Dr. Michael Byrne:

I thank committee members for the invitation to take part in this important debate. I will begin, if I may, by talking about some of the reasons that potentially explain the discrepancy between the two data sets. Then I will step back a bit to consider some related issues that have implications for policymaking in particular.

The discrepancy is likely the result of a combination of two issues. First is the licensee issue already mentioned. The number of licensees is, of course, not captured in the RTB data set as licensees are not technically tenants. Obviously, it is a cause for concern in its own right that we do not know the number of licensees, although Revenue could use data gathered as part of the rent-a-room scheme to shed some light on that.

The second issue is the AHB issue mentioned by our colleagues from the CSO. The only other thing I will add to that - I will not go over this because it has been discussed - is that there has been a small change since 2016 in that AHBs now fall under the Residential Tenancies Board and the Residential Tenancies Act, and AHB tenancies are now Part 4 tenancies. That is the only significant change since 2016, which may have led to some confusion as to how tenants categorise themselves, perhaps miscategorising themselves as private rental tenants.

The third issue, which appears likely to be the most significant by far, although it is too early to say with any certainty, is the non-registration of private rental sector tenancies. Again, we do not know the level of non-registration. In collaboration with Threshold, however, we took a sample of 146 tenancies associated with clients who contacted Threshold in early September 2023. Of those, 52% were not registered with the RTB. That is obviously a very large and concerning figure and it suggests that non-registration may be a significant concern, although it is important to underline that further research is necessary. It is also worth noting that the decline in the number of tenancies registered with the RTB began in 2016, and 2016 was also the year in which the current phase of increased regulation and reform in the private rental sector began, with really important changes such as the rent pressure zones legislation. If it is the case that non-registration is a significant part of explaining the discrepancy between the two data sets, it suggests that in recent years we may have witnessed not so much a case of landlords fleeing the sector, as has been reported, so much as landlords fleeing regulation, which should be a major concern.

I wish to step back and consider a number of related issues that relate to the question of small-scale landlords exiting the sector, which has been the subject of much public commentary in recent times and is often put forward in the media debate, for example, as the main reason explaining the decline in the number of tenancies registered with the RTB since 2016.

To be clear, we do not know the number of landlords exiting the sector in any given year, and some of the data discussed in respect of that issue are sometimes misinterpreted.

As has been noted, the fall in the number of tenancies registered with the RTB since 2020, which has been quite dramatic, is partially or potentially related to the non-registration issue but, importantly, also coincides with the change in the registration system we have already heard about. That is one matter it is important to note. Second, another data source frequently referenced is the number of notices of termination registered with the RTB. This has increased markedly since mid-2022 but this can be explained by a legislative change at that time, which means that if notices of termination are not registered with the RTB they are not valid. In other words, the increased number of notices of termination registered is a sign of greater compliance rather than a greater number of landlords exiting the sector, as is sometimes claimed. Moreover, that data set, which begins in 2019, covers a short period. During much of that time eviction bans were in place, which further distorts that data set and makes it difficult to make claims based on it. Most importantly, because the data set begins in 2019, we do not know what the long- or medium-term average number of notices of termination issued in any given year or quarter might be. We have no way of saying whether the current levels are higher or lower than what we would normally expect.

My final point is related but slightly more conceptual. In a given year, a certain number of landlords will always exit the sector. Landlord exits from the sector are part of a normal functioning rental market. Thus, we ideally need to consider what level of landlord exits is appropriate or consistent with a functioning market. Absent such a figure, we have no way of saying with any certainty whether the current number of exits should be a cause for concern or for a policy response. Relatedly, we cannot assess with any certainty what level of policy response might be warranted. There is a bit of an analogy with the housing vacancy figures. Often, when we see the figure for the proportion of housing that is vacant it can seem alarming, and in some senses it is, but a certain proportion of the housing market will always be vacant. It is a normal and necessary component of the market. There is an analogy in that regard. I thank members for their attention.