Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I said two or three days ago that I found the Bill to be one of the most unbalanced Bills. I think the Minister actually admitted that. There is a kind of rush here. We are all rightly in a panic that people have nowhere to live, or cannot find a place to live, but blaming landlords for the crisis is not the way to go. The Minister might have three, four or five prongs to try to solve the housing issue but it seems that this Bill has every landlord standing at the gates of hell, with something wrong with every one of them.

I cite the example of a landlord who was owed €11,000 by his tenant. He had to pay a solicitor €4,000 and then had to pay a sheriff €2,700 to send out two men for ten minutes. It will cost him €20,000 to repair the house and he has no comeback, and he would be wasting his time trying to follow the tenant. The whole process took him two years from the get go. If a tenant wants to do something to a landlord, it can cost €15,000 to €20,000 for the landlord to get out of the trouble. The Bill is totally unbalanced. Where is the law and regulation for the tenants?

I do not agree with the Bill, although there are aspects of it I like. It is extremely important young people have a home or the prospect of a home, but the Government seems to be extremely smug about this. Where are they? It is the most important issue in terms of electioneering at present. Why are they not in here arguing against me or arguing for me? Where are they? They are out banging on the doors of people who happen to have a house who are asking, out of generosity, worry and anxiety, whether they will do something about housing. I understand that it takes time to build a house. If it takes time for local authorities to realign themselves with the ability to build houses, let them do it. By blaming landlords, the Bill is entirely unbalanced. That is why I worry about it. The Government should worry about it because landlords - the best and the worst of them - will run for cover. I am not suggesting there are not bad ones, or bad, good or great tenants, but there is no balance in the Bill and the landlords are at the gates of hell ready to burn. Where is the balance? If I was to vote in the local election, that is what I would ask about. It is all very well, but where is the balance?

Leaving out all the other architectural matters, pre-1963 and those areas that the Government and the officials know all about, because they are extremely well informed of them, as are many Senators, I do not understand where the balance is. We are always looking for balance and equality, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, which my learned friend has spoken much about, equality of this and that, including equality of education. Where is the equality here? It is not in the Bill. There is no balance anywhere in it but there must be because there are good and bad landlords and there are certainly good and bad tenants.

I despair and I think there will be a reaction to it, and it is not going to be good. I am not a landlord. I am the tenant of a vulture fund, to which I openly admit, but I can see landlords running out of the country, saying that it is just not worth it. We see vacant houses which people will not rent out because the law is not balanced. It is balanced on the side of the tenant and that is wrong. It is wrong, both in the good times and in the bad times. I am not supporting this under any circumstances.

It is taking the eye off the ball because we should be building. I cited Mulvey Park, primarily because I know it. It is in lower Dundrum and it is county council housing with greens in the front, back gardens and a community. Half the country was reared in places like that. Why can we not bring in expertise and say to it to build such housing. Such housing is all done in circles and diamond shapes and there are wonderful communities. Now we have people who cannot even speak to each other because they cannot see their neighbours and have no right even to an architectural vista. I am against it, lock, stock and barrel.