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

I thank all our guests for their presentations. It is important we hear from all sides in this debate given the serious issues in the sector. I acknowledge also the recent research of the IPOA and IPAV. It is a very important contribution. Whether or not one agrees with the individual proposals, it is valuable to have that dialogue.

It is important we acknowledge that the private rental sector is at a turning point and, therefore, we have to think about the longer-term consequences of whatever the Government or the Opposition argues for doing today. There has been far too much short-term, knee-jerk reaction, both during the Celtic tiger era and more recently, and that has created the kind of instability Dr. Byrne outlined earlier. I am increasingly of the view our private rental sector probably grew too big too quickly, and that is not a criticism of anybody who invested in it. Government policy incentivised much of that investment during the Celtic tiger era and some of the issues we are now dealing with are the outworking of that growth.

It is absolutely the case that the main problem we have had relates to the lack of delivery of social and affordable housing from the 1990s to the present. One third of all private rental tenants should be in social housing. There are almost 100,000 people between HAP, RAS and the rent supplement. Again, that is not the fault of landlords or landlord organisations but rather is a failure of the State to ensure an adequate supply of social housing. Moreover, many people in the private rental sector should be in cost rental or affordable owner occupation and that has to be borne into our considerations. I have some sympathy with the landlord organisations in regard to badly designed rent regulation creating a two-tiered market, which is causing problems not only for their members but also for many tenants, and I would make the same point about the inequities in the tax treatment. The idea that some categories of landlords pay no tax at all on their rent or capital gains is just absurd and I do not see how anybody can justify it, so I agree on that point.

Nevertheless, I want to put on record two points about State support for landlords, the first of which relates to the fact that rents, even within rent pressure zones, have increased over the past five years.

Depending on when a rent review fell it was possible for some landlords to increase rents by as much as 22%, 20% or 18% over five years within the rent pressure zone legislation. This is a matter of fact and we should not lose sight of it. It does not mean all landlords increased their rents by these amounts but it was permissible under the rules. It is also important to acknowledge that mortgage interest relief increased back to 100% in 2020 from 75% in 2016. This is a significant taxpayer contribution. I am not making these points to be critical, I just think they are part of the overall picture that we need to bear in mind.

My first question is for Dr. Byrne. To take his argument to the logical conclusion it is not just about giving people an exit out of private rental and into social rental, cost rental or another scheme. Is there an argument, as was made in a paper he recently shared from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, to look at policy instruments to redistribute properties from the private rental sector to the social rental sector and owner occupation? Threshold has proposed a policy of capital gains relief for tenants in situ. Do we need to look in a co-ordinated way at making sure that as landlords leave, we make every effort to try to keep tenants in those properties, whether they become owner occupiers, cost renters or social renters?

My next question is for Threshold. As is absolutely their right, the landlord organisations have made the case that within rent pressure zones an existing landlord where there is a change of tenant can reset the rent up to the maximum allowed on the market. What would be the consequence of this for the people Threshold represents given where those asking rents are, particularly in high-demand areas?

My next question is for the Irish Property Owners Association. On the basis of the figures provided, the specific tax relief it is calling for would cost the Exchequer approximately €300 million. This is a very big sum of money. If the Opposition is to support this measure, we would want to be sure that it would do what it says it would do, which is to keep landlords in the market. Given the age profile Ms Conway has outlined, is it not the case that many of these landlords, as they move to and beyond pension age and particularly given where house prices are at present, have an incentive no matter what the tax take is to sell the property to get a lump sum at this point? Many of these landlords invested for this reason. How sure is the Irish Property Owners Association that if it got this €300 million for the sector we would not still see an exit of accidental landlords and what I call pension-pot landlords from the market?