Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann, while acknowledging the relevance of the Overcrowded Housing Bill 2018, in the context of serious cases of overcrowding that have occurred in the rented sector, resolves that the Bill be deemed to be read a second time this day three months, to allow for further consideration of the statutory amendments that might be appropriate to the overcrowding provisions in the Housing Act 1966, with a view to their inclusion in the next Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill.".

I thank Deputies Casey and Cowen for bringing forward this Bill, which allows us to discuss how we can tackle cases of severe overcrowding. Such cases arise particularly from the actions of a small number of unscrupulous landlords. Instances of gross overcrowding, while relatively rare, are utterly unacceptable and we all wish to find solutions that will prevent them.

While I generally agree with the intention behind the Bill, I am seeking support to defer its Second Reading for three months so that further work can be done to determine how we can further enhance the quality and standards of properties available in the rental sector and prevent overcrowding situations. I understand Deputy Casey has met the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, to discuss the matter and that Deputy Casey is happy to accept a three-month deferral. We are engaged in a genuine effort to work together on these issues. Like the Deputy, and as reflected in Rebuilding Ireland, this Government is committed to the provision of safe and quality homes for our citizens, as well as the reform of the rental sector.

The Bill as drafted applies to all housing, including owner-occupied properties, social housing and the rental sector, which means the impact is broader than may have been intended. The further time I am seeking will facilitate further consideration of the issues raised by the Bill and the inclusion of proposed amendments to the overcrowding provisions in the Housing Act 1966 in the general scheme of the residential tenancies (amendment) Bill that is expected to be submitted to Government for approval in December. We would like the issue of overcrowding considered in tandem with the amendments we will be progressing in that Bill, which will include other important reforms to the rental sector. The Minister said during the debate in July that we would have another rental Bill coming later in the year. I am sure we will have a lengthy discussion in the House on those proposals.

Like Deputy Casey, I understand the need to update the provisions in Part IV of the Housing Act 1966 to reflect modern standards and the changes to living patterns in recent years. The Deputy asked about the number of prosecutions that have been made under that legislation. I do not have that information to hand but I suspect he is not far off the mark in his estimation. I will try to get those figures for him. The need to update the potential penalties for breaches of the overcrowding provisions is apparent and I agree with the proposals in the Bill in this regard. Gross overcrowding, where accommodation can contain many multiples of the numbers of occupants it is designed to hold, has obvious and potentially serious safety implications. Increasing the penalties for offences arising under Part IV of the 1966 Act is entirely appropriate in the context of those who exploit others in such a way in order to enrich themselves. However, the Bill as drafted does not give housing authorities greater powers to enforce the overcrowding standards. The provisions under sections 64 and 65 of the Housing Act 1966 provide for obligations to give particulars relating to a house to a

housing authority at its request by way of a notice. Where the authority sees fit, it can serve a notice on the owner specifying the maximum number and categories of persons who may occupy it, and non-compliance with such a notice is an offence. We need to examine what powers housing authorities require in this respect, particularly where there is a serious threat to life or to the health and well-being of the inhabitants. In those circumstances, the power to seek an immediate order of the court specifying the maximum number of people permitted to occupy, or ordering that the house be vacated, may be required. I understand there has been some consultation with a number of local authorities to determine how such provision might best be facilitated in legislation.

The definition of overcrowding proposed in the Bill is slightly unclear and needs to be tightened. The changes proposed to the age up to which people may share a room and the size standard of that room appear to have a range of unintended consequences for ordinary households and serious implications for many aspects of housing policy. We will be happy to work with the Deputy to clarify these matters. The Housing Act 1966 defines overcrowding as people of opposite genders sharing from age ten, except for adults in a relationship, and requires free air space of 1 1.33 cu. m per person. This equates to a floor space of 4.65 sq. m in a room with a standard ceiling height of 2.4 m, which would be a typical small box room that can fit a single bed. Having examined the complex space standards proposed, we conclude that while in certain instances they are an improvement, where they provide for more free air space for one person, they could also lead to a reduction in the minimum allowable free air space for two people when compared with the existing standards, building regulations and planning guidance.

Looking at the room standard as proposed in the Bill, a range of other issues quickly become apparent. Room sharing by opposite-sex siblings aged five to nine would amount to overcrowding and that is a significant policy change that has implications for the social housing sector in particular. The Deputy referred to the UK and Canadian models and the age brackets applicable in those instances. These are issues we can analyse further. Room sharing by more than two adults of any gender, no matter how big the room may be, would also be defined as overcrowding, again with serious potential implications for the rental sector. At present, where the room is large enough, more than two people of the same gender may occupy it. For example, three same-gender students can share a room. The new definition would categorise this as overcrowding and landlords would be expected to abide by the standards. This seems to me to be an unintended consequence of the provision in the Bill. In some cases, such sharing configurations are appropriate and do not constitute permanent family living.

The Bill as drafted would also rule out a visitor over five years of age sharing a room with two others, even for one night. As such, a situation where several children are having a sleep-over might constitute overcrowding under the definition proposed. I am sure this is not the intention of the provision but it might cause difficulties of interpretation with the legislation. Another significant impact of the final part of the space standard proposed in section 2 is that many currently acceptable dormer bedrooms would not meet the new standard.

The Bill's definition of overcrowding would also have implications for housing delivery. On a basic level, it would mean that a greater number of units, and, within that, a higher proportion of larger units, would be required within the national housing stock to house existing households. This would worsen the gap between available and required stock. While the intention may be good, we must consider the types of housing we will be bringing forward. There would be additional implications for those current social housing occupants who, under the new definition, would be expected to move to larger local authority houses due to family size and composition. Some households accommodated through the housing assistance payment scheme would have to source larger dwellings. All of this would significantly add to the cost of social housing provision. There are implications, too, for immediate stock availability. Again, the intentions are positive but we must bear in mind the consequences. In many towns, it is difficult to find four or five-bedroom houses for larger households. In some cases, six or seven bedrooms are needed and local authorities are often required to be imaginative in finding solutions for large families. The data show that a significant portion of homeless families are also large families. The Bill's provisions might further complicate that difficulty. We need to analyse the requirements for existing tenants while also keeping in mind the requirement to find homes for those who need them urgently.

The increased use of inspection and-or notice powers under the 1966 Act and the strengthening of enforcement powers associated with overcrowding as currently defined will support housing authorities in tackling instances of serious overcrowding in a more robust manner. This should achieve the aim of reducing the incidence of overcrowding in the rented sector more effectively than amending the definition. There is an issue in terms of the increased resources and personnel required to follow up and implement a more robust regime. In fairness, some local authorities are leading the charge in this regard and already have high rates of inspection. In other cases, the inspection rates are quite low.

By 2021, all local authorities are expected to meet a national standard such that 25% of all houses in the private rental market will be inspected every year. This will mean that in a four-year cycle, all private rental properties will be inspected. It has been noted that where inspection rates are high, the incidence of discovery of poor living situations also tends to be high. That is because inspections are generally targeted and based on information collected. One would expect to find issues in such cases. This type of targeted inspection is not ideal. Instead, we are seeking to be more proactive in having a regime where 25% of properties are inspected automatically every year.

Increased resources were allocated for that last year and this year in order to get us to that level by 2021. We would all agree that we would like to get there more quickly if we can. Many local authorities to whom I talk are aware that this has to be carried out. They understand they have a duty to do this. I accept it is not the case that they all do so. Again, it is an issue of resources and time for some but we will work with them to get to that level.

With all of this in mind, it is our intention to bring forward amendments to the 1966 Act in the next residential tenancies Bill. These will achieve the goal of Deputies Casey and Cowen without the potential negative consequences, many of which I have outlined. There may be issues as we go through it. I understand that when legislation is drafted there can be side-effects or unintended consequences. I am assuming that is the case, as I have mentioned. While the general intention behind the Bill is acknowledged, the Government proposes to defer the reading of the Bill for three months to facilitate further consideration of the issues raised and the inclusion of proposed amendments to the overcrowding provision in the Housing Act 1966 and in the pending residential tenancies (amendment) Bill. I understand Deputy Casey is accepting our amendment. I acknowledge that. Very often when we have discussions such as this we ask for six or seven months and people do not believe we will come back and do anything about it. In this case, we genuinely want to find solutions. There is some positive stuff in the Bill, with which we would agree. I have outlined some of it. I hope we can bring in some of the needed changes in the months ahead.

See this speech in context