Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

Perhaps we can continue the discussion in different forums. There are votes coming up in the House.

I will respond to one question I was asked which relates to substantial refurbishment. The majority of people who come to my constituency clinic and who are facing notices to quit are being evicted on the basis of not being able to afford rent increases above the caps brought in on the back of "substantial refurbishment" or are being asked to vacate in order to facilitate "substantial refurbishment". I am aware of many cases of rent increases above the 4% that are being sought on what I would consider, and what the residents would consider, to be spurious or relatively spurious grounds. Unfortunately, however, not every tenant has the information, the knowledge and the confidence to take cases to the Residential Tenancies Board. I have come across many people whom I could have advised otherwise, but they come to me after the fact. This happens all the time. Then there are the cases, such as the Leeside apartments case, in which a corporate entity looking at an investment opportunity to increase rents very significantly - in this example, perhaps a doubling of rents - invests serious money in refurbishment, which no one denies, but people who have lived there for years, people who have young kids, people who are on low incomes and people who are unable to find accommodation elsewhere, given the scarcity of lettings, the number of people queuing for each letting, etc., face eviction. This is wrong. There are other cases, which are perhaps the cases to which the representatives of the Irish Property Owners Association have pointed, in which a small investor landlord must carry out significant work on a house and feels he or she is entitled to a rent increase above 4% on the back of that. The point I would make is that we are living in exceptional times. There is, if not officially declared, in reality a housing emergency in this country. More than 10,000 people, if the figures were computed properly, are officially homeless. This does not count the number, double or treble that, of people who are unofficially homeless - couch-surfing and so on. That people are being put out on the street on the back of rent increases, irrespective of how justified a landlord might feel in seeking the increase, on the basis of investment he or she has put into the house, is just not acceptable, in our view, in the context of a housing emergency.

The debate will continue, and I am happy to continue it, but I do not think we have the time here.