Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett and his colleagues for bringing forward the Bill. I do not question their motives or bona fidesin this matter. We have debated and discussed it. I will go through the matters in the Bill.

It was clear yesterday that we are considering the legal and policy issues right now. We have not just started doing that. Any extension of the eviction ban period is complex. We have to consider the context. Since 2016, 10% of private tenancies have been lost, comprising 44,000 units in total. That is a very serious issue and we have to examine why it is happening.

We are in the process of carrying out a full review of the rental sector by doing a deep dive in that space. I am a firm believer in the provision of social housing, something which I will turn to momentarily. However, we also need a functioning private rental sector. We have genuinely to make sure that the measures that are taken do not lead to further flight and a reduction in stock and housing capacity as we are building up the stock on the other side. That is important. I will deal with supply in a moment.

No decision has been made. The Cabinet will discuss the issues involved and reach a final decision in the coming weeks. We will do that in a very responsible way, based on legal advice. I am a Deputy representing Dublin Fingal. I constantly meet people in my constituency, and right across the country, who are struggling in the private rental market. This is not a new phenomenon. It is a very difficult issue with which to grapple. I welcome Heather to the Gallery, and know the difficulties faced by Heather and other people. The fundamental solution to this is to increase the supply and delivery of social, private and affordable homes. We do not do that in one year of a plan.

We are making progress. While Deputy Smith may not want to hear that, that is okay, but I will outline some of the progress that has been made. It is not enough and we need to scale it up and make sure we continue the protections for tenants that are in place. We are now engaged in detailed discussions with the Office of the Attorney General on the legal considerations of such an extension. As I said, these discussions will inform any Cabinet decision that will be made on the matter.

It is also important to note that there is no cliff edge in the eviction moratorium period. The current law does not end on 31 March. It has been deliberately designed to avoid a sudden removal of emergency protections. The ban, as currently constructed, will be lifted on a phased basis until about 18 June. There is no cliff edge in that space.

I have looked through the Bill. I want to highlight a couple of matters. As currently drafted, there are some significant difficulties with the Bill. This is not a criticism; rather, it is based on my reading and our consideration of the Bill. Unlike the current winter eviction ban, there is no graduated time for notices to quit already served to fall effective, which could mean a significant number would fall due on the same date whenever the proposed emergency period ends, which is after 12 months, should the Bill pass. This would ultimately create a significant cliff edge which could potentially overwhelm services. It is not designed in the same way as the current law. The Bill has a significant cliff edge.

It does not allow for termination in the cases overcrowding of rental property. This is a very difficult issue. Deputies have raised this issue in the House. Following local authority inspections, properties have been deemed unfit and have been closed, resulting in tenants having to move out as a safety measure. Fundamentally, that process is to protect the tenant. The Bill does not allow for termination in cases of overcrowding. Landlords must comply with local authority directions where overcrowding may pose a fire hazard or a health and safety risk. Unfortunately, we have seen some cases of that in the media. It is difficult to make a decision, but fundamentally people's safety and health are critically important.

The current eviction ban has been carefully calibrated to limit interference with constitutional property rights. That is not taking one side or the other; rather, it is about making sure that any law we bring forward is not subject to a challenge or, more importantly, would not lose a challenge. Anything we pass here could potentially be subject to a challenge, but we want to make sure that the legislation we bring forward and pass is robust enough to stand up to such a challenge.

Unlike the current legislation, the proposed protections in the Bill do not extend to former tenants who are over holding and remain in occupancy of a property despite their former tenancy being lawfully terminated with a termination date prior to the winter emergency period. I understand what Deputies have said, but that is a legal weakness in the Bill they have put forward which could be subject to a successful challenge.

See this speech in context