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

I would like to comment on some of the points made. I agree that we are in a significant housing crisis, the worst in the history of this State. I acknowledge and appreciate fully the points that have been made but it is important to point out that a number of actions have been taken to protect tenants. The HAP initiative has been very successful in ensuring tenants are able to pay their rent. It allows people who would not otherwise be able to meet the increased rents that are being demanded to compete in the marketplace as equal players. The powers of the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, have been strengthened. There are currently over 340,000 tenancies registered with the board. It is proposed to increase the powers of the RTB to regulate the sector and to increase the rights of tenants, which is useful and helpful.

Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the rent pressure zones. This initiative has been very successful in the areas in which it applies. In Drogheda, it has been so successful the number of people complaining about increased rents has significantly reduced. Local authorities and private construction companies are significantly increasing the number of houses being built. The number of houses built during Deputy O'Sullivan's tenure as housing Minister was very low. I acknowledge I was Minister of State of that Department during that term. We know that the reason for that was the economic conditions. As things have improved, housing construction has increased significantly. It is important I make these points to balance the arguments that have been made.

On the issue of evictions, is there data available on the number of evictions that have taken place and is an eviction a notice to quit? Perhaps the witnesses would elaborate on those points. I hold no property other than the house in which I live and I am not a spokesperson for landlords. In fact, I have in the past stood up to the abuse by landlords of tenants and I have helped many in that regard. One way of dealing with this issue is to put in place a moratorium on evictions for a set timeframe. In terms of all of the issues raised, there are arguments for and against them. I do not believe there is any reason not to have a moratorium on evictions, be it for one or two years.

The point is that most people who are renting that I meet are waiting for a social house, council house or affordable home. They do not want to stay in rented accommodation forever. As the number of houses increases and as choices increase, rents will go down. While it will not happen today or tomorrow, people will get the homes they want. We should look at that as a moratorium, albeit I am not sure what legislation would be required. It would avoid many of the other pitfalls that may be there if the Dáil were to pass that legislation.

If someone is to suggest there be no evictions, it is important to impose three conditions. It is important to say that the vast majority of tenants are good tenants and the vast majority of landlords are good landlords. I would not tar them all with the same brush. If a tenant is paying his or her rent and does not owe substantial arrears, is not involved in anti-social behaviour and if the occupied property is in reasonable condition, that tenant should have security of tenure for a period to be defined by the Dáil during which he or she could not be evicted. It might be two or three years or some such period. The landlord who lets the property is having his or her rights respected. The rent is being paid and the property is being looked after. The tenant is a good tenant and is living reasonably and properly.

A point I make strongly is that when I started in public life, which was a few years ago now, the average waiting list for a council house was two to three years. In Drogheda, it is getting close to ten years. There is huge insecurity in that for families and there are great disadvantages when they have to move properties to another location. These include disadvantages around schools, friendships and family. I agree that we need to improve the rights of tenants significantly. However, one cannot say, and I do not presume it is being argued, that if people do not pay the rent, behave anti-socially and destroy or damage the property they are in, they nevertheless have the right to remain there forever. It is of great importance to have absolute clarity on that. I would never stand over that, no more than I would stand over a bullying landlord who might switch off the electricity, harass a tenant, enter on the property without the tenant's consent or demand entrance without due notice. The middle ground is to protect people and to provide them with increased rights, provided that they meet their obligations also.

I appreciate the Chairman's latitude on this. I ask that we look at a moratorium, which would meet the requirements of security of tenure until such time as the housing supply increases. The other point that has been made strongly is that 86% of all landlords own no more than two properties, while 70% of the landlords in the State own only one. That is the reality of the people we are dealing with. Clearly, families get into difficulties. I know families where the parents became homeless as a result of decisions made during the boom. As such, I would not exclude grandparents from the Labour Party's list, which I think it is intended to do. It would not be right. The positive needs which have been identified may not be fully provided for in the Bill. They include the question of increased long-term leases. That means encouraging landlords to lease for 20 or 30 years by providing tax incentives, refurbishment grants and so on to achieve the best practice we see in other countries. Germany and other countries were referred to in that regard. If that knowledge can be brought to the table, it would assist the debate. There will always be a private sector and we need longer leases to provide greater security for families there. Greater stability for tenants is required. Provided everyone plays his or her full part and meets his or her responsibilities, I do not see why the thrust of what the witnesses want, which is what I want too, cannot be provided for. We want longer and more secure tenancies and no evictions, certainly for a given period. There were no evictions 20 years ago when supply met demand because people who were not happy with a particular landlord would leave a property. When supply increases, people will have a lot more choice. However, they can be protected now with a moratorium.