Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I will quickly raise two matters relating to the Bill.On the whole, it does good and important things in the context of the current challenges. Both matters relate to the protection of renters who find themselves in difficulty. I am acutely aware that St. Helen's Court in Dún Laoghaire in my area saw the eviction of a number of tenants from a development. They were not in non-compliance with any of the conditions of their tenancies, they were not behaving badly and they were not in rent arrears. Rather, the owner of the apartments decided to select fewer than ten apartments to be renovated. Those people now find themselves with nowhere to go.

I wish to discuss two particular circumstances, the first of which relates to tenants who are in dispute with a landlord for whatever reason and going before a tenancy tribunal of the RTB. Landlords who appear before that tribunal are much better resourced than tenants in terms of legal advice, legal aid and assistance generally and are often represented by some of the country's larger law firms. Conversely, many tenants come to the tribunal bewildered by the process and unaware of their rights. I am aware that the board is obliged to provide them with documentation in that regard, and I am sure it does, but the difference between providing someone with a leaflet and explaining to someone what he or she can and should do is significant. I have submitted a Committee Stage amendment on the question of whether we should provide an access-to-justice mechanism and a legal aid fund for those people. As with anyone who comes before the courts and avails of civil legal aid, tenants could avail of legal advice via a fund set up through the RTB. This important access-to-justice mechanism, which is absent currently, would allow tenants to perform better before the tribunal and in how they deal with the issues before them.

My second point relates to how, as far as I can see, the legislation places the evidential burden on the tenant rather than the landlord. In circumstances where a landlord is proceeding under section 34 to remove a tenant because the former intends to sell the property and move on, the Bill appears to suggest that any evidence from the landlord to the effect that he or she is going to sell the property is sufficient for the board's tribunal to take into account. That is legally wrong. Indeed, it has been found to be so by the High Court. The Minister of State should make it clear that, while a sworn statement, statutory statement or statement to the effect that the property is going to be sold is evidence, it is not sufficient evidence to uphold a decision under section 34 for a perfectly valid, hard-working and conforming tenant to be removed from a property.