Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Oct 1998

Vol. 495 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Private Property Sale.

Mr. Gormley

Now that Crampton Buildings are due to be sold on 5 November, many of the 54 tenants who live in this beautiful courtyard in the heart of Temple Bar face an uncertain future; indeed, many could face the prospect of eviction. Unfortunately, these people are not alone in their predicament because throughout the city speculators, landlords and property owners are having a field day at the expense of powerless tenants. The more vibrant our economy, the more threatened are the vulnerable in society. With little notice, landlords can hike up rent to exorbitant levels or give tenants notice to vacate a premises. These people are left with no other option than to seek accommodation from Dublin Corporation.

Yesterday the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, found it difficult to admit that there is a housing crisis. He must be living in denial because when young married couples cannot afford to purchase houses, when ordinary people cannot afford to pay their rent, when the housing lists are growing longer by the day, then we are certainly faced with a housing crisis. What is the Government doing about this crisis? The Bacon report merely tinkers with the problem while fundamental changes are required. We need a Government that cares. The Minister may argue that the Government cares but I contend that it cares for the wrong people, namely, developers and property owners. It cares so much that it reduced capital gains tax in the last budget. The Government cares about the rights of those people but when asked about the duties of property owners it becomes less certain.

On the "Pat Kenny Show" recently when the Minister of State was asked about the capping of rents he replied that this would be very difficult because of the existence of constitutional impediments. If such impediments exist we should hold a referendum and, if necessary, amend Article 43 of the Constitution.

The case of Crampton Buildings is symptomatic of a much deeper problem in society. It is ironic that this little enclave is situated in Temple Bar, the symbol of the new vibrant Ireland — home of the Celtic tiger. We were informed that Temple Bar would become a cultural centre but, unfortunately, it is now often associated with the loutish behaviour of stag parties. We were also informed that it would retain a social mix. Crampton Buildings contains such a mix which comprises the young, the old, students, workers and the unemployed. It is a thriving inner city community, the members of which wish to remain in their present accommodation.

Temple Bar Properties must do everything possible to assist these tenants. That company has already agreed to obtain a valuation of the property, which is a welcome development. Ideally the tenants would like to establish a housing co-operative in order to buy out the property themselves. If that is the case they will need the assistance of Temple Bar Properties, Dublin Corporation and the Department of the Environment and Local Government. They could also enter into negotiations with Dublin Corporation and the current owners to consider a shared ownership scheme. The final option would be that the corporation could purchase the building and the occupants would then become its tenants.

At the last election, Fianna Fáil used the slogan "People before politics". These are ordinary, decent, genuine people who are facing eviction as we approach Christmas. I ask the Minister to take that into account. The tenants deserve our congratulations because they have so far shown tremendous courage, determination and organisational ability. I congratulate my colleague, Councillor Kieran Cuffe, who has led the charge on this issue and who recommended that Crampton Buildings be upgraded to a list 1 building. These people deserve our congratulations and they have the support of the Green Party.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

The proposed sale of Crampton Buildings in Temple Bar and the consequences of such a sale for the tenants raises matters of property law which are quite complex. It is for this reason that I have come before the House to reply to the motion tabled by Deputy Gormley.

The Deputy will understand that I am somewhat constrained in the comments which I can offer on this matter in view of the fact that I am not privy to all of the circumstances surrounding the individual tenancy agreements in this case. It is a matter of law that the rights of tenants in private rented accommodation are determined in the first instance by reference to the terms of a lease or to any other tenancy agreement in existence. There is also the statutory code governing the landlord and tenant relationship which is reflected in the body of legislation that lies within my area of responsibility.

I am conscious that concerns have been expressed about the situation of tenants in the private rented sector for whom security of tenure is a major issue. It was in an attempt to give a measure of security to long-term tenants in particular that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1980 gave residential tenancies of 20 years standing a right of renewal of tenancy for up to 35 years. This entitlement is sometimes referred to as the long occupation equity. Where a new tenancy is availed of under these provisions there is a procedure, in the absence of agreement, whereby the rent can be determined by a court and the court has to set a rent which in its view would represent an open market rent for the property in question.

Over the years doubts had been expressed about the real efficacy of this provision in achieving the intended result. In consequence, it was thought appropriate that this matter should be addressed by a working group on security of tenure which was established under the aegis of the Department in the mid-1990s and which reported in 1996. I understand the recommendations of that group have been the subject of consideration in the Department, but the examination has not progressed to a point where it is possible to indicate whether the recommendations will be incorporated in legislative form.

It is a matter beyond dispute that issues surrounding the landlord and tenant relationship are extremely complex. A particular problem here is that there is a need to balance the rights of landlords and tenants in a way that is compatible with constitutional requirements. Thus, while I am conscious of, and sympathetic to, the difficulties facing vulnerable tenants, especially those who are elderly and who have held their tenancies for a long period of time, I cannot guarantee that it will be possible to resolve, through legislative action, the inherent difficulties which attach to this area of the law. I note in that respect that Deputy Gormley referred to the constitutional difficulty and suggested constitutional change, if proved to be the way forward.

I understand that some of the tenants in the case to which the Deputy alluded may be covered by the provisions of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982, which is legislation for which the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has responsibility. That Act confers a right to retain, as a tenant, possession of a formerly controlled dwelling for the lifetime of the person who was the tenant at the commencement of the Act, or the lifetime of their spouse. Where a member or successive members of the tenant's family succeed to the tenancy within 20 years of the commencement of the Act — 26 July 1996 — the right to retain possession continues until 25 July 2002, when it expires sub ject to lasting a minimum period of five years. The terms of the tenancy for the period of the entitlement to retain possession may be fixed by the rent tribunal in the absence of agreement between the landlord and tenant. I have been informed that the question of the legislative provisions that may be appropriate to protect tenants of formerly controlled dwellings will be considered within the context of the applicable court judgments in advance of the expiry of the existing provisions.

There is an implication in the Deputy's comments that the State should intervene in the private rental market to regulate the rents landlords may ask for their property. In response to that I can say no more than the history of past legislation which attempted to impose rent restrictions does not suggest this is a viable proposition.

Mr. Gormley

That is because of the Constitution.

Mr. O'Donoghue

There are constitutional difficulties in my view also.

While I appreciate the concerns which motivate the Deputy to raise this matter, it is not clear that the problems anticipated in this case are ones which can be dealt with by way of legislative intervention. We must also be aware that, for constitutional reasons, any changes which might be introduced in future would normally not affect the rights of parties under existing leases or other tenancy agreements as opposed to future leases or tenancy agreements.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.27 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15 October 1998.