Mr. Tom O'Brien:

It is refreshing to get the opportunity to address comments such as this because often we see in the media erroneous and irrelevant comments thrown out that have no basis. Deputy Barry's first point related to return. Return is a function of annual rent over capital value. That figure of 7%, which is high for Dublin, is a gross figure. Minimum financing costs on that investment are 5%, which brings it down to 2%. Tax is applied to the profit at a rate of 53% before account is taken of service charges, repairs, PRTB costs and LPT. Therefore it is a heavily negative return, not a positive return. That 7% is gross and before costs. While 7% sounds good in the media, the reality is that it is a negative.

I know the Deputy cited an example of somebody who applied a lick of paint to a property in Cork and got outside the rent cap. How did they get out of the rent cap? Did the RTB come out and approve that or was it something that was done outside the rules? The latter must be the case because a lick of paint would not qualify as refurbishment. It is nice to throw that anecdote out there and it sounds good. We represent compliant landlords. Our body does not have members who flout the rules. We hear about such landlords and we would sanction and admonish those who are flouting the rules. We do not hear those cases but I know the media pick up on them because it is a good story and it furthers the political agenda.

The Deputy threw out a figure of rents having increased by €1 billion. I would like to know what the pool of rent or total rent is. In 2010, rents reduced by 50% from where they had been. That is a matter of public record. I am a landlord and I can tell the Deputy it was 50%. When rents have increased by 50%, they have increased by 50% following a drop of 50%. While it sounds good again, the reality of it is different.

In addition, during the period in which rents increased, costs also increased. We had the introduction of the local property tax, more punitive tax measures and the application of the universal social charge to rental income. I do not know what planet people are living on, but if they believe landlords should invest in property and essentially offer a charitable service where they offer accommodation for less than market costs and make a loss, while generating additional taxes for the public good, that should be stated as public policy. We would then see a further reduction in the rent pool. Would Deputy Barry invest in property on the basis that he would not cover his costs and would operate at a deficit, but he would be acting in accordance with his conscience and offering a charitable service? That is how the system is working.

I am surprised at some of the comments from Threshold, whose core objective is to cater for its tenant base. That is an appropriate aim which I understand but the organisation is continually pushing against the landlord, driving an anti-landlord agenda and making things more difficult, costly and onerous for the landlord.

People do not rent property because they love it and they get enjoyment out of it. They do it because they are trying to provide for a pension. At some stage people will decide to invest in shares instead of investing in property. It is a dry investment and they get 5% or 6% per annum with none of this nonsense around regulation, being tripped up on technicalities, being taxed to the gills and having debt obligations. That is what is happening. We are seeing a shrinking in the property investor population. For every three properties sold, one is being rented out. In two years' time, the position will be even worse. We will have great regulations. Landlords will not be able to move without getting clearance from the RTB. The tax authorities will be all over them and the politicians will have dealt with them. However, we will not have any stock and that will create a bigger issue than the problem the country faces now.

The Deputy is correct in saying there is a political agenda, but all the political agenda has done is to drive down supply. If the real aim is to help tenants and decrease rents, the politicians are failing abysmally.

On the issue of Deputies being landlords, maybe they are; I do not know. However, that is not evident in any of the rules that have been introduced since 2010 or 2011. There is absolutely no landlord bias. I would have to say fair play to Deputies because if they are landlords, which is not evident, they have taken the hit.

The Deputy mentioned the Union of Students of Ireland. I do not where the media get these examples, but they always find the one case where a landlord has divided a house into 15 units. While it happens, every single business has rogue operators. That includes building, distribution, etc. The landlord business will never be an exception to that. By pulling out the exceptional case and drafting a series of laws and introducing costs to deal with the exception, if that is where we are going, that is fine, but it is bad legislation in that context.

Deputy Ó Broin and my colleagues from Threshold raised the issue of the resourcing of the Residential Tenancies Board. We would welcome an increase in resourcing because the system does not work for us, just as it does not work for tenants. Resourcing should not be increased at the expense of the landlord. If everybody in the room was being objective, we would all agree that the RTB is a tenant body and not a landlord body. We have been before the board of the RTB and if one looks at determinations and the issues that arise in the RTB, they show it is a very pro-tenant body. To the extent that resourcing needs to be ramped up in the RTB, it should not come at the expense of the landlord. I question whether the tenant should have an obligation to part-fund the registration fee. At the end of the day, the RTB's role is to protect the tenant's interest and the tenant surely should make a contribution to that fee.

We represent compliant landlords. We have regular meetings, many of which focus on educating the landlord. We accept this legislation is coming and it is onerous and complex. However, landlords need training; professionals would need training on this. Whether we streamline the legislation into one Act or otherwise, people need training. As a body that is trying to educate landlords and ensure we do not have the kinds of issues the legislation is designed to address, the IPOA should receive some degree of State funding - through the RTB or some other body - to facilitate training. This could involve RTB staff coming in to talk to our members. If we are trying to act on behalf of responsible and obedient landlords, operating in a very tough legislative and tax regime, surely funding could be provided to allow that training.