Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I cannot accept the amendments but I appreciate the motivation behind them. I have lost my deposit before in circumstances I thought were absolutely incredible. When I saw the dispute options open to me, I felt the burden of pursuing them was not going to be worth the money I was trying to retrieve. I have also been in a situation where I have used a deposit to cover my final monthly rent payment. People like to have the flexibility to do that as well. There is a commitment to bring in a deposit protection scheme. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan is absolutely right that the 2015 Act provides for this to happen. I have been examining this matter since I came into this brief because it is something we committed to and that it is possible to achieve in law.

Some difficulties have arisen, however, that were not there in 2015. There have also been some changes in the landscape. One is that it was originally intended that this would be financed by the interest payable on the deposits in the scheme. The ECB has stated, however, that it is going to continue with a zero rate for the foreseeable future. The interest on even a large amount of money would not, therefore, be enough to cover the management and maintenance of this scheme, its operation and the administration required. We need to consider the numbers of tenants and the amount of money involved. A change in the market means that disputes about deposits are no longer commonly referred to the RTB.

Turning to the issue of the two-month deposit, I do not have a problem with defining a deposit as generally being one month. It is not something significant according to the RTB, however, nor is "key money". There was much reportage on these issues at the time. Threshold stated that it was a disgrace and should not have been happening. It had to withdraw that statement the next day because the evidence brought to Threshold had not been actual evidence of people being charged to view properties. There has been some misreporting on this in the media. That is not to say that it does not happen. When we look at all of the different things we are asking the RTB to do, however, including the new things it will be doing - and we have given it money and resources to do those tasks - we have to be careful about the additional burdens we ask of the RTB. It may not see those issues as being foremost priorities.

Regarding the size of a deposit protection scheme, we are looking at more than €300 million according to a back-of-the-napkin estimate. It is estimated at about €340 million and rising. That is a significant amount of money that needs to be managed and held. Where would it be held? Who would manage it? Under what terms would the moneys be released? What would be the different dispute mechanisms needed for mediation? We would need all of those things. It is not a simple thing to do. It is a great idea but it is complex. That is not to say that it is not something we should proceed with but it is not being presented to me as the priority it once was. Given everything else we are asking the RTB to do, we are not proceeding with that aspect in our Bill. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendments brought forward by the Deputies.