Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I agree with People Before Profit to the extent that we do not want there to be an avalanche of evictions at any particular time and certainly not now. Some continuation of the eviction ban the Government brought in in the Residential Tenancies (Deferment of Termination Dates of Certain Tenancies) Act 2022 may be required. However, I cannot support this Bill for several reasons. The Bill, as drafted, basically says the Government may extend the emergency period for such a period as it considers appropriate. If it is trying to tie the hands of the Government on one hand and then giving it complete power to determine the length of the emergency period on the other, it is counterproductive. The other problem is that it seeks to add licences to tenancies and treat them similarly. Those are two very different things. Licences are established so as not to give people legal rights, in particular the rent a room scheme. We need to be careful that in prescribing what a landlord or licensor may do, we do not disincentivise people from availing of the rent a room scheme. If you take somebody into your home, which is what the rent a room scheme is about, and there is a fundamental breakdown in the relationship with that person in your home, not in a tenancy in a separate property, and you cannot do anything about it, people are not going to avail of the scheme. I fear that would be counterproductive.

As I said, I agree that we need to extend some type of protection, but with regard to the type of protection we have at the moment, there are issues I wish to raise about the grounds on which a termination is currently permitted. Ground 1, 1A and 2 are grounds that a tenancy can continue to be terminated notwithstanding the eviction ban. I proposed an amendment to ground 4, which, notwithstanding the importance of this issue, was not reached at the time because not enough time was allowed by the Government - while it may not be individual Ministers, it is the Government that ultimately determines whether to impose a guillotine - and a guillotine was imposed on this important Act. The amendment would have included the wording "the landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family" It is not a carte blanchebecause it is necessary to swear a statutory declaration about the intended occupant's identity, the expected duration of occupation and that the landlord is required to offer a tenancy to the tenant if the person supposed to take occupation of the dwelling does not do so or if he or she does not take it for the period of time envisaged.

Of course, we must make sure that provision is not abused, but I am glad to note the Taoiseach said that this is imposing a hardship. If people come back from abroad or they are accidental landlords and they need to take up a house they own, they should be able to do so, or if they purchased it initially for a family member and that family member is now effectively homeless, they should be able to move into that house. I know the argument against that is it is making one person homeless to provide a home to the owner of the property or their family members, but private property has to mean something. There has to be some advantage to owning a property. There is a narrative out there that private property and ownership of private property are somehow immoral. I do not agree with that. While I agree largely with the Opposition that we need to extend the duration of protection for tenants, we need to do so in a way that is not counterproductive. As it stands, accidental landlords will not rent out their properties.

See this speech in context