Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 Jul 2004

Vol. 177 No. 12

Residential Tenancies Bill 2003: Report and Final Stages.

Before we commence, I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on it. Each amendment must be seconded.

Amendment No. 3 is related to amendment No. 1 and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 24, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(3) Such action includes, but is not limited to——

(i) harassment;

(ii) intimidation;

(iii) abusive or threatening behaviour; or

(iv) retaliatory notice to quit.".

Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are all about treating tenants with the respect they deserve. As we all know, tenants pay huge rents, particularly in this city. I refer in particular to students who come here in September to do various courses at university. Since tenants pay phenomenal rents, it is important to grant them the rights they need.

Amendment No. 1 is very important because section 14 needs to be made even clearer. It should spell out what constitutes action that affects peaceful occupation and that is why I am proposing the inexhaustible definition that such action includes, but is not limited to, harassment, intimidation, abusive or threatening behaviour or retaliatory notice to quit. If a tenant is to be evicted or asked to quit, he or she should receive a letter indicating the reasons.

Amendment No. 3 is designed to ensure that where a landlord, in a state of rage, tries to end a tenancy because a tenant has made a particular complaint, the termination would be deemed to be invalid. The amendment is vital to ensure that a tenant who makes a legitimate complaint will not suffer the consequences of seeking their statutory rights. This approach has worked very well in parts of Australia and America. The Minister of State may note that the cost of rental accommodation is 25% lower in New York than it is here. I would be very disappointed if the Minister did not share the sentiments behind what I am proposing and accept the two amendments.

I second the amendment.

I share some of the Senator's sentiments and I fully agree with his opening comment that tenants should be treated with respect. This is a fundamental principle of the Bill, the purpose of which is to improve tenants' rights. However, I am not in favour of accepting amendment No. 1. It would not be appropriate or beneficial to insert examples of a few matters that might be deemed to involve penalisation. I fear it would detract from the effectiveness of the provision. Section 14 provides the most comprehensive definition of penalisation possible in terms of any action that adversely affects a tenant's enjoyment of peaceful occupation.

In legal terms, one cannot go further than stating "any action". To specify individual actions would not strengthen this legislation. If one included two, five or 25 matters that might be deemed to involve penalisation, sure as God one would leave one out. If a dispute arose over the omitted matter thereafter, people would probably say it was left out for a purpose. While the Senator's amendment is well-meaning and I understand it, it would not be of any help. The section was extended on Committee Stage in the Dáil to cover complaints to public authorities generally or to the Garda.

Equally, amendment No. 3 would not be of help because section 14 provides adequate safeguards against the penalisation of tenants. I do not feel either of the amendments would strengthen the Bill.

As I stated, section 14 is very important to the Bill. However, it has loopholes and unscrupulous landlords — I would like to believe there are few — could force tenants onto the highways for invalid reasons. At present, there are approximately 5,500 homeless people in the country and we do not want this Bill to be the cause of there being more. My amendment is valid and should be accepted.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 31, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

28.—Where a landlord terminates a tenancy prior to the expiry of the non-protection period, he or she shall provide the tenant with a written explanation of the reasons for the termination.".

This amendment will give a greater level of security of tenure. It is designed to ensure that where a tenant is asked to leave before he accrues rights under the legislation, he is given a reason in writing as to why he is being asked to leave. The amendment is simple, straightforward and clear. I ask the Minister of State to accept it. If an employee is sacked he must be given notice and tenants should know why a tenancy is being discontinued. The amendment strengthens the Bill.

I second the amendment.

This provision is one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. It was discussed at great length by the commission on whose findings the Bill is largely based. Security of tenure after six months is a fundamental aspect of the Bill. It was agreed at the commission, and it is central to the Bill, that in the first six months of a tenancy the landlord can ask a tenant to leave without giving a reason.

One must consider the current situation and what the situation has been until now. A landlord may terminate a tenancy at any time without providing a reason. We are moving from a situation where, for many years, a tenant did not have security of tenure unless he had rented a property for 20 years. Until that time a landlord could ask a tenant to leave.

This provision strikes a balance. In the first six months a landlord will have the right to ask a tenant to leave. After that a tenant will have security of tenure for three and a half years. There will then be a six month period during which a landlord may ask a tenant to leave, without giving a reason, followed by a further three and a half years of security of tenure.

Why would a landlord ask a tenant to leave if he has proven himself to be a good tenant? It may be because a landlord needs the property for his own occupation and the Bill contains provisions in that regard. However, in the first six months of a tenancy or of any subsequent tenancy, the Bill allows a landlord to ask a tenant to leave, without reason. That is one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment.

The amendment gives strength to the rights and responsibilities of both the landlord and tenant. If a tenancy is discontinued for reasons of misbehaviour or otherwise, I see nothing wrong with stating that in writing. The amendment is valid and would strengthen the Bill. I see nothing wrong with the amendment, despite the arguments put forward by the Minister of State. A requirement that a notice to quit a property should state the reason for the notice would strengthen the Bill and give it greater clarity.

It would not give greater clarity. The Bill is clear as it stands. The amendment would give additional rights to tenants.

I accept that, but we must consider where we are and from where we have come. Tenants have had very few rights. The commission tried to move matters to a situation which, I accept, will not be as good as that applying in many European countries where tenants have much greater security of tenure. However, we are moving from the first step on the ladder to the fifth or sixth step. I accept that there will be further steps. In years to come we may move forward to a situation where there is greater security of tenure.

Nevertheless, this is one of the core principles of the Bill. We are trying to achieve reasonable support and agreement from landlords' groups and from groups representing tenants. Furthermore, a landlord will always be able to demand a market rent. If a tenant has rented a property for four years, the landlord will not have an incentive to ask the tenant to leave because he can demand a market rent from the existing tenant and cannot demand a higher rent from a new tenant. If a tenant has proved himself a respectable tenant who does not cause hassle, why would a landlord wish to churn the tenancy and move from a decent rent paying tenant to one he does not know?

The effect of this amendment is confined to the first six months of a tenancy. During that period a landlord is permitted to end a tenancy without an excuse or reason. After that time the landlord may not do so unless for a specified reason, such as requiring the property for himself or a member of his family or for major refurbishment. While the amendment would be of benefit to a tenant, this provision is one of the main building blocks of the legislation and brought landlords on side.

On that point——

Senator Bannon, I cannot allow further debate.

I wish to make one further comment.

I am bound by Standing Orders. I cannot allow further debate. We are discussing the Bill on Report Stage.

The Minister of State referred to the commission. He accepted only 25% of the commission's recommendations.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 26.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Browne, Fergal.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • Norris, David.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Phelan, John.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

  • Bohan, Eddie.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Callanan, Peter.
  • Cox, Margaret.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Kett, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lydon, Donal J.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Minihan, John.
  • Morrissey, Tom.
  • Moylan, Pat.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • White, Mary M.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Bannon and McCarthy; Níl, Senators Minihan and Moylan.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 35, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

35—The purported termination of a tenancy by a landlord under section 34 shall be deemed to be null and void ab initio where evidence is adduced to show that the termination arises from a complaint by the tenant, or other action by the tenant made to secure his or her rights as a tenant.”.

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 38, line 16, to delete "as husband and wife".

I regard this provision as discriminatory and it should be amended to take into consideration the rights of all citizens. It does not provide for partnership relationships. The Opposition highlighted this on Committee Stage. The Minister of State has gone out of his way to exclude people. I ask him to delete the words "as husband and wife" and insert "partners" which would make the Bill more inclusive.

I second the amendment. In the interests of clarity, there are also five more names following that of Senator Bannon on this amendment. I note what the Minister of State said in his contribution on Committee Stage and there was a good debate on this issue. There is a particular exclusion in this section of the Bill which we believe to be discriminatory and not inclusive. It is contrary to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Karner case which was eloquently expounded on Committee Stage.

There have been significant advances in equality legislation. Ireland ranks as one of the leading states in Europe in terms of equality legislation passed. It would be a retrograde step to seem to be excluding any particular category of persons from this section of the Bill and it is not the right thing to do. I recognise the difficulties inherent in accepting this amendment and I do not expect it will be accepted. However, it is important that the case is advanced at this stage of the Bill. I appreciate there is a belief that this issue could be debated in some other context. I reiterate those points to the Minister of State. I know he is a fair-minded individual and I am aware of the difficulties faced in accepting this amendment. I urge him to think on what was said on Committee Stage and consider an alternative method for giving rights to all categories of people. This is about equality for everyone and not just one particular section. I appeal to the Minister of State to bear that in mind when considering this amendment.

I am not in a position to accept the amendment. The amendment as worded is incompatible with the remainder of subsection 39(3), as the deletion of the words "husband and wife" would widen the provision to cover any non-tenant living in the accommodation at the time of the death of the tenant. It would render the other subparagraphs redundant. The extension of the provision to include same-sex partners in sexual relationships would require specific reference to the category of occupant rather than the mere deletion of the words "husband and wife".

This was discussed on Committee Stage and I appreciate the motives of the Senators. I emphasise that we are not excluding anyone or discriminating against any category of multiple occupancy nor do we wish to do so. I have no personal ideological stance on this issue.

It is intended to be a provision of limited application and therefore does not cover other categories of multiple occupancy, such as friends, cousins, siblings, colleagues or persons in same-sex relationships. It is not specifically excluding those in same-sex relationships. I explained on Committee Stage that in discussion in the Dáil, I was asked to consider extending the provisions to a spouse, married or unmarried, in the event of the death of a tenant and we tried to do that. The limited application of a right to inherit a Part 4 tenancy is what is considered legally feasible because of the constitutional protection afforded to families. For good or ill, the Constitution affords protection to families and does not afford the same protections to cousins or siblings. As I explained on Committee Stage, the purpose of the amendment was to provide a mechanism by which dependent family members would be able to continue a Part 4 tenancy in a situation where the only member of the family who is the tenant, died.

This is the only instance in the Bill whereby a landlord has no say in whether to grant a tenancy to a particular person. One of the fundamental provisions of the Bill is that a landlord always has a right to decide on who can be a tenant. The only exceptions are in the case of a co-tenant or licensee, where the tenant is already in occupation. In this case, the amendment would afford the automatic right of tenancy to somebody who is not a tenant and who might not be known in legal terms to the landlord. That would be against the normal drift of the Bill. Because of the protection afforded to the family in the Constitution as opposed to other groupings, the Bill is taking away the right of the landlord in that one instance. The Bill is not discriminatory against anyone in that it is not taking anything away from anyone but rather giving a special protection to the spouses of existing family relationships, be they married or unmarried.

The Law Reform Commission recently issued a consultation paper dealing with legislative treatment of same sex unions. Following the consultation period, the commission will issue a final report for the consideration of the Government. At that stage it will be appropriate for the Government's thinking to include the position of couples in same sex unions in the occupation of rented accommodation. The Succession Acts must also be borne in mind. Widening the provision to include all categories of multiple occupancy who are not joint tenants, would and could create a conflict with the Succession Acts and could necessitate amendments to them. When one person in a relationship dies, the question of rights to the Part 4 tenancy, the right to occupation, arises. Other people not living in the apartment, flat or house might have rights under the Succession Acts and complications can arise. The Office of the Attorney General devised this amendment and felt justified in doing so because of the right of the family under the Constitution. Other groupings of people do not have that same right and the Attorney General deliberately did not extend it to other groupings. The debate in the Dáil was in favour of spouses in the case of the death of the tenant. I understand the Senators' concerns. It may well be that the report of the Law Reform Commission, when delivered to Government and rolled out in a couple of years, will make the changes sought by Senators. To accept the amendment now, however, would create considerable difficulties. This legislation is not the correct place for such a change.

The Minister of State has not allayed my fears about discrimination. It is illegal to discriminate against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. Sisters, brothers and other members of a family frequently live together, yet such circumstances are not provided for in the legislation, which specifically refers to "husband and wife". It would be a simple matter to use the word "partners", which would cover all relationships. Given our equality legislation, it will be difficult for the Minister of State to explain his stance on this issue in future.

I have tried to explain that I am not discriminating against anybody. An amendment was introduced to assist and provide for spouses, married or unmarried and living as couples in family-type relationships, who were not joint tenants at the time of death of their spouse. As I stated on Committee Stage, it is recommended and the residential tenancies board will also recommend that the way to get around this potential difficulty is for persons who rent a house, flat or apartment together to become joint tenants, either at the beginning of the tenancy or any time thereafter. If one joint tenant, rather than licensee, dies or leaves, the remaining joint tenant would then have legal rights.

It will be a responsibility and legal requirement on tenants under the legislation to report when a person moves into a dwelling on a permanent basis and it becomes his or her main place of residence, not, however, for a one night stand or a period of a week. At that point, the tenant will record whether the new tenant will be a licensee or joint tenant. Contrary to what was stated on Committee Stage, choosing the latter option will not require a tenant to go to a solicitor's office. It would be advisable for a second person who moves into a dwelling to be registered as a joint tenant because such persons will have legal protection in the event of the death of another joint tenant. This would be the best course of action in all circumstances.

The amendment on Committee Stage providing for spouses was introduced to deal with cases where a second tenant has not been registered. We are not discriminating against anyone or excluding people deliberately. We introduced an amendment specifically to address concerns raised by Members in the other House. It was drafted to conform with what was deemed legally feasible and taking into consideration various constitutional and legal provisions.

I understand the point made by Senators. Legislative changes may be made when the Government receives and rolls out through various Acts the recommendations of the final report of the Law Reform Commission.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 86, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

135—(1) The landlord of a dwelling shall formally notify the Revenue Commissioners on the commencement of a tenancy of a dwelling under this Part.

(2) Formal notification under this section shall be made——

(a) in the case of a tenancy commencing on a date that falls 3 or more months from the establishment day — within 1 month from the commencement of the tenancy.

(b) in any other case (including the case of a tenancy that commenced before the passing of this Act) — within 3 months from the establishment day.

(3) Formal notification under this section shall be in the prescribed form and be accompanied by the fee specified in section 134.

(4) Formal notification under this section may not relate to more than one tenancy of a property; accordingly separate applications under this section are required for separate tenancies.".

This amendment relates to formal notification of the Revenue Commissioners. I propose to insert this section to require that details of tenancy be formally notified to the Revenue Commissioners. The same level of information must be provided to the Revenue Commissioners as provided to the proposed residential tenancies board. As this is not a major request, it should be accepted.

Amendment No. 6 proposes in page 86, line 21, after "application" to insert "or formal notification". The amendment is consequential and necessary to ensure similar requirements are imposed in the formal notification as required in making an application to the board. The amendments are straightforward and simple and will give more clarity and strengthen the Bill in everyone's interest.

I second the amendment.

The Bill provides for the setting up of a register. As part of this register, section 148 makes specific provision for communication between the board and the Revenue Commissioners. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary.

The Bill has an appropriate mechanism to provide data to the Revenue Commissioners, where necessary. The Revenue Commissioners have informed the Department that the provisions of section 148 are acceptable. Section 148 requires the private residential tenancies board to supply to the Revenue Commissioners details of tenancies registered in respect of a landlord specified in the Revenue request. It is a question of how one meets this requirement. The board will comply and supply all information quickly to the Revenue as and when it is requested.

Amendment No. 5 proposes a new section dealing with notification of tenancy details by landlords to the Revenue Commissioners. Tax law specifies the liability of citizens to make income returns to the Revenue Commissioners. As a result, the amendment is not necessary. It is for the Revenue Commissioners to specify what information they require and when they require it. It is likely the information they will require will concern rental income on a tax year basis, rather than a separate notification.

The board will give all information to the Revenue Commissioners when they ask for it and in the manner and form requested. While we want excellent co-operation between the various State agencies, there is no point in sending lorry loads of information to the Revenue if it not delivered in the format it wants. Section 148 covers the Senator's point and the board will give the Revenue Commissioners all the information they require in the manner and at the time they wish.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 95, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

"(e) the monitoring of any discrimination against tenants or any other discriminatory actions in the private rented sector,”.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the board will monitor discrimination faced by those seeking or retaining accommodation. Students, for example, are often refused accommodation at certain times of the year. There have been instances where landlords have stipulated that students are not welcome to apply for tenancy in their accommodation. There should be no discrimination against anybody who is prepared to pay.

Amendment No. 8 proposes that a function of the private residential tenancies board should be to monitor the quality and pricing of accommodation in the private rented sector. This is important as the price of accommodation rockets at certain times of the year. Unscrupulous landlords often raise rents when they know that students from rural areas will be moving to Dublin to seek accommodation. A student who has left it late to seek accommodation, perhaps because he or she has received a late third level offer, is desperate and may pay more than he or she can afford because there is no time to wait for more affordable alternative accommodation. City accommodation for students in Ireland is more expensive than that available in other European countries and in the United States. Students are being priced out of the market and it is their parents who are forced to fund their accommodation. People who work in agriculture and public enterprise, in particular, do not enjoy the same healthy circumstances they did during the Celtic tiger years and the necessity to provide for their student children's accommodation requirements is a significant burden to bear.

No young person must be denied the right to attain a third level education but the cost of rented accommodation in urban areas limits the choice to students. Third level educational facilities have not been decentralised to a great extent in that most of our third level institutions are located in large cities.

There are institutes of technology all over the country.

There is no university in the midlands while there are three or four in Dublin and one in other major cities such as Cork and Galway. The Department of Education and Science should address the question of locating a university in the midlands and perhaps County Longford might be considered as a suitable location for such an educational facility——

County Longford would be ideal.

The infrastructure is there and the accommodation cheaper than that on offer in Dublin or any of our other cities.

Perhaps the university in Cork could be moved to County Longford.

I second amendment No. 7.

I knew that Senator Bannon would mention discrimination with regard to County Longford. I sympathise with his point about students and it is an issue I have raised in this House on a number of occasions. The Minister of State may differ from me in this but that is no harm. One cannot blame the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department of Education of Science for the lack of both campus and off-campus accommodation in our universities and institutes of technology. This matter must be addressed and I have made the point that some universities have large land banks which could be used to build more student accommodation.

The Minister of State referred to the hype that surrounds the issue of accommodation for students and a lot of this is generated by the ritual of queuing for newspapers and scanning the accommodation advertisements. I cannot understand why the colleges should not be able to provide students with information on accommodation vacancies instead of this situation of queues and mad scrambles around the city or town to view the accommodation. While we agree that rents in general are decreasing, I have seen no such decrease in the area of third level student accommodation. Many parents to whom I have spoken agree with me on this. It is a strange situation.

I welcome the initiative regarding long term accommodation for rent supplement tenants. This legislation is a core element in this regard. Perhaps the Minister of State might outline the plans for those who are in accommodation for 18 months or longer. The private rented sector has an important role to play in assisting people who are in accommodation for more than 18 months. This does not apply to students but to those who would like more security of tenure and a better system for attaining accommodation than the payment of rent supplement.

Under the legislation the private residential tenancies board will have the function to undertake research and provide information and policy advice in general with regard to the private rented sector. It will also have the specific function of monitoring the operation of this legislation and reporting to me on any changes it might consider necessary. These functions will address the concerns expressed in the provisions of Senator Bannon's amendments. The proposals in amendments Nos. 7 and 8 to assign the board specific statutory functions to monitor discrimination, quality and pricing would go beyond the remit of the board as defined in the legislation. Monitoring discrimination is formally a matter for the Equality Authority and it has been allocated resources for this purpose. Enforcement of the regulations regarding standards of accommodation will remain a function of the local authorities although the Government does intend to review these standards. The board will have a specific responsibility to monitor issues such as market rents and to keep the Minister informed of circumstances in the private rented sector. In view of this the thrust of the Senators' concerns are addressed by the provisions of the Bill.

The provisions of my amendments are not spelt out in the Bill. The purpose of the amendments is to grant specific responsibilities to the board, but the Minister of State's remarks undermine the functions of the board. It is important that the Bill should specify the functions of the board in terms of monitoring the price and quality of accommodation as this objective represents the thrust of the Bill. These amendments represent an addition that should be acceptable to the Minister of State. They would strengthen the Bill from the perspective of both landlord and tenant. The onus would be placed on the landlord to ensure that no substandard accommodation is let to people, including students.

The inspection of student accommodation has always been neglected. A small number of landlords let accommodation in any condition to people, particularly students and asylum seekers. One only has to travel to a few rural towns to sample the quality of accommodation that is let. It is important that the board's functions are spelled out.

The functions of the board are specified. Legislation usually covers new ground and it is not necessary to put in new Bills everything that has been provided for in other legislation, for example, in areas such as taxation or equality. If other agencies and bodies have been established to cover those areas, there is no need to reference them in each subsequent Bill. A function of the board will be to monitor rent levels generally by reference to the type of accommodation, location and so on and report to the Minister. It will not be a function of the board to monitor discrimination as that will be dealt with by the Equality Authority. One does not have to put in the kitchen sink in all legislation. One puts in what is relevant to what one is doing and what is new. One does not have to duplicate the provisions of other Bills.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 95, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(f) the monitoring of the quality and pricing of accommodation in the private rented sector,".

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 96, line 26, after "balance" to insert "(i.e. at least 40% of each gender)".

The amendment proposes a more robust reference to gender balance in the section. This issue crops up from time to time in various Bills and I appeal to the Minister of State to look favourably on the amendment.

Membership of the board should be based on ability and suitability, not gender. The equality issue is completely separate and it should not be confused in this legislation.

I second the amendment as it provides for greater gender balance. Fine Gael put forward two female candidates in the East constituency in the European elections and both were elected.

One is a superstar.

They are both superstars. It is the first time the Government was beaten in such an election since 1925.

One of them might be parachuted into the Longford constituency.

The mayors of Longford County Council and Longford Town Council are both female.

All mares are female.

Fine Gael very much favours gender balance and we have demonstrated this both in the European and local elections where 75% of the candidates running in Leinster were female.

I accept there are good, highly qualified women in Longford. I hope the county's footballers are not quite up to that standard next weekend.

There are also good referees in Longford.

When we discussed the amendments on Committee Stage, I indicated there should not be a problem ensuring both sexes are adequately represented on the board. The interim board is split 50:50. Relatively few women have expressed an interest in working for the board in the dispute resolution field, which indicates that not many women have experience in this area. That creates a greater difficulty in achieving the desired gender balance on the dispute resolution committees.

My concerns in this regard relate to the committee, not the board. Members of the dispute resolution committee will serve on a part-time, non-permanent basis and will be engaged for tribunal hearings on a case by case basis. Appointments to the committee will be made from a pool of qualified and suitable people. Given the lack of women in the dispute resolution field, the committees may not have an appropriate gender balance. I do not accept the amendments. More women than men may ultimately become members of the board but a difficulty may arise in regard to the dispute resolution committees. However, the committee members will work for the board and we will try to get the gender balance right.

This issue last cropped up during the debate on the Bord Bia Bill, which was taken by the Minister for Agriculture and Food. He was accompanied by three civil servants, all of whom were female. He was pioneering the practice himself and reflected the spirit of a similar amendment to this one. The Minister of State probably will not accept the amendment but I appeal to him to reflect its spirit in future legislation. I welcome his comments regarding the composition of the board. Appointments must be made on the basis of ability but consideration must also be given to the glass ceiling, which is a major issue in the corporate sector. It would be fitting if the Government was proactive in this regard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 107, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

"(6) Reference to this section is inserted in Part I of the Third Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act 1997.".

I second the amendment.

As is the case with new bodies generally, the application of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 to the board will be by way of regulations made by the Minister for Finance. A procedure is laid down in this regard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 111, line 7, to delete "€20,000" and substitute "€40,000".

If the board is to have weight and to be effective in determining disputes, it is necessary to increase the compensation threshold from the current low of €20,000 to €40,000. This is in the interests of all parties involved and I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment.

I second the amendment.

The limit for damages is too high and this view is shared by the Attorney General's office, although I understand from where the Senator is coming.

The Office of the Attorney General has recommended against this, as it feels the existing level is high enough.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank Members, particularly the party spokespersons, for their consideration of the Bill and for their co-operation in its speedy passage.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their work. This is an important Bill and, as I said earlier, other reforms will be introduced in this area, particularly for those in long-term accommodation. I hope the Minister of State will return to us with further details on these.

I thank the Minister of State for taking the entire Bill through all Stages. It is a step forward and offers hope to young people and others seeking accommodation. As the Minister of State admitted, he is halfway up the ladder. He has not reached the top but hopefully he will achieve that goal.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for the manner in which this Bill was debated. It is important to have disagreement as much as agreement and we are here to introduce good legislation.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn