Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party will support the Bill on Second Stage, primarily because we fully support the central measure in it, namely, protecting tenants in danger of being served with an eviction notice because the owner intends to sell the property. As the House is aware, we presented a Bill that contained a similar clause, as did Sinn Féin and we have had a number of opportunities to debate the issue more recently in the context of the Government's Bill which offers limited protection. It is welcome that the legislation was commenced today, in particular Part 3 which deals with the so-called Tyrrelstown amendment, but as has been said, it only protects tenants in cases where ten or more notices to quit are given in the same group of properties. It does not, therefore, protect the vast majority of tenants from being served with an eviction notice where there is an intention to sell the property. It does not protect the vast majority of tenants who are in a situation where there is not ownership of multiple properties.

We fully support the Bill’s central measure. We also support the obligations on receivers, financial institutions and vulture funds to behave as landlords and have all of their duties and responsibilities. That is something that has been on the table for a long time and it is disappointing that there has been no action by the Government in this regard because tenants in such situations are in a very uncertain position.

We also support the measures on notice periods. However, we are concerned about section 5 and should the Bill proceed to Committee Stage we would not support it. The section relates to cases where a family member has the right to move into a property and specifies that the landlord would have to pay compensation equivalent to six months rent. I accept that there is abuse of the system, whereby a landlord can ask a tenant to move out because, for example, his or her niece, nephew, cousin or brother is to move into the property. In many cases that does not happen and the system is abused. However, that does not mean that landlords should be penalised in genuine cases because such an obligation would be included in legislation. I accept that we must deal with such abuse. We must also deal with abuse in cases where a landlord says he or she is selling a property and that does not happen, even though a tenant has been evicted. It is clear that there are abuses in the system and we must find ways to deal with them.

I have direct involvement in the situation in Limerick. It is welcome that Sova Properties did respond to the Minister's explanation of the fact that the legislation was about to be brought forward and, while it did not have a legal obligation, did respect the provisions included in the Bill and, therefore, withdrew the notices to quit, but there is still an issue in that regard. I do not expect the Minister to respond on the matter tonight. The young couple who were highlighted in the media, Angel and Krisztina, who have a young son, Christopher, received their notice before Christmas, but they did not know other neighbours were also receiving notices. People who are protected by the so-called Tyrrelstown amendment might not know that they are part of a bigger group, as was demonstrated in this case. Many of the tenants in the Strand Apartments moved out when they received their notice and had already left before the issue came to public attention.

I wish to address the issue about which the Minister spoke concerning the rent regulation that has been introduced in Dublin and Cork and the proposal that other areas be included if they fulfil the criteria. I am concerned that there is an expectation that other cities and the pressure areas around Dublin will be included in what could be considered to be fairly dubious protection in some ways because it still involves rent increases over a period and, as other speakers said, there are still certain get-out clauses. The criteria are that one must have been subject to a 7% year-on-year price increase for four of the previous six quarters and also that the property must be located in an area where the rent is above the national average. From the data I have received from the Residential Tenancies Board it is doubtful that many other areas would fulfil these criteria, in particular the criterion I have outlined relating to year-on-year price increases. I will use other means to seek clarity on the issue, but it should not give rise to false expectations that many areas will qualify just because an undertaking has been given that certain areas will be considered. I am concerned that people believe their rent will be controlled when, in fact, it might not be.

Many of us have made the point previously in the Chamber that what we really need to do is to link rent increases with something like the consumer price index in order that tenants all over the country will be protected from totally unreasonable and unaffordable rent increases. We have heard that 6,985 people are homeless, but many others are in a very precarious position in the private rental sector and really worried that if their rent increases significantly, they will simply not be able to afford to pay. In many cases such persons have steady, full-time jobs, but they live in fear that they will lose their home. I have spoken to some of the tenants in the Strand Apartments in Limerick and heard their individual stories. Many of them were working and happy to pay their rent. They were happy with where they were living and devastated when they received an eviction notice because the properties were being sold. In other cases devastation is caused when a significant increase in rent is imposed by the landlord simply because he or she knows someone else will pay increased rent. These are very stressful and difficult situations for real people and families in the community. We must afford whatever protection we can, including the measures contained in the Bill under discussion and perhaps, more importantly, linking rents in some way with increases in the cost of living.

See this speech in context