Mr. Tom O'Brien:

I am similar to Deputy Wallace in that I have been renting properties since the early 1990s and I have also seen two or three cycles. Until two years ago, tenure was not an issue. Tenants would move on after 18 months to two years even when one wanted them to stay. Long-term letting did not prevail in the market. Rents were also pretty steady until there was a jump in the late 1990s. They steadied again until 2004 when, again, they jumped. The undermining symptom is supply and that is the root cause of the problem. There has to be more supply. The State cannot solve this by itself, practically, financially or in the context of the time available, nor can the institutional players solve it, as they are not interested in the end of the market most affected by the homelessness crisis, which probably came about with private tenants squeezing lower tenants out of the market because they can afford the higher rents. They are now renting units previously inhabited by the people who are now having difficulties. It will take time to resolve this but politicians have to create the climate and the environment to facilitate more supply.

Deputy Ryan asked about deposit protection. There might be cases where there is an issue with deposit refunds but our membership does not see that issue. Our members are, by and large, absolutely compliant and au faitwith the laws and regulations. One has to bear in mind the levels and incidence of deposit disputes. Some 800 disputes arose last year, in the context of some 100,000 tenancies. The UK has a deposit protection scheme in place which is a huge burden on the Exchequer. Given that finances are limited for everybody on this side of the table and on the other side, in the form of the State, I would caution against introducing a regime and a structure for processing deposits that will be hugely onerous on the Exchequer for cases which amount to less than 1% of all tenancies.

According to the PRTB's figures, almost three times the number of disputes before it relate to rent arrears. People do not want to hear that but that is what is consuming the PRTB's time. As Mr. Faughnan outlined, when a tenant leaves on a Friday, he or she wants the deposit back because he or she is moving into somewhere else on a Saturday. He or she wants to have the deposit in his or her hand when going on to the next property. If we introduce a deposit protection scheme, it takes 28 days, as it does in the UK, and the level of landlord claims against deposits in that system is much higher than they are here. When it is dealt with by an administrative body, independent of the tenant and landlord, it is much easier for the landlord to make a claim. Introducing such a framework invites more problems when there are deposit disputes, although it is not an issue for our members as they are compliant. The Government-appointed body, which commissioned an investigation into deposit protection infrastructure, warned against it.