Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We can engage in semantic discussion about language, but what the 20% of the country who are now living in private rental accommodation want to see is action on this issue. We in the Labour Party have very much welcomed it when the Government has taken action, albeit belatedly, such as with the winter eviction ban.

However, we do not think this action has been enough. We have called for a three-year freeze on rents, which is a crucial policy that should be brought in by the Government. Caps in rent pressure zones have simply not been sufficient to address the significant increases in rents we saw in yesterday's daft.iereport, notwithstanding that cap. We also want to see greater protection for tenants against mass evictions. I welcome the Taoiseach's comments on that. How can we stand over a provision in section 35A that allows companies such as Hazelwood Walk Holdings Limited, the company at issue in Rathmines, to claim undue hardship? Why is the undue hardship of a property company more important than the undue hardship that tenants, renters and, in many cases, families, face, if they are trying to find new accommodation in the face of an eviction notice? What determines market value and how is it assessed in this scenario? How does the property company know that it will lose 20% of market value? As legislators, how can we stand over legislation that allows them to claim that and put 20 households out of a home, once the winter eviction ban has concluded?

See this speech in context