Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

January is traditionally the month with the highest number of evictions. If anecdotal evidence is anything to go by, that is likely to be the case again this year. For hundreds of renting households across the State, January 2019 will be black January. It is the month in which they will be evicted or will have received a notice to quit.

The State’s homelessness numbers for December are due to be released next week. They are likely to go over, or, indeed, surge past, the 10,000 mark. It is a shocking failure on the part of the Minister and the Government. This Bill represents an attempt to place a sticking plaster on that wound. Under pressure from massive public criticism and an emerging housing protest movement, the Minister and the Government are taking some hesitant steps to improve renters’ rights. Solidarity–People Before Profit will support any improvements in this regard. Accordingly, we will not be blocking the Bill on Second Stage. However, we will point to its many shortcomings and seek to improve it.

The Bill provides for an increase in fines for non-compliant landlords. For example, a landlord in a rent pressure zone who illegally breaches the 4% increase cap is liable to a fine of up to €15,000, as well as having costs of up to €15,000 awarded against him or her. That is a step forward. However, does it go far enough? One must look at the consequences of the landlord’s action. By hiking rents over and above the legal limit, that landlord may well - in many cases already has - illegally evicted a household into homelessness. Such an act can adversely affect the lives of men, women and children. I noted the comments of the Ombudsman for Children who talked about the effect that homelessness can have on children, including young people especially. Is a fine a sufficient penalty for a landlord who knowingly effectively evicts a family into homelessness as a result of an illegal rent hike? Why is there no provision, for example, for a jail sentence? Maybe it is time we saw a few sleek landlords put behind bars for illegally evicting men, women and children into homelessness. I believe it is and that the Bill is not sufficiently tough in that regard.

On the issue of “renovictions”, for some time we have been making the point from these benches in housing debates that the provision in the rent pressure zone legislation that allowed rent increases above the 4% in examples of substantial renovations to the property, was a massive loophole which would be used and abused by landlords.

We were told from the Government benches that it would keep an eye on this, and see what happened. We were asked not to jump the gun but it was clear to anybody who knows what goes on in the country what would happen. That is precisely what has happened.

The Bill represents an attempt to tighten the loophole but it does not close it. A tenant should have the right to veto the idea of renovations and the rent hike that would come on foot of a renovation. If a tenant wants the renovation and is prepared to pay the rent increase and perhaps leave the property for a period before returning when the work is done, it would be fair enough. In all other cases the tenant should have the right to say "No". The loophole has been tightened but we raise a question about one aspect of the process that may not represent an improvement at all. It may even present a new loophole. It relates to a point raised by Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, specifically upgrades implemented to improve the building energy rating, BER. The 4% rent cap can be circumvented, allowing a bigger rent hike, where there is a BER upgrade. I am no engineer and I stand to be corrected but I can foresee many circumstances where a building energy rating upgrade might not require massive change, investment or renovation of a property. Does such a clause not provide landlords with a new loophole whereby rent could be hiked above the 4%, and on foot of such action, a resident could be forced into homelessness because of what is far from a major change within a property? We would like to see that loophole closed.

I agree with the points raised by Deputy Eoin Ó Broin about certain court confirmations. It will be an important part of the debate on Committee Stage. The increased notice that landlords must give under the terms of this Bill when issuing a notice to quit represent a step forward. It is a sign of the pressure being exerted by the emerging housing protest movement. However, these notices are not anything to write home about. Somebody who has lived in a property for more than three years and less than four years must be given notice of 120 days instead of 84 days. It is slightly less than four months when the person may have lived in the property for nearly four years and is about to have his or her life turned upside down. I am in favour of a ban on economic evictions but if evictions are to be allowed in certain circumstances, a tenant should be at least entitled to at least a doubling of the notice, if not more.

I ask about the remedial notices that are to be served within 28 days of a determination order. These apply to remedy what are described as minor defects in notices to quit. As I understand the current position, a landlord might issue a notice to quit with incorrect information, rather than a minor slip, such as an error in the numbers of days of notice, the name of the tenant etc. In such a case, a tenant can go to the Residential Tenancies Board, argue that it is not a valid notice to quit and, if the board rules in the tenant's favour, the landlord would have to start the process again. Effectively, this buys the tenant more time in which to find alternative accommodation. I am seeking clarification as it seems that allowing a remedial notice within 28 days to fix minor defects in notices to quit will lead in such cases to a landlord being able to amend the notice without having to go back to the start. This is provided that an extra 28 days is granted to the tenant. In other words, this means a tenant would have less time under this legislation than he or she might have with the current law. I am not certain of my argument as the wording of the legislation is a little unclear, so I will pose this as a question. If that is the position and my interpretation is correct, the change will serve to speed up evictions and afford less time and opportunity to tenants. It is potentially a step backwards.

Stronger measures are needed. The anti-eviction Bill proposed by Solidarity before Christmas contains some of those stronger measures. It would ban so-called renovictions and the sale of property as grounds for eviction, as is currently the case in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. That Bill will now come before a committee for Committee Stage on either 5 February or 20 February. It is an important debate and all housing activists in the country will have their eye on how that Bill progresses. It should be fast-tracked.

Last but not least, my party and I are of the opinion that whereas legislative change in this place can make some difference - we are not indifferent to it - massive people power pressure is required from below to force the real changes that are needed. That is why we invest and place hope in the emerging housing protest movement in this country. We welcome the fact that Raise the Roof is now discussing the idea of organising protests at councils nationwide over the next couple of months and the concept of a national demonstration in April. We will support that, and it is something every student union and trade union in the country should work towards. Everybody who cares about or is affected by the housing crisis in the country should participate to make the demonstration planned for the end of spring the biggest and most effective housing protest we have seen in the State so far.

See this speech in context