Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

These amendments are very practical. What they do is not just attempt to protect tenancies, which I know is the general goal of the legislation, but also to try to ensure the protection of tenancies is not placed at odds with other stated Government priorities, for example, in terms of retrofitting and, of course, in regard to the area which is not touched on as much, that of adaptation under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These are issues we were discussing just this morning with the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. We are at a point where we need a seismic period of new build but we also have a seismic project of retrofitting across the country. Alongside the urgency we have in regard to climate action and the role retrofitting plays in that, we also have related issues regarding situations where people may need to adapt living spaces because of a disability.

The fact is many people with a disability are renters, including many of those living in houses and apartments that are currently below the energy ratings and standards that we would wish. In many cases, there will be a fear that if, for example, a major retrofitting project is to happen in a house, flat or home, a person's security of tenure could be jeopardised. That is because retrofitting was explicitly excluded. It is important to mention that it was not part of the principal Act. Retrofitting was included in a list of renovations which qualify as sufficient major renovations to remove people's Part 4 protection and allow for them to be evicted. It was included in that list at subsection (5A), which was inserted as an element added to the Bill, although it is not a core element of the Bill.

Of course, its inclusion at that time was probably trying to cover what are "substantial renovations", but we have effectively created a perverse incentive against tenants seeking retrofitting by pressing their landlords to do it. There is also a jeopardy in regard to the social good of the retrofitting of houses. We must bear in mind it is important for warmth and in terms of energy poverty, the price of fuel and all of those issues, but it is also ultimately important in terms of reducing the emissions that we produce collectively as a nation towards our target of 1.5°C. Retrofitting is a great social good yet we are attaching an inequitable or negative outcome to it, which is a jeopardising of tenancies.

In amendment No. 1, I do it very neatly and specifically by seeking to delete subparagraph (ii). Again, I am not sure if that will cover adaptation for disability as that may be a separate issue. However, I should flag to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, that when I spoke to the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, this morning, I signalled to her that one of the retrofitting options we should have on the table is retrofitting plus adaptation, that is, a retrofitting option which included that, as a home was being retrofitted for energy, it would also be adapted in terms of universal design and disability access. That is particularly important because we know that persons with a disability, in many cases, are more likely to spend more time in their homes and more likely to suffer from high fuel prices and energy poverty. There could be a win-win. I am highlighting this because I think it is a constructive amendment to highlight what could be a very positive measure, which is supporting retrofitting combinations between disability access and energy retrofitting, and also sending a very positive message on just transition and climate justice in terms of ensuring we have equity in how we approach our climate measures.

Amendment No. 1 simply removes retrofitting from the list that was added. Amendment No. 2 is a little more explicit in that it spells out specifically the measures in regard to improving the building energy rating, BER, or where the dwelling is being adapted to provide for access and use by a person with a disability within the meaning of the Disability Act. Amendment No. 1 is simply removing the disincentive or the negative element that is there at the moment, whereas amendment No. 2 is a little more proactive.I am seeking to explicitly spell out areas that should not be considered as a renovation creating grounds for the ending of a part 4 tenancy. I ask the Minister of State to comment. These are constructive proposals and would bring us forward.