Mr. Zak Murtagh:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address the forthcoming Bill. Threshold is a national housing charity that has been providing frontline services and help to people with housing problems in the private rental sector across Ireland since 1978. Since it was established, Threshold has advocated for a better housing system. In terms of the present crisis, last year Threshold was responsible for preventing more than10,000 adults and children from entering into a state of homeless. The well-documented supply crisis in Ireland’s long-term rental properties is not something I need to further address here today. Since 2018, Threshold has been campaigning for the regulation of short-term lets, as it became apparent that their popularity was disrupting the supply of long-term rental properties.

In terms of the forthcoming Bill, when enacted, Threshold's position is that we welcome anything that would result in a significant number of properties returning to the long-term rental market. We are aware that the figure that is being put forward most commonly is that by Fáilte Ireland of a potential 12,000 returning, which is significant and most welcome in this time of crisis. Our position on the Bill is that it is comprehensive. Having said that, there are a number of recommendations we would also make and I will turn to them now.

Firstly, the proposed Bill does not specify that people engaging in home sharing will be subject to the same requirements as others operating in the short-term letting market. We submit that this needs to be addressed more clearly within the Bill or set out in the associated regulations, with due consideration given to the administrative burden that would be placed on home sharers. I want to be absolutely clear that Threshold has never had any objection to people letting out a room in their principal residence on a short-term basis. Our core objective relates to entire apartments or homes, and the possibility of returning those to the long-term rental market. People renting out a room within their principal residence is something we have never objected to. Likewise, we have never raised objections to the rent-a-room scheme.

The second recommendation concerns the definition of short-term lets provided in the general scheme and the conflict with section 3A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. We note that there is a conflict between both pieces of legislation and we also note the extension in regard to the definition of what constitutes a short-term let from 14 to 21 days. We are seeking a further explanation as to why this extension has occurred.

Following on from that, we note that any updates to the Regulations for Short-Term Tourist Accommodation Rental 2018 on foot of amendments to the Tourist Traffic Acts must not remove the requirement to provide certificates of compliance with planning permission in order for a property to be eligible for registration on the register of short-term tourist lettings. Essentially, what we are getting at here is that we understand the legislative process will require revision of some of the existing registers that are already in place, and the requirements that are attached to them.

Turning to the definition of information society services as set out in the general scheme, we note that it is not a readily available definition and point to the definition provided by a European directive. We are seeking more clarity on this and a straightforward definition of what an information society service actually constitutes.

The obligation on information society services to collect and display registration numbers is of key importance. We recognise that the only requirement of information society services or platforms is to essentially make their best effort in regard to checking the validity of registration numbers. We do not believe this is sufficient. We believe it is a core aspect of enforcing compliance, and essentially the platforms or information society services have to share the burden in ensuring this process is effectively carried out in order to ensure this legislation has teeth.

Finally, the last of our recommendations relates to the financial sanctions in place. We feel that the financial sanctions that will apply under the forthcoming legislation in respect of the information society services are insufficient and unrealistic, and are not reflective of their turnover figures. The maximum financial sanction that can apply to them is €5,000, which pales in significance to the financial sanctions and punishments that can apply to proprietors, which can be as much as €50,000 and up to five years imprisonment for not being in compliance with the legislation.

We simply call for the revision of the potential sanctions that could apply to information society services, ISS, as I say, to be reflective of their turnover figures. Those are our core recommendations. If the members have any forthcoming questions, we would be happy to oblige.