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

A number of amendments are linked but we are opposing them because we have our own amendments to bring forward. If a landlord did a substantial refurbishment to their property they were able to cite that as grounds for getting outside the RPZ provisions. People were concerned that this was being used for renovations and as an excuse to get people out so that they could jack up the rent and the RTB issued guidance to landlords so that landlords would know how not to break the law or breach rights. This Bill brings forward a definition of substantial refurbishment and we are bringing forward an amendment to further improve the definition and make sure it is watertight. We do not want to allow our rental stock to fall into disrepair over a number of years by giving no incentive for a landlord to invest in a property. We do not want to stop people from improving their properties, such as by providing extra bedrooms to accommodate more people, by ensuring they will not get their money back for the investment they have made. If a landlord spends €30,000, €40,000 or €50,000 to convert a garage into an additional room, maybe a play room, a TV room or a bedroom, but the tenancy agreement states they can only increase rent by 4% in an RPZ, they should be able to step outside the RPZ provisions because they should certainly be able to charge extra rent for another person in the property. We want to avoid unintended consequences that prevent or dissuade landlords from investing in their properties so that we keep stock up as time goes by.