Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. The threshold of five applies to less than 10% of landlords and less than 25% of tenancies. That means we are creating a two-tier protection for tenants who are at risk of homelessness, one for those in that 25% of tenancies and then everybody else. I just cannot support it and I will be tabling an amendment to reduce it to one. I do not accept that there are any legal impediments. Clearly, there is a debate to be had in terms of the impact on the supply and existing stock of rental properties but that is not a legal matter but a policy matter. Not only do we need to look at the consequence for landlords, we also need to look at the consequences for those people who are at risk of homelessness.

I strongly welcome the repeal of section 42. I have two queries. One of the concerns when approved housing body tenants came under the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act was whether long-term tenants of such bodies would experience any diminution of rights in the probationary period at the start of the first Part 4 tenancy. I am wondering if that is still the case, even under the terms of this amendment. If we remove that six-month probationary period for the next four years and the four after that, will it also mean that those subsequent tenancies will be the same tenancy as the first four years, for the purpose of rent reviews, etc., or will they be new tenancies? Are there loopholes in terms of rent review legislation? It is very worthwhile to examine the position.

On the amendment to section 100, I am strongly opposed to the reduction to ten days. We need to speed up the time of the tribunals and the appeals but in many cases the people who are in these situations may have literacy difficulties or vulnerabilities and they may need to obtain access to support or advocacy organisations. As a result, ten days is insufficient. If we want to speed matters up, I urge the Minister to consider additional resourcing for the relevant body rather than less time to make the appeal. I will make a similar point in terms of reducing the membership of tribunals from three to one. Sinn Féin tried to submit an amendment in the Seanad to reduce it to two as a compromise but that amendment was ruled out of order because it would impose a cost on the State. Some of these, even on individual issues, can be quite complex and having a second opinion in the tribunal, particularly given the vulnerabilities of and the difficulties for landlords and tenants, would be very prudent.

An amendment of section 124 provides that determination orders go to the District Court rather than the Circuit Court. The only difficulty I have with this is that in the absence of any policy changes promised in Rebuilding Ireland in terms of a new mortgage resolution regime, it could lead to increased levels of homelessness. It is not acceptable that when a determination order has been decided, there can be a further period of months of legal dispute. I am worried that this provision could end up increasing the flow of certain families into homelessness. It needs to be addressed.

I fully support what is proposed in respect of student housing. We also need to include something around affordability. Universities that will be accessing low-cost, Government-guaranteed Housing Finance Agency loans need to ensure us they will provide accommodation at an affordable level. Some of the on-campus student accommodation currently provided cannot be described as affordable. That is crucial.

I repeat what I said at the outset. We have lots of rows in this Chamber. There are lots of times when we accuse each other of playing politics. All the questions I have raised on this Bill are sincere. I hope that we will be able to get into the detail of this on Committee Stage because I have serious reservations, particularly about the strategic housing developments. I have some concerns around the environmental impact assessments. The Tyrrelstown amendment, in particular, does not go far enough to provide the kind of protections that both the Minister and the rest of the Deputies in the House are trying to provide.

See this speech in context