Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

To be honest, I have never been a fan of landlords and nor have they been a fan of mine. I stand up for people who are in conflict and are experiencing difficulty in their lives because they have money or jobs. For the record, I have been in public life for 42 years and have been dealing with tenants for that length of time. During the past 12 months, there has been a significant increase in the number of tenants coming to my constituency office who have been told by their landlord that they have to leave a property because it is being sold. To me, that is unusual. It is a pattern that did not exist heretofore. There are many people who because of this practice are ending up on the streets, some of whom are sleeping in cars or in relatively well protected from the weather areas. I accept that in this context we are speaking about a relatively small number of landlords and that the vast majority of landlords are decent and not of that calibre.

Would the IPOA agree to a change in the law to the effect that where a two-year tenancy agreement exists and a property is to be sold that tenancy should be sacrosanct? In other words, linked to any proposal to sell a property would be an agreement that a tenancy would continue. This would at least provide continuity for families for at least two years, provided they pay their rent and conform to all regulations. Would that not make sense for the landlord and the tenant? The problem that arises is that many of these people, because they have very little money, cannot afford to rent anywhere else. They have very little going for them other than their sheer humanity.

Reference was made to children being inappropriately accommodated on air beds in hotels and hostels, possibly in danger. That is wrong. However, that is a matter for Tusla. Would the IPOA agree that the way forward is to secure tenancies such that when a property is being sold a tenancy may continue?

For many years town centres were populated over shops and so on. That type of accommodation no longer exists and for a number of reasons. There are no longer people in our town centres at night. Years ago, they were populated by families.

The Government is proposing to advance a new scheme to populate those areas again. Provided it is possible to meet the fire and building regulations in so far as possible, given the age of some of the properties, would the witness agree that we should be able to devise a scheme to encourage him as a landlord to develop those properties? The development would have to be within the physical shape of the building. In other words, one is not dividing an existing room. The rooms are whatever size they are because the building was built in 1860 or whenever but they might accommodate single people or childless couples. If it was to the witness's advantage to do that and get tenants into the building, it would be an advantage to the State that people would have houses. Perhaps he will give his view on that.

People still tell me that landlords will not accept the HAP. A house is on Daft.ieor elsewhere but landlords will not accept HAP. I believe we could offer a tax incentive to landlords if they would accept HAP and provide a tenancy of X number of years. Landlords should want HAP because they would know they would be paid, so it is to their advantage to develop the property and maintain it. It is also an advantage to the tenant because he or she has security and a decent place in which to live. What are the witnesses' views on that?