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

I am sharing time with Deputy Ellis.

It gives me no pleasure to say the Minister's private rental strategy, launched in December, is without doubt the weakest part of the housing action plan of the current Government. The fact that it was launched so late in the year has meant we have not had an opportunity in this House to fully scrutinise the entire plan, short as it is. We obviously had very detailed debates on the rent predictability measures but even they were at a very late stage and obviously held under different circumstances. The Minister states there are 29 actions. That makes it sound like the strategy is quite comprehensive. In fact, over half of them were announced previously and the majority are not defined either in terms of their content or when exactly they will be implemented. Most are kicked farther down the road than is necessary.

Apart from those of us on the Opposition benches, significant disappointment was expressed in December right across the housing policy sector when the plan was outlined. It is not premature for us to return to these issues. Many of us will return to them regularly because of the plan's inadequacy.

The Bill is not an ideological crusade. Most of its measures are sensible and normative policies that exist in properly functioning rental markets in many parts of the world. While I do not agree with the detail of all of them, it is a solid basis for making significant improvements on what the Minister announced last year.

In the short time that I have, I will go through the eight sections. Sections 2 and 3 are eminently sensible. A landlord gets a sense of a tenant within two months. He or she does not need a full six months for a probationary tenancy. This provision would have no negative impact on supply or stability in the market. It would give tenants more security. As to indefinite duration provision, there is no evidence that giving tenants this basic security, which they need and which exists in other European jurisdictions, would have negative consequences. If the Minister has evidence other than the complaints of some of the landlords' organisations, he should put it in the public domain but none of us has yet seen it.

Regarding the sale of property, I listened to the arguments before and after Christmas carefully. While there may be advice from the Attorney General, of which the Minister gave us some description on Committee Stage of the previous legislation, none of us has seen it. The Attorney General is not always right. The question then is whether we believe it is the right thing to do. If it is, do it and let a landlord take a case. We can then test whether it is unconstitutional. If it is proven to be unconstitutional, we can consider changing the Constitution.

It is the right thing to do because the majority of families that will spend yet another night in emergency accommodation tonight were made homeless by landlords who owned one or two properties. It is welcome that some tenants who live in the properties of landlords who own ten or more will get some additional protection, albeit with the opt-out clauses that Deputies Coppinger and Boyd Barrett pointed out, but the majority of families at risk of homelessness tonight will get no more protection from the measures introduced by the Government before Christmas. For that reason, this is one of the most important measures that could be introduced in the Bill or via possible Government amendments. Let us not forget that many of the landlords in question bought their properties with buy-to-let mortgages from banks or availed of section 23 tax reliefs. On that basis alone, they should not be allowed to serve notice to quit on the grounds of sale.

Compensation for tenants is the one bit of the Bill about which I am not yet convinced. I am not saying I would rule it out completely, but we need more discussion on it. That is not a reason to oppose the Bill. Let us support it. It can go to Committee Stage and we can thrash out these issues. It would be unreasonable to hit an accidental landlord under financial stress with a requirement for six months' rent compensation, but the simplest solution for him or her is not to serve a notice to quit. The landlord should sell the property with the tenant in situ, which is part of the purpose of the proposal, that being to ensure the property remains in the rental stock.

Sections 6 and 7 are eminently sensible. Section 8 is not raising a new issue. While I appreciate the Minister is new to his post, many of us have been raising this matter for more than two years. If a bank, fund or receiver is able to take rent, it should have the obligations of a landlord. We will watch closely to ensure the legislation the working group proposes applies the same obligations on lenders, funds and receivers as it does on landlords. If they are good enough to take the rent, they are good enough to take responsibility for meeting their obligations as landlords.

We are happy to support the Bill, notwithstanding the issue with section 5. I urge Members to consider the Bill because it has significant merit.

See this speech in context