Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Barry has a question coming up and will have a chance to come back in. I have a number of questions first. I will keep a record of any questions asked while Deputy Barry is away from the meeting to facilitate him coming back in.

Legal advice was discussed. We have advice from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service and can seek advice from the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser, OPLA, if the committee agrees. What legal advice have the witnesses received in putting the Bill together? I have questions regarding what I believe are unconstitutional proposals within the legislation. While some of what is proposed is already incorporated in the Government's Bill, some provisions are unconstitutional. Regarding a refurbishment as grounds to end a tenancy, we received assurances from the Department on clarification of what was and was not a refurbishment of a property. That is coming. Student accommodation will be included in rent pressure zones. Where I have a real issue is around the sale of a property as grounds for terminating a lease. The witnesses want a requirement to sell with the tenants in situ. While I know this is a tricky one, I believe it is an unconstitutional proposal. I say that on the back of the fact that 86% of landlords in the market own one to two properties. We have approximately 174,000 landlords, some of whom might be accidental landlords, I do not know. The proposal infringes on someone's rights. As Deputy O'Dowd said, they are paying their taxes, including the local property tax, and are good landlords with, probably, good tenants. If the person chooses to sell the property for whatever legitimate reason, I do not think we can infringe unconstitutionally on the right to sell with or without a tenant. The person can sell it with a tenant if he or she so decides. That is his or her choice.

I have another issue around the compensation proposed in the Bill. It is proposed to give six months' compensation on the termination of a tenancy, even when the termination is within the prescribed time period and is legally acceptable. What is the rationalisation for that? How was it quantified? How will it be enforced? Would such a provision not push landlords out of the market? There is a very fine balance to achieve to give both landlords and tenants security in this sector. They both need assurances to make it viable for the non-commercial operators out there. I am not talking about the big landlords to whom the witnesses always refer. I am talking about the people who own one or two properties or up to even three or four. Given the need to make it financially viable for them to remain as landlords, do the witnesses not see that this provision will tip matters over the edge? Where did the rationale for six months' compensation come from and what legal advice, if any, was provided in that regard?

The Residential Tenancies Board's representatives will be here later. The board has set out the main reasons landlords served notice in 2017 and its figures are a little different from those provided by those before the committee now. According to the board, 44% of tenants on whom notice was served were in rent arrears. In 20% of cases where notice was served, the landlord intended to sell the property. In 8% of cases, landlords intended to use the property for their own families. A further 8% of cases involved landlords who intended to substantially refurbish the property. I am always conscious of circumstances in which it may be intended to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In respect of a problem in 8% of cases, the witnesses seek to go in with a very heavy hand. The rental market has been maturing over the years and we are coming off the back of a recession with social housing building increasing dramatically. We need far more. We need the private sector and private supply is increasing. It will take a couple of years for the market to stabilise. However, we can see the steady improvements taking place and the supports that exist. I always use the analogy of the builder's leveller. Whether I believe they are unconstitutional, we will have to get legal advice on some of these proposals. In any event, with some of these proposals, the bubble in the leveller will be outside the lines and landlords will be pushed out of the market.

I do not think that is the intention of the Bill's sponsors but it is what will happen. I would like to hear some responses, especially around the legal advice they may have received.