Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE) | Oireachtas source

These are crucial amendments. Amendments tabled by members of other parties would have a similar effect in terms of ensuring this aspect of the legislation does something meaningful for those who are facing 8% rent increases, rather than just pretending to do something meaningful. I will tell the Minister about Jane, who came to me more than a month ago regarding the €160 a month rent increase she was facing, bringing her rent to €2,140 a month, an increase of almost 8%. She lives with her kids in an extremely ordinary house in Tallaght.

I know her because she was previously in the homeless hub at Abberley Court and was involved in organising the homeless people there, overwhelmingly women, into a very effective campaigning group. It took her a long time to get a place, under the HAP scheme, but she finally has somewhere. She is not one of the people who signed a form, because she does not qualify to do so. She is not one of the 500 and now, coming out of the pandemic, she is faced with an 8% rent increase.

I first raised Jane's case with the Tánaiste and subsequently with the Taoiseach. I was told something would be done to make sure this type of thing does not happen. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, we were told, will do something about it. When I said to Jane that her landlord might back off, she replied, "Not my landlord, he will not be backing off". He will go ahead and look for the 8% increase, which she cannot afford to pay. My point is that what the Minister is doing in this Bill will not affect the vast majority of renters in the State. They may all still be subject to 8% rent increases. In the case of the few hundred people who are protected, they may be subject to 12% rent increases next year. Our amendment No. 15 would deal with that by specifying that landlords cannot accumulate rent increases that were not imposed during the pause on such increases and seek to get them all back later on. They do not get to impose the 4% increase per year they were prevented from imposing during the pause. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, and I am not shocked that he is indicating he will not, then he is not doing much at all for those people. He is just pretending to do something and, in the flurry of announcements on housing, hoping people will think, "Oh well, something was done." There are many people affected by this and they will realise the Government did not take any significant action.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to extend the freeze or ban on evictions. We have seen the figures showing that, in the course of the pandemic, more than 1,000 households were issued with eviction notices. We will see, or we certainly are very likely to see, a significant number of eviction notices coming forward in the next number of months. I am aware that a number of constituents I have been dealing with have received eviction notices for August, September and October. There potentially will be thousands of such notices going out at a time when the Government is cutting the pandemic unemployment payment. We are being told the economy will take off like a rocket but, in the meantime, rents are going through the roof. People are facing cuts to the PUP and many of them will not be able to afford an 8% increase in their rent. As Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned earlier, almost 1% of the population has been homeless in recent years. How many more people are going to be added to the list as a result of the Government's failure to protect them?

This is a simple amendment to extend the ban on evictions. In refusing to accept it, is the Minister making a case that it is unconstitutional? He has shaken his head to indicate that is not the case, which is interesting. If he is not hiding behind the claim the amendment is unconstitutional, which I do not accept it is, then I ask that he accept it. I am interested to hear his reasoning for not doing so.

See this speech in context