overarching national imperative. Are we looking at situations where confidential information will be shared by a consultant, without any trace of accountability, with those companies because that is deemed to be in the interests of AI innovation? Presumably, as part of its function to promote AI innovation, the AI office also wants to retain these companies.”
“It is clearly envisaged by this section that consultants will be given access to confidential information that relates to the functions of the board. The other really important point is the fact that there are exceptions to the disclosure of confidential information set out in this section. The exceptions include where the disclosure of the confidential information by a person referred to in that subsection, which may be just a consultant hired for a particular purpose, is allowed when it is made in the performance of the functions of the office. However, when we go back to the functions of the office, we see that they include promotion of AI innovation. Are we creating a scenario whereby a consultant can disclose confidential information for the purpose of promoting AI innovation? We are in a very dangerous space there.”
“The prohibition on the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information includes a reference to consultants who may disclose confidential information. This is what amendment No. 37 a tackles. A couple of points arise in this regard. Section 36(1) states: Subject to subsection (2) , a person shall not disclose confidential information while performing functions as— (a) a member of the Board or a committee of the Board, (b) a member of the staff of the Office, (c) the Chief Executive Officer, (d) a consultant engaged by the Office or other person providing services ... There is an assumption here that consultants are being given access to confidential information. That goes back to the issue of there being no safeguards in terms of conflicts of interest.”
“Again, this is our endeavour to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where consultants become a risk in terms of unexamined or undisclosed conflicts of interest that could permeate or affect the operation of the office. The related amendments, Nos. 37 a and 37 b , point to why this matter is so important. They relate to further concerns as to the role consultants and advisers are going to play within the AI office, particularly when we consider the "move fast and break things" mentality and the conflict between the AI-promotion function and the regulatory role the office is meant to play in ensuring no damage is caused by AI, including the very high-risk AI we have been discussing. There is a tension between the promotion role and the regulatory role. We are concerned about how this plays out, particularly for consultants.”
“There are no protections against those who might commit the offence of being misleading in their dealings with the office. There are no protections in relation to conflicts of interest. There is not even clarity on which functions of the office consultants may be hired in relation to, including, potentially, consultancy in relation to the crucial areas of regulation, for example. Amendment No. 37 simply seeks to apply the same kinds of safeguards and standards that apply to the staff of the office under the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 and, where relevant, the Civil Service Regulation Acts, to the hiring of consultants and advisers.”
“The previous section, section 34, outlines the arrangements for the appointment of staff to the office and requires that appointments be subject to the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 and the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005. The safeguards in those Acts – for example, sections 54 and 55 of the Act of 2004 – include that it would be an offence for someone to recklessly make an application for a position that was false or misleading in a material respect. They also deal with issues such as conflicts of interest. Currently, there are no clear safeguards in place around the engagement of the office with consultants. As set out, the decision to engage consultants and advisers is purely at the discretion of the office.”
“All the careful checks and balances that are proposed for the staff have no equivalent for consultants and advisers. The legislation simply refers to expediency and how their fees are to be paid. There is a real concern here because there is quite a likelihood that the consultants and advisers taken on will have been consultants and advisers to, or even direct employees of, those bodies that are to be regulated. There is a concern that there is not an appropriate check and balance in relation to issues such as conflicts of interest and ensuring proper safeguards. I will come to that more specifically. Again, amendment No. 37 relates to provisions in section 35 allowing for the engagement of consultants and advisers where it is considered necessary or expedient.”
“I move amendment No. 37: In page 28, after line 36, to insert the following: "(3) Engagements under this section shall be subject to the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 and, where relevant, the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005.". Amendment No. 37 looks to the issue of the engagement of consultants and advisers. While there are careful measures in relation to those who are hired as staff of the proposed office, consultants and advisers may be taken on under such terms and conditions as are considered necessary or expedient. "Expedient" literally means that it can be done quickly or simply. There is nothing in relation to what measures will exist, including to ensure no conflicts of interest and to ensure best practice.”
“At a minimum, will the Minister commit to monitoring that issue as it arises because it is a potential omission within the legislation? I accept the bona fides of the intention of child exemption, but there is a gap in the Bill before us.”
“With respect, family reunification may be a formal process, but it can also be an informal process. There is a formal process for seeking family reunification, but another version of it is that someone is reunited with a family member. Is this reference intentional or inadvertent? Can it be monitored to ensure that no unforeseen issues arise? There is a reason that the Bill sets out a different set of criteria for “lawfully resident” and “habitually resident”. It is looking for both of those standards to be met. It is not clear to me why the standard of habitually resident is still being applied to a child. Has there been some kind of a risk analysis done to ensure that there is not an inadvertent consequence from that? I am a little concerned.”
“The Minister said on a number of occasions that children are exempted from the residency requirements, but they are only exempted from one of the residency requirements, not from the second one.”
“Our amendment was simply trying to ensure that children would be completely included in the residency requirement. As currently set out, they are excluded from the requirement to be lawfully resident, but they are not excluded from the requirement to be habitually resident. Those are different things with different criteria attached. What is the logic to requiring that children in a household have to prove they are habitually resident in the State? I am thinking of situations where there may have been, for example, family reunification or a reconciliation with the family. It does not make sense to me. I wonder if it is perhaps a drafting error. Is there a reason for it?”
“I would like to have clarity on this issue, which was the subject of an amendment that was ruled out of order, unfortunately. I genuinely do not understand why this is the case. In the legislation as set out, the Minister mentioned on a number of occasions that children are excluded from the requirements. In the residency requirements section, it states that each member of the household needs to be “lawfully resident” in the State. Children are excluded from the requirement for each member of the household to be lawfully resident in the State at subsection 1(a) of the new residency requirement, but they are not excluded from subsection 1(b), which states that each member of the household needs to be “habitually resident” in the State.”
“The Minister did not actually address the specifics of emergency housing. He addressed the other supports that are there, and absolutely people should be looking for those supports, but I want to be clear on what they can access. Regarding the other issue, the point still stands that this is addressing a situation that already existed. The Minister has confirmed public and political scrutiny is part of the motivation for inserting these measures, even though it was already the case that legal residency was a requirement.”
“Can the Minister confirm that victims of trafficking and domestic violence who seek emergency housing supports will not be excluded from such supports on the basis of their residency status? I am genuinely asking.”
“It is not without consequence if you try to send a signal that we are addressing an issue, and the Government implies an issue existed when it did not. It was already the practice that residency was a requirement. This is disingenuous and possibly dangerous.”
“By the way, I should have mentioned that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, Free Legal Advice Centres and others have highlighted very specific gaps in respect of that emergency housing piece for those who are victims of trafficking, where there are particular obligations under law that they should be able to access supports in a continuous way and with minimum disruption. Those victims of trafficking will now be on the night-by-night phone call, as well as victims of sexual abuse and violence who may find themselves seeking emergency accommodation. That is just a reminder. That is the extra terrible thing that is being added in, and this is something the Minister is pretending to do, while already doing it.”
“The Government wants to be seen to do this. That is what it looks like. It seems the message it is trying to send is that we are very hard on this issue. The Minister is almost conceding the idea that there was a proclaimed problem, which there was not, by saying we are tackling the issue even though it was not an issue. We are tackling that problem that does not exist, thereby giving an imprimatur of credibility to a false accusation being made. By saying we are solving a problem when it was not, the Minister is agreeing it is a problem. That is what I was saying. It was already the case, and social housing is a different thing from emergency housing accommodation.”
“We have the key of it there. The Minister referred to "public and political scrutiny". This is performative. It is already the case that those who are not meeting long-term residency requirements are not getting social housing. Despite memes you might see online or messages that tell you they are, they are not. That has already been the policy. We are now saying it again. It seems that it is a response to messaging. "Public and political scrutiny" was the Minister's rationale. Is the concern that the Government will not look tough enough? That is what it means. The Minister referred to "public and political scrutiny". People will say that the Government is not being hard enough in making sure that people are not getting social housing when they are not habitually resident. That is already the case.”
“I will flag my concerns about that provision as it applies to every member of a household. I worry that there may be unforeseen consequences. If one member of a household is not habitually resident, even if all other members of the household are habitually resident, a vulnerability could be created. We may then have situations whereby households may be entitled to look for social housing but an individual member of that household who is not habitually resident is not able to access social housing with that family or able to access emergency housing support but is instead in a kind of day-by-day limbo. Perhaps the Minister would clarify what would happen in those circumstances. As I said, the provision in respect of emergency housing supports is cruel and dangerous. The provision here around social housing is unclear and unnecessary.”
“We will have to make habitual residency determinations before we decide if we are going to support somebody who is presenting with emergency housing needs. That, in itself, is bureaucratic. Those measures should not be the bar for something. There are questions and issues about how they come in. Where the measures do come in, however, is in relation to social housing. They already applied. I would like the Minister to provide the reasoning. The residency requirement for homelessness supports will have a clear impact on vulnerable people, such as asylum seekers and people on short-term visas and working student visas. The impact of the residency requirement for the provision of social housing is quite unclear. It was already largely the case in application. It is not a matter where we believe there is a need for the provision.”
“It is about having proper standards and measures, unless the Government wishes to send a deeply intense message that Ireland is not a place of welcomes. Many people, including those here on student visas, fall into this space and may find themselves vulnerable and having to access emergency housing supports. The idea is that someone should be planning to live his or her life here. The habitual residency condition does not focus on whether people are planning to build their lives here. That is not a core or main part. There is a line about a "centre of interest" and reference to future intentions. We cannot know someone's intentions. This is a very strange bar to be putting to persons making decisions about emergency housing provision. We are talking about people who might be accessing support for a few days, a week, two weeks or a month.”
“It should not be the case that to get emergency accommodation you have to be planning to live in the State in the long term. Emergency accommodation is a safety measure. It is a proper public good and a safety measure. It is not solely emergency accommodation as a stepping stone into social housing. Emergency accommodation is about having proper, good quality emergency homeless supports for persons who find themselves, for a variety of reasons and in a variety of situations, homeless. It is about ensuring that they are accessing proper supports and facilities in proper situations. This is nothing other than the downgrading of the already precarious situation of emergency housing support to the incredibly precarious situation of day-by-day accommodation. Habitual residency should not be relevant.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 10, to delete line 20. We are again coming to the issue of being habitually resident. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 delete the definitions of habitually resident and lawfully resident that would be inserted into the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act as a consequence of section 12 of the Bill. Section 12 inserts residency requirements for social housing support. We do not believe this section is necessary. It would be useful if the Minister would provide the reasoning for the inclusion of this section. When we discussed emergency accommodation, the Minister referred to the requirement that people are resident in the State and are planning to make their lives in the State. We do not know what anybody is planning. We do not know the hopes and dreams that people may have and what they are planning to do.”
“The actual vulnerable people who are applying for and needing emergency accommodation do not disappear. They are still there. There are issues in that many people struggle to access emergency accommodation anyway, but, besides sending a big, performatively unwelcoming message, I do not see what this does for any purpose, whereas I do see what it does in terms of risk and compromising safety.”
“Another related question is, where are the people to go? What is the plan? The Minister creates a situation where people are not accessing emergency accommodation - in fact, the numbers for these are probably very small, comparatively, anyway - where they may be in the night-by-night accommodation and are out all day, or they are out totally, sleeping on the streets and homeless where they have fallen further out of the net provided for them. Where are people to go? Is the idea that we will refuse them emergency accommodation and these vulnerable people will evaporate? Will they all immediately leave? Is that the idea, that people will leave, because they are staying in Ireland because it is so great to be living in emergency accommodation? Because it is not. That is the question.”
“What does that do for public safety and well-being, particularly of those persons? There is greater risk that those people will fall out of the net altogether and end up homeless. Then we have more people homeless in the street and, again, many of them more likely to be from visible minorities and other vulnerable groups. These are really clear risks of what the Minister is proposing and I do not see what the benefit is. I would like the Minister to say what the justification and policy purpose is in doing this because I do not see good logic and I do see an amount of bad logic at play here. The consequences will be profoundly negative, not just for the individuals affected but for all of us as a society. I will be absolutely opposing this section and I would like an answer to that question.”
“Is it chasing a vote to the right? I genuinely do not know what good policy purpose is served by this. All I can see is bad political narratives that are served by it. Incidentally, they will not come back and reward the party that brings them through. It will, in fact, contribute, as it has everywhere this has been done, to furthering this. Going back to the practical risks, the risks associated with these measures are more people, day by day, being visibly on the streets, without even the basic thing of emergency accommodation so they may have a place that is their anchor, where they can make decisions, build from, plan from and try to improve their situation from, more people wandering the streets in the daytime not knowing where or whether they will have accommodation that night.”
“Is the Minister saying that, as a State with the surplus we have, we only have so much emergency housing accommodation and we want to make people see that others are not getting it, as if that is going to make the people in emergency housing accommodation who are resident feel better? What is the purpose of that? What is the purpose of moving vulnerable people to a night-by-night system? Is it to punish them? Is it because the Minister wants to create that kind of competitive, performative cruelty we see happening in the United States, UK and parts of Europe, where they show they are going to give people a hard time so maybe they will not be there? Is that the goal? Is it to go with all of those many ridiculous measures brought in by Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and others, so we can act tough? Is it a look-hard measure?”
“The Government is deciding to bring forward legislation that says we are going to make it explicitly difficult or, in fact, impossible for a number of groups who do not have residency, such as migrant groups, returning migrants, who have been mentioned, and the wide range of people I and others have given, to get emergency accommodation, which we know is going to target a particular set of vulnerable people, and instead move them to not only a night-by-night arrangement, but a night-by-night with a kind of cruel thing where it is only two nights in a row. Why? What is the policy purpose of bringing that? Is it to reduce pressure on emergency housing accommodation? The Minister could choose to improve emergency housing accommodation. Is it to try to feed into a fight over the crumbs?”
“It is also an important question. If there is a deterioration from that situation, then that is also relevant. If it is the situation that persons can currently seek other emergency accommodation but, in the future, would not be allowed to, that is pretty significant. I have two questions, one I have already asked but will ask again. Why is this being done? Who is it for? Another related question is where are the people meant to go? There are two pieces here.”
“We like to have stuff in legislation when we can as it is more transparent, but I am noting the commitment by the Minister in respect of guidance specifying that eight to eight should be a minimum. I would appreciate it if we could be informed as to when that guidance is published.”
“Could the Minister please repeat the last line of what he said? I did not actually hear what he was saying. He is rejecting, as I understand, the text with regard to the "minimum" but is he suggesting that the text "minimum" will be included somewhere else? I did not hear what the Minister's last sentence was.”
“Yes, there is the night-by-night provision with its limitations but there is still a sense that it shows we are not going to give these vulnerable persons, who do not have residency requirements, emergency housing accommodation. What signal is that sending, and who is that signal being sent to? What is the purpose of that message?”
“Those are our amendments collectively, but I indicate - and maybe I will have the opportunity to come back in - that we will be opposing this section as a whole. The idea of introducing residency requirements for emergency housing supports is nothing more than a performative cruelty, signalling that certain persons have lesser safety and protection requirements from the State. I see echoes of when we saw the international protection office stop housing asylum applicants and leave them to sleep on the street, thereby creating a visible vulnerability. This sends a deeply negative signal, which seems to be designed to appease and accommodate in the same way, in a victory for far right campaigning against the accommodation of asylum seekers.”
“We are affording the Minister the opportunity in respect of amendments Nos. 5 and 7 to widen that, as well as in amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8, to specify that nightly accommodation is a minimum with regard to the night-by-night provision. Amendment No. 9 seeks to remove the provision that allows local and housing authorities to refuse to provide accommodation to a person who has refused support in the past 24 months. Again, we have significant concerns about the application of this subsection. The Minister has not provided adequate reassurance as to what may happen to individuals who are refused accommodation under this provision. We believe this provision is exclusionary and dangerous, particularly for persons in vulnerable situations, for example, those who are battling mental health or addiction issues.”
“If the Minister is in good faith with this principle of the minimum, this is a way to ensure that can be read and made clear in the legislation. Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 go a little bit further by removing time constraints, as we do not believe there should be time constraints in affording dignified, compassionate provisions to exceptionally vulnerable people seeking emergency homeless accommodation. This goes to the point my colleague made with the idea of people literally being put to the street. Increasingly, if you are not in accommodation and are not granted emergency homeless accommodation, and you are in the position of night-by-night provision, then day by day, you are on the street. That is just a fact and that is how it is currently set out in the legislation.”
“That is one way it could be read, if you wanted to take a hostile reading of those measures, which cannot be ruled out. Again, we are trying to ensure that amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 provide the support offered in this section and that very basic night-by-night accommodation is not limited to the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. It takes the Minister's language, when he said this would be a minimum, and asks that we put the word "minimum" into the legislation. This is the clearest guidance we can offer and it should be set out in this legislation. We believe there should be no ambiguity in this legislation. There should be no risk of an interpretation of this legislation that states we are not mandated to say we may provide night-by-night accommodation outside of the hours 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.”
“The amendments were ruled out of order due to their coming with a cost to the State. I am very curious as to why, if it was not envisaged they would always be offered such accommodation, moving it to a "shall" is a cost versus the "may" that is there? I am hopeful the Minister might accept our amendments. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 provide that the support offered is not limited to between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. That is in amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. In those amendments, we are inserting the Minister's own exact language from Second Stage. He said that the 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. was a minimum and that it would be clear this would be the case. My concern is that the legislation, as it has been written, simply says this may be offered between these hours. This could be construed as this may not be offered outside of those hours.”
“The idea of people moving to a night-by-night basis, where they are moving away from any of the ancillary supports that may come with an emergency accommodation where at least you can plan and access supports, follow through processes and try to regularise your situation, is an appalling act against safety. The Minister talked on Second Stage about this idea of the night-by-night safety net being there. However, it is interesting that our amendments have been ruled out, when they simply sought to move from "may" to "shall". The legislation as it is set out, only states those vulnerable persons who do not have the residency requirements and who are refused emergency accommodation may be offered night-by-night accommodation. It is only a "may", not a "shall".”
“We know this affects a huge number of persons, including students with visas who do not have residency, people who may be tourists who do not have residency or people who may have escaped domestic violence situations and other situations who find themselves vulnerable and do not have residency. There is a wide range of people who may not have residency but who may be in need of emergency accommodation. Those persons will now be moving into a situation where they will find themselves, alongside those other persons in the previous section who have refused the reasonable offer of accommodation, in a night-by-night situation. We might think of some of the people who may not have residency who might be seeking this accommodation and some of the reasons they may be vulnerable.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, line 17, after “10(1)” to insert “at a minimum”. Section 7 creates residency requirements for people who are seeking emergency homeless accommodation. These provisions we have previously spoken about are very worrying with regard to the offer made. Our amendment No. 9 for this section deals with that question of the reasonable offer and the fact persons may have refused support in the past. That is one piece. In general, section 7 creates a new extreme vulnerability for persons who are already in the vulnerable position of seeking emergency homeless support, which is where they might find themselves if they do not have residency.”
“The legislation is what it is. It is frankly ridiculous to drag this up. The Senator, not us, brought up staff in the area and told us not to worry about the law because we know the staff are going to be doing their best. If they were doing their best, these coercive laws would not be needed and would not apply. The Government is bringing the laws and we are debating the point of law. That is our job. We are legislators. We are certainly not going to be intimidated while questioning dangerous law when it is brought forward because it is implied or suggested that we are hurting the feelings of the people who would be implementing the dangerous law. We have many other aspects of the dangerous law to go through in section 7, but it is important to have marked this issue.”
“The Government is trying to hide behind people who are doing their jobs when it is bringing in legislation. Let us be real. We were explicit that we are debating the legislation and what is provided for. For Senator Flaherty to try to say that other Senators are saying this person or that person is not nice or good is ridiculous. If they are all such wise and wonderful people, they would not need guidance from the Minister to tell them that they can throw somebody out. They would not need that.”
“Maybe it will motivate them to accept something despite deep concerns or maybe it will put them in a more vulnerable position. The risk attached to the potential benefit of pushing them to accept something they would not otherwise versus the risk of greater vulnerability and of a move to night to night is quite significant. We cannot pretend this might not happen when the Minister has, in legislation, provided for it to happen. The consequences if it does happen need to be looked at and addressed, not simply saying we do not envisage it happening.”
“It clearly is. The intention is to increase the pressure on vulnerable persons in emergency accommodation to accept what is deemed to be a reasonable offer, with an additional threat that if they do not do so, they could be moved to night-to-night accommodation. It cannot be read as anything other than an increasing of the pressure on people to make a decision on that. Maybe they will accept an offer of social housing they would not otherwise have accepted in some cases, but they will not in other cases and the consequence will be vulnerable persons being moved to a situation of greater vulnerability. The Minister has provided for it to happen in a way that was not there previously. There is a new lower floor to which vulnerable families in emergency accommodation can be brought.”
“They are then, instead of being in emergency accommodation, moved into night by night. What is that serving? Is it only to serve as punishment and removing people from the emergency accommodation numbers? What is the purpose of moving people from an insecure situation into a more insecure situation, particularly when they may be families? We do not need speculation that it probably would not happen. We need the Minister's logic for setting out that pathway for people. Why is he making a provision that would penalise those who do not accept a reasonable offer of accommodation and would send them out of emergency accommodation and into the night-to-night scenario? The Minister may say he does not envisage it happening but he has provided for it to happen and set up a whole new system for it to happen. Clearly, it might happen.”
“The Minister has provided for it in the Bill. This is a scenario he is setting out. He is making the change. People may have reasons that are reasonable or they may have reasons that are not reasonable, but they are still humans. They may be acting from paranoia, fear or concern, or they may be acting because they have had experience of abuse in the past. There are many reasons for people making decisions. The point is the decision the Minister is making is that those people can be removed from the emergency accommodation where they may have supports that will assist them to get them to a point of better decision-making. Let us bear in mind it is any reasonable offer. This is not the three-shot people have on the social housing list. This is a single offer that is deemed to be reasonable.”