Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge that a significant amount of work has gone into this Bill and that there are some aspects of Part 3 that will be useful. There has been a great deal of mixed messaging in the lead up to the Bill, though. There was more today in the Minister's speech relating to the public health aspect. We have been told on the one hand that there is a significant public health risk of evicted renters potentially moving into overcrowded accommodation and, on the other, that we are moving out of the public health emergency and into economic recovery. We need clarity. Are we in a public health emergency or is the Government asserting that we are exiting it? Outside this Bill, it seems clear that the Government's messaging, and correctly so, is that we are in a public health emergency. The reason we are in the Convention Centre Dublin and spaced so far apart is because we are in a public health emergency. The reason for the measures that people are living with every day is because we are in a public health emergency. When it comes to renters' rights in the private rented residential sector, however, we are being told that we are moving out of a public health emergency. At the same time, the Minister has acknowledged that renters being evicted could create public health risks by them moving into overcrowded accommodation. We need to have some consistency on public health messaging from the Government.

There has been some mixed messaging in respect of the Bill. Initially, the Minister informed people that there would be an extension until October. Subsequently, he stated that the rent freeze would be extended. In the past couple of days, much of the media coverage on the Bill referred to the eviction freeze being extended to January for those who self-declare and gave the impression that all evictions will be banned for tenants who are able to self-declare even though that is not the case.

We know that if a tenant self-declares, he or she cannot be evicted on rent arrears but can be evicted on all of the other grounds.

It is very important that the mixed messaging on this is dealt with. If not, it is only going to lead to more confusion. It will mean that if this Bill is passed, we are going to have more and more people getting in touch with us, people who thought they were protected, had made a self-declaration and would not be evicted but who then receive a notices to quit and eviction notices.

I have a number of difficulties with this Bill. Most tenants are excluded from the main provisions of the Bill and rent increases and evictions generally will resume for most tenants within the next few days at the start of August.

I have a particular difficulty that front-line workers, many of whom are on low pay and kept essential services running during the pandemic, will not necessarily receive any protection. It is not the case that those most vulnerable or most affected by Covid-19 will receive protection. Everybody, to a lesser or greater degree, has been affected by Covid-19. Front-line workers who have been under additional pressure will not necessarily receive protection here. They have not been on a Covid-19-related payment or may have not been out of work but they may well be on low pay and they will not receive protection. Indeed many vulnerable tenants, who will not have been on a Covid-19 payment, will not receive any protection under this Bill and there are significant issues with that.

There are issues with the whole self-declaration process outlined in the Bill. This is going to hit vulnerable tenants. In particular, it is going to hit tenants with literacy issues, of whom we know there is a significant number. It is also going to hit some migrant tenants for whom English is not necessarily their first language, who may not have access to public information around this and who already feel vulnerable as to the power imbalance with landlords.

The penalties for getting a self-declaration wrong are going to put some people off making one, people who could legitimately make a self-declaration, and this will scare some of them away. This will cause general confusion as to what protections are in place and for whom and what declaration are in place for people who make self-declaration. This will create a level of conflict between some landlords and tenants as there will be misunderstandings in that regard.

This Bill is going to do probably the one thing that we do not need in the private rented residential sector which is to introduce more loopholes and complexities. That is probably the last thing the sector needs.

A key test for good legislation is that it is clear, transparent, simple and easy for people to follow and understand. If we apply that a key test to this legislation, it fails dismally. We have seen to date that misunderstandings have occurred in the media commentary on this Bill. If the people who are taking a close look at this Bill are under some level of confusion as to how it is going to operate, how will that apply to tenants who will not necessarily have that detailed look at it or a background in the understanding of complex legislation? We know that from other changes in the private residential sector over the years that it can take a number of months and, indeed, years for those changes to bed in and for people to get a wide understanding of how they apply. We are going to have those kind of difficulties with this legislation if it passes.

As other Deputies said, this Bill will drive more people into homelessness. I understand the Minister and the Department’s constitutional concerns. Legal advice has been sent to the Minister by the Simon Communities of Ireland in which Siobhán Phelan SC noted that the circumstances of the public health crisis which led to the introduction of the Emergency Measures in Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 are still with us and the public health advice is replete with references to a second surge, that it seems clear from the public discourse that regional spikes are anticipated and that if this is the case, then there should be sufficient justification available for the Legislature to introduce a new power to extend the moratorium either on a delegated basis or by way of primary legislation.

There is contrary legal advice that there are other options available to the Minister.

In addition to that, there are a number of missed opportunities in the Bill. There are two things the Minister could have done with this Bill that would have made a very significant difference to renters and to addressing homelessness. It is important to acknowledge that the emergency legislation has been successful in that regard. There are multiple reasons for that, but one of the reasons there has been a reduction in homelessness is because of the additional measures and protections afforded to renters. The first missed opportunity is that the Minister could have brought forward legislation for tenancies of indefinite duration, to which he said he is committed. I note his recent comments about incentivising tenancies of indefinite duration. That should apply to all tenancies. The five years and six months limit on tenancies should be removed and tenancies of indefinite duration should be brought in across the board.

The second missed opportunity is that the Minister could have brought forward legislation to limit the grounds for eviction and to remove the provision of vacant possession from evictions and notices to quit. That would be a very effective measure. We know, not just from the research done by the homeless organisations but also from data from the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, that more than 75% of notices to quit and evictions are given to tenants on the grounds of vacant possession, either for sale or because the landlord or a family member wishes to move into the property market. We also know that more than 200 enforcement cases are being taken by the RTB where there is a suspicion that landlords are citing those grounds on a bogus basis. We know there is substantial evidence of abuse of those grounds and that the result of not removing vacant possession from the grounds will be more tenants evicted into homelessness.

There is a very high cost to evictions. There is both the social and the human cost but there is also a high economic cost. We know that evicting people into homelessness is much more costly than preventing homelessness. We know also from research that victims of home loss experience feelings of painful loss and continued longing that can lead to depression, symptoms of psychological and social distress and a sense of helplessness. We know that there are particularly negative consequences for children in the loss of home, and the experience of homelessness can arise from that. We know from a study of 22,000 households in Sweden that those who have lost their home where a landlord had applied for an eviction were, sadly, four times more likely to die by suicide.

The private rented sector, as a tenure and a sector, is broken in many respects. There is mistrust between landlords and tenants in many cases. There are loopholes that are exploited. There is a power imbalance between the person who is renting and whose home it is and the landlord who owns the property. I believe there is a level of fear in the sector that many tenants and landlords experience. Tenants are afraid of getting a landlord who will exploit loopholes, will not give them back their deposit or could issue them with a notice to quit at any period on the multiple grounds for notices to quit, at no fault of the tenant. A significant number of landlords fear getting tenants who will not pay their rent and may cause further difficulties for the landlord, which happens also. Underpinning those fears and problems in the sector is that, traditionally, regulation of the sector has been weak.

We need a stable, secure and well-regulated private residential sector which gives certainty to both tenants and landlords and where there is good security of tenure and good support for both tenants and landlords. That should be our long-term vision for the sector. Unfortunately, this Bill does not bring us significantly closer to that. Unfortunately for most tenants, the private rented sector is not a tenure of choice. It is for a small category of tenants, such as those on high incomes who might be international workers living in Ireland for a number of years, but unfortunately, for most other people it is a tenure of last choice.

That is partly because of the lack of sufficient affordable housing, including cost rental and social housing. It is partly because the sector is not sufficiently well established. More than 20 years ago the Commission on the Private Rented Residential Sector envisioned moving towards a sector in which many people would feel secure renting for the long term. That vision has not been realised because of the many loopholes in the legislation and the lack of long-term tenancies. A renter should be able to feel that the property is his or her home and will remain so for the years to come, so he or she can plan ahead, get involved in the community and choose a school for his or her children. That allows people to put down roots, which is good for them, their families and their children. That long-term stability is also good for the wider community.

We should achieve the situation in other countries, where tenants can remain in a property if it is sold. It is incredibly destructive for someone to have to move out of his or her home and possibly move to another area, with all the attendant stress and hassle, especially if the property is then rented again. That should not be necessary. We should be providing the protections that are the norm in other jurisdictions. Fundamental to this is recognising that a property is not just a rental unit but a person's home and understanding everything that goes with that.

I want to touch on the research of the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, of which there is media coverage today. Front-line workers in lower-paid and less secure professions are among the most essential to the economy, particularly during the pandemic. The ESRI analysis shows that they face the highest risk of severe outcomes from Covid-19 infection. They face worse health outcomes, more severe illness and the possibility of hospitalisation and mortality. They have a higher incidence of underlying conditions. We are talking about carers, people who work in meat plants, cleaners and migrant workers. These are the very people who are over-represented in the private rental sector. Many of these front-line workers will not receive any protections from this Bill. Where is the public health analysis behind this Bill and the analysis of its impact on homelessness? Is there any serious analysis of this kind? If there is, the Minister might share it with us. I do not see it at the moment. This Bill is complex, is full of loopholes, has a limited use, ignores the fact that we are still in a pandemic and passes over the fact that everybody has been affected by Covid-19. It effectively seeks to introduce two sets of rules within the private rental sector. I am not sure of the legal justification for that. I will be tabling several amendments to strengthen the Bill.

There are three things on which we should reflect with respect to this Bill, and which the Government and the Minister in particular should consider. First, front-line workers have been absolutely invaluable to this country, running essential services throughout the pandemic. Many of them will not receive protections under this Bill. Evictions and rent increases will resume for a large cohort of essential though low-paid front-line workers. That must be considered. I do not think it reflects the will of this House, and I certainly do not think it reflects the will of the Irish people. The second important point is that this Bill will resume evictions into homelessness from the private rented residential sector. We know that in most cases, failure to pay rent is not why people are evicted into homelessness. This Bill fails that test. Third, when we talk about evicting more people into homelessness from the private rental sector, we should remember the reports of five people who have died in homelessness services in recent days.

Substantial cuts have been made to community health teams working with homeless people. Specifically, there have been cuts of 13% in funding to mental health community teams over the past two years, which is utterly unacceptable during a pandemic, when people are under increased stress, and especially as this Bill will allow evictions into homelessness to resume.

Will the Minister address that point? The provisions are funded by the Health Service Executive and the Minister's Department would not deal with this directly but it is the responsibility of his Government. The vital work done by community mental health teams needs to be supported, and if anything the funding should be increased instead of cut. There would be no support from the public for such cuts and a number of people have contacted me, aghast that the Government and this House approved a €16,000 salary increase for some Ministers of State at a time when there has been a 13% cut in funding community mental health teams that work directly with homeless people. I urge the Minister and the Government to address that matter in particular. I thank Members for listening to my contribution.

See this speech in context