Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

On the issue of what obligation should be placed on landlords to prove they are selling the property and that it genuinely is the reason they need to evict someone, the Minister of State is correct to note it is more difficult to evict somebody on the basis of a rent increase but many landlords are resorting to outright harassment of tenants. I have spoken to many families who have been renting for a long time and who have been subjected to text messages throughout the evening and night and to landlords calling unannounced. There are many different ways in which to get rid of someone. However, the Minister of State was wrong on one point in that if one rings Threshold, which is a good organisation that gives good advice, to tell it one's landlord has told one he or she must sell the property for a family member, there is absolutely nothing Threshold can do about it. The tenant must comply and that is why landlords are using this method because it is a much simpler way to get rid of people, particularly those in receipt of rent allowance in that if one is in receipt of rent allowance, one cannot afford to find more money out of one's own income or one will not be awarded an increase by the community welfare officers relative to what is needed. Consequently, it is a kind of ethnic cleansing of people who are in receipt of rent allowance from properties by landlords in order that they can re-let the properties to people on higher incomes. All Members, including the Minister of State I am sure, have heard the stories about people who wish to rent a property. One goes into a queue with 20 or 30 people ahead of one. It is akin to an audition for "The X Factor" where one must show references, details of salary or wages and so on. Consequently, I reject the idea that someone will have any power to resist a landlord who states he or she must sell when it is written down in the law. In the amendments tabled, my colleagues and I seek the placing of a greater onus on landlords to prove this actually is the case and that they would suffer undue hardship were they unable to vacate the property.

Yesterday, I believe the Minister, Deputy Kelly, stated there was no reason anyone in this country should not have a bed at night. I do not know on what planet he is living but when people are evicted, which I see take place in my constituency practically every day, they must contact the council immediately to let it know. However, the council essentially hands such people a sheet of paper and tells them to find their own accommodation. People frequently cannot find any accommodation because there is none and hotels are not taking people. They then are obliged to find a sofa or a car and in some cases, people have slept outdoors because of the pressure under which they feel they are putting their friends and so on. The Minister is not living in the real world. These amendments are about strengthening the rights of families to remain in a property and not to become homeless and, in a sense, a burden on the taxpayer. The Government appears to be more concerned about the rights of private property and of landlords to be able to re-let properties than it is about protecting families and the taxpayer, who must pay heavily to hotels because no council or social housing is being built. The Minister of State stated it was not appropriate to restrict landlords' freedoms but what about the human rights of people to have a roof over their heads? We have a housing crisis and the Government has failed to grapple with it. Consequently, I unapologetically am in favour of restricting landlords' freedoms. I am more in favour of restricting the freedom of a landlord than I am of restricting the rights of families and people who have been forced into the private rented sector because they have no option, as should be the Government because that is more important. However, we also have a Constitution that unfortunately seems to give absolute primacy to private property.

Ministers and Deputies probably should declare an interest if they are landlords because there is a disproportionate number of landlords in this House. I believe one in four Members is a landlord compared with 4% of people in society. Perhaps so doing would not go amiss when people are speaking or trooping in to vote on this Bill.

See this speech in context