Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for the presentations. It is eight months since the "RTÉ Investigates - Nightmare to Let" documentary was broadcast and the Dáil unanimously supported a motion, of which one of the central recommendations was the introduction of a system analogous to the national car test, NCT. While the "RTÉ Investigates" programme obviously showed the very extreme end - nobody is saying that is the reality for the vast majority of those of us who live in the private rental sector - we do have a difficulty. I understand what Mr. Walsh says. He believes the vast majority of landlords are compliant, but the problem is that we do not know that to be the case. That is not me giving landlords a hard time; it is the very opposite, in fact. The issue is we do not have data to confirm it. I think most of us who engage with the private rental sector a lot are of the same view - we just do not know. For example, the data available to us, limited though they are because some of them are a little dated, show that when one looks at the relationship between levels of inspections and levels of compliance, there is actually a far higher level of compliance than some people think. Mr. Walsh is right that there is a spectrum. There is very minor non-compliance which can be rectified very quickly, while there is very extreme non-compliance. We need to be very honest with ourselves in getting a read on what is happening.

I do not understand why it is going to take us until 2021 to get to a 25% inspection rate. In the first instance, that is a matter directed towards the Minister and the Department. If it is only going to cost €10 million over four years to bring up staffing levels, I do not see why that €10 million could not be made available, given the fiscal space that will be available next year. The issue is whether local authorities could ramp up inspection rates to 25% in one year, particularly those that are at the bottom end of the inspection regime. with an inspection rate of 1%, 2% or 3%. The 2016 report of the National Oversight and Audit Commission, NOAC - again, the data are old - showed a large number of local authorities that were already at a figure of 10%, including Mr. Walsh's. To move from 10% to 25% might be more possible in a year or two years. If the Minister was to make a policy decision that €10 million would be made available immediately, from the point of view of the Department and that of the local authorities, how quickly could we move to a 25% rate, accepting that there would be differences between local authorities, depending on their current performance?

Different people have different ideas about the NCT-style system. My preference would be to combine the local authority inspection with the NCT certificate in order that when the local authority carried out its inspection, it would issue the certificate. Dr. Hayden is absolutely right - any new landlord entering the system should have to have an NCT certificate before they let. If 25% of the remainder of the rental stock was inspected in one year, all other landlords would be caught over a period of four years. All new landlords would have to request it and would not be able to let without it and all existing landlords would obtain it over four years. A landlord would then simply have to ensure he or she had it. The certificate would be renewed every fifth year for a relatively modest administrative fee. The scheme would be relatively revenue neutral for the local authorities, but it would not be prohibitive for the landlord or the tenant if it cost between €50 and €80 to have the inspection carried out on a five-yearly cycle. I think a landlord could handle it. If we were to do it in that way, we would get the benefit of the Threshold proposal, that is, putting an obligation on the landlord. There would be a revenue source for the local authorities to cover part or most of the cost of inspections and by the end of a period of four to five years all landlords would have the NCT certificate. Inspections would continue on a rotating cycle. If it could be tied in with the accreditation system, as Ms Carroll says, we could have something really robust within a very short period. It would not be self-certification; it would not be private sector-led and there would not be concerns about spiralling costs. For me, that is the model that combines the benefits of what everybody here is recommending and I would like to see it progressed as quickly as possible.

I support the risk-based model, but coming from a local authority area where we have very few old rental buildings, I note that we have a lot of new rental buildings that do not meet standards. We need to factor this into the risk-based model also. We have lots of developments in Newcastle and Rathcoole and some in Lucan and Clondalkin that were built during the Celtic tiger era and which already have significant standards issues. They should be included.

I am interested in hearing the responses of the Department, the County and City Management Association and the Residential Tenancies Board to the point Threshold is making about overcrowding. It is absolutely right about how we should progress. Moreover, I refer to the penalties for serious breaches. Under the current legislation, someone who is in breach will receive an improvement or a prohibition notice. Again, in most cases of non-compliance that is fine, as an improvement notice will help to sort out most of the problems. However, it seems bizarre that if someone is in significant breach, there is no immediate sanction. I am talking about the small number of very extreme cases. I would like to hear people's views on how we can strengthen that aspect.

The Minister is considering this issue not in terms of the next piece of RTB amending legislation but the one after that. What level of prohibition would be appropriate to hit those instances of extreme non-compliance?

One issue that has not been mentioned but which we raised during the debate in the Oireachtas is the role of estate agents and letting platforms in advertising properties that do not meet minimum standards. There must be a responsibility and a liability on the letting platforms and, in particular, estate agents because while staff of the letting platforms do not visit the properties they advertise, estate agents do. For example, one prominent estate agent is advertising properties in my constituency that have received neither planning permission nor a building certificate. It is a matter of public record. In fairness to the local authority, it has made a complaint to the Property Registration Authority, but I believe stronger legislative sanction is required. What are the delegates' views on how that could be achieved?

I wish to raise two final points. It is unacceptable that people living in social housing do not have access to the same rights and protections as those in the private rental sector. That makes no sense. The only reason it does not happen - Mr. Michael Walsh will panic when I say this - is that the State does not want to foot the bill in having that responsibility in the short term. The cost of giving social housing tenants access to the RTB, particularly on issues related to standards and maintenance, would be phenomenal. Mr. Walsh is correct that there is a problem in meeting the cost in that regard. I am not sure if increasing rents would be the best solution, although it would be one, but ring-fencing rent payments coming into local authorities and only allowing that money to be used for maintenance could help to an extent. There is also the recognition that social housing is subsidised and that the State has a responsibility, as the landlord, to maintain these properties. There is a question mark against the level of financial support given to local authorities to meet these requirements. Take a look at the housing stock to examine windows and see if there is damp. Local authority managers will know this. I am not criticising local authorities, but the system has not been set up in a way that allows local authorities to use the rental income in the first instance. Again, I am interested in hearing the delegates' views on that issue.

The last issue is damp. While overcrowding is an issue, damp is a big issue. It is an issue in older private rental stock, newer Celtic tiger private rental stock and social housing. The difficulty is that tenants are being blamed for damp and mildew on the basis of "lifestyle issues", as they are called. We need to examine the matter from a policy and legislative point of view to provide greater clarity on who is responsible. We had an architect and chartered surveyor before the committee when we discussed this issue. They said a problem was developing in many European countries because the improved energy efficiency of new builds meant they were retaining more moisture. In addition, some of the units are smaller and there are higher levels of occupancy in social housing and some sections of the private rental sector. This combination is driving damp conditions. It is not a lifestyle issue linked with the tenant but a structural problem. Do we need a policy or legislative response? I believe it will be a bigger problem into the future.