Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The in-and-out problem the Deputy raised, which exists where people are coming in to make some money and then getting out of rental accommodation is exactly why we need more institutional investors making a long-term play for 20 or 25 years who come in to make a gain from rent roll rather than capital appreciation. Getting in for capital appreciation and treating a second property as a pension fund is what leads to someone all of a sudden getting a notice to quit because the landlord has reached a particular time in his or her life. Such volatility has damaged the rental sector in the past. Moving to a more mature rental sector involves doing the kind of things that we are doing in this legislation.

This amendment is not about whether substantial refurbishment can be cited as a grounds for a notice to quit. That is allowed and elsewhere in the Bill there is a good definition of that. This is about when property has to be vacated because refurbishment works are being carried out and the amendment states that they will not have to pay rent in that circumstance. That is an unnecessary provision to insert in section 16 of the Act. That is for the landlord and the tenant to agree. It is often the case that another form of accommodation is provided, if the tenant so wishes. It also might be provided for a rent-free period as well. If the parties cannot agree to a temporary vacation of the premises on such terms, there is a breakdown in the relationship and if the works are substantial according to the definition that we have in the Act, section 34 can be invoked. I cannot accept this amendment. In terms of the definition, there is a wider question around substantial refurbishment that we have not yet come to.