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

I thank everybody for their detailed responses. Like the last round, I have a few comments and then two specific questions.

First, with the tenant in situscheme, I talk to many landlords who are selling. They are more than happy to sell to local authorities at the asking price for a standard sale. Their biggest complaints are that the process of purchase by local authorities is too slow and getting even an agreement in principle from the council takes much time. It is also the case that, while the Minister reopened that scheme this year - which is welcome, because it was closed by the previous Minister – he has not given specific instructions to local authorities. Various local authorities are applying it differently; some are more flexible than others. Speeding up that process and having a consistency of approach would be helpful. Landlords have had a long-term relationship with their tenants, and those who want to sell do not often want to evict. If they can sell for a fair price to the tenantin situwith the local authority, that is a good outcome.

Senator Cummins asked a question earlier and I will answer it because I have information. There have been a number of local authorities over July and August that have not been able to provide emergency accommodation. It is not their fault; their emergency accommodation is full. In August, for example, in Dublin city, on ten nights, the Dublin Regional Homeless Executive had to turn away single people because there was not sufficient emergency accommodation. During that month, 63 families from Dublin were placed in emergency accommodation in Kildare and Meath because there was none available in Dublin. That then had a knock-on effect in those places. In one instance in Kildare, a family from who presented as homeless were offered emergency accommodation in Roscommon. Limerick was reported in the newspapers in July and August on quite a number of occasions as not having adequate emergency accommodation or hotel accommodation. We do not know whether the fall-off of the tourist season will ease that pressure. I do not think any of those local authorities would mind that being in the public domain. Their problem is just that there is not sufficient supply. That is worth noting, because Senator Cummins asked an important question.

On the NCT, this is one that landlords should support for the reasons Mr. Davitt outlined. If landlords and tenants advocates could at least agree on a couple of things, that would not be a bad day’s work. If there were an NCT - I take Ms McCormick’s point – if it was really light and done once every fifth year, year one and then year five, etc., if there was a €100 charge, which averages out at €25 cost for landlord per year, which gave them their certificate, that would do away with the need for any further inspections. The idea that inspections happen after the tenants move in has always been ludicrous. The value of that system is that it would protect good landlords. We have to be honest. We talk about problem tenants and that is fine - I live in the real world and know that is an issue - however, so are problem landlords. Therefore, if somebody is a good, decent landlord meeting the rules, having that NCT on their daft.ieadvert when renting the property, if they submit it to the local authority with the HAP application, if the tenant sees it, the good landlord and the good tenant are protected. It is possible to design the type of NCT-style system that Threshold has supported. In fact, the Oireachtas voted by a large majority for such a thing in 2018 in the context of a Private Members’ motion that I tabled. It is eminently sensible. The sooner it is done, the better. Ms McCormick is right that it cannot be expensive. However, I think it can be done in a way that would be very useful.

On rent, I will not argue with Mr. Davitt, particularly as there are different landlords out there. T be clear, however, one of the reasons the Government decided to move on rent regulation is because for two years we were looking at double-digit rent increases and we had a dramatic spike in homeless presentations. That is just a fact. In fairness to Deputy Alan Kelly, he tried to get rent certainty linked to inflation at the time. If that been accepted, we would all be in a much better place, because we would not have that two-tier rent regulation that the then Minister, Deputy Coveney, introduced. That was a reality, as it is a reality that large numbers of landlords in rent pressure zones, with stable increased their rents, some by 4%, 8% or 12%, and some have gone up to the 22% over the five years. Mr Davitt is right that others have not. However, the point is that many have. We do not know the full quantification of that because we do not have the data.

That needs to be said.

On the RTB and mortgage rights, that cuts both ways for landlords and tenants. In cases where a landlord has illegally evicted someone or withheld a deposit, the tenant is equally as vulnerable to the level of bureaucracy. That is not, in the main, the RTB's fault. That is to do with the way in which the RTB's adjudication process works, with the legislation and with the position regarding staffing. It is an issue that landlords and tenants could agree on. Let us have a really efficient dispute resolution system and let us have it quickly. I would go one step further than Ms McCormick. RTB determination should be legally enforceable. It is insane that a tenant who is wronged by a landlord has to go to court to have that upheld and vice versa. That makes no sense. However, if the party determined by the RTB to have been in the wrong wants to challenge it in the courts, let that party have its day in court, through whatever mechanism. At some point we have to accept that administrative justice is more efficient. In this case, the less we deal with the courts, the better. It would be good if there was an agreement on those issues.

On HAP, I would say to Mr. Davitt that, in fairness, Threshold has been strong on this, and I will defend its honour. It is ludicrous for a local authority to stop paying HAP because tenants stop paying their contribution to that local authority. That is insane. It is bad for the people represented by the witnesses. It is also bad for tenants. Ms McCormick is absolutely right that, in some instances, tenants have significant issues going on in their lives. They may have a bereavement, mental ill health, or something else going on. They are then at risk of homelessness, as well as the landlord losing the money for the rent. As long as a HAP tenant is in situin a rental property, the rent should be paid. The sooner we can get that message to the Minister and the officials to get it changed, the better it will be for everybody. We have a situation where HAP tenants who fall into arrears with their HAP contributions are not allowed to enter into a repayment agreement with the local authority, the HAP payment to members of the witnesses' organisations is stopped, and the tenants are evicted. That is the height of insanity.

I know there are issues we do not agree on. I wanted to refer to those issues because I think they are issues on which we can agree. With the Chair's indulgence, I have two other quick questions