Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This is a timely and important Bill. While there are several missed opportunities in the legislation as it stands, I hope that reasonable changes can be made in order to improve the conditions enjoyed by people seeking to rent their homes. It is important to remember that when a tenant rents a home it is not simply a place to sleep but also a place to live in comfort and security. For too long renting a home has been seen as a short-term practice engaged in by younger single people or low earners, with the result that policy has not focused on creating a rental market that provides sufficiently for the everyday needs of working people. This has become particularly challenging for many people because of the collapse of the property market and the difficulty in obtaining loans. People who would otherwise be leaving the rental market to buy homes are instead staying on as tenants, which drives up demand while supply remains constant. Tenants are now paying more and, in many cases, receiving less for their rent but they have limited choice to go elsewhere.

This problem was created by the policies of successive governments which sought to remove the role of the State in providing housing. Government policies subsidised private landlords at the expense of the public and local authorities, which put little effort into ascertaining the quality of the homes for which they were paying. People were told they were foolish if they did not purchase homes and governments made every attempt to encourage home ownership, to the extent of depleting the social housing stock and giving developers free rein to build what and where they pleased.

It is with this in mind that I welcome these developments on the legislative protection of rights in the tenant-landlord relationship. It is welcome that some tenants of approved housing bodies will come under the legislation. The 10,000 NAMA properties to which Threshold referred should also be taken into account. I understand that certain local authorities have a role where properties are provided on leasing schemes but we should pay careful attention to this area. Over the past decade housing bodies have become a crucial part of the Irish housing system, partly because of their dedication in providing tailored housing to those in need but also due to the abject failure of the State to provide adequate housing. I commend Focus, Respond, Clúid, Sonas and others for doing fine work with limited resources and for their constant advocacy of people's rights to housing. Housing bodies have also welcomed the move to bring them under the residential tenancies legislation. These bodies want to have the mechanism of the new residential tenancies board to help them work with their tenants and clients to resolve issues and ensure just resolutions. No tenant should have fewer rights than another simply because his or her landlord is generally accepted to be a good landlord, which is essentially the idea behind the exclusion of approved housing bodies from the board's remit.

Focus Ireland stated in a recent submission that while approved housing bodies generally operate as good landlords, offering secure homes and fair and transparent terms to their tenants, the argument for tenants' rights derives not from the weaknesses or strengths of their landlords but from their rights as citizens requiring security in their homes and access to impartial dispute resolution where necessary. While the Bill starts strongly in this regard, unfortunately it fails to go far enough. It makes two important exclusions which should not be permitted. The first is the exclusion of very broadly defined receivers of care services. This definition is unlikely to cover everyone in receipt of HSE-funded care, but that is implied in the Bill. Regardless of intent, this provision needs to be redrafted to ensure that people in housing supplied by approved housing bodies are included in the Bill. The provision as it stands draws an arbitrary line in the sand and excludes vulnerable tenants who need and would greatly benefit from the support of the PRTB. It is also discriminatory in that it refuses the rights afforded to others to tenants with physical or mental health issues. This oversight could affect a large number of people and as such render the Bill much less valuable to tenants than originally envisaged. The issue could be addressed very simply by stating exactly what groups are excluded from the remit of the board. These could include those in short term emergency or hostel accommodation and high-support residential care, having due regard to legislation on mental capacity.

The other exclusion in the Bill is for local authority tenants. I do not understand the reason for this exclusion. It is obvious that the Department wants to provide the services of the residential tenancies board to as many tenants as possible, and local authority tenants should be in that cohort. Every Deputy could speak at length on the many housing issues that residents raise about their local authorities, including rent arrears and landlord services. The inclusion of local authority tenants in the Bill would assist in the resolution of issues that arise regularly. All tenants should have the same rights. To leave out a large portion of the Irish renting population is a missed opportunity. If I were more suspicious I would say the Government feared the repercussions of giving such a tool to a group of people who have often been poorly treated by the State and local authorities. Perhaps it feared that it would shine a light on the great inadequacies of the State's half-hearted attempts to house the most vulnerable in our society. It may also fear that providing this service for so many people would be expensive.

If the Government is good at one thing, it is at talking up people's rights but without being willing to fund them. Right now people in need of help, advice and advocacy struggle to get through to someone on the PRTB telephone lines. I can only imagine what it would be like if local authority residents were included among these and if the Government's cut and slash policies continue. Housing bodies and local authorities are struggling, but the Government has no desire to spend money where it is needed. As a result, here we are with a Bill that is positive but far less so than was possible.

The Government needs to be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to improve the rental market for tenants and to make it easier to deal with bad landlords who disregard their duties to their tenants and the law. A big part of the problem is that tenants are confused by the laws protecting them. They are complicated and the landlord generally is able to convince them that they are in the wrong. Tenants need better, more accessible information on their rights and the ability to report unscrupulous and law-breaking landlords with confidentiality and ease.

The most glaring absence from the Bill is the lack of any deposit retention powers for the PRTB. As we heard earlier today, deposits are being unfairly held by landlords and this is the single biggest reason people contact many of the bodies which offer advice on housing to tenants. Threshold today reiterated this point in its annual report. In 2011, Threshold dealt with 3,259 cases of unreturned deposits. People cannot afford to leave a place of residence for another with an extra month's rent taken from their pockets because of the intransigence of an unscrupulous landlord. The PRTB estimated there is one dispute for every 100 tenancies.

There has been much talk with regard to awaiting research on the issue of how a deposit retention scheme would work and whether it would work in Ireland. The PRTB recommended this research three years ago. Where is it? When will we have the research to allow us to implement something we already know we need? Ireland is not that wildly different a jurisdiction from others and could operate a similar scheme to that operated in other countries. The only question is whether such a scheme would reduce the number of disputes. Given the fact that many disputes are probably not reported by tenants, who simply accept their mistreatment and move on in ignorance of their rights, I doubt that the scheme would reduce the number of cases we know about, but it would certainly provide a framework for resolving issues and give tenants the ability or chance to get their rights vindicated.

I welcome the Bill but hope that when it is finally passed through the House, it will be a more robust and have made an important move for tenants rights and the tenant-landlord relationship. One of the main issues highlighted today concerned the topping-up of rents by people availing of rent supplements. We need a robust mechanism in place to prevent this. This practice is quite widespread. People are topping up rents and driving themselves into poverty and creating a new poor. In many cases, due to the constant cuts in rental supplement, people are being driven into homelessness. This is a new problem for us.

We need greater enforcement with regard to registration with the PRTB as many people still do not register. Whether it can be provided for in this Bill, we need to find a means to oblige people to register. Penalties or something else must be imposed in order to persuade people to sign up to the system. It is unfair to others if they do not. Registration would also help improve standards on the condition of rental properties. If they do not meet a certain standard, they should be blacklisted or we should have some other mechanism to deal with them.

I support the Bill, despite some inadequacies in it. In general, it is a good one.

See this speech in context