The PP takes to Congress the disapproval of Minister Raquel Sánchez for her housing policy

In his motion he also raises his alternatives, such as a state pact and the aid of 1,000 euros for young people who want to emancipate themselves

May 7. (EUROPE PRESS) –

The PP is going to vote in the Plenary Session of Congress next week on a motion that will include the disapproval of the Minister of Transport and Housing, Raquel Sánchez, whom ERC had also announced that it wanted to censor.

It was during the last government control session when the ERC spokesman, Gabriel Rufián, announced to President Pedro Sánchez his intention to promote an initiative in Congress to condemn the Catalan minister, whom he blames for the problems that the Renfe commuter train in Catalonia (Rodalies) has been suffering for years.

But the PP; That same Wednesday he was debating with Raquel Sánchez for housing policies, he has anticipated ERC and is going to take an initiative to a vote in the next plenary session of Congress, which includes the disapproval of the minister.

Although in its first draft Raquel Sánchez was censured for the problems in the Renfe Cercanías services, the PP text that will be voted on next week focuses on housing policy.

VOX ALREADY TRIED THE DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE MINISTER

It is not the first time that Raquel Sánchez has faced disapproval for her management at the head of the Ministry. A month ago it was Vox who wanted to censor the minister for the controversy over the trains in Cantabria and Asturias, but her proposal did not go ahead in the Transport Commission. Nor will it be the last disapproval, because ERC has already announced another initiative against the minister in the Senate and focused on the problems of Rodalíes (Cercanías).

The motion now headed by the PP will be debated on the eve of the start of the electoral campaign for the municipal and regional elections, and there all the groups will be obliged to establish a position.

Apart from the issue of disapproval, the Popular Group will take advantage of the parliamentary initiative to promote some of its measures on housing. Thus, in the first point of their motion they urge the Government to open negotiations with the different parliamentary representatives in the Cortes, for the achievement of a State Pact for Housing.

Among other measures, the PP proposes a guarantee of up to 15% of the total housing to complete the financing of the mortgage requested by “solvent” young people, but who lack prior savings. They also propose an aid of 1,000 euros for the emancipation of these young people and the expansion of the budget of the Young Rent Bonus, because in their opinion the last call “has left thousands of people without help.”

The PP also refers to the reinforcement of legal security for property owners, who in the opinion of the ‘popular’ have been left helpless to ‘squatting’ with the Housing Law, recently approved in the Lower House.

THEY ASK FOR THE EVICTION OF ‘OKUPAS’ IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS

In this sense, the formation raises the eviction in a maximum of 24 hours from the request if the occupants of the property do not accredit within said period the legal title that legitimizes the permanence in the property. This eviction would be “immediate” in case of flagrante delicto.

In addition, they propose excluding the crime of trespassing from the jurisdiction of the Jury Court, reinforcing the penalties for the crime of usurpation with up to three years in prison and considering the registration of an illegal occupant in the municipal register as null and void.

Added to this, they ask to legitimize the communities of owners to carry out “preventive actions against the occupation” and to be able to go to the authorities when in the absence of the owner the occupants carry out “prohibited, annoying, unhealthy, harmful or dangerous” activities.

Finally, they also ask the Government to return the amounts paid by the owner as IBI during the occupation, something that Vox also raises; and consider the illegally occupied dwelling as the habitual residence of its owner if it was before the unlawful deprivation of possession.