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

First, I thank Deputy Bacik for bringing forward this Bill. The Social Democrats will support this Bill's passage to Committee Stage as there are many positive measures in the Bill. That is, of course, if the Government majority on the committee actually allow time for this to be scrutinised on Committee Stage. No time to date has been allocated and given to Opposition or Government backbencher Bills on Committee Stage yet. It is welcome that the Government is letting these Bills go forward to the Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage but if the majority on the committee do not allocate time we will not be able to get to this Bill and we need to get to it.

There are a number of weaknesses in the Bill to which I would like to table amendments on Committee Stage and I hope the Labour Party and Deputy Bacik would support those at that time. There are a few points that are missing in the Bill which could be dealt in other legislation but which could also be dealt with in this Bill and I want to draw attention to those.

The Minister of State in his comments referred to rent controls and the need for them to be effective. The current rent controls link to inflation, which is now running at 3% and could well go to 4%, which means these are not effective measures when we have the highest rents in Europe in this capital city, as well as some of the highest in the country. We saw yesterday, with the Tánaiste’s comments, where he really reveals that he does not understand. He understands the pressure that some landlords are under but does not seem to understand the pressure that tenants are under. This is not an equal situation, which is not to dismiss the pressures that some landlords are under. Tenants are worried about losing their home, about being evicted and about becoming homeless. Some tenants, who are paying 50% to 60% and even more of their income on rent are worried about how they could possibly afford a further rent increase. It is not the same situation that tenants are in. Yes, we have to be mindful of the pressures that all are under but there is a very significant power imbalance in this regard and Deputy Bacik was right to mention that power imbalance between tenants and landlords.

Let us be clear about this Bill on one particular point. This Bill, despite what the proposers say, will not remove all grounds for no-fault evictions. It will remove some of them and that is welcome and I support that but it does not remove no-fault evictions.

What is a no-fault eviction? If we got rid of no-fault evictions, that would mean that someone who is renting and is paying their rent, is in compliance with their tenancy agreement, could not be evicted. This Bill falls significantly short of doing that and I will be tabling amendments on Committee Stage to improve and strengthen it in that regard.

The renters need security of tenure and protection against rent increases, evictions and about their deposits. Losing one’s deposit may make getting another tenancy very difficult for people who cannot afford another deposit and puts them at risk of homelessness. Rents have almost doubled over the past decade, have become unaffordable and an entire generation is trapped in renting. Many of these renters would like to be able to buy their own home.

The security of tenure provisions in this Bill are particularly important because when someone is renting, as others have said, this is their home and it is not simply a rental property, an income, or where they get their pension or a return from, which is what it may be for a landlord. For the person living there it is their home. It is where they make friends with their neighbours, settle in to a community, and where their kids go to school and get involved in the GAA club. When they get evicted and sometimes have to move out of their communities, they have to start everything from scratch again. They may have had a child, as I said before, who has had a difficulty settling in to school, such as with a learning difficulty which has been worked through with the teachers and the schools to get the resources and supports in place. They can be uprooted from all of that when they are evicted. We have to recognise when people are renting that this is their home. The Bill does not go far enough in terms of creating that balance.

For example, it is good that the tenancies of indefinite duration would be brought in, as the Government have also committed to. It is good that the sale of properties as grounds for eviction will be removed. But there are not sufficient measures in section 10 in respect of refurbishing the property. They are insufficient and I have significant concerns about these as they are too weak and are potentially open to abuse and fundamentally do not recognise that this is the tenant’s home and that they should have a say as to any measures or renovations. They should definitely have a say if it means that they are potentially going to be evicted from their home. There have been a significant number of evictions using these grounds spuriously. That power imbalance between tenants and landlords should not be open to abuse.

I am also concerned about section 11 of this Bill in respect of an eviction being used to make way for a family member of the landlord. It is welcome that the measures proposed here are an improvement and they narrow the grounds for that but it still leaves this open to abuse and still does not recognise that this is the tenant’s home. This could be somewhere that the tenant is renting for years and where they celebrate their birthdays and family events. Leaving in grounds that landlord representatives fought for to get into the Bill 20 years ago, albeit reduced, does not create the kind of power balance that we need between landlords and tenants or introduce a removal of all no-fault evictions, which is what we have in place in most other northern European countries and what we should have here.

I want to mention two things that could be dealt with in this Bill that are not. There is a need for a deposit protection scheme. There is legislation already in place since 2015 to allow for that but it has not been implemented and should be. The latest figures from the Residential Tenancies Board show that 27% of disputes and complaints are around deposits and yet since 2015 we have had legislation for that but the Government has not implemented it, nor had the previous Government, or indeed had the Government before that either. It is all well and good having the legislation on the books but we need implementation of it.

Another area that is missing from this Bill is in respect of no evictions into homelessness, which is a very important part for renters. This should be in this Bill and in anything when we are talking about renters. There should not be a situation where people can be evicted into homelessness. That requires the State to step up more to provide supports and alternatives to evictions into homelessness but renters should be able to expect, at a minimum, that they will not be evicted into homelessness.

The measures in respect of pets in the Bill are important and are serious. I know that people who do not have pets may not realise the importance of those. I am concerned again that the wording in the Bill is not strong enough on this. There should not be any grounds or possibilities for blanket bans on pets. There are, of course, issues in respect of pets and they need regulation. There can be issues around noise and barking dogs and so forth, but there should not be blanket bans on pets.

I welcome this Bill and support it going on to Committee Stage. The Social Democrat will be tabling a number of amendments on which we will be looking for support on Committee Stage to strengthen the Bill.

See this speech in context