Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for her presentation of this Bill for Second Reading. I acknowledge her praise and appreciation of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, which was initiated by Fianna Fáil. I also acknowledge her appreciation of the will expressed in the setting up of the PRTB. I appreciate the willingness she mentioned during the course of her speech to consider amendments on Committee Stage and I hope that will allow for agreement and support by consensus among all parties here in supporting the Bill. My party acknowledges that the aim of the Bill is to build on what was initiated in 2004. It also takes cognisance of the 2009 review of the workings of that Act with a view to introducing more up-to-date legislation that is more in tune with the position on the ground.

The rental market in Ireland, as the Minster correctly stated, has changed dramatically in recent years. This is hardly surprising in the context of the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse. Some of the statistics that have been published since then only highlight the need for this legislation. The number of households in rented accommodation has increased by 47% since 2006. Across Ireland, 29% of all people now rent, with 63% of these renting in the private sector; the number of people renting in the private sector has increased by a whopping 86% since 2006.

When one contrasts the statistics of the PRTB with those of the recent census, one finds a 30% discrepancy between the number of those who stated on the census form that they were renting and the corresponding figure from the PRTB. That is worrying. It tells us there is a need to beef up the regulation, and it may tell us there is some fear of the existing regulation or intended future regulation. It tells us there are obvious problems with the regulation of the sector. This is something we must take note of and react to in order to ensure it is not the case come the next census. Whether these discrepancies are a result of poor regulation or a hands-off approach by the Government, or whatever may be the case, that reality needs to change.

Regulation that provides empowerment will strengthen the market.

An effective regulatory regime should protect tenants and give greater certainty to landlords, which in turn leads to a stronger market, benefiting landlords and tenants and obviously benefiting the State and the providers of housing accommodation.

There are obvious strains on the PRTB dispute resolution process caused by sheer volume and increased demand, to which the Minister of State alluded. Demand for the board's services increased by 20% in 2010 and by a further 25% in 2011. Analysis of the process highlights the deficiencies in the existing legislation and regulation. Outcomes to disputes are too slow and too laboured and that diminishes trust in the procedures. Rules, for example, for the termination of tenancies are a legal minefield and resolution procedures are thought to be multi-layered. The most common complaints must be identified and reacted to in this Bill. The refusal of landlords to refund deposits was the reason 72% of tenants sought resolution. Rent arrears and breaches of tenancy obligations amounted to 68% of submissions on the part of landlords.

It is our duty to highlight deficiencies and to seek to improve the Bill, by consensus. The addition of voluntary housing associations may stretch the scarce resources of the board. I hope, with that being the case, adequate resources, training and efficiencies will be built into the board to deal with its heightened role. It is estimated that there are 700 voluntary and co-operative bodies that have approved housing-body status. A total of 443 of these have completed one or more housing projects and it is estimated that they contribute 25,000 housing units to the existing stock. Their tenants are taken from local authority waiting lists. When such people take up a tenancy under these agencies, the reality is that many of them are short term, either weekly, monthly or periodic and can be terminated with 28 days notice. Tenants cannot, as we know, ever buy out the unit and if and when they vacate, in certain instances they will never be considered for local authority housing again.

A number of days ago we spoke about the budget within the Department for social housing, for which the Minister of State is responsible. I recognise that local authorities cannot, in the current economic circumstances, provide capital construction programmes as they did in the past. I acknowledge that housing provision must be carried out in a more innovative way and part of that can be, and is in many cases, by means of rental accommodation schemes, RAS and by local authorities rather than the HSE managing the rent allowance scheme. However, part of that should be also by means of the State deriving, as was intended, a social dividend from NAMA. Part of that can be also by means of the State, in conjunction with local authorities, auditing the land bank, releasing land to the market and using funds derived from that release to obtain value from the market.

I admit that I am straying somewhat from the content of the Bill but I caution the Minister of State against blindly, if not intentionally, allowing the voluntary housing sector to increase its stake to a dangerously high level and to become, in effect, the housing authority. Unless there is proper legislation attached to that in its own right, it will undoubtedly alienate local authorities and by doing so, alienate local authority members throughout the country. It would undermine their representational role in this area and diminish local democracy, taking powers from them and contradicting the myth that documents such as Putting People Firstempower local authorities. That is my fear in that regard and perhaps the Minister of State can satisfy me that it is not the case. I suspect it is not the intention but I would also hope it is not the result of pursuing that policy to the nth degree.

The streamlining efforts of the Bill focus on changing names, the removal of the €25 mediation fee and tinkering around with the number of days given to the dispute resolution process. This does not necessarily constitute decisive action in reforming the work of the board and accelerating the process. There is nothing in the published Bill dealing with tenants who are in rent arrears, although I acknowledge the indication that this will be dealt with on Committee Stage. In that context, I will hold my fire for now but I expect to see proposals which will satisfy us all in that regard. The Bill does not attempt to simplify the intricate rules governing the content of notices of termination. Nor does it attempt to set any statutory timeframe within which a determination order should be issued following an application to the PRTB for dispute resolution. No changes are proposed to the controversial provisions on anti-social behaviour. Apart from the proposed amendments to the rules on mediation, there are no plans to streamline the dispute resolution process more generally or to address the significant problems, in practice, of enforcing of PRTB orders. I ask the Minister of State to be cognisant of the fact that many people who wish to make a complaint regarding anti-social behaviour do not want to be named and do not want to be victimised as a result of making such a complaint. In that context, there should be some mechanism within the Bill to allow a third party to act on their behalf, whether it be local gardaí, local representatives or others.

Revision is needed together with adequately resourced supporting measures to promote an awareness of rights and obligations among landlords and tenants to reduce the scope for disputes. I ask the Minister of State to comment on that area in particular. A greater understanding, appreciation and knowledge of the whole system on the part of both parties would alleviate, to some degree, the potential for disputes to arise.

There is a real need for a deposit retention scheme as a vital component of any fully functioning, vibrant rental market. Given the high volume of complaints brought by tenants because of the withholding of deposits, an effective scheme would have a far greater impact on speeding up the work of the PRTB than any name changing or other tinkering mentioned earlier. A new scheme would further stabilise the rental market and bring greater certainty to both tenants and landlords, thus creating a stronger overall housing market.

The Bill must be amended to adjust to the changed reality of the rental market in Ireland and to the experience of the operation of the board for the past eight years. As the Minister of State said, the rental market will become increasingly important in the coming years, particularly due to a young, urban demographic and it must be adjusted to encourage a balanced menu of accommodation options.

We acknowledge that the Bill is necessary to take account of the changing circumstances in the market as a result of the relatively youthful demographic of the population. We wholeheartedly agree with parts of it and I hope there is scope for agreement on other facets. The Bill is an evolutionary development of what went before it, but certain parts need to be amended and we need further clarity on the deposit retention scheme. If there is engagement on Committee Stage and a will to reach consensus, I have no doubt the Minister of State will have our support in addressing the issues she has identified. By doing our job in a correct and proper manner we can address the difficulties that people face.

I have received numerous representations from landlords as well as tenants expressing their frustration with the multi-layered PRTB resolution system. The Bill offers us an ideal opportunity to address these frustrations. If we get this right we will resolve the discrepancies between recent census surveys and the PRTB's figures in respect of tenure patterns.

See this speech in context