Vol. 432 No. 7
10 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment if he will establish a working party on the private rented housing sector to examine the implications for tenants of the recent Mespil flats issue and to consider other relevant matters relating to landlord and tenants in the private rented sector.
The matters arising in relation to these flats predominantly concern the landlord and tenant code for which the Minister for Justice has responsibility. In reply to Private Notice Questions on 11 May 1993, the Minister for Justice indicated that she is considering what amending legislation might be possible to deal with such situations. In these circumstances any questions in regard to a possible working party in the matter are appropriate to the Minister for Justice in the first instance.
This is an appalling passing of the buck by the Minister. This is the second occasion within the space of two questions that the Minister has passed the buck to another Department. The Minister recently published a charter of tenants' rights. Has the Minister any plans to deal with the problem of long term tenure which was at the core of the Mespil flats issue and when will we see some legislation in that area? Will the Minister not agree with the proposal put forward by Threshold, who deal with tenant/landlord relationships and at whose seminar the Minister was recently present, that a working group should be established to address the issues which have arisen from the Mespil controversy?
I am not passing the buck. I carry out my responsibility fully. The Government in its wisdom decides to give responsibility in various areas to various Ministers. I am not part of that decision-making process but I accept the decisions made and carry out my functions within my remit.
The rights of tenants in private rented accommodation are in the first place determined by reference to the terms of the lease or tenancy agreement under which the tenancies are held. These are governed by the provisions of the landlord and tenant code, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. In reply to a pariamentary question on 11 May 1993 on the Mespil flats, following the sale of the property, the Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, said that she is considering the need to amend the landlord and tenant legislation. My Department will co-operate as necessary with the Department of Justice in the review of the landlord and tenant code.
Would the Minister accept that with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship about which the Minister spoke so eloquently recently, there is not much point in introducing a charter of rights for tenants if landlords can circumvent it by evicting their tenants once they reach a certain level of tenancy? Will the Minister of State accept that some landlords deliberately evict their tenants in order to ensure that these tenants do not secure long term tenure in their accommodation?
The question refers to Mespil flats. Let us not have an extension thereof.
I accept that there is a strange coincidence of notices to quit being served on people before they qualify for the 20 year terms of tenancy. Whether it is deliberate or not is something I could not judge. The question of further reducing the length of the qualifying period of 20 years was considered in 1991 as part of the preparations of the plan for social housing. It was considered that it would not be in the interests of tenants to reduce the qualifying period because a further reduction would give less flexibility in leasing arrangements since landlords could ensure that the duration of the tenancy was reduced correspondingly to ensure that no right of renewal would occur. If the period was reduced to five years instead of getting notice after 19½ years people would get notice after four and a half years. On balance it was decided not to reduce the period.
The parts of the charter of rights for tenants which we have put in place since this Government came into office are considerable. Now a minimum notice of four weeks is required before any tenant can be evicted. The right of distress which a landlord had, where he could seize the goods of a tenant in lieu of rent, has been removed. The regulations concerning mandatory rent books and prescribed standards of minimum accommodation are now in place. The other legs of the Programme for Government in regard to tenants' rights are the registration of all tenancies and the right of tenants to have a tax rebate on rent paid. Let me assure the Deputy, again without attempting to pass the buck, that is a matter for the Minister for Finance, in the first instance, rather than for me.
I have to say I am not surprised that the Minister for housing, who denies responsibility for housing conditions, should attempt to pass the buck in relation to this matter; it is entirely in line. Would the Minister agree that part of the problem here, indeed, the reason for great urgency is the fact that so many of these tenants are elderly, vulnerable, afraid and action should be taken as quickly as possible? Would the Minister further agree that in relation to his so-called tenants' charter the fact that it is so vague and makes no provision for adequate inspection renders it largely meaningless, which I think he will discover as time progresses?
Most of the questions raised by the Deputy are not relevant to the one before us. I repeat I am not passing the buck but this is a matter for another Minister. Another Minister has already dealt with it in the House. It falls under the landlord and tenant code so that the question should have been properly placed vis-à-vis the legislation affecting that matter. I cannot convince the Deputy by simply stating that I am not attempting to pass the buck.
Arising from the Minister's earlier reply when he expressed some concern that if the length of a tenancy was reduced it would result in earlier notices to quit, I put it to him that is not the issue at all, that the issue here, irrespective of the length of tenancy, is that long term tenants should have security of tenure? May I ask him again what steps is he taking, apart altogether from the Minister for Justice, as he is Minister for housing, to protect the rights of tenants who find themselves in circumstances in which they can be evicted from their accommodation because some landlord does not want to give them the kind of security to which they are entitled?
As far as the rights of tenants are concerned we have taken considerable action which I have already detailed and do not propose to repeat. But I will repeat the fact that the landlord and tenant code comes within the remit of the Minister for Justice. I have no responsibility in that matter to the House or otherwise.
Can the Minister not get these programme managers to investigate the matter?
Would the Minister agree that a comprehensive report following investigation, is called for, not merely for the sake of ensuring that justice is done but also for the sake of the learning process being teased out in the course of this question into what happened in the case of the Mespil House flats affair? Would he accept that it is difficult to account for the very cheap purchase price, which seemed to add insult to injury, in the case of tenants in those flats, that is the price for which their accommodation was being sold regardless of its condition given the location? Can he give any explanation of why that should have happened? Is there a report to be published on those anomalies?
I have no idea why the prices of various properties were different. I simply have no answer to that. I am not sure it is my business to know or to have an answer to that since it is completely beyond my remit. I can tell the Deputy very clearly that the Minister for Justice has indicated that she is reviewing the legislation concerning landlord and tenants arising from the Mespil House flats case.
Would the Minister agree that the very minimum requirement, or would he support as a very minimum requirement, learning from the problems of the Mespil House flats affair, that long term tenants — whether or not they have reached 20 years of tenancy — should, by right, have first refusal on the purchase of the flat in which they live? Could we have even that accepted? If they do not want to buy, they do not want to buy; it is a private market and there are other rules dealing with that. Could we get an insistence that such tenants be given first refusal on any purchase option in terms of the flat in which they live? Would the Minister agree that many of the problems that arose in the case of the Mespil House flats could have been avoided?
The question of whether or not I would support such a proposal might be irrelevant. We are dealing with a very complex area. To single out one part of what might be a package and ask whether one supports that part of the package is rather foolish. My inclination would be that whenever a flat is being sold, the tenants should have a right of first refusal anyway, whether they be short or long term. That is something that should be done normally. Indeed, I know of cases where such first refusal has not been allowed.
