Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Hayden for her presentation. I would like to put on the record the particularly effective work done by Threshold in the tenancy sustainment programme. I deal with Laurence Kinch a lot and the service is making a huge difference to a very significant number of people's lives. It is important that we acknowledge that. I have questions on this section for Threshold and for the Department. I will go through them by each head and people can respond as appropriate. For clarification on heads 22 and 23 with regard to the leased approved housing bodies' properties, could the Department give the committee more information as to why that is necessary? Is it just the case that they are not covered under the Residential Tenancies Act currently because they are leased properties or is there some other reason? I would be interested to know.

Is it just a case they are not covered under the RTA currently because they are leased properties or is there some other reason? I would be interested to know that.

The big concern many of us have with head 25, which is the substantive piece of this part of the Bill, is with the figure of 20. If I understand the head right, it means that somebody cannot serve notices to quit on 20 properties within a six-month period but they could serve notice to quit on 19, 18, or 17 of those within the six-month period and then the rest after that. The Department believes this is an appropriate number. Is there research to back that up? On what basis did the Department reach that number? Can it give us more information? The Department also argues that to go for developments of more than 20 units would lead to market distortion. Part of the difficulty is that the market is already very distorted. I find it hard to see how allowing for larger unit developments would be a problem. Will the Department give us more information on that?

The vast majority of people at risk of homelessness as a result of repossession and being served with notices to quit are in properties where the landlord owns a single unit or has a small number of properties. There is also a situation where in defined geographical areas, a bank will repossess multiple properties, sometimes in the region of 20 or more, and will serve notices to quit. They could be all in a number of housing estates in close proximity. The geographical impact of those notices to quit will be identical if they are spread over a relatively confined geographical area as they would be in a multiple unit development. Was any consideration given to that and, if not, why not?

My next point was referenced by Dr. Aideen Hayden and it is the point that Deputy Fergus O'Dowd wanted to raise. I am very concerned that subhead 2 of head 25 will not apply in circumstances where the landlord can show that the price to be obtained by selling the dwelling subject to an existing tenancy is more than 20% below that which could be obtained with vacant possession. What is the rationale for that? On what basis were those figures picked? My real concern here is that while this would be a welcome a development for people living in a Tyrrelstown situation, they represent a tiny number of the people who are now being made homeless as a result of notices to quit on the basis of vacant possession orders. I am keen to understand that properly.

Do I understand head 26 correctly that the intention of this change is to end probationary tenancies after the first tier part 4 tenancy so there is no probationary tenancy in the first six months of year five of the tenancy? One of the issues that has arisen following the incorporation of approved housing bodies into the Residential Tenancies Act is whether somebody who has been a long-term tenant of a voluntary housing association and has now been given their first part 4 tenancy is subject to any undermining of their rights during that six-month probationary period. There are a couple of cases going to the RTB in the next couple of weeks which will test that for the first time. Was there any consideration given to retrospectively applying this change to somebody who is already a long-term tenant, in some cases up to four years in an approved housing body, but all of a sudden is now in a six-month probationary period under this section? What about those people who are stuck on year-to-year tenancies who have never been given a full part 4 tenancy and therefore cannot avail of some of those protections?

On heads 27, 28 and 30, I would like the Department to respond to the specific issues that Dr. Aideen Hayden raised in terms of the concerns because I share them.

On the issue of student accommodation, these loans will still go on the Government balance sheet in terms of impact on the debt because they are Government guaranteed loans. The witnesses should correct me if I am wrong. If I am not wrong, what is the prospect of significant lending? Also, if I am wrong, what is the expectation in terms of the level of lending that might be provided? This is a very good measure if it results in significant increased investment in student accommodation.