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

I have questions for the representatives of the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, and questions for the Irish Property Owners' Association, IPOA. I will be a bit parochial with the questions for the USI. The witnesses made a couple of mentions of events in Cork. Will they come back in and restate those? I am not sure if I quite caught one and would like more information on another if that is possible. They mentioned University College Cork and a 10% increase. Will they clarify what they were talking about there? They mentioned the Residential Tenancies Board challenge that was mounted in Galway and said there had been a similar challenge in Cork, where there was a ruling that someone was a licensee. Will the witnesses give the committee more information and detail about that case? I am interested to hear that.

The submission from the Irish Property Owners Association states:

The threat of withdrawing selling as a ground for termination has already resulted in some investors leaving the market.

I note that the witnesses regard protection for tenants on grounds of sale of property, which is the legal position in Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, as a threat. Will they indicate to the committee the evidence, which they obviously have, about investors leaving the market because of the possibility of sale of property being taken away as grounds for termination? I am a bit surprised by that. I am hopeful for the Anti-Evictions Bill and will push it as hard as I can in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I hope that the emerging housing protest movement pushes hard for this Bill too but I do not think anyone would say that selling as grounds for termination being removed is on the verge of happening here. I am surprised there is talk about investors leaving the market because of the threat of it. Can the witnesses quantify that? Will they give an idea of the numbers about which they are talking?

Having mentioned Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, has the IPOA examined the position in those jurisdictions? It is the law of the land in those countries that one does not have the right to sell a property and evict a tenant on those grounds. The tenant must be kept in situ. I do not see that it has caused a significant upheaval in any of those countries. It seems to have become law and works reasonably well. Will the witnesses comment on the position in those countries?

Ms McCormick stated:

[I]f passed, the Bills will have a significant detrimental impact on the sector and will lead people with capital to invest their money in an alternative asset class.

A point that often comes up in the committee is that 70% of landlords own one property and 87% own one or two properties. Can the witnesses see a circumstance where, if they gave the tenant the right to remain in the case of a sale or renovation, they would have people in that category leaving the market, and to what end? I do not see what one might do other than sell the property. If one remains the owner of the property, surely it is better to have a tenant in the property than to leave it to lie idle? It does not seem to me that the idea of a massive flight of investment is really on the cards. Maybe the witnesses have information that would contradict that and I would be interested to hear it. It underlines the importance of the State intervening and providing social housing on a significant scale so that people have a real option.