Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 11 to 14, inclusive, and 21 are related and will be discussed together.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 20, to delete “2023” and substitute “2024”.

The eviction ban, or the deferment of termination dates for certain tenancies, to be more accurate, is a belated concession on the part of the Government to the long-standing demand of many of us here in the Opposition that it should ban no-fault evictions at least for the duration of the housing emergency. It should be noted that the Dáil declared an emergency in housing, again, in response to pressure, most notably the Raise the Roof demonstration that happened in 2018. A housing emergency was declared. That housing emergency is very much still with us. In fact, it has very considerably worsened, and the number of people being evicted into homelessness has increased. It is our view, therefore, that a ban on people being evicted into homelessness when they have done nothing wrong should last at least until the housing emergency is over. We think that is constitutionally sound. It is the fact of an emergency that deals with any concerns that there might be about the constitutionality of such an eviction ban. Just in the same way as unprecedented measures could be taken during the Covid emergency, the housing emergency is something all of us have accepted exists. Therefore, extraordinary measures are justified, in my view. I think any fair-minded person would say that the Constitution allows, in those circumstances, for action to be taken in the interests of the common good.

This amendment is proposing that as an absolute minimum, the ban on evictions should be for at least a year. Indeed, we would say that beyond that it should be for the duration of any emergency, but for at least a year. Otherwise, we are going to be back to where we were before the ban in the summer, starting at the end of March 2023, at the end of the emergency period in this legislation. By June, any protections that it affords will be gone and evictions will restart. The Government has helpfully identified the numbers that might be homeless just during this emergency period, which is well over 2,000 people. That gives us an indication of the scale of the problem. We think the ban should be longer. We also think it should be more comprehensive. I do not even know whether we will get to most of the amendments in the time that is available to us. In fact, we will not get to most of them.

When this legislation was published last week, we and others immediately pointed out that it does not afford the protection from the possibility of eviction to all those who deserve that protection. If you have already passed the date for the termination of your tenancy and you are overholding, this Bill will not protect you. To cite one example, and I am sure others will cite their examples, there is a working couple in my area with two children, who passed the date for the termination of their tenancy on grounds of sale last Friday week. They have nowhere to go from a house that the family has lived in since the 1950s. They were born in the house, yet they are being evicted by a landlord who has multiple properties and they have nowhere to go. They are trying everything. They are over the income threshold so the council is humming and hawing about the possibility of buying the tenancy. That is something that also needs to be addressed. Just because you are over the threshold does not mean you do not face the prospect of being homeless. The council should step in and secure this family's tenancy by buying that property. At the very least, families like that, who are overholding - and there are many of them - should be protected by this ban and they are not. I would like the Minister to respond to that and explain why that is the case.

Before anybody whispers to the Minister that we cannot have retrospective legislation or something of that sort, I remind him that he did just that during the Covid eviction ban. Nobody could be evicted from their home, full stop. It was not a matter of a deferment of termination dates. Rather, nobody could be evicted. There is absolutely no fairness or reason not to protect people who are overholding. Most of the people who are overholding are doing so on the advice of the local housing department in any event. Those people go to the local housing department and say they are being evicted on grounds of sale having done nothing wrong. They ask for help and ask if there is social housing available, the answer to which is "No". They are told they are over the threshold or will be waiting 20 years. There is no emergency accommodation available. There is nowhere for such people to go. What does the council say? It advises tenants to overhold their tenancy. It happens informally but the Minister knows that is true. It is happening in every local authority housing department. Housing officials suggest that tenants overhold because something might become available in a few weeks or months. That is what happens. Those people should not be put in that position and the Bill should protect them. That protection should last the full duration of the housing emergency. The Government should use the intervening months to take the sort of measures that will mean we will not be hit with an avalanche of evictions next year.

We have proposed many solutions to the Minister this evening. We have encouraged the Government to buy up developer property on a bigger scale than we are doing now. It should buy up properties where people are threatened with eviction. I know others want to come in so I will finish on the following point. People who are over the thresholds but are faced with the possibility of homelessness should also be protected. Local authorities should be willing to step in and buy the properties in question. They do not have to be eligible for social housing. Someone who is over the threshold should be eligible for cost rental or affordable housing and, therefore, public funds should be available to purchase those houses as well. That should be done to prevent more people ending up in homelessness or emergency situations. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. Beyond that, I hope he will take up and respond to the points I have made about those who are not protected by this legislation.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I will keep my comments brief because I want to ensure that everybody gets an opportunity to talk to as many of the amendments as possible. As the Minister knows, Sinn Féin supports the Bill but there are a number of small changes that he can make to it today and tomorrow or that he can consider immediately afterwards.

My amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are a part of this group. The particular problem with the section of the Schedule those amendments seek to change is that if someone receives a notice to quit following the introduction of the legislation but their tenancy is of such a length that they would get, say, 196 or 224 days' notice, they do not get any additional protection from the legislation. I know from talking to the Minister's officials that there is a logic to that. Those who have shorter tenancies and, therefore, might be more vulnerable because of an inability to secure alternative private rental are getting more protection. There is logic and a rationale to that argument. The problem, however, is that it will be difficult, given what has happened in the private rental sector, even for those with 196 or 224 days' notice, to find alternative private rental properties by the new deferred notice dates in the two Schedules I am seeking to amend. That needs to be examined. The Minister needs to try to ensure we are not back here in April, realising that, in fact, there was a group of people who did not get any additional protection to what currently exists under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. I urge the Minister to consider that point.

In respect of Deputy Boyd Barrett's amendments, I also urge the Minister to consider some mechanism for those people whose due date falls before this legislation and, therefore, cannot be covered by it because it defers the due date, which has passed for those people. Is there some other mechanism whereby when dealing with an overholding dispute case and someone whose due date falls before the passage of the legislation, the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, can be given an additional level of discretion so where somebody genuinely cannot access emergency accommodation or alternative private rental, the board can give them at least some of the protections that are provided for those tenants whose due dates fall after the legislation? I appreciate that is beyond the immediate scope of the narrowly defined Bill. I had an amendment to that effect but it was ruled out of order. However, something could be done in that respect.

I appeal to the Minister to remove the overcrowding exemption. There is no requirement for it. I am taking a liberty here because we may not get to these amendments. The Minister's officials made it clear to us that this applies in only a small number of cases, and we appreciate that. However, with respect to large families, particularly Travellers, Roma and some African nationalities, the Minister introduced a measure which we supported in August 2021. He gave local authorities the opportunity to buy vacant four-bedroom homes because those large families, when they enter emergency accommodation, are the most difficult to move on. The Minister is providing the overcrowding exemption from the delay, which would mean a landlord could move to evict such people at the worst possible time. I see no reason for that exemption. I do not believe any argument was made for including it in his discussions with his officials. Perhaps it was more the case that no argument was made for not including it. That also creates a loophole. A small number of unscrupulous landlords may use that provision in the absence of, for example, a sale of property or other loophole.

When the Minister introduced a Covid-19-related ban on evictions, he issued a circular to local authorities. Local authority tenants get no protections from this Bill, nor do Travellers on local authority sites or other sites. He issued at that time a good circular to local authorities to say that they should follow the spirit of the ban to ensure that local authority tenants in similar circumstances were not in any way affected. I acknowledge the circumstances of this ban are slightly different but there needs to be some clarity and protection for local authority tenants and, in particular, for Travellers on local authority sites and on some unofficial sites on which local authorities may consider taking action over the emergency period. If those people are forced into it, they are the ones who spend longest in emergency accommodation and whose cases are the most difficult.

Those are the four areas about which I am appealing to the Minister. Even if he is not going to accept our amendments, he can take action on those points today, tomorrow and in the coming days to give those people the protections that other tenants are securing.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party very much welcomes the fact that the Government is moving to introduce the winter eviction ban or at least the deferment of termination dates. Many of us in opposition have been pressing for that for some time. I also support the amendments put forward in this grouping. At their most basic, what they seek to do is to ensure that an effective eviction ban will be in place for longer because the longer we can uphold the eviction ban legally and within the terms of the Constitution and the more we can limit the scope of any exemptions to it, the more households we can keep out of homelessness. Given there are now more than 10,500 homeless individuals, of whom 3,000 are children, it is clearly long past time we sought to address the Government's failed policy of over-reliance on the private rental sector, which is the underlying cause of the housing crisis. The Bill, while welcome, represents only a part of the overall package of measures needed to address the more long-term issues.

Like my colleagues, I am conscious that we have a shortened time in which to debate these amendments. The Labour Party has proposed amendments that seek to strengthen the protection for renters and limit the scope of exemptions to the eviction ban in the Bill. I am conscious we may not get to those amendments and I will not speak for long on this group of amendments because I want to ensure there is time for contributions on all the amendments. I support the amendments in this group. We are all conscious of the need to abide by the terms of the Constitution but nobody thinks the homelessness and housing crises will be addressed in the immediate term and, therefore, it makes sense to extend the timeframe for the application of the legislation. It would also give greater clarity to households and renters who are currently unclear about whether, and when, their notices to quit will take effect. The day after the Government made the announcement of its intention to introduce this legislation, I received correspondence, as many of us did, from renters in my constituency telling me it would give them breathing space. One renter told me that his family of three is facing a notice to quit that will take effect on 1 February. That notice to quit has been issued. He is hopeful that this legislation will provide him and his family with breathing space. Even with income available to them to pay up to €3,000 rent per month in the Dublin area, they simply cannot find any accommodation to rent. I know the Simon Community and others have pointed out the lack of any accommodation available in the Dublin area. There were 700 applications for one property my constituent sought to rent.

As he said, it is Lotto odds to try to get accommodation to rent now in Dublin. The Labour Party put forward the Residential Tenancies (Tenants Rights) Bill which would have addressed some of the issues here on a more long-term basis, in seeking to ensure greater security of tenure, that enhanced supports are available for those renting, and to limit the scope of exemptions to ensure that tenants cannot be evicted for spurious reasons. The Minister did not oppose the Bill at that point and indicated that he would support some of the provisions in it. I appeal to him again to ensure more protections for renters and ask that he would support us in moving this Bill forward further. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The Social Democrats are supporting this Bill and the amendments in this group. I have said to the Minister before that we really need to move away from these kinds of temporary and reactive measures in order to bring in long-term permanent reform into the private rental sector to give it stability. There have been 21 legislative changes in the sector since 2009 with piecemeal reforms and this will be the 22nd. That is not what we need to give the sector stability. We need permanent reforms and changes.

Let us be very clear, this legislation and what is happening in this country now simply would not happen in most European countries. It is not possible in most of Europe for renters who are paying their rent, who are upholding their end of the tenancy agreement, are not engaged in antisocial behaviour, to have their tenancy ripped to shreds and their home life completely upturned and destroyed because a landlord wants to sell the property. It is not possible. Legislation like this could not be brought in because there is a permanent ban on such evictions. That is a humane way of treating people and respecting their home life. The fact is that the value of a property is not just created by the owner of that property, but is created by the community around it, together with the public services, public investment and the public infrastructure that this State and society puts in with regard to roads, water, community facilities and everything else. The violence that is happening against people who are being evicted into homelessness now is not possible in most of Europe and should not be possible here.

I completely welcome that this Bill will provide temporary relief to some people who need it. Unfortunately there are others for whom it will not provide any protection and who will not benefit from this Bill. We need, however, to have that long-term permanent reform which will actually change the dynamic where people pay their rent, have a home and do not have to have that constant worry of what is going to happen to them and their children if they get an eviction notice.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Deputies for their contributions. At the outset I also want to thank all of the Deputies for their support for this very important legislation which needs to come in expeditiously and urgently. That is the reason for the truncated nature of the Committee and Remaining Stages, which the Members understand. I need to get this legislation into the Seanad and into law. I did not want to give too long a lead time in flagging it either because that could have other unintended consequences in signalling that something was happening, leading to a further flight.

There were a number of comments on a general basis and I will keep my remarks short, because I appreciate that people want to get to other amendments.

We actually had a good debate this morning on housing policy, on the provision of social homes at a scale that we have not seen in decades, as well as on the need to increase supply. The debate was also on the need to have a functioning private rental sector and to expand cost rental. Deputy Boyd Barrett and his colleagues brought forward that motion and I believe that the debate was a good one where we outlined the issues. I am not going to replay that debate by referring to what we said already, which is that we know we are delivering more stock this year.

I also want to address the notices to quit and the purchase of homes with tenants in situwho are HAP or RAS tenants. I have instructed all 31 local authorities to activate that function, with full devolved powers for these local authorities. They do not need to refer back to me for the purchase of those properties and I want them to do it. Since July we have seen that ticking up quite extensively. I will review that again early in the new year because it is a way of securing a home for people while we are building more social homes, with more people coming in and getting vacant social housing stock back into use.

I am also looking at measures we can take with larger properties and I inform Deputy Boyd Barrett that we try to pursue them where we can, to ensure that we are bringing that stock into use. I am for social and public housing, and for affordable housing, but I also want to ensure that we afford protection in an unprecedented time right now, where there are pressures on our emergency accommodation, for reasons that all of us are aware of. This ensures that we can give some breathing space while we expand those other programmes.

On the extension of the period itself, and specifically in respect of amendment No. 1, in any measures I bring forward, I must be and am acutely aware of their legality and constitutionality. I must also be aware of the impact that that could have on a private rental sector from which we are already seeing a substantial exit since 2016, as we were not providing the additional homes in that period, and in particular, social homes. We are catching up on that but that is going to take some time.

I know that Members have seen some public commentary regarding this legislation, because they have a particular interest in it. It has already been said by some that they intend to challenge it. I need to fully ensure, therefore, that the legislation we pass as an Oireachtas is robust and will withstand any potential challenge. That means that the measures we are taking have to be seen to be appropriate and proportionate for the time we are in right now. That is not to say that one could go broader, but I understand what the Members are suggesting in the amendment in respect of an extension of the date. Addressing Deputy Boyd Barrett's point, the last thing I want is that if we do something like that and have a situation where the legislation would be challenged, we would have an issue with the protections that we are trying to afford.

I will address amendment No. 1. I will not speak to the rest of the amendments as they are grouped. Should I speak to the rest of the amendments in this group, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now is the time to speak to them as they are grouped.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. While I am dealing with the amendment specifically, I will also deal with some of the points that have been raised. I will certainly look at a local authority circular, as raised by Deputy Ó Broin. I know, and the Deputy has acknowledged, that it is a different time and is a different measure we are taking. I am already engaged, however, with our local authorities on how social housing tenants who may fall into arrears are dealt with. This is by way of repayment plans and all of the various things we can use. We have been very careful in that regard, indeed as we also have been with HAP tenancies. If there is anything by way of further clarification, particularly in respect of our Traveller community, I will look at what instructions or a further circular we can issue.

Specifically on the extension of the date, I believe I have explained, to address Deputy Boyd Barrett, what my serious concern would be. We would be open to potential challenge and we would also have an impact, as Deputy Cian O'Callaghan has referred to, in another way in respect of the regulatory changes that have been made over a period of time. This is not the only reason people are exiting but we also need a functioning private rental sector. We need to ensure that what we do does not impact upon it.

I cannot accept amendment No. 1, nor amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 or 21, which propose to extend the duration of the winter emergency period and to push out the deferred termination dates which apply to relevant tenancy terminations affected by the Bill.

We made changes from 6 July of this year extending notice to quit periods for shorter tenancies and tenancies of less than three years, in particular. These changes were accepted by the House. Those changes have been made and we have good notice periods right the way through.

No one wants a situation, and I certainly do not, where we know the impact the shrunken rental market is having and the difficulties that tenants are experiencing in securing further tenancies. That is why we want to transfer people out of HAP tenancies, which we are doing. In September, the last full month for which we have figures, 600 new HAP tenancies were created in that period with Pathfinder teams in place. We are doing everything we can. We are also ensuring that we are purchasing homes with tenants in situwhere notices to quit are issued. I am active on that question every single day of the week. Where Deputies have instances where they believe that is not happening, or specific examples, I would ask them to bring them directly to me.

Deputies from across the House have been doing that. This is a relatively new initiative but we want to see it done. As was outlined on Second Stage and as I have already said, so I will not repeat my arguments, the Bill is calibrated to balance the rights of the tenant and the property owner. We cannot just disregard the rights of one in favour of the other. That is not feasible. Under this Bill, tenants facing notices of termination will receive protection to allow them to stay in situover the winter emergency period, which will allow time for housing supply to increase. I have also made changes with the local authorities in respect of retenanting, particularly with regard to shortening the retenanting period. In some local authority areas, it takes too long to get some of that stock, and even new stock, into use and to get people into those homes. I have seen that myself. I have issued a directive to local authorities in that regard. I want to put in place a new system that will speed up the process of doing up retenanted properties and of getting people into them and into new properties. I have written to every local authority chief executive in the last two weeks on that specific issue and I addressed it with them in the housing summits I held the week before last.

Section 1 defines the winter emergency period as running from the date of the Bill's enactment, which I hope to be 1 November, to 31 March 2023. As I have said, I cannot accept the amendment that proposes to push that out by a further year. The Bill seeks to reduce the burden on homelessness services and the pressure on tenants and the residential tenancies market itself during the coming winter months. The increasing number of people experiencing homelessness and the significant number of new presentations in that space are combining to create significant difficulties in the provision of emergency accommodation. That is for many reasons that we will all know and which were discussed earlier today. As a result of migration due to the war in Ukraine and other people seeking international protection, there are immense pressures on emergency accommodation. I do not want people to be in emergency accommodation for long periods and I am thankful that people are still exiting from it but we are entering into new contracts to provide further emergency accommodation while we increase our supply. This Bill gives us a period of time, some breathing space, to allow for that.

I cannot accept amendments Nos. 11 to 14 either. These also propose to push out the deferred termination dates. The table in section 2(3) of the Bill sets out how the deferred dates of relevant tenancy terminations will operate. These are staggered right up to 18 June 2023 to ensure there is no cliff edge at the end of the period, which would put unmanageable pressure on the private rental market and homelessness services. We must do everything we can and redouble our efforts in this period of time to provide more properties in that space. The timing also operates so as to provide proportionally greater protection to those tenants who have shorter termination periods, as Deputy Ó Broin referred to earlier. The aim is to provide additional time to those most in need of extra time to secure alternative accommodation. This legislation takes into account the very clear advice we received from the Attorney General and his office on enhancing those tenancy protections over the winter and carefully managing demand in the rental market after that period and right up to 18 June 2023.

I fully understand and respect the thrust of the contributions that have been made and of the amendments, particularly Deputy Boyd Barrett's amendment No. 1. However, that amendment would present difficulties in respect of this legislation. These protections are real and we need to get them in this week. I thank Deputies and parties for their support for this legislation but I cannot accept amendment No. 1.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to get onto the other amendments but the Minister did not really respond to the central argument. I heard the Irish Property Owners Association representatives humming and hawing on "Morning Ireland" when they were asked whether they were actually going to take legal action. They did not sound to me like they were going to take action because they do not have a very solid base for doing so. That is the truth. The association could not challenge the measures taken during the Covid pandemic and there is a very sound basis for such measures now. The Minister did not respond to this point but this House has declared an emergency. Is the Minister is now going to stand up and say that emergency is over? No serious person would because the housing emergency has got worse since everybody in this House, across the board, agreed that there was one. I do not believe anyone is suggesting the housing emergency has receded since this House said there was one. That is a basis on which to delimit property rights. Some people do not understand that this is provided for in the existing Constitution. Some want to bring such a provision into the Constitution but it is already there. I mention that for the sake of some of the social media trolls out there.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy get trolled?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all get trolled. The existing Constitution allows for a delimiting of the rights of private property holders in the interests of the common good. That is what we did during the Covid pandemic, what the Minister has done with his very limited rent controls and so on and what he is doing here. Given that this House has declared an emergency, there is a very sound basis for maintaining the ban on evictions until that emergency is over. That is constitutionally sound. I do not believe any judge would entertain an argument that this House does not have the right to declare an emergency and to say that emergency measures are therefore constitutionally justified. I will just say that.

We can deal with this on section 2, but the Minister did not comment on the people who are not covered under the Bill. Perhaps we will get to that on section 2 but I am worried we will not get that far. I refer to the people who are overholding, those who are already past their termination date. Those people will not be protected which means they could potentially face being evicted over the winter period. People whose termination dates have passed are every bit as deserving of the protections the Minister has accepted should apply for this period as others but they are not protected and could therefore be evicted. That needs to be addressed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Subject to being passed in the Dáil and Seanad, the legislation will take effect from 1 November and will apply to notices to quit issued from that date onwards. That is very clear in what we are doing. It is because of the potential for challenge that we crafted this Bill really carefully with the advice of the Attorney General and his office as to what would stand up to such a challenge. I believe this legislation would have a very good prospect of standing up to challenge but none of us can say that it will not be challenged. What I was trying to say to the Deputy earlier is that, if you extend----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I heard the Minister.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, the Deputy asked me again.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister can say it again.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have given the Deputy the answer already. Whether he likes it or not, we have to balance the rights and protections of the tenant and the rights of the property owner. This is a very significant short-term intervention to provide needed protections. I believe the balance has been struck correctly so that the legislation cannot be successfully challenged. This is not a silver bullet. There is no question of that. We know that we are living in absolutely extraordinary times not just in Ireland, but all across Europe. I do not want to replay the earlier debate on housing but, in this context, it is important to note that we are providing more social homes this year than we have in decades. We are increasing housing supply again, providing affordable homes and bringing back vacant homes. We need to do a lot more of that and I intend to do so. This period of time gives us some breathing space in that regard.

The Deputy mentioned those who are above limits or thresholds. I refer to people who are in receipt of the housing assistance payment, HAP, or in rental accommodation scheme, RAS, tenancies, tenancies supported by the State. Many people have been critical of the over-reliance on HAP over the years, as I was when I was on the other side of the Chamber. It is not sustainable to have so many people dependent on HAP.

That is why I have reduced the dependency on HAP over the last two years, since I have been Minister, and why we are increasing the building of permanent homes. We need to do that. I am open, where we can, to purchasing properties in order to bring them into public housing stock. We have been doing that.

While I do not want to delay as I know there are other amendments people want to get to, I would respectfully say to the Deputy that I have outlined the reasons I cannot accept the amendments in this grouping, and why I specifically cannot accept amendment No.1, which would extend the period of these further protections. Let us remember what we have all done as an Oireachtas since July. We have extended notice periods. This is the sixth or seventh piece of tenancy legislation we have brought in to further protect tenants since this Dáil came into being. We have responded to pressures in that regard and where there are urgent situations like this. I do not take initiatives like this lightly but we have to make sure they stand up, that they are constitutional and that they will not be challenged or overturned. I would not underestimate the potential challenges. Who knows? I am not willing to gamble on that. I want to bring in protections now that will see people through the winter period and will see many others right through to 18 June 2023. I will not say any more than that because I know people have other amendments they want to get to.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 3, 5 to 9, inclusive, 18 to 20, inclusive, 22 and 23 are related and may be discussed together.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, after line 31, to insert the following: “Grounds for termination by landlord

2.The Act of 2004 is amended—

(a) in the Table to section 34—

(i) by deleting paragraph 3, and

(ii) in paragraph 5, by substituting “, no reasonable measures can be taken to maintain the dwelling fit for human habitation during the refurbishment or renovation” for “in a way which requires the dwelling to be vacated for that purpose”,

and

(b) in section 35 by the substitution of the following for subsection (4):

“(4) In paragraph 4 of the Table the reference to a member of the landlord’s family is a reference to—

(a) a spouse or civil partner of the landlord, or

(b) a child (including a stepchild, foster child or adopted child) of the landlord.”.”.

The revised grouping seems to contain a huge number of amendments. I wish to speak in particular in support of the three amendments the Labour Party is putting forward, namely, amendments Nos. 3, 7 and 20. We are also supporting the amendments from other colleagues. The effect of our amendments would be to restrict the scope for no-fault evictions further. Amendment No. 3 would place a higher burden on the landlord to prove that there is no other way to renovate the property. We are conscious that the aim of this Bill is to ensure the scope of no-fault evictions will be limited beyond the temporary eviction ban. There should also be further restrictions on no-fault evictions. This is something we believe is essential in order to make the legislation more effective beyond the term in which the deferment is to take effect.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I welcomed his comments about the tenantin situscheme and the fact that he is looking to strengthen that. We heard last week from the Taoiseach that 650 houses had been purchased or were in the process of being purchased under that scheme across the country. Clearly that is still a very small number. It is therefore important that the duration of the eviction ban is used not only to afford renters breathing space but, as the Minister said, to afford the Government breathing space within which to bring forward more innovative strategies to tackle homelessness and to prevent evictions. Strengthening the tenant in situ scheme and strengthening the powers of local authorities to purchase properties are important measures to take during the duration of that eviction ban. I hope that will be the case. The Minister also said that the over-reliance on HAP and the private rental sector is not sustainable. Last year, €893 million, or nearly €1 billion, was spent by the State on HAP. I think that is the right figure, obtained by our housing spokesperson, Senator Rebecca Moynihan. That is clearly not sustainable investment by the State. It is simply paying private landlords. It symptomises a broken housing sector when such a large amount of money is being spent with no real return on investment by the State, other than a temporary deferral of homelessness. Renters are temporarily kept in rental properties rather than returning housing stock into State ownership.

The amendments we are putting forward, Nos. 3, 7 and 20, as well as the other amendments, seek to strengthen the protections for renters and restrict the scope for no-fault evictions and to ensure no-fault evictions will not be able to take place even beyond the duration of the eviction ban that this legislation is going to put in place. Amendment No. 7, for example, would give effect to enhanced support for those in rent arrears, as recommended by Threshold, and would also limit evictions on the grounds of overcrowding. As my colleague, Deputy Ged Nash, said on Second Stage, it is clearly not ideal for people to live in overcrowded accommodation but we have to recognise the context of the housing crisis, or the housing disaster as our President has described it, and ensure we limit as far as possible any of the grounds for eviction. Beyond the temporary ban eviction, which is very welcome, and we welcome this Bill, we also want to strengthen protections for renters. We want to ensure we will not see no-fault evictions taking place. In other European countries, such evictions are heavily circumscribed. We want similar protections for renters built into our legislation to ensure more long-term protections.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak specifically to amendment No. 8 in this grouping, which seeks to remove the overcrowding exemption from the deferred notice to quit due dates. We were all expecting that there would be exemptions. We have all made very clear that if somebody is wilfully not paying their rent, is damaging the property or engaging in antisocial behaviour, they should not get the protections other renters will get following the passage of this Bill. Many of us were surprised when we saw that ground No. 2 in the table in section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act was included in the exemptions. This afternoon, the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, said this ground is hardly ever used. He is correct in that. It is a very rarely used provision. However, if the landlord has not issued a notice to quit on the grounds of overcrowding prior to the enactment of this legislation, you would really have to ask why they would do so afterwards. There are two consequences to this inclusion, which I think are unintended. That is why I am urging the Minister to accept this amendment either now or when he has a second chance to consider it in the Seanad. First, many of the families we are talking about are families with large numbers of children. They would predominantly be Travellers, Roma or families from a number of African nationalities. The Minister knows that if these families enter into emergency accommodation, they can spend three or four years there, or more. Why would we put them in that set of circumstances at this point in time?

Landlords who have a very limited volume of overcrowding in their property, who would otherwise have issued a notice to quit based on sale of the property or some other grounds but are not allowed do so, will now be permitted do evict under this provision, which is clearly not the Minister's intention. The Minister of State, Deputy Burke, today made an unfortunate remark when he suggested that there was some link between this provision and fire safety. That is not the case. Wherever there is a fire safety risk to tenants in a property, that is a matter for the fire brigade and for fire safety enforcement, as the Minister well knows. As the social housing waiting lists are so long and because families wait many years for their social housing allocation to come through, families will start off in a rental property of a particular size but may grow over a period of time. Therefore, there is no need for the overcrowding exemption in this legislation. If somebody allows a sublet contrary to what the tenancy agreement permits, that can be dealt with more generally. I ask the Minister to please not put large families at risk of notices to quit over the winter period where there are no grounds for such notices to be issued in real terms. I am urging the Minister to remove that reference in section 2 of the Bill.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to my amendments Nos. 18, 22 and 23. Amendment No. 23 covers the main issues Deputy Ó Broin spoke about with regard to removing the ground of a dwelling no longer being suitable to tenants' needs. Having this as a ground for eviction, when in fact the worst thing that could probably happen in terms of the tenants' and renters' needs is for them to be evicted and potentially evicted into homelessness, does not make sense. It certainly does not make sense given the intention of the Bill and what the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, is seeking to do with it.

On amendments Nos. 18 and 22, I touched on this in the previous round of amendments. These amendments seek to remove the grounds of sale as a reason for renters to be evicted. To be very clear, in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Romania, one cannot on these grounds evict renters who pay their rent. All of these countries have functioning rental markets. The landlords get their rent. If they sell the property, the landlords get a fair price and a fair return, and the sky has not fallen down on the rental market there. The difference is that renters get to stay in their homes they have contributed to and stay in the communities to which they have contributed. I have met renters, as I am sure all Members have, who have been in place for 12, 16 or 20 years who have paid, through their rent, almost the entire mortgage - if not the full mortgage - and loan cost of the property in which they live. That is some contribution to have made. Then they get an eviction notice, which is completely unnecessary. They have paid, in their rent, the cost of the repayments of that home, yet they are getting thrown out. They have done everything right. This is something that could be changed in our legislation. It would simply bring us in line with all of those other European countries. In fact, some of the European countries that are not on that list would have some ability to evict but it is under restricted circumstances. That is all I ask for in this amendment to bring us in line with most European countries and to have a bit of human decency in respecting renters who pay their rents and respecting it being their home.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the loopholes around ability to pay rent, the justification offered by the Minister for the emergency period - and it is the emergency period as defined by this legislation - surely exists as long as this House believes that it is an emergency. The Minister, however, has defined it as relating to the winter. Why is it limited from November to March if it is not to do with the winter? Clearly that is the basis on which the Minister has decided the period, which is completely arbitrary. We would like it for longer and for the duration of the emergency. Given that he has done that, it is clearly linked to the cost-of-living crisis in his mind, and rightly so. People are oppressed with extortionate cost-of-living increases and, therefore, somebody who might fall behind with the rent because he or she is having difficulty paying the extortionate increases in the cost of living, the cost of heating, and the cost of electricity, might be evicted. It is a different matter if it is wilful non-payment of rent but in the situation I describe it is somebody who is just falling behind in the payment of rent. The legislation should not allow for somebody to be evicted in those circumstances.

On the overcrowding issues, again it is self-evident, as other Members have underlined. It makes even less sense to evict people who are in overcrowded circumstances. I am sure that they do not want to be in overcrowded circumstances but almost invariably people are in overcrowded situations because they cannot find anywhere else affordable to live. It hardly seems a reasonable option to then say, "I can evict you because there are too many of you in the house." So, this appears to be okay and they are not afford the protections of the legislation.

Finally, for reasons I cannot understand my amendment No. 2 was ruled out of order. I asked and I am not sure if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows why either, frankly. I do not see how it could be a charge on the Exchequer. It was simply seeking to extend the protections of the Bill to those who have already been given termination dates. How that could be a charge on the Exchequer is beyond me. It is just a mystery. I do not understand how it has been ruled out of order, but could the Minister please answer the question? I have asked three times now. What is he going to do for people who have already passed their termination date and are overholding? Could he just answer the question? Is he going to do anything or is he going to allow a situation where people could be evicted who have passed the termination date and are overholding but have nowhere to go, and who have done nothing wrong? Deputy Callaghan has pointed out an example. There is the couple that I had mentioned with their kids in my constituency. They have lived in the house since the 1950s. They were born there. They have probably paid the value of that house twice or three times over, yet they are being evicted. They have done nothing wrong. On the next point, the Minister did not answer either. He looked as though he was going to answer, for a minute, and then he veered off into something else. They are a working family and, therefore, they are over the threshold for local authority housing. The council will not entertain them for emergency accommodation, and it is not that they want to go to emergency accommodation. The council will also not entertain them for social housing. When such a family is over the threshold, would they be entertained for the purchase of the house to prevent them going into homelessness? A purchase is what should happen. What could the Minister do for a couple like that? Why do the provisions of the Bill not protect them against eviction even for the limited period it is doing for others? I acknowledge that this may be beyond the scope of the Bill, but if we are going to use the intervening period to start buying houses, which we should do, can it not be limited just to people who are within the thresholds? Can it also be for people who are above the threshold if they have nowhere else to go?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What kind of house is the Deputy referring to?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The house is not like a mansion. It is terraced house. What does the Minister want me to say? It is a terraced house that is smaller than a lot of council houses, if that is what he is asking.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My amendment No. 9 addresses the phenomenon of accidental landlords. Building a house is less common in urban areas than in rural areas but these are people who built or bought a house and find that they are no longer living in the area. Perhaps they had to move to another part of the country or leave the country temporarily. If they are not living in them, we want those houses to be rented or sold to somebody else because we want as many houses as possible in use. If those people cannot get their house back when they return to the country, or if there is any suggestion that they will not be able to take up occupation of the house again, then they simply will not rent it, regardless of what incentives are brought in such as increasing the amount for housing Ukrainian people, tax penalties or tax incentives, or vacant house levies, which are relatively paltry.

If I had a vacant house, I would take my chances on the vacant house tax before I would rent it in circumstances where I thought I would not get it back. The difficulty is that the Minister has removed, for this period, the option where a landlord can serve notice that he or she needs the house for his or her own use or for the use by a family member. I am not talking about people who may have a huge portfolio of property; clearly that is an investment portfolio. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to stand corrected if that is what the Minister is doing. I do not believe that this will come to an end, unfortunately, and I did not believe that other restrictions would come to an end. The problem is not going to go away by next March. Deputy Boyd Barrett and I might disagree about some of the solutions, but I agree with him that the problem is not going to go away. I do not believe that even the Minister thinks the problem is going to go away by next March.

If it is proportionate to bring in these restrictions now, then there will be an argument that it is proportionate to extend them in March because if anything the problem will be even greater. The Minister is saying he will not extend it beyond March.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say that. I said in this legislation there is no provision to extend it.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lots of legislation contains no provision to extend it. The Minister could bring in an amendment Act through the Houses even faster than this was brought through. There was a lot of talk about this for two weeks and then we are going through all Stages in a couple of hours, so the Minister could bring through amending legislation as well in a couple of hours. I do not buy that argument.

It is important that people are not disincentivised to rent out their home if they need to move home. That is what this does, in my view. It is also not a provision that is of any benefit, that you can serve notice on somebody. I appreciate it might be tightened up to cover people with a huge portfolio of five, 20 or 30 five homes which they buy as an investment fund. It certainly does not apply to the international funds because they do not have a family member that will need the home and they will not need it for their own use. If they argue they can avail of that, then it could be tightened.

In circumstances where somebody has left another country to come back to Ireland, is looking forward to moving into their home or has a family member who is returning from another country and they have told them they will move into a home owned by the family on such a date, the Minister is now telling them they cannot. I question whether he will be able to get that through the courts. It will take much longer than six months to get it through the courts, and that might well be what the Minister is banking on. Regardless of what happens with the courts, the Minister is disincentivising people from renting out their home in future in circumstances where they are an accidental landlord. I ask him to look at the legislation and amendment in that context.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody is indicating to speak. We have two minutes left.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.I appreciate your discretion with the time. I suppose the-----

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Deputy on his elevation.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no discretion with the time. The time is running.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course. The only elevation, Deputy McNamara, is the success of this policy. When I advocated it in this House a number of weeks ago, I said I thought we had reached the point where it would be possible to do it. It is important for us to say there are legal constraints on this. The points made by Deputies McNamara and Boyd Barrett outline the extent of the parameter. Ultimately, we are siding with the most vulnerable here, in the case where we know it is not a zero-sum game. We know there are knock-on effects on landlords and on the market. We are desperately trying on every front in Housing for All to increase supply at every level with every tool. This is one measure we are taking and we take it on the basis of siding with people who were going to face eviction over the winter in the context of all that is going on internationally and domestically.

It is a balance but we should not ignore the fact that many of us in this House called for a right to housing to be inserted in the Constitution. We do that so that we can make more macro interventions and more aggressive interventions in the market where the right to housing can be balanced against private property rights. The Attorney General advised Government more would be possible in this space. I look forward to the commission on housing bringing forward recommendations on the changes we could make to the Constitution to allow governments take stronger measures in housing.

Opposition Deputies ignore the fact that when they call for a right to housing and also call for us to go further in this area, they are being hypocritical. Those two concepts are not compatible. Opposition Deputies want the right to housing inserted so we can go further but equally criticise us when we do not go further. This is a balance and I think we are doing it in the right way.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of 25 October: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in committee, the Title is hereby agreed to in committee, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."