Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Dunne for his presentation. I read the opening statement. I apologise for being delayed getting to the meeting. I wish Mr. Dunne well on his appointment, should it happen.

I am greatly concerned about resourcing, which my colleagues have mentioned. While there has been a rush towards additional regulation and giving the RTB more responsibility, there has not been the same rush to provide additional resources and IT systems. Regarding annual registration, are those systems in place and robust right now?

I would like Mr. Dunne's view on co-living. I do not support co-living at all, as it is not a solution, or even a partial solution, to our housing problem. I was greatly concerned when reading the legal submission to an Bord Pleanála on a certain planning application. It argued that co-living would not come under the RTB or any of its legislation because club membership would be set up. People were to be regarded as lucky enough to be club members of the new developments and would, therefore, not be covered under the RTB legislation or any of the amendments thereto. Has Mr. Dunne a view on that? Has he looked into the area of co-living? How can it be ensured people are not being exploited in such circumstances?

Reference was made to the investors. I agree there is a role for them but the problem, which may be more at policy level, concerns the proportion and location. In certain parts of this city and county, the market is saturated with investor and investment fund landlords. They can effectively set the rent for the area, particularly with new units. There was a recent application to develop 1,200 units in six apartment blocks between Dublin city and Fingal. Almost 1,100 of the units will be build-to-rent. That is going to a REIT or pension fund. While there is a role for them, we certainly have to watch where the units are located and ask whether they are saturating or taking over certain parts of the market in the city. We need to do the same for purpose-built student accommodation.

My other question is on the licence to reside. The amendment to the RTB legislation, with which many of us present were involved, tries to ensure students have the protection of the board. Is Mr. Dunne happy that they have the requisite protection now? Has the board the resources to deal with the thousands of students who will come to Dublin city, generally for a nine-month period, year on year and then move to other areas?

On the proportion of renters, I was looking at figures from 1991. Nine percent of people were in the private market whereas now the proportion is 21%. It is of concern to me and my party that there has been such a massive move towards the rental market.

Others would have us believe in a further push towards public housing. I support such a move but they argue there should be more renting of both public and private, with cost-rental models and so on. It seems to be a continuation of the trend of reduction in home ownership and in giving people an opportunity to own their own homes. That is probably another policy issue, given there has been a distinct move towards pushing people into the private rented sector.

On enforcement of determinations, Mr. Dunne has some previous experience in the role. It is the most frequent complaint or feedback we receive from both sides after going through the process with the RTB, which can be extensive and time-consuming, as he will know. The enforcement aspect does not take place until the end of the process. We debated the matter with the Minister. A judicial determination is ultimately needed to enforce an RTB order. While the Department argued against quasi-judicial orders, people can ignore these determinations, and I am aware of such cases currently before the RTB. Has Mr. Dunne a view on the matter?