Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have apologies from the Cathaoirleach, Deputy Carrigy, and Deputies Butterly and Ó Broin. Did Deputy Gould mention Senator McCormack?

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is on the way.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings.

No.1 on the agenda is the discussion on pre-legislative scrutiny of the residential tenancies (amendment) (No.2) Bill. This Bill proposes to amend the current system of rent controls and give effect to new measures to protect tenants, including increased security of tenure, which will come into effect on 1 March 2026. Today, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to consider this and other related matters further with representatives from Threshold, the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers, IPAV, the Irish Property Owners Association, IPOA, and the Community Action Tenants Union, CATU.

From Threshold, I welcome Ms Anne-Marie O'Reilly, national advocacy manager, Mr. Zak Murtagh, legal officer, and Mr. Gareth Redmond, research and policy officer. From the IPAV, I welcome Ms Genevieve McGuirk, CEO, Mr. Fintan McGill, president, and Mr. John Kennedy, board member. From the IPOA, I welcome Ms Mary Conway, chairperson, Mr. Maurice Deverell and Ms Margaret McCormick. From the CATU, I welcome Dr. Fiadh Tubridy, Mr. Michael Sheehan and Ms Cáit Gleeson.

Regarding parliamentary privilege, I wish to explain to the witnesses some limitations of parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards reference they may make to another person in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The opening statements have been circulated to members already. As we are tight for time, I propose that we not ask the witnesses to read the opening statements so that we can get straight into the session. Is that agreed? Agreed. As regards the speaking rota, the first is usually Fianna Fáil. As I am in the Chair, I will defer my contribution and move to Sinn Féin, with Deputy Gould.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to start with rents. I believe this new Bill will only drive rents up even further than they already are. I would like to hear what the witnesses' thoughts are, specifically on the consequences of when this Bill comes into effect on 1 March. We might start with Ms Gleeson and work our way across.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to say, the Deputy has seven minutes for his session.

Ms Cáit Gleeson:

We share the Deputy's fear that this would ultimately lead to rents being driven up, particularly after each six-year term. This will be a massive increase that could come when rents are allowed to be reset to market rates.

We were looking at figures from Galway yesterday that indicate that if this legislation had been in place in 2020 and rents were brought up to market rates, renters would suddenly face a 66% increase to stay in their homes. While what is proposed presents itself as limiting rents, it guarantees the ability to drive up rents every year. We have significant concerns that this would just put more pressure on renters.

Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly:

Threshold has a similar concern. It believes that in a few years the vast majority of tenancies will have higher rents, at market-rent rate. It could mean extremely high increases for renters if they have to move from one tenancy to another or roll over into a six-year tenancy. We are concerned. There does not appear to have been any modelling or forecasting of the impact of the proposed change on rent and renters, who are struggling to afford rents as it is. Before rent pressure zones were introduced, there were six scenarios tested and research was done to determine their impact. Something similar definitely needs to be done before this proposal can be given serious consideration.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

Rents will probably go up, but rents go up for the same reason that the price of wheat went up when the Ukraine war began, namely supply and demand. In Ireland, we have a really bad supply of property for rental. If we compare Ireland even to Scotland, which is probably our closest neighbour with a similar population, we can clearly see Scotland has 350,000 units rented out and we have 240,000. This is a difference of 110,000 although the populations are the same. We need much more supply. We know from our members that many landlords are leaving, as the papers have reported, and that property is changing hands from smaller landlords to funds. We can clearly see that, even from the latest RTB figures. This is where the problem lies and obviously it will push up rents. In six years, we do not know what will happen. All the new rents that will have changed from next year will, theoretically, be at some sort of market-rent rate; however, there is a phenomenal number of 2015 rents still in the system and some of them will be half the market rent. Most of them will be unsustainable in six years’ time. We can see that existing rents that have been under rent control for ten years will be stuck there, and that will push out supply. Obviously, the Government is pushing to have more property-----

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Deverell.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

I am sorry. I thought the Deputy was-----

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My time is limited. I thank Mr. Deverell but I hope to come back to him during a second round.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

That is okay.

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

Before we came here, we surveyed our members and found that 74% of them observed that landlords are leaving the market. Most of our members represent small landlords. Small landlords, or those with one property, represent 66%. We are seeing a mass exodus of smaller landlords from the market. We can see this from the RTB figures. The rate is the highest since quarter 2 of 2023.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry for interrupting. That was my next question. I might come back to the delegates on it. Will the new legislation drive up rents specifically?

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

I believe that, due to shortages, it will.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me go back now to the point that was being made, on which Ms McGuirk might come back in. Are landlords leaving now because of the new legislation coming in?

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

They are. As we see from the RTB results, there is another increase in landlords leaving the market. Over 60% of them cited they were leaving because they wanted to sell. In our survey, the main phrases that came up were fear of the legislation and fear of overholding. I am not blaming the tenants for overholding; I am attributing it to supply. It is being posited as a matter of landlords versus tenants, but that is not right. It is actually a supply issue.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms McGuirk. Mr. Deverell was touching on this subject a minute ago.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

Yes. The number of units has been 240,000 for the past four quarters. Therefore, the number is staying the same. At this committee meeting, we really need to be cognisant that the director of the RTB, Rosemary Steen, told us only last week that the 240,000 units include the cost-rental units. Why they are included among the 240,000 private units seems odd because cost rental is non-profit, but that is the way the RTB counts. Ms Steen also told us that over 3,300 letters were sent to landlords who had not registered. I suspect that a vast proportion of the 3,300 would have registered and paid the €40. We insist that all our members register but some do not, just as 100% of people do not wear seat belts. From that point of view, the numbers have moved a little. A reasonable number have left. You do not see 5,400 notices to quit in one quarter, or 20,000 per year, if there is no issue. We have only 240,000 units in the country.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Deverell for that. Everyone agrees that rents are going to go because of the new legislation. The delegates are saying that more small landlords are going to leave the market as a result of it.

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

They are. At the end of the day, with homelessness increasing month on month we cannot afford to lose one landlord, not to mind over 5,000.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of my time. We might come back to that.

The other aspect of the legislation is security of tenure. My first question is for CATU. There is six-year security of tenure built in. That is the reason some landlords say they are leaving. Does CATU feel six years is enough or does it believe that, because of the ability to bring rents up to market value, it will not make the difference the Government is saying it will make?

Ms Cáit Gleeson:

We believe that ultimately after the six years people will be in an even more precarious situation because they will be facing a massive increase in their rental cost year on year if they are to continue their tenancies.

The other thing about security of tenure is that the rules in place and that would stay in place for smaller landlords, whereby they could evict based on a family member needing to move in or on the need to renovate, are currently used as a get-out-of-the-tenancy-for-free card by many landlords. We have many members who were given an eviction notice, apparently based on a family member moving into the property, only to see the property up again for rent several months later at a massively inflated price. We feel the protection for security of tenure is not enough because the rules are still being used as I have described.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the view of Threshold?

Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly:

On security of tenure measures, considering we were told nothing could be done to tackle landlords exiting for sale and so on, we are impressed with what is being proposed regarding restrictions on sale, but enforcement will be really big part of that. It will be a matter of informing people and making sure landlords and tenants are aware of what is involved and what is not permitted.

On the market-rent aspect, Threshold has proposed that a rent-brake mechanism could perhaps be included in the legislation such that if rent inflation reached an unsustainable level, a brake of some sort could be put in place. We propose that this be built in now so the current Government or a future one will not have to enact emergency legislation to tackle what could be runaway rents.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agaibh.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. Coming from a rural county, I am seriously concerned that the Bill is so focused on large-scale, industrial landlords, mostly in large cities, that it has not been rural-proofed, especially in respect of where there is very significant demand on holiday accommodation. It appears to me that over-regulating one type of property use and under-regulating another could see large numbers of long-term rental properties being moved into the short-term market, unfortunately. Could the representatives from the IPAV and the IPOA state whether they have any information on the potential impact of the Bill on rural and coastal communities? There seems to be an arbitrary take on what constitutes a small landlord. Is there any precedent that could be used to determine whether a landlord is small or large-scale?

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

On small and large landlords, someone who has a property with four units – a pre-1963 property, for example – is now considered a large landlord and in the same category as someone with 100 units in an apartment block in Dublin city centre. To us, that is a quite significant difference. An institutional investor has different tax breaks from a non-institutional one, yet both will be deemed large landlords.

There is a difference, but they fall into the same category.

In the context of smaller landlords and rural areas, this matter is of huge concern. The new legislation introduced to provide for developing an increasing number of apartments in the cities is going to be extremely beneficial in the long term, but it will be five or six years before those apartments are built. Also, they will be based in city centre. Small landlords are very important, particularly in rural areas. If they are concerned about the red tape around the new legislation, they will just leave the market. We can see if happening already with the notices of termination.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is happening. What can we do to prevent it from happening going forward? I am aware of a lot of small landlords who are just getting out.

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

They are citing fear. That has come up in our survey many times. I had never seen that from a landlord before in our survey. Normally, you would feel that a tenant would be citing fear and that is understandable because they are afraid they will lose their homes. Landlords are citing fear. They are afraid of the legislation, of overholding and of how people view them. The term "landlord" is just seen as an awful term. Nobody wants it to be known that they are a landlord any more. We need to look at tax breaks for smaller landlords. They need to be seen as being the same as the institutional landlords that are coming in and getting huge tax breaks. Why are the smaller landlords not getting those tax breaks? They are providing homes in rural areas that nobody else is.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Without small landlords in small, rural areas, there would be nowhere at all for people to rent. Can something be done in the proposed Bill to support small landlords?

Ms Mary Conway:

It is overly complicated. As it is proposed, from next year there will be three different levels of landlords. There will be existing landlords, with tenancies of indefinite duration since June 2022, and then there will be the small landlords and the large landlords. There is so much confusion among our members. The debate is overly focused on Dublin. Rural areas have not be the subject of any focus. Whatever about a housing crisis in Dublin, some property will always come along. When a small landlord leaves a rural area, there is a difficulty, however, because there is no building going on. The council is not building. Social housing is not being built. When somebody exits the market down the country, that is it; that is the end of the landlord.

I am sure there are farmers who have, for example,, have rented out their mother's house or whatever and who are concerned because-----

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is right.

Ms Mary Conway:

-----a tenant may be overholding. They do not know if they will be able to get them out if the house is needed for a family member. It is overly complex. I do not think we should be blanket bombing everybody with the same rules, whether they are in the city or the country. There are different types of landlord. The whole thing is just a big blanket. It is a case of people hoping it will all settle down.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is only getting more confusing.

Ms Mary Conway:

Yes, it is getting more confusing.

Mr. Fintan McGill:

The one-property landlords we have in the midlands are getting out because they are afraid of the six-year rule coming in. They are concerned that if they try to sell the property, the only person who will buy it is the tenant or an investor. If the rent is low, the value of the property is dropping because of this.

Mr. John Kennedy:

It is not just that; the market they will be selling to is made up only of investors. It is 10% of the market now, so we are talking about a 30% haircut on the price they will be able to get for their property. First-time buyers and people wanting to move into family homes are all excluded because it is now an investment property and can only be bought by an investor, effectively. That is a serious issue.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or the tenant can buy.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

Large landlords are already covered by the Residential Tenancies Act under the Tyrrelstown amendment, which relates to ten properties or more. It would seem reasonable to leave that as it is. Pre-63 properties cannot survive. The six-year tenancies will not all come in at the same time; they will come in in different years on a rolling basis. One can never get a pre-63 property back, yet it probably started out as a family home and should probably end up as a family home. It will probably not be totally suitable as a rental property in ten or 15 years' time.

Obviously, from a European point of view, with building energy rating, BER, certificates and everything else coming down the line, something like a pre-63 property has to be done in one go if it will be BER-proofed. Also, if someone has a four-bedroom house share, they will be stuck with it for the same reason as the pre-63 properties because they cannot shift people out at the same time in order to get vacant possession. Due to the fact that you are a large landlord, you must sell it on as a single property.

That is where this committee really can make a difference. The two types of property I mentioned are the most affordable in the State. We made a big mistake with bedsits, which the Green Party got rid in 2013. We are making the same mistake now by getting rid of pre-63 properties and four-bedroom house shares. Not every tenant can afford to pay the rents that the real estate investment trust, REITs, and the big investors want. How much pain can tenants absorb? Tenants are crucial in this whole thing. Young people are living at home until they are 40. I know that from experience. I had 200 applicants come to see one property. There has been a quadrupling of homelessness since the RPZs were brought in. There is no choice or freedom for tenants; they are stuck in golden handcuffs. They may be living in Dún Laoghaire and working in the airport, but they cannot move because they are stuck with their old rents. Until we get supply going, all we have are existing tenants, who are in a wonderful position because they are in RPZs or are among the 104,000 now, but any young person, new tenant or country person coming up to Dublin is snookered because they are the ones who are paying. There should be a fairer distribution of rents all round. That is where the unfairness lies for tenants. We cannot squeeze the market for ten years and expect to have a different result from what we have had. It was supposed to be three years. That was what Simon Coveney told us, but it did not turn out to be the case. It just cannot keep going the way it is going.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for attending. I will go to CATU first. Will Mr. Sheehan outline the tenant experience of the current wave of evictions? We have had an unprecedented 15,000 evictions this year so far. There is a lack of coverage of the real-life experience of tenants. Will Mr. Sheehan give us a sense of how it is impacting people?

Mr. Michael Sheehan:

Just for context, ours is a membership-based tenant's union. We have over 2,000 members in 30 branches across the country. What we see is an emergency; it has gone beyond a crisis. As was mentioned earlier, 20,000 eviction notices were issued last year. Many of our members join up on the back of eviction notices in order to look for support and protection against eviction. A lot of times, landlords circumnavigate the RTB process. Either they are not registered or they simply do not know the legislation or do not care and try to evict tenants by illegal means, I guess. That is where we step in to protect tenants.

I am the Munster regional organiser for CATU. Recently, I was involved in a campaign with 14 families in Killarney who were being evicted by Xerico Limited. When I went down to meet these families, what I found was a completely close-knit community in rural Killarney. The school stands to lose 10% of its students as a result of these evictions. There is not a single property in Killarney on the market for purchase below €450,000, and there is nowhere to rent. It is close to zero. When there is somewhere available to rent, as the previous witness stated, there are around 200 applicants.

In the context of we see with the proposed legislation and how it will impact those on the ground, it will heighten matters and make the situation worse, as outlined in our statement. Ultimately, what we need is a complete pivot in the context of how the Government approaches the housing situation. In other words, a move away from the private market. We need to be building public homes on public land and expanding social and public housing, which we seem to be moving away from.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Sheehan think, in terms of legislation, that there should be a ban on evictions at the moment given the scale of the crisis?

Mr. Michael Sheehan:

Yes, absolutely. As outlined in our opening statement, we think this can be brought in immediately for HAP tenants. In the context of HAP, the State is essentially giving billions of euro to private landlords.

They should not be allowed to evict tenants on a whim. Our union is inundated with HAP tenants being evicted. We are supporting them to overhold and protecting them against any illegal evictions. That is a start. The eviction ban should be re-implemented on all no-fault evictions immediately to end this crisis.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I turn to Threshold on the scale of what is going on right now. It is something I am trying to raise awareness of and bring attention to. We are seeing a tsunami of evictions. We have not seen anything like this. It has been building up in recent years. What is Threshold seeing in terms of the human impact of evictions on renters?

Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly:

We are seeing a small increase in the number of people coming to us with notices of termination. Over the past number of years, we have seen that it is becoming more difficult to challenge a notice of termination. The landlords are genuinely selling the property or have the paperwork in order to proceed with that. In those scenarios we are making sure the person has enough knowledge and resources available to them to go and find somewhere else. When it comes to the data on the level of notice, there was not a sudden jump in notices in the most recent quarter. As the Deputy has pointed out, we have seen a general increase in the past year and a half or thereabouts. It was not a case that this legislation was announced in June and landlords suddenly started issuing eviction notices. There has been a steady level of notices. The RTB's landlord survey of a few years ago indicates that landlords were planning to leave and that is what we are seeing. An additional cohort may be leaving because of the legislation but we cannot create a definite link between those two things. I would be cautious about making such a claim.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I turn to the landlord organisations. I have two questions. They say that it is a property investment for landlords. However, they also acknowledge that it is a renter's home, and we are in an emergency situation. Do they have a view on the issue that, as has been spoken about, there is nowhere for many of these families to go? There needs to be, like we saw with Covid, a temporary ban on evictions until there are places to go or, at a minimum, there should not be evictions into homelessness and local authorities should work with landlords to ensure that no one is evicted with nowhere to go to.

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

The Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers does not represent landlords. Our colleagues in the Irish Property Owners Association do. We represent auctioneers who will manage landlords' properties. We are looking at it from the viewpoint of what they are telling us on the ground. That is just to be clear.

The RTB has stated that the majority of landlords are compliant. It is not that the landlords are not being compliant. The results last week state that most of them are compliant. If there is a ban on evictions, unfortunately supply will dwindle even more, which is not what we want. We want supply to increase. At the end of the day, it is the Government's role to provide low-income, long-term properties for tenants. It was never the role of private residential landlords to provide that type of property. They have fallen into that role over the past number of years. That was never the original intention. There is room for different types of landlords providing different types of tenancy. The Government is looking at long-term supply, but we also need to look at short- and medium-term supply as well. Unfortunately, putting a ban on evictions will have a negative effect. I do not think it will have a positive effect.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know how much more negative we can be than to have 15,000 people being issued eviction notices.

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

There will be more notices of termination, NOTs. That is what will happen, unless the Deputy is saying that as of midnight tonight, there is no-----

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In my view that is what the Government should be doing because what is going on here is a social emergency. I thank Ms McGuirk. Maybe the landlord organisations will respond.

Ms Margaret McCormick:

It is a difficult situation for everybody, but landlords purchase their property. They are citizens of this State. They purchase their property and they rent their property. They are providing a service. They help the State to provide accommodation for its citizens. When the State is restricting that it is hugely difficult. We have now had rent pressure zones for over ten years. We have a group of people who can no longer sustain their properties on the incomes from them. We have standards increasing all the time. The situation for them now and with the new legislation proposed is that they will not even be able to sell their property when they need to sell it. I know straight off that more notices of termination have been served. There are a lot more of them coming down the line. We have been asking our members to hold fast, not to take any actions too quickly and to see what the legislation states and how it comes out. There are a lot of people who are ready and in a situation where it is not sustainable for them to keep the properties, and they want to. They do not want to service notices, but the income is insufficient. Over ten years, we can see that the consumer price index, CPI, has increased, but their income has been limited. From that perspective, it is just not possible to keep going. If we bring anything else in like a blanket ban on selling, it will destroy the market.

Ms Mary Conway:

I will make a comment. The Deputy asked if we could work with the councils. We have tried and the funding for the tenant in situ scheme dried up in March last year.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely, the Government cut that.

Ms Mary Conway:

There are lots of landlords who have wanted to sell to the councils, but it is taking up to two years in some cases to close. We are willing to talk to the councils, but something needs to be done. It cannot go on forever.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

I will make a quick point to Deputy Hearne. If I sell the property, the new owner has to leave it vacant for two years if they decide to turn it back into an investment property at market rent. This idea, in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, of having to leave property vacant when we know we need a lot of properties to be occupied and not vacant, is one of the things the committee can put in its report for the amendments on this.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being here. It is obvious there is a lot of frustration across the tenant and landlord groups and the homelessness advocates like CATU. They are all describing pressure and confusion. It is across the board. Deputy Hearne mentioned that there will be a lot of evictions and that is what they are seeing. Ms McCormick said that there is a tsunami of evictions. What I see, even from people coming to me, is that they are unsure, fearful and uncertain and they are giving notice to their tenants because of the new legislation but they do not know what it means or how it will impact them. Therefore, this legislation is designed to prevent evictions and hopefully people can have security of tenure. However, it is frightening people, and they are giving notice to tenants and putting their places up for sale. Is there an argument to delay this legislation? Is there an argument to inform people exactly what it is about so we are all operating with knowledge?

Ms Margaret McCormick:

There is an opportunity for a lot of things. The biggest problem for the landlords is that every time legislation comes in, before it is even bedded in, there is another change in legislation. They are very concerned. Looking at it now from the perspective of an individual, a lot of our landlords are older and would like to keep their properties. It makes more sense financially for them to do so and to die owning property. Otherwise, they have to pay inheritance tax and their estate has to pay capital acquisitions tax, CAT. What we have now is that in the case of company pensions, people will not be able to sell. If you have one property in a pension, you will not be able to sell it. Why would you keep it if you are going to devalue it? On the death of a landlord, the family has to pay capital gains tax. If they do not have the money, they need to sell. The property will be devalued. As regards the measures the committee is looking at, there is nothing there to protect the landlords in those situations. Where a property owner become ill, there is nothing there to allow them to move out of the sector. The tenants will be protected and the owner will not be able to sell. The points that are being made are causing people to move out of the sector.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All of the groups here know what they are talking about and represent different sides of the argument, but they are all reasonable people. Is there any work they could do together as a group, and all work together?

I am not asking if it is sleeping with the enemy, rather if there is anything that can be done. I would like to hear different views on that.

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

We have organised two webinars for our members. The first one was with the Department of housing. We were probably the first to do that for our members. We had over 470 members attend that. We have 1,500 members so there was quite a substantial cohort at it. That was to try to get an understanding of the legislation.

We had another webinar in mid-November. That was a lettings conference. The Department of housing also spoke at that. We were grateful to the departmental representatives for speaking at that because we are trying to get that knowledge out there to our members so they can pass that on to tenants.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I meant by that was the organisations in this room. Is it madness to consider that we could all work together and come up with a plan that represents tenants and landlords and we work on a stabilisation and confidence plan going forward rather than being on opposite sides of an argument? Is that nonsense?

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

I do not think we are on opposite sides. We all want the rental market to work correctly for both landlords and tenants. I was talking to the CEO of Threshold there. It is probably one of the first times we are all on the same side on this. We want to see a proper functioning rental market but it is very complicated. There are four tenancy types with three types of tenancy rules. I do not know how you would come together and fix that. That needs a total overview altogether. That is so complicated, just in that piece alone.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask Ms O'Reilly?

Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly:

There are few things that we all can probably agree on. One thing that has come up often is the idea of policy certainty. It has already been alluded to how the legislation has chopped and changed, particularly since 2020 with the Covid-related changes. Everyone wants to see the legislation stable without too many changes in the future. We think that this proposed legislation could possibly achieve that. It will be incredibly messy. There will be a lot of upheaval as it beds in and it will take a number of years for it to bed in. There are certain aspects of the proposed legislation that probably everyone is a bit unhappy with and probably could be tweaked and amended, and maybe additional measures put in to address any of the issues that are in it. It is not impossible.

Mr. Zak Murtagh:

I might come in on Ms O'Reilly's point there. It is pivotal going forward, if both sides are to work together, that we-----

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that happening?

Mr. Zak Murtagh:

In order for it to happen, we need people to stop being disingenuous. There has been, to my mind, an alarmingly disproportionate amount of commentary already here tonight on rent pressure zones, RPZs. It is not a central thrust of our submission on this but it gives us a flavour of people maybe talking around broader issues and broader agendas without focusing on what these heads of Bill propose. In order for us to work together, we are going to have to be honest about what the proposed legislation is saying.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Dr. Tubridy want to say something?

Dr. Fiadh Tubridy:

From a CATU perspective, to chip in on this, there obviously are some shared concerns, maybe around the role of institutional investors and corporate landlords in the housing system. We would see the emphasis on encouraging institutional investment as very problematic given what has been observed in terms of the rent increases in that sector. Research from the Central Bank has demonstrated that institutional investors tend to increase rents at a disproportionate rate.

There may be some points around that we could have agreement on but we also see that there are fundamentally opposing interests here between tenants and landlords. On the one hand, for tenants, their home is their home that they need to live in and stay in whereas, for landlords, it is a financial asset that they want to make a return from. That is not an immediately reconcilable conflict.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If you had some areas that we could agree on and move forward and work together on, that would being a little certainty to both tenants and landlords. That was my point.

Mr. John Kennedy:

Some of the things, such as the six-year tenancy, happen for security but that needs to be balanced with something else because otherwise there is not equilibrium. For everything that you bring in for the tenant, there has to be something brought in on the other side in order to balance it. Otherwise you have supply going down. All of the things that are brought in for tenants are good things. I would support most of them, if it does not have a negative effect on the other side. What we both need to be mindful of is the balance of equilibrium in the market.

Ms Margaret McCormick:

There was a commission report done in 2000. The IPOA was a part of that. I think IPAV was, and Threshold. We were all part of that. The Residential Tenancies Act was based on the findings of that report, but they did not follow through on a lot of the findings. They cherry-picked it. It was guillotined in at the time, in 2004. They did not follow through on the tax treatment and changes in the tax. Even though there was a group that got together and they agreed and compromised, because there were things that were unpalatable for both sides within it but it was something that could have been worked, those were not brought in. Subsequently, the Act itself was repeatedly changed and is unbalanced.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is Ms McCormick's organisation doing about under-the-counter top-up payments that landlords are demanding? The problem is that tenants do not declare them. It does not get out into the public domain. It does not show in any figures in terms of official rent reported to the RTB or anybody else. What is Ms McCormick's organisation doing about that practice?

Ms Margaret McCormick:

We do not hear from it because our members tend to follow the rules. We would never defend the indefensible.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The majority do, if you ask.

Ms Margaret McCormick:

I am sorry to say that is the same for every walk of life. We do not defend the indefensible. Where rent should be a certain amount, it should be that amount. As such, if a call came into the office of any description, we would inform our landlords of that.

We educate our landlords. Like IPAV, we have had a number of education events around the new proposals. We had the Department of housing as well and we had a substantial number at that hearing. We also had an event in Dublin recently, which is what frightens us, and in Cork.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is good. At these events, has Ms McCormick, specifically, at any point, addressed this particular practice?

Ms Margaret McCormick:

It is not something that comes up for us. We educate and we would have discussed HAP. We have also had the Department in discussing HAP as a webinar and giving out information. The representatives would have made it clear at those webinars that it is unacceptable to breach the law. We make it clear all of the time that it is unacceptable to breach the law. If there was a-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In short, because we have limited time, is Ms McCormick telling me that her organisation has addressed this at its seminars and at its meetings?

Ms Margaret McCormick:

We would always, at every meeting, tell our members that they must abide by the law of the land.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very broad. I am asking in relation to this specific practice which happens.

Ms Margaret McCormick:

If there was a question that came up at a meeting-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This causes huge difficulty for tenants.

Ms Margaret McCormick:

If there was a question that came up at the meeting or if there was a call into the office of any description, we would address an issue.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Going forward, could it be addressed maybe more directly?

Ms Margaret McCormick:

If we did a presentation on HAP, we would explain the rules around it and make it very clear to all our members that they need to abide by the law.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms McCormick for that. Turning to Threshold, I thank the witnesses for their submission. Threshold expressed concern about the move to market rents and set out some reasons. In relation to lets, it is an issue that was raised. I think we would agree there is a general feeling among everybody that policy certainty would be a good thing because everybody would know where we are going. The other thing that is important to address is that the number of lets, the last time I looked, is increasing. The number of units let has increased significantly in recent years. It is important to say that on the record because the impression sometimes given is that the whole thing is collapsing out there.

What is Threshold's concern about the short-term tenancies and rents increasing each time with the market rent?

Maybe Ms O'Reilly or Mr. Redmond might talk us through where they see that problem.

Mr. Gareth Redmond:

I thank the Deputy for his questions. Starting with the short-term tenancies, one of the concerns we have is that, while it is somewhat positive that we are moving from a situation where no reason to a reason for an eviction, one of the notable reasons that can be cited is any other reasons o it does not really add too much to the protection for tenants to begin with. Currently a landlord can issue an eviction for no reason for less than six months and now any other reason can be cited but it does not add any additional protections per se. That is the first concern we have.

Regarding the market rent resets, we have a lot to say about that. That would probably be our biggest concern. Since 2016 rents have gone up more than wages each year with the exception of 2020. There are plenty of statistics that can be found from the survey on income and living conditions, the CSO and so on that basically highlight that there are lots of tenants renting who are living in material deprivation. This is before the changes have come into place. The overarching concerns we have about the tenancy reset is that while a landlord can increase rent by 2% each year, there could be a very large rent increase at the end of six years. The Housing Agency's review of the rent pressure zones actually outlined that the new mechanisms allowing landlords to raise rents to market rents will need to be carefully managed to avoid very high rent increases. We believe that the proposed market rent reset does not take this recommendation on board.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Redmond saying that at this point in the legislation there needs to be provision potentially made for a rent-break mechanism? That is mentioned in the opening statement and submission.

Mr. Gareth Redmond:

Yes. The other recommendation that could be made is to end the rent reset at the end of a voluntary end of a tenancy, because there could be some unintended consequences. The first is a potential shift in behaviour to landlords renting to shorter term tenants. For example, if a student is brought in-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point Mr. Redmond is making is that would increase the number of opportunities to reset to a market rent.

Mr. Gareth Redmond:

Theoretically, a landlord could maybe do one every year.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the technical side of the legislation relating to notifications, surely in the legislation we should insist a paper form of notification to be used. Mr. Redmond correctly articulated there are options among the methods landlords can use to contact and notify tenants. When somebody receives a notice of termination of tenancy, it is a big deal for the landlord and it is an enormous deal for the tenant because the roof over their head is gone and it is getting more difficult to put a roof over one's head in the private rental sector because there is a higher population.

Should we not insist on paper hard copies for notifications?

Mr. Gareth Redmond:

Regarding electronic communications, I will pass that over to my colleague.

Mr. Zak Murtagh:

We have been very clear about this in our submission. We feel the current wording around the service of notice by electronic means is quite broad. It could include commonly used platforms that do not pay due adherence to the formalities and importance of meeting those formalities around something as serious as serving a notice. We have made that point absolutely clear in our submission. In a broader sense around manipulation and notices, service is one aspect but we also share CATU's concern on shorter term tenancies where there is potential for no-fault evictions to increase because the grounds currently proposed in the heads of Bill could effectively be spun a little bit, which could lead to more notices being served. To speak to the electronic service point, absolutely, we are not happy, particularly with the wording on that.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

Homelessness will go up. The Senator is right. The reason is that it has quadrupled since rent controls came in. There is a relationship between supply, landlords getting out of the market and selling up properties and homelessness. The level is debatable. There was something said about 52% of people in the Dublin area in homelessness were not originally living in Dublin. Essentially, I believe the Senator is right. Rents will go up, but there are a lot of logical reasons for it. The confusion part the Senator is 100% right about. In this amendment there are two definitions for "market rent". It should not have two. Market rent should have a definition. It should be clear, and it should be concise if it going to be put into legislation. I probably speak for both groups here when I say the whole Residential Tenancies Act needs to be rewritten. The thing is a jungle. It has been amended so many times it is a mess. It is impossible to read and understand it from anybody's point of view. We would absolutely prefer it to be a simpler system. The whole idea that if a landlord has one property they put it into a company for their pension or otherwise, they are then considered a large landlord means it can never be sold to produce the lump sum for the pension when they hit 65 or 70 years of age. There are a lot of bits in this that are showing up as amendments and that we think are way too complicated. If a landlord wishes to raise a rent, at present they have to produce eight pages of paperwork to do that. Now, it is proposed to include a statutory declaration on the BER and square footage of the property. That is in this amendment. Why? The tenant knows that information from day one. Why do they need this bit of extra information?

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

They know how many square feet they live in.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

There is a lot of stuff we feel is unnecessary and over-complicated. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

As long as the rent controls stay, it will increase homelessness. The Senator is absolutely correct. This is rent control, and it will increase homelessness because the supply is not coming in.

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

Our members are telling us that landlords are issuing notices of termination because of the new legislation. That is a fact. That is what they are telling us. That is what they are seeing on the ground because our members are selling properties and, of what they are selling, 30% is landlords leaving the market. That is higher than the normal rate, which would have been maybe 10%. That is a fact. That is what is happening on the ground. The new housing plan will increase supply but that supply is going to come six or seven years down the road. What do we do in the meantime? That is a concern. The last thing we want to do is drive out the small landlords. We have to protect the small landlords in order to protect the tenants. That might not sit well with everyone right now but that is what we have to do right now. We need to look at short-term supply as well. Vacancy and dereliction are all over the cities.

It is a no-brainer to me. Why are we not looking at that?

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

The county councils should be looking at that.

Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly:

What we see in the homeless figures is that a considerable number of people - nearly half - enter homelessness because they have received a notice of termination and have been unable to find somewhere else to live. When this legislation comes in, if it comes in as it is, it should reduce the numbers of notices of termination that can be issued. We should see a decrease in the number of people entering homelessness on foot of those changes.

The other side of that is ensuring that there are enough homes for people to move out to. I know from statements made by the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, DRHE, that the problem it is finding is that it cannot find places to which people can move. That is where the increase in social, affordable and cost-rental housing is incredibly important. If we can stop the flow in, and we believe this legislation will help in some way, and increase the exits, we will achieve a decrease in homelessness.

It may very well be that in the immediate and short term, there will be an increase in the notices being issued as people are worried and fearful about what is going to happen. Perhaps they were planning to stay in the sector for another few years but decide instead to leave now before it all changes again.

On the other side, there is a proposal in the Bill for market rent resets in between tenancies, which is a lightening of our current rent regulation. On paper, we currently have rent regulation between tenancies, which is the strictest form of rent control that exists. That has been heavily criticised. The legislation is not just about placing restrictions on landlords' ability to sell properties. There is a market rent reset piece in there. I am a bit confused. I am hearing that landlords are leaving because the system is changing and yet there is a market rent reset piece in the legislation. A little more needs to be considered in that regard. We must decide what we want because we cannot have everything.

If we are to do something to try to tackle the homeless figures, it will be about focusing on the supply of social and cost-rental housing. That must be the focus, and that focus fell away a long time ago. When the housing assistance payment, HAP, was introduced after the economic crash, a huge reliance was placed on the private rental sector to house people.

Mr. Fintan McGill:

We have to build out. The big problem is planning permission. We are held up with planning permission. Emergency legislation should be brought in to allow the county councils to let builders go and build, say, up to 30 units.

Mr. Fintan McGill:

We are in an emergency.

Mr. Fintan McGill:

We need to bring in emergency legislation. We brought it in for the banks. I cannot see why we cannot bring it in for this situation.

Mr. Fintan McGill:

It is as simple as that.

Mr. Michael Sheehan:

We hear about supply in the media. There is plenty of supply there. When a small landlord leaves the market, the house remains. As mentioned, we have 160,000 derelict or vacant properties. The supply is there. It is about how it is used.

The rent controls do not go far enough. We do not need to allow a 2% or 2.6% increase in line with the consumer price index, CPI. We need rents to fall drastically. People cannot afford rents.

Mr. Michael Sheehan:

We cannot have people spending 60% of their wages on rents. That is unsustainable.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like my party colleague, Deputy Cooney, I represent a rural part of the country, in south-east Galway. The majority of rental properties in the area are owned by small accidental landlords, with rural houses built before 1963. They may be old Land Commission houses or old stand-alone farmhouses that became rental properties because a family member of the accidental landlord passed away. I am absolutely in agreement with the witnesses. There is massive fear of this new legislation. I can certainly see a number of these properties being sold. Many are being sold. I see "For Sale" signs going up on older properties that were for rent all over my area at the moment. However, many of these houses are on plots of land or out-farms, where the land is being actively farmed, and the houses will not be sold. While the people along the coast and in the more scenic areas have the option of putting those houses into the short-term lease market, that is not the case in places where there is no demand for such short-term letting. I fear that over the next number of years, a large number of these houses are going to be taken out of the residential market completely and will start to fall into disrepair and undo an awful lot of the great work that has been done and the progress that has been made by the croí cónaithe scheme over the past three or four years.

I am anxious to hear from the rental property representative group and the landlords' representative group. What measures would they suggest we put in place to incentivise accidental landlords to stay within the market and prevent their houses from sitting empty?

Ms Mary Conway:

It has all been very negative so far. It has all been about landlords leaving the market. I am glad the Senator mentioned that there should be some kind of incentive for landlords to come in. We see very little incentive at the moment. There should be some sort of tax break to refurbish these houses and allow them back into the rental system.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

Down the country, there are often farmhouses in the middle of a farm and farming is going on all around it. Many people have talked to us about this issue. If the farmer who is farming the outside land and perhaps inherited the farm decides to rent out the centre next March, he will be doing so for six or 12 years, or for however many years. That will be the case provided the farmer does not have two other tenancies and is a large landlord with four tenancies or more. That is the mistake. If you have a farm with a farmhouse in the middle, you can only sell it off in one go so you need the unit to be vacant. We need small landlords to be able to get vacant possession of the property. You need that. You are the one who took the risk, went off and got the mortgage, saved up the deposit, did all the stuff with it, and paid the mortgage over 20 years. You are the one who worked for this property and you need to own it at the end of the day. That is how to incentivise it. We must stop the complicated stuff that is being introduced in this legislation. I see that tenancies of dwelling is the new definition. What does that mean? There are numerous cases mentioned, including in head 10. What is this sort of speak? Are we talking about tenancies or dwellings when the legislation states that three or fewer tenancies of dwellings make one a small landlord? It is this sort of stuff that we need to get rid of. We must make it simple and understandable for tenants, landlords and everybody. That would help to incentivise landlords.

Ms Margaret McCormick:

On that point, we have been contacted by a few people who have let properties within their estates. They have stables that have been converted to properties. They are extremely concerned and worried because they will have to sell their property with the other properties in situ. The whole thing becomes devalued. In a lot of cases, the new owners may need those properties because they may require caretakers. They might require to work the land and need those properties to satisfy the accommodation requirements of their staff. It is chaotic. It is so complex and difficult. It has put such fear in the market. An incredible number of people are waiting on clarity.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

Let us consider a situation where one has a family home and one's mother has left to go into a nursing home. If one goes to rent out that family home, one has to do so for six years because there is no facility in this legislation for a shorter time, unless one goes bankrupt or for a couple of other reasons. We are therefore forcing an executor to become a landlord. Executors do not want to become landlords. Most executors just want to get out of doing the job. This amending legislation is unfair. How it is written will mean that executors are forced to do that.

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

From our point of view, we would be concerned that many of these properties, particularly on farms, will be left in vacancy. It will increase vacancy and dereliction, which is the opposite of what we are trying to do now. It is important that we look after these small landlords and take away the confusion. They have a right to be fearful. According to some parts of the Bill, for example, if landlords fail to copy in the RTB on a notice of termination, it is a criminal offence.

This is a serious change in legislation. People may have one property which is their pension pot, particularly in the farming community. Imagine turning around to someone tomorrow and saying their Irish Life pension had decreased overnight by 25%. That is what will happen to people selling properties with tenants in situ. It will be just like that, overnight.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Aird is sitting there-----

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Patiently.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Deputy Aird to take less than seven minutes.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

God I will; I will show respect, absolutely. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for allowing me in. The reason I am here is that I was a councillor for many years - for too long, some people would say. I will deal with County Laois because I represented the people of Portlaoise for many years and still do so now but in the Dáil. I remember the waiting lists in Laois County Council, and I could tell a person who came to me when they first went on the waiting list the length of time it would take them to get a house. I lived through the whole lot of it and I saw HAP coming in.

In recent years, every Minister who has come in has changed things and stuff has come in. My opinion is that every time something comes in there are fewer landlords. Should somebody not take two steps back? I would love to know the people who are framing this legislation. Are they landlords themselves? Were they ever a tenant in a house? My opinion is there is no way they were because they certainly would not propose what they are doing if that was the case.

There can be simple thinking on this. I saw the HAP coming in. People on a housing list were being made homeless because of where they were or they got married, had two children and were living together, or whatever the case may be. There were different reasons for it. HAP was introduced and then what happened was that people were only getting so much on the HAP and they had to pay more for the house. This extra money was eating into the money in their pockets. That was going on, and there is no question about it. What could the person do? They were caught in the headlights and they had to do it.

When I served my time on the council, ever before the most recent tenant in situ scheme came in, we had schemes 30 years ago through which local authorities bought houses. Now the councils are no longer buying houses. All I can say is that it is nonsensical for a person on a housing list or someone on HAP when a house is being sold. Believe it or not, in most cases the landlord and the tenant become friends through the years, especially with long-term rental accommodation. The landlord wants to sell to the local authority but the local authorities are no longer buying houses. Where is the joined-up thinking on this? I am saying publicly here today that this is going in reverse.

I have only one house, which is the one I live in. People are renting houses today and we are bringing in legislation to state the house can be sold, and there are various reasons people have to sell a house, and those tenants will be there for six years. If you went to buy an acre of land in the morning, and you were told you could buy the land but someone was renting it and would have it for six years, how much land would be sold? I am only making the point. Whoever is doing this joined-up thinking, please make it work for the person who is looking for a house.

When I was going up along there was no such thing as children having to go into emergency accommodation. It is the worst possible thing to have young children having to move into the likes of a hotel. They cannot live their lives as young people the way we all did, when we went to each other's houses in the evening. People being picked up by somebody for a football match are being picked up outside accommodation like this. How low is that? From a mental health point of view, having that at a very young age will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

I want to say one thing to finish up.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very briefly, Deputy.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a lady in a house being rented by a very nice person in Portlaoise. The person is very accommodating to the lady. The house was grand, and the lady was in it and it was perfect. Laois County Council came out and said that A, B, C and D had to be done by the landlord. The person in the house does not want it and it is perfect for her needs. She is delighted with the house. Now the landlord is saying he is out. Somebody somewhere has to stand up and say enough is enough.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay-----

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the point made on building houses. We have a housing crisis.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to move on.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that but we have housing crisis.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Aird is eating into other people's time.

William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a housing crisis and it was said that the length of time for planning is totally wrong.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have given the Deputy latitude. I call Deputy Sheehan.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know how to follow Deputy Aird but I will do my best. I want to make a couple of remarks. It seems on the macro level the Minister has tried in the Bill to satiate two competing interests. He has tried to safeguard tenants' rights and he has tried to satisfy landlords by allowing them to reset the rent to market rate in between tenancies. In reality, he has done neither. Will somebody address what needs to be done? I am dealing with a tsunami of notices to quit at the moment and they all involve individual landlords. How do we stop individual landlords leaving the market while also making sure to safeguard the rights of tenants? My concern is that this was done with institutional investors in mind. It was not done with small landlords in mind. Small landlords are being discommoded almost as much as tenants are by the rent being reset to market rate.

In terms of selling a property with a tenant in situ, is that not the norm on the Continent? What evidence is there that it will reduce the value of the property when it is being sold? Obviously, another investor or similar type of buyer would have to purchase the property.

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

It is obviously reducing the pot. How our system works here is that there is an advised market value. When a property goes for sale sometimes there is bidding on the property. If the pot has been reduced it will reduce the value on the property. The concern is that if a property is going to be sold with tenants in situ, there is another unintended consequence, which is that first-time buyers can no longer buy the property. They cannot buy a property with tenants in situ. There is a twofold issue, in that a huge cohort of the market is being excluded from buying the property at the open market value. The open market value will absolutely be reduced.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What do we do to try to stem that? It is smaller landlords who are leaving the market at an accelerated rate. How do we stop that?

Ms Genevieve McGuirk:

Small landlords are being restricted. We have landlords with one property in their pension pot and we are saying that they cannot sell for pension purposes. Even if there is a clause with regard to them being in difficulty, there is nothing in the legislation to protect the landlord's confidentiality. The tenant will be aware of why the landlord is selling the property, if they have financial difficulties, for example.

To stop notices of termination under the current legislation is quite difficult because there is already confusion. As I said earlier, we have four types of tenancies and three types of rules. I find it difficult to follow and I have listened to every podcast and spoken to the Department of housing. We have had several webinars for our members. Everyone is struggling to follow it. How is one landlord, who does not have access to all of this information, going to follow it?

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are slightly over time but I will allow 30 seconds to people. I have listened to the debate carefully. Deputy Sheehan touched on the point that there are competing issues.

Fundamentally, demand exceeds supply and that is the core issue. The Bill in itself is obviously not going to fix that problem. What I am hearing here, playing a bit of devil's advocate, is that both the groups representing the tenants and the groups representing the property owners are highly critical. How is that possible? If property owners and landlords are critical, it must mean tenants are getting something from the proposals and vice versa.If tenant groups are unhappy, it must mean the property owners are getting something. There are good things here. Will the witnesses outline some of the good things in the Bill, from their point of view?

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

There were two things in it that we thought were good, and we mentioned them. First, is that the slip rule is finally coming in. That makes perfect sense. If a landlord, who is filling out such complicated notices of termination and otherwise, makes a tiny mistake, that can be allowed to go ahead. We think that is a good idea. We also thought the German ideal was a good idea in the Bill. This happens in Germany, whereby when a tenant stops paying rent, if it goes to court the rent has to be paid directly into the court. That makes sense because the pot is there and it is physically available for whoever the judge decides should get it. However, the negative against the Bill is that it is so complicated and is making things so long that we feel it is not helping.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers to comment on the same point.

Mr. John Kennedy:

Going to the electronic notices, it is a great thing that landlords and agents can notify the RTB. There is nothing stopping the RTB sending out a letter as well. In terms of it being possible that that still could be put in and the letter sending from the landlord like the old style, both channels should be used.

Regarding the six-year rule of tenancies, if you can mitigate the loss of value there, that then could be compensated. I do not know how that could be done - perhaps with tax breaks, or what not.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go to Threshold with the same question.

Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly:

We see the six-year rolling tenancies as a positive move combined with the restriction on eviction and recognising the differentiation between large and small landlords. We recognise that there is still a mechanism for a landlord to sell with vacant possession because at the six-year mark they are entitled to end that tenancy for the purpose of a sale. I make that clear because it has certainly been suggested that this does not exist. I also mention the transparency in the rent setting but resources for the RTB are essential for that. I will take a moment to reference one thing. It is interesting that IOPA has mentioned the slip rule. Our legal officer has some strong thoughts on that.

Mr. Zak Murtagh:

We are vehemently opposed to any expansion of the slip rule.

Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly:

Some of the speakers later-----

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Going back to my original point.

Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly:

Some of the speakers later will have more to say about that.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now go to the Community Action Tenants Union.

Dr. Fiadh Tubridy:

We are supportive of the extension of rent controls or RPZs to the entire country because rent control is fundamental to the affordability of housing and people not being displaced, losing their homes and ending up in homelessness. It is broadly positive that there are somewhat more limited grounds for eviction, although that is by no means sufficient and there should be a full eviction ban as a matter of urgency. The question of sale with tenant in situ may have some positive aspects to it as well.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the criticisms I am getting, as a public representative, is in relation to the definition of the large landlord as being those with four or more units. Will all the witnesses comment on that briefly?

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

It is four or more tenancies, not units. If it was units it might be workable. Obviously, from the pre-1963 point of view, in a four-bedroom house or whatever kind of house share, which is the most affordable form of accommodation for people to rent, if you have somebody coming in in 2026, they will stay for six years theoretically and may move out in 2032 or 2038. However, the next person comes in a year later and a year later. If in 20 years' time, I decide it is time I retire and I want to move on, I only have the option of selling that property on to another landlord. However, think of a three-bedroom house with three tenancies and the people getting the rights for six years to stay there. Obviously, it is possible to move people on when a house is going to sell but because people are coming in at different times they will end up leaving naturally at different times. From that point of view, we feel that that six-year thing is a problem. We can see it being a problem for keeping the most affordable end of the market here. We made the mistake with bedsits-----

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a specific point regarding tenancies within the one building as such, but if we say someone who owns four houses or-----

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

Someone who owns fours houses is in exactly the same situation except if one leaves-----

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it Mr. Deverell's view that four is too low a level to set that at?

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

Yes.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask the auctioneer representatives?

Mr. John Kennedy:

I completely agree in that four rooms in a house being treated as the same as four properties just seems ridiculous. It does not make any sense. Small landlords being treated the same as landlords with 100, 200, 400 or 1,000 properties also seems ridiculous.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it Mr. Kennedy's view that four is too low a number as well?

Mr. John Kennedy:

Yes, especially when it is four leases, rather than four properties. I think so.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I put that to the witnesses from Threshold, on the tenant side of things. Is it an issue they have considered?

Mr. Gareth Redmond:

It is tough to tell but if we were to divide the sector in two, it splits the sector 50:50, or 45:55.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that in terms of the number of units landlords-----

Mr. Gareth Redmond:

In that regard, it is fairer to go by the number of units.

Mr. Zak Murtagh:

We are aware of different interpretations around the idea of creating individual tenancies within properties put forward by some of our other friends in the room today, which would differ in regard to our reading of the legislation and what is possible.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. There is a different interpretation there. I ask the Community Action Tenants Union on that point as well.

Mr. Michael Sheehan:

We do not really see much of an issue or much of an impact on our members, whether it is a small landlord or a large non-institutional landlord. We share Deputy Sheehan's concern that this Bill would be more favourable or suitable towards institutional landlords, which research has shown, charge considerably higher rents and have a negative impact on the overall housing market.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to stick to my time. I think the one thing all the witnesses can agree on is that it needs to be simplified.

Deputy Gould has 30 seconds.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just finishing the point there, I think everyone recognises that this legislation is too complex. It could create a lot more problems. What I have taken from today is that rents, homelessness, and vacancy and dereliction are going to increase. This legislation is not fit for purpose at this time. I cannot remember who said it early but we may be able to take the good parts out of it and amend the legislation to see if we can take on board what the witnesses said. However, going back to a point that was made earlier, we are in the middle of a housing emergency. We need a temporary ban on evictions and a temporary freeze on rents. On one point made by Ms Conway, I dealt with landlords in Cork in relation to tenants in situ who were absolutely brilliant. Some of them were waiting nearly two years and their properties still have not been purchased. Someone made the point earlier about the landlords who become friends or neighbours with their tenants. The situation here means small landlords and the tenants seem to be losing out here.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We really need to wrap up but I will Deputy Hearne in very briefly.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The landlord organisations spoke about rents and the shift to bringing it up to market rents. I have raised this point before. They talk about supply and demand leading to market rents increasing but it is not markets that decide the rents; it is landlords. Landlords have decided to increase rents year after year. For example, €896 was the average rent in 2015. Now, it is €1,730, including in existing tenancies. Do landlords also not have a responsibility to stop the rent gouging and increasing rents year after year? It is landlords who are increasing the rents.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give the landlord organisations the right to reply and we will cut it at that.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

No matter what you rent, such as if you go to a hire company to rent a car and you rent a Škoda versus a Mercedes-Benz, you will end up paying different prices. The outlay is relative to the yield.

If property is costing X - and it is not only rents that have gone up; everything has gone up.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Rents have gone up by much more than inflation.

Mr. Maurice Deverell:

A litre of milk was 75 cent. Today it is €1.35. That is only in three years, not since 2015. Stuff has gone up. At the end of the day, it is all due to a return on the capital that is employed.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to wrap up. I thank all the representatives for assisting the committee in its consideration of this important matter today. I propose to suspend briefly to allow witnesses to take their seats for our next session.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are considering our discussion on the residential tenancies (amendment) (No. 2) Bill. I welcome Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington BL, Dr. Lorcan Sirr and Dr. Michael Byrne. They are all very welcome.

Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practices of the Houses with regard to references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege.

Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The opening statements have been circulated to members. As we are tight for time, we can take them as being considered and go straight into questions. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will start with Fine Gael.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in. In the earlier session, a concern was raised by Threshold about using a tool such as an eircode to determine comparative rents. It said it is not fit for purpose and I am inclined to agree with it, especially in the more rural areas. In our own constituency in Clare, for example, an eircode in Kilkee includes one of the most disadvantaged areas in the county and one of the least disadvantaged areas in the county. I cannot see why that would be fit for purpose. I ask the witnesses for their thoughts in using other tools instead, such as Pobal HP Deprivation Indices, the CSO small area or the electoral divisions. Do any of the witnesses think there is a reason these tools should be considered inappropriate? Are there others that would be better? Maybe the witnesses could see if there are some other ones.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

I thank the committee for the invitation to be here today. I share that concern. In some areas there might be very few properties as well and areas that have small numbers of rental properties in general. You do not want the scale to be too small either. Local electoral areas, LEAs, might be the best scale. The best way to approach it is by stress-testing it and examining how consistent and useful the averages would be at different scales.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The LEAs would be the most simple one to work off. Can that be used going forward? What would be the updating use going forward? Where can we get that into legislation?

Dr. Michael Byrne:

There would need to be a prior exercise to ensure the LEAs were appropriate and produced meaningful comparisons that would enable landlords to get a sense of what the appropriate rent would be in a very clear fashion. If such a stress test did suggest the LEAs were viable, then I do not see any reason why that could not be accommodated within the proposed legislation.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Dr. Byrne have any other suggestions for anything else that could be used to determine this?

Dr. Michael Byrne:

No, I do not think so. I am probably not the best person to comment beyond that.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

I agree with the Deputy that eircodes are too variable. In rural areas, there are too few properties to make it meaningful, while in urban areas there are a lot of properties but with great variation. There might be a one-bed studio that is 100 years old next door to a 200-unit brand-new building with rents of €2,500 a month. The problem with the way we look at market rents, and it is a point I made in my submission, is that of the rising tide floating all boats. Where there might be small properties and a lot of brand-new ones, the €2,500 to €3000 a month is the incentive given to the small landlord to state that average rents in an eircode area are rising. In such circumstances, that landlord will attempt to raise rents. This will increase the market rents, basically. When the opportunity comes to reset the rent every six years, property owners with small units will look at the brand-new, shiny, glossy ones costing €2,500 or €3,000 a month in rent and say that is their reference point. In both cases, it is really tricky.

The source we have for rents at the moment is the RTB. The problem with the RTB, which it will also have from this proposed legislation, is the definition of rent that it uses does not capture all the rents. I made the point in the submission that we increasingly see large - not small - landlords charging tenants extras on top of the rent. The example I gave in newspapers previously is of a large, institutional investment landlord charging tenants an extra €200 a month for the upkeep of common areas, which are the hallway and stairwell. That is space tenants have no exclusive occupation of. They do not have a right to exclusively occupy it, so it is a common area. Traditionally, the landlord should be responsible for that. It means that because we are not capturing that through the RTB, the rent that is getting recorded by the RTB is not going to be accurate when it comes to the amount of money being paid every month by tenants. The more that accumulates over time, the more the debate will be divorced from reality.

All of these things are fraught. There is no perfect solution but my mind will go back to probably LEAs and the RTB data, but it needs to be clean data.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is Dr. Sirr's preference to stick with the two of those.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

Yes, I think so.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can see where Dr. Sirr is coming from. I can see the concern that is out there as well. Again, to get the proper balance is not easy.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

That is the thing with housing all the time, because so many competing forces are pulling and tugging. There are landlords and tenants, and property developers and first-time buyers. Everybody is pushing and pulling. We do not necessarily want to always compromise, but we do want a fair solution.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly, and a level playing field, if possible.

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

Part of the question is if we were to start out, would we start from this point or is there somewhere else we could start from? Prior to the Residential Tenancies Act, when there were rent-controlled dwellings - it was not all dwellings but certain tenancies were rent controlled - there was a rent review within them that could be challenged. There was a rent tribunal, the vestiges of which still exist. What the rent tribunal had to do, when it took over from the courts in doing so, was to go in and set a fair rent. If there was a dispute between the landlord and tenant as to what a fair rent would be, it was the rent tribunal that went in and determined that. It did that by looking at the condition of the dwelling, where it was and what the comparables were. It was not two people saying, "Here is a list and here is another list". It looked at the situation of the landlord and the tenant. It also looked at the particular place where people were living. That all went when rent-controlled dwellings went. There was a constitutional amendment to that. There is a view that means no rent controls could ever occur, which is incorrect and an over-interpretation of what actually occurred and why that legislation fell. There would be-----

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry for interrupting. We need to move to the next speaker, if that is okay. The Deputy might get a chance to come back again on that.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being here. We just had a session with CATU, Threshold, auctioneers and valuers and a group representing landlords. What came out of our discussion was everyone said that rents and evictions are going to go up, dereliction and vacancy are going to increase and this is overly complex legislation. What are the witnesses' comments or thoughts on that? Do they agree with where those groups are coming from? What is their position on the legislation?

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

The Residential Tenancies Act, according to Ms Justice Laffoy in 2006 or 2008, is one of the most complex pieces of legislation she had ever come across. That was a long time ago and prior to a whole mosaic of other pieces, and amendment after amendment being put on top of this legislation. There is a very strong call for stripping the legislation back to a simplified core. In doing so, I caution against an approach that would say that in column A landlord says this and in column B tenant says this. Policymakers should try to sit above that and ask what is fair and what is going to work. Otherwise, as I said to somebody else in the room, you will be like 20 blindfolded people trying to draw an elephant and you will come up with a mismatch.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

I will reference the first point in my submission. I am stepping on Ms Sheehy-Skeffington's shoes by quoting from Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, who wrote an interesting book, not even a big book, in 2010, The Rule of Law. His first rule is "The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable." Like the Planning and Development Act, which is 900 pages long, the proposed legislation fails on that one. The point in general is that it is not intuitive. You do not naturally know what your rights are. There are multiple combinations, depending on your landlord. I know members have heard all this before from the Civil Service and officials, but it needs to be simple. The line I have is complexity is the enemy of good policy and good law.

We are getting into entropy here, where it is getting so convoluted with legislation built upon other legislation. What will happen is we will end up with a little mini-industry of people who will help tenants and landlords. We will end up with a lot of people, who think they know what they are doing, getting things wrong and giving poor legal advice, and non-legal people giving legal advice, as happens quite regularly already. We will end up with an increase in cases to the RTB. I do not know whether the RTB will be resourced a bit more or not, but there will be more complex cases and a lot of the cases will end up requiring legal representation, which will favour large landlords over small tenants. The bigger the mess made in terms of legislation and the more complex it is made, the message accumulates down the line all the way to the RTB.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

I disagree somewhat with what we have heard so far. The re-regulation of rent increases will lead to increased rents. Indeed, that appears to be the objective, partially based on the idea that many rents are suppressed far below market value currently and so forth, and the need to incentivise new supply.

That seems clear. However, the security of tenure arrangements in the new legislation are such that evictions are unlikely to increase. I believe the new security of tenure arrangements are more transparent and provide a basis for a more transparent system, and one that generates less burden for the RTB. This is mainly because it removes by far the most frequently used ground for termination, which is the sale of property. It removes that entirely for landlords with four or more properties, and it removes it within a six-year tenancy period for smaller landlords. That should generate a lot more stability in the private rental sector, with fewer evictions, fewer unwanted moves, fewer cases before the RTB and so forth.

The one thing I would say is that there seems to be something of a tension between the rent reform and the security of tenure reform. The rent reform will create an economic incentive for shorter tenancies because rents can be reset to the market rate at the end of a tenancy under certain conditions, whereas the security of tenure reforms are attempting to create long-term, secure homes. The two are not working in harmony. One interpretation is that this is an appropriate balance, and another is that the lack of harmony undermines the objectives.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The RTB report that has come out shows there is now a tsunami of evictions. Maybe after 1 March, when the legislation comes in, it might slow down evictions. However, from what we know, it will continue after that because some people’s notices to quit will not come into effect until March, April, May or June. People will be issued with notices to quit right up to the end of February. A tsunami of evictions is coming down the line, as the RTB figures show, and we also know that this will increase as we get closer to March, although those evictions will not come into effect until the spring and summer. What we are looking at is at least nine, if not 12, months with a huge increase in evictions.

After that, the point made by Dr. Byrne might come into effect because the six-year tenancy rule will kick in. I agree with that part of his analysis but I disagree with the other part. What will happen is that once the market rent kicks in, the rents will be so high that people will not be evicted because they are being evicted by the landlord; they will be evicted because they cannot afford to pay.

A lady emailed me last week because she knows I am on the housing committee. She is paying 68% of her income on rent. She has a child. We had Clúid before the committee a few weeks ago to discuss EnergyCloud and energy poverty. Clúid told us that people are choosing between turning on the heat and paying their rent. If we go to market rent and we know rents are increasing, we know that more people will be evicted due to inability to pay. I would like to get Dr. Byrne’s thoughts on that. We might agree to disagree, of course.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Dr. Byrne to be brief.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

I will try to be brief. It is not my strong point. With all due respect, I think it is an exaggeration to describe what is happening as a tsunami. My interpretation is that there has been a 20% increase in notices of termination in the last quarter as compared to the average over the last 12 quarters. Prior to the spike that we are seeing in the latest figures, we were already seeing 4,500 evictions on average per quarter across the last 12 quarters. This issue is a long-term, sustained issue. It is dangerous to attribute it, or over-attribute it, to the transition. Nevertheless, the transition does bring challenges to the new regime, as the Deputy has well described.

Two things are crucial in the current context. One is to really get the message out to landlords that existing tenancies are not affected. There is absolutely no reason for a landlord to issue a notice of termination now for an existing tenancy because nothing changes for them after March. That is crucial. The other thing is that it would be really helpful for landlords to get the message that this new regulatory regime is a stable and lasting framework, within which there will not be further sudden or unexpected reforms, such as eviction bans, 2% caps and so on. I think landlords are burned out from the level of regulatory change. That is really the issue, not these new reforms.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have to park that but we might have a chance to come back to it. We must move on. I call Deputy Hearne.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to pick up on the point made by Dr. Byrne that nothing changes for a landlord after March in existing tenancies. It does change. There will be a restriction on eviction due to a sale.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

No.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For all existing tenancies, the landlords will not be able to evict on sale.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

That is my understanding for new tenancies after March 2026.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it applies to both.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You were referring to existing tenancies.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The change to ability to evict on sale applies to all tenancies, existing and new, post-March 2026. That was my understanding. Dr. Byrne is saying that, no, that is not the case, and that landlords will continue to be able to evict tenants when selling their property after March 2026 for existing tenancies.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

That is correct.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That means what the Minister was saying was utter horseshit, to be honest. Excuse my language. What was put across by the Minister was that if you are in your tenancy, you are safe. Stay there. Actually, the complete opposite is the case. They will not have the protections that new tenancies will have from eviction on sale.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

Yes. That is creating a perception among landlords that they should sell now because they will come under the new regime, which is an incorrect perception.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said it.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse my language, Chair.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You cannot un-say what you said.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies. We need clarity on that. If that is the case, what has been put across is completely different to the reality. It also comes to the point that we are likely to see notices to quit and evictions continue and not reduce, because the trend we have seen over the last two to three years, I would argue, is an ongoing tsunami of evictions. The numbers are staggering, with 31,000 notices to quit issued in the last two years. That is over one in ten tenancies being turned over, and there will be another 10,000 in the next six months.

I have two fundamental questions. First, given what is going on right now, this is a human catastrophe in terms of the number of people being evicted. Surely that is an argument for a temporary ban on evictions, like we saw during Covid.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

What we know from the ban during Covid is that it worked, and it worked really well. The way we measured that is we saw the number of homeless people come down, and the number one route into homelessness is eviction from the private rental sector. We could be into a problem there. Just to put it in context, every six years, you can reset the market rent. In the last six years, the market rent in Ireland has gone up by 46%. If someone was paying €1,000 a month, it currently goes up by 2% a year, but by the time it gets to resetting the market rent, that will be €1,460, and that figure can be doubled for a lot of people.

The theory, of course, is that the increased supply we are looking for is going to bring down rents, but nobody can ever say when. In my history, and from looking at my trends, charts and data, it has never happened yet because the quantity that we would need to bring down rents is so great that it is never going to happen. We have a bit of an issue there.

The number of landlords exiting the market is also interesting in that the number of tenancies is up by a small bit, by 1.2%. The number of tenancies is the number of people who are being accommodated, and that is up 1.2%, although the landlords are going. The discussion about security of tenure is evidence of how complicated and messy this legislation is. The problem is that we do not know who is replacing the landlords who are selling because we do not keep track of that. It is a real blind spot in our data gathering that we do not know who is buying the properties that the landlords are selling. We are struggling to manage it. It is a problem with policy and housing generally that we are trying to control the market but unless we are collecting the numbers and the data, we do not know who is buying them. It could be other landlords, it could be me or you, it could be anybody, but we do not know.

That is a real gap in the system.

Small landlords are leaving the market and the number of tenancies is going up, which means there are fewer landlords but each with more tenancies. The market is changing from one where landlords with one, two or three properties represented 80% to one where they now represent somewhere in the region of 40%, with the rest held by large landlords. Politicians need to ask themselves whether they really want the market to look like that. Do they want it to be dominated by a handful of large investors? As I said to the Deputy earlier, these large investors have huge influence on local rents because they are so dominant in that area.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do the other witnesses which to come in on that point?

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

It has been covered. The legislative toolkit is there. If the legislators wish to avoid having a six-month period where there is worry in the market that causes a particular effect, there is a way of doing that. It was done during Covid for an emergency reason. That is a policy choice.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

There are two ways of thinking about this issue. The first is to take a very radical approach to protecting tenants in their homes, accepting that there will be some negative impact on supply and investment and, therefore, compensating with increased output in social and affordable housing or some other type of housing. The second option is to say that the first option is not viable and, rather, what we need to do is accept that there will be some level of ongoing evictions but try to move to a position that reconciles investment and security of tenure, which I believe the new legislation does. In the new legislation, evictions will be effectively banned for landlords with four or more tenancies, which covers the majority of tenancies in the private rental sector. The majority of tenants will have-----

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point Dr. Byrne just made relates to new tenancies.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

Yes, in new tenancies.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not existing ones.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

Yes. I favour the second option. With regard to an eviction ban, there has been too much regulatory change. The housing system and supply are too fragile. From my point of view, I would not go down that way but I accept the point.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to ask Dr. Byrne another specific question on rents. In his submission, he points out that the change in allowing rents to be reset to market rents essentiality goes against, to a certain extent, security of tenure. By how much does he see this change increasing rents? It is a significant change in the rent pressure zone. It used to be capped at 2%, regardless of whether it was between tenancies. Now with new tenancies – we know there is a lot of turnover - how much could we see rents increasing as a result of that?

Dr. Michael Byrne:

There is a lot of turnover in the sector. Tenancies last, on average, three years. The vast majority of them do not end because of a notice of termination. There is a huge amount of churn. It will be similar to having an entirely deregulated rental sector in terms of rents, such will be the consistency or frequency of resetting to market rent. It will be so great that it will be similar to having completely-----

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Having no rent controls, essentially.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

It will be functionally quite similar. I expect to see very significant rent increases. One thing that could be considered is what we would do in the event that we are having a discussion in four years' time about annual average rent inflation being 10% or 12%, for example. The danger is that at that point, there would be political pressure for a knee-jerk response to that. Landlords would be rightly worried about that happening based on the trends in recent years. It is prudent to include within the legislation a mechanism that can be triggered in the event that annual rent inflation passes a certain point. It is a further restriction but one that is clear, transparent, known in advance and triggered under specific circumstances. Landlords would welcome that because, if there were to be further action on rent regulation, at least they would know it would happen within defined parameters without any surprises.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. That is very useful.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

That would require an essay as an answer. The Senator is right; the number one route from the private rental sector is evictions. The trend is very much that the private rental sector is being commercialised. It is being dominated increasingly by larger and larger funds. We see this across Europe, which is why we see the same problems happening in countries that used to have solid rental sectors. They are experiencing the same issues as we are because we see the same players in those countries with the same lobbyist organisations using the same techniques and tactics. We see the same issues around homelessness and rent in Germany, Spain and even in places like Denmark.

If you really want to commercialise a sector, then it has to be like the commercial sector. If you are a tenant in McDonald's on Grafton Street, you do not care who owns the building because you can never be evicted. The rent just goes into a different bank account or whatever, but you cannot be turfed out because you are on a 20-year lease and your rent is reviewed every five years or whatever the terms of the lease are. If we want to have a sector where people can live long term with security of tenure and without fear of being evicted, the only solution is to tighten up on security of tenure and have a simple ban on tenant evictions if the property is being sold. If representatives from the IPAV were sitting next to me, I am sure the defibrillator would be out. Such a measure is needed, however. There would be a period of readjustment where the value of those properties would change, because they would arguably be worth less. They would be valued on a different basis; they would be valued on the basis of an annual yield rather than vacant possession. Over a period of a decade-----

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

Over a period, it would level out.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

I would not call it an eviction ban. Rather, a tenant cannot be evicted for the sale of a property.

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

I am not as qualified as people who work in policy and crunch the figures on policy but I am qualified in the law and, unfortunately, this legislation creates a huge amount of work for lawyers. That is not what the direction of the Bill, which in its Long Title sets out to provide cheap and speedy remedy for dispute resolution, is supposed to be. I am not going to talk about something I do not know enough about, but I will say that if an unrepresented party - those parties who are unrepresented tend to be the tenants - goes into a dispute resolution field, which is extraordinarily complex, then there is a level of unfairness that is exacerbated by certain parts of the way the Bill is legislated. They essentially require that, if people go into mediation, the process will be completely confidential. There will be no oversight as to whether things are going wrong or people are being pressurised in there. Mediation is not designed for an imbalance of power. They will then be channelled straight to a tribunal, which will remove any appeal process they have. That is something that can actually be fixed by a suggestion.

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

Failed mediation should go to adjudication so that at least-----

Dr. Michael Byrne:

I cannot comment on homelessness because it is not my direct area of expertise.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

I will focus on evictions. For the avoidance of doubt, the majority of tenancies would be categorised as tenancies under a large landlord under this proposed new legislation. All of those tenants will have lifetime security of tenure. It will not be possible to evict them as long as they meet their obligations. Those tenants will have the strongest security of rights in Europe.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

Yes.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

They will not have-----

Dr. Michael Byrne:

For that very reason, it is crucial that we move to a new system-----

Dr. Michael Byrne:

----- which eliminates that. However, one view is - and I support this view - that retrospectively changing the security of tenure provisions in existing tenancies would potentially be unconstitutional and could be a major disincentive for investors.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the witnesses outline two measures in the general scheme that they would like to change and two measures they welcome?

Dr. Michael Byrne:

In part, what I think is most urgent is not changing something in the proposed Bill but communicating it, particularly to landlords as part of the transition. In terms of changes, we could include a mechanism that would provide for a scenario in which further action is necessary on the rent regulation affordability front. It would involve looking into the future and saying it could happen that rent increases reach a point where they are not really sustainable politically and we want to know what will happen in that scenario in advance rather than that happening in an unexpected way. I am not sure if that is clear.

The thing I welcome is that finally, we will be in line with western Europe after a decade of a housing crisis to which evictions from the private rental sector have been central. We are finally going to be in a situation in which we have clear strong tenant protections and the majority of tenants in Ireland will have the strongest security of tenure in Europe.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We heard from tenant groups earlier. They were not necessarily saying that this is going to lead to greater protections for tenants, so something is missing in that context. Dr. Byrne says we are moving to a system where we are going to be more in line with Europe in terms of tenant protections. However, the groups representing tenants do not necessarily see it that way.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

I cannot comment on the conclusions others reach. It will not be possible to evict tenants of larger landlords for any reason other than failure to meet their obligations. That does not pertain in any other European country. It is black and white.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This goes back to the distinction between existing and new tenants. It is moving to a new system and it will take time for the majority of tenants to fall under that system. That is an issue in terms of timing. What measures would Ms Sheehy-Skeffington like to change and what measures would she welcome?

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

I am afraid I am going to get quite micro because I know the committee has heard from other groups that have mentioned security of tenure, which is extremely positive, and the negative of the ability to set a new rent when there is churn of tenancies. I am not going to go into that. The two things I would change if I could get my pen over this involve a bit more finesse regarding public hearings. Public hearings are a requirement under constitutional law. There are exceptions for that, which are also very necessary to allow for privacy in hearings dealing with domestic violence or child health. The provision in the heads would make any such hearing completely anonymised. There would be no record of it. That is not necessary. One could redact those parts that are sensitive. If one does not do that, for example, if somebody is evicted for reasons that affect their child's health whereby the eviction should not have happened and that should be on the public record, it will not be on the public record when it should be. There is finesse within the proposed Bill that could be brought in.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

The definition of rent is wrong. Effectively, it is a market rent but it does not encompass all charges when it should to be fair to landlords and tenants - landlords who are trying to set the rent and tenants who are trying to gauge whether this is a good or bad deal. It is not good agreeing to sign a lease of €2,000 per month and when one gets in, it is actually €2,200 because the definitions are wrong. The definition of rent is market rent, which is what a willing tenant will give a willing landlord. It does not necessarily include all the extra charges I mentioned earlier such as €200 per month extra for common areas. It is very hard to understand the market if one is only being told 80% of the picture.

The second thing, which is not in the general scheme but which should be, is a deposit protection scheme. It is always in the top three disputes between landlords and tenants in the RTB. Every year I have been looking at the RTB's annual reports, it is in the top three. It is in the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 but has never been commenced and it should be commenced or part of this proposed Bill. The positive thing is greater data sharing. Going back to the point about market rent, there is no point in sharing data if the data is only halfway there.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had two different sets. Those speaking up for tenants had a lot of criticism but, equally, those representing property owners and landlords had a lot of criticism. Part of it was around complexity. I put it to the witnesses that we are living in a complex world. Is it genuinely possible to simplify this in a way that covers various legal eventualities? Dr. Sirr mentioned various groups in overdrive representing disputes. We are in an increasingly complex regulatory legal framework in everything in life. Is it realistic to say it can be simpler? I am asking a genuine question. Do the witnesses think it could be simpler and could serve tenants and landlords? I know that is a difficult question. It is an open question. We hear the criticism about complexity. Is it more about failure of communication or is it more a question of it genuinely being too complex?

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

It is genuinely too complex. When you are looking at a notice of termination, you should not have to look at 15 different sections of the legislation. That is not okay. That is not understandable for a landlord or a tenant. People lose sight of the core obligations and responsibilities on each side. Dr. Byrne's point is very well made in that if we jump from this amendment to another one in two years, we need to probably set the tramlines to allow expectation to settle so people know where they are going. A reframing of the Act within the basic policy guidelines of the heads so they are agreed by the Oireachtas would not necessarily create uncertainty.

It would be a pathway to decomplexifying, to create a complex word.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

The Leas-Chathaoirleach's point about the world being complex is all the more reason to simplify this. You should not need a table of things to go down. It can be done. Nothing is impossible. We have had simple legislation before. This one is 97 pages or something like that.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The world has become more complex. Things are being challenged and so on. That is why these eventualities are covered in legislation. If you do not cover an eventuality, there will be a challenge in the courts.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

I get that but the simpler it is, the fewer challenges there can be. It is when there are so many routes and permutations that challenges arise. It is my understanding that tenants' security of tenure can change during their tenancy through no fault of their own depending on who their landlord is. If a large landlord decides to split up 12 properties and sell them in groups of three or two groups of six, the tenant's security of tenure changes. That should not be. That is an unnecessary complexity. Who are we looking after here? As someone who has lived abroad several times, I know that the private rental sector is where foreigners go. Increasingly, you are going to have people in the private rental sector whose first language is not English. This is not helpful.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

I will come in very briefly. A big part of the rent regulation aspect is going to be how it is presented to landlords and tenants. When they go to reset the rent, what will the user interface be? In countries like the Netherlands, where this has been done for a long time, you input the address and answer a small number of questions about the property and the user interface then tells you what the maximum allowable rent is. The process can be simplified in the implementation. In a way, the most complex aspect of this legislation is one we have not touched on, the hardship clause for smaller landlords. That is going to create confusion for tenants. How will they know? That requires a lot of thinking because, if it is used too widely, it will undermine the entire purpose of the legislation.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That goes back to my point. It is a simple phrase but the question is how to define it. It is open to interpretation and to abuse. I am very guilty of going over time.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a couple of things I want to say. Picking up on the general theme of the discussion, I will ask the witnesses for a comment. This legislation was done at the behest of Irish institutional property in order to effectively deregulate the private rental market by stealth. As I see it, there is nothing in this legislation that is going to stop rents rising. Rents are going to continue to rise. There are welcome commitments around security of tenure but they are totally undermined by landlords being allowed to reset the rent between tenancies. Our rental market is changing with institutional investors crowding out smaller landlords. On average, they have shorter tenancies. Rents are going to reset to market rates and - God help us - we are going to be back here in three or four years' time because this Bill is a complete horlicks. It is not going to do what it states it is going to do at a surface level. It cannot because there are two demands to satiate and you cannot satisfy them both at the same time. They are going in opposite directions.

Do the witnesses agree with my analysis of the Bill? Where are we going to be in three years' time when rents are rising and rising? The Minister or whichever panicked unfortunate ends up eventually succeeding him - that person may be in this room - will be back in this room trying to do another piecemeal job on this.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

That is exactly what I fear. Investors and landlords will be anticipating that as well. Many landlords will form the view that this is not the end of rent regulation. In part, what the legislation is trying to achieve is policy certainty. It is trying to say that this is a new dawn and this is where it stops. I will not say that is not credible but its credibility is undermined by the very points Deputy Sheehan has made. The level of deregulation of rents in this legislation is excessive. Another way of approaching this would have been to introduce a much more moderate deregulation of rents for existing properties and to exempt newly constructed properties or apartments from rent regulation. In my view, that proposal would have been more consistent with the stated objectives of the policy because it would not have in any way negatively impacted supply, particularly the supply of apartments, which I know is the chief concern, while at the same time creating much more stability for existing tenants in existing properties.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

We absolutely do agree. The lobbyists have written this legislation, as they have written much recent legislation.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other bits are essentially only dangly bits to give the Minister cover.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

They are baubles. What people forget about the lobbyists is that, although they are always pleading for policy stability, the job of a lobbyist is to argue for change no matter what you do. The construction industry has been against every advance in technology since the thatched roof, including insulation and everything else. The job of the lobbyist is to always argue for change. No matter what is done here, we will be back in a few years' time because something will not be right and the lobbyists will be looking for more change again. That is the way they operate. That is the way it is. We are going to be back here in a few years' time, in three years' time and in seven years' time discussing the increase in disputes, the fact that the RTB does not have staff, the fact that is taking ages and hold-ups. We will be discussing all of that but they are all symptoms of the bigger picture, which is that there is no vision for the private rental sector. Dr. Byrne is saying we need more supply. Why do we need more supply? Perhaps the private rental sector is twice the size it should be anyway. There is no vision as to the correct number of landlords, the correct number of tenancies and who should be in them.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to ask a question about the data aspect. This is something I am very interested in. Do the witnesses think we need to start moving towards a comprehensive rent register? What sort of system do they think we should have? Should we go down the line of what has been recommended by the Housing Commission with regard to regulating rents in the longer term? I am very conscious that we keep chopping and changing. We have had what I would describe as a chopped salad of different regulations in the private rental market in the last ten years. None of them have worked because they have all been trying to rectify the previous horlicks of the previous Minister. How do we ultimately crack this nut?

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

They are big policy decisions but, if you leave market rent to be the defining compass of where rents go, you leave the stability of rent to the whims of the market. Ergo, you get that pressure to allow for rent breaks, which are not breaks on rent but breaks to allow the rent to increase.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a gold standard for the definition of rent? Is there an example from another jurisdiction that we could look at and implement?

Dr. Michael Byrne:

There is a big-picture question about what type of housing system we are trying to create overall. The approach to the private rental sector has to fit within that. It can sometimes be hard to answer questions because I am not entirely sure what type of housing system we are trying to get to. However, in relation to the Deputy's specific question, the RPZ regime actually functioned very well. This is the irony. The research from the ESRI shows very clearly that it led to low levels of rent increases at the property level and therefore had a very positive impact on affordability. Research from Tom Gillespie, economist at the University of Galway, and his co-authors shows that, in its initial form from 2016, the 4% RPZ cap did not lead to increase in the number of landlords exiting the private rental sector. The problem emerged when it was lowered to 2%. From a simplicity point of view, it probably would have been more advantageous to simply revert to the 4% RPZ cap or something similar and to then introduce exemptions targeted at increasing the supply of housing.

In terms of simplicity that would have worked best. In terms of best practice, Threshold officials, who are in the room and whom we have spoken to today, looked at this in great detail and, like the Housing Commission, they advocated for a reference rent system as likely being the best outcome. Spanish officials have done something interesting on this. They have declared that they will shift to reference rents by 2027 and are giving themselves time to prepare that in a way that does not unduly affect the market whereas in this legislation reference rents were ruled out on the grounds that they were viewed as being overly complex and unworkable.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should collect the data, because we have such huge gaps, to prepare for the possibility of moving to reference rents. Data and knowledge are power. We are not collecting enough data. If we were collecting more data, irrespective of whatever we do with them and whether we close the door on reference rents or leave the door open, surely that is a good thing. The response from the Government has been downright poor. I raised it previously with the Tánaiste who accused me of wanting to jack up rents. That is not what I was saying in the context of when I was discussing reference rents, if that makes sense.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

It is interesting that what effectively has happened with this legislation is that the Government has taken the minority report in the Housing Commission and dressed it up in legislation to allow a call for a return to market rents, and advocated for a very deregulatory neoliberal position on allowing the market to lever it, which is effectively what this is. The second point, which often goes unnoticed when we are looking at comparisons to Europe, is that the data point is very good. We do not even collect rents per meter squared here, which people should be doing really. On the Continent of Europe, the countries that have the highest proportion of households in the private rental sector are also by far the most highly regulated. Regulation itself is not anathema to landlords, but not making a return is. We can regulate all we want once they can make money. Countries like Switzerland, Germany and Denmark are incredibly well regulated to protect tenants and to allow a degree of certainty. They are also the countries with the most households renting for their lifetime not just when people are younger or when something happens, but for their whole lives.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure who mentioned it earlier, but reference was made to this legislation being brought in ten years ago with the guarantee of six years and security of tenure. The reason it was not brought in was lobbyists and the big landlords did not want it brought in. Because of that we went through ten years of housing crisis to housing emergency. If that security of tenure had been in ten years ago, would we be looking at a different situation? Would we have the same housing crisis as we have now? Would we have the same homelessness crisis as we have now if that one change had been brought in then with the other changes?

Dr. Michael Byrne:

I do not think so. It has been argued by successive Administrations that further protections for security of tenure for tenants are unconstitutional. That reason has been given on numerous occasions for why tenants have not been protected.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are bringing it in now.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

Exactly. If this had been brought in, how many people would have become homeless? How many became homeless since 2016 because legislation like this was not implemented? I participated in 2015 in the consultation around the process that led to Rebuilding Ireland, as I am sure many colleagues here did as well. Every homeless organisation and every researcher recommended security of tenure as one of the key pieces of the puzzle.

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

I absolutely agree that this should have been a done a long time ago. It can be looked at it from the point of view of people being evicted and homelessness but it can also be looked at it from the point of view of families simply wanting to live their lives without having to think about this noise.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

Absolutely. Security of tenure has been on the agenda for years. Policy and policymaking requires people to be brave and when they are listening to too many voices in the room it is really difficult. I was at the Other Voices festival in Dingle at the weekend. It was really nice and pretty interesting. I was being interviewed very sternly and the question that came up was: "What three things would you do?" Number one was that I would ban the lobbyists for a period of five years. I know it sounds facetious but I am serious. Then someone said to me: "Well, what would the civil servants do then?", but I would ban the lobbyists for a while as they have been a destructive force rather than a constructive one overall. They are very powerful and they have the ear of a lot of senior politicians. They have not really done much good.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have any of the witnesses thought about the cost-rental units? This legislation applies also to cost-rental units and approved housing body units. The approved housing bodies are generally committed to social housing rents but are we potentially seeing cost rental units being increased to market rate, and market rent, through this legislation?

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

My suspicion is that it is going to be worse than that. My suspicion is that at some stage cost rentals with some State agencies will end up being sold off to the private sector. Of course the way to increase value to get to sell them off at the best price is to be able to guarantee that the rents will not be sitting at €1,700 a month, which is not even cost rental, and would have the potential to increase. When valuing property on a yield basis, people are looking at the annual rental income multiplied by what we call a yield. That gives the value for that rather than a vacant possession. The way to maximise this is to say that even though rents now are set at cost rental of €1,700 a month, in three or six years with the next rent review they can revert to a full market rent. That increases quite significantly the value of those properties. My fear and suspicion is that these properties are going to be packaged up and sold off, and a way to maximise the return of that is to permit them to be returned to market rent value.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

There is absolutely no logic to applying the same form of rent regulation to the private rental sector as there is to cost rental. The rent review regime for cost rental should have been specified in the Affordable Housing Act, it is as simple as that, within it. It makes no sense. Can anybody tell me what the logic of that is?

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is something we need to raise.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to ask about the distinction between small and large landlords. It is a specific question but do the witnesses think the distinction is necessary and is it set at the right level? I am not sure if all of them are willing to give an opinion.

Dr. Michael Byrne:

I am referring back to a previous question when I say that 41% of tenancies are held by landlords who own between four and 99 properties. We talk about the mom and pop landlords, and then we talk about the institutional landlords, but we do not talk about this sector and little is known about them, which is a problem, as in knowing their investment behaviour and their likely responses to different conditions. Of those landlords, according to the survey data we have in the Residential Tenancies Board of that particular cohort, 80% described themselves as part-time landlords despite having, in some cases, quite large portfolios. Many of them have 20 or 50 properties. It is a bit of a grey area and it is a bit of an unknown as to how they will respond to this legislation. That is a concern I have. They are being treated as large landlords but I am not sure they necessarily see themselves in that category. There would have been an argument, certainly, for having one regime for all landlords. That would have been simpler but it would have likely meant less strong security of tenure protections for the people who are going to fall within the larger landlord category.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, because we are trying to strike a balance between the two.

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

From the perspective of the person who is living in the home it should not matter who their landlord is and what the rights are that accrue to the person. That is particularly the case when the identity of the landlord can change the tenancy.

That is simply not fair. It is not a good way of doing things. The point is made over and over again that we can call people "mom and pop" landlords and do whatever we like but there is no other investment in which people's lack of professionalism is rewarded. I am sorry to put it like that but it is a business and people are making money from it and there should be guard rails and regulation. If somebody applied this to nursing homes and said "Ah well, sure they only have one nursing home so the quality of care can be less", people would be outraged, and rightly so. That should apply to people's homes as well.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr:

I do not think there should be a distinction. It is an arbitrary distinction as well. Regarding the point made by Ms Sheehy-Skeffington, through no fault of their own, the security of tenure of a tenant or family with children going to school changes because the landlord has divided up their portfolio and sold it in micro portfolios to smaller landlords. That is unacceptable. It is bizarre.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will finish on that note.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If a large landlord sells their property to a small landlord or vice versa, do you go with the first set of instructions you sign up to or the second? Do we know?

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

As a good lawyer, I am not going to give the Deputy an opinion off the cuff. The way the legislation is framed, and I cannot really tell because it involves heads of Bill so we cannot see where that is going, if the definition applies to the landlord as is at the time of the notice of termination, I would have thought the landlord's identity at that point would be the one. It is not new or strange for the identity of a landlord to change in the course of a tenancy. It can occur because a landlord dies and it passes to the estate.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the question involved what would happen if the property was sold with a tenant in situ by a large landlord to a small landlord and vice versa - that there could be a change in rights to the tenants.

Ms Tricia Sheehy-Skeffington:

There could be. A really interesting legal challenge could be taken there.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had better leave it at that or I will be sacked. I thank all witnesses for assisting the committee in its consideration of this important matter today. That concludes our consideration of this matter. I now propose that we go into private session to discuss other matters.