Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

On this group of amendments, we must step back and reflect on why this legislation is even before us at the eleventh hour of this Dáil. It is precisely because the rental market has gone mad. The price of even a modest dwelling in any town is beyond the limits of those who have what we call a decent job. This legislation is supposed to be an effort to deal with that scenario, not to mind help those who are below the middle income category, for want of a better phrase, who are really struggling and cannot come up with the money to keep a roof over their heads. The reason the issue is so critical is successive Governments over-relied on the private sector to deliver housing to put a roof over people's heads, a social need which should be treated as a right.

We are supposed to be dealing with the issue of rent certainly in this legislation and the reason we supposedly cannot talk about rent controls is a previous Supreme Court ruling but that ruling was not about rent controls, it was really about rent freezes in a scenario where people would have security of tenure indefinitely. Rent control or rent certainty is a different element. What we should be trying to do in this legislation and what I am seeking to do in my group of amendments is to allow for increases but to stop a free for all. Increases have to be gradual. They have to be pegged to the rest of the indicators in the economy such as, for example, the rate of inflation. I do not see what is unreasonable about this. That must be the starting point. This legislation is being dealt with against a backdrop where this has not been happening. We have had a scenario, in some instances, where rents have risen by 50%. We know that, on average, rents nationally have increased by 30% since 2011. Rent control involves a tacit acceptance of a few factors, namely, that a house or one's home should not be seen as a commodity, rather it should be seen to fulfil a social need; that the rental market leaves renters in a vulnerable position and that there should be regulation in that regard; that an uncontrolled rental market is bad for landlords and tenants and that permitting massive rent hikes does not really suit anybody. We are trying to acknowledge these factors in this group of amendments.

There are two types of rent control - there are controls within a tenancy and controls on the commencement of a tenancy. Let us take the example of Germany which is held up as the gold star model. It provides for rent controls within tenancies for many years and they have worked quite well. For example, much more stringent rent controls were brought in in Berlin this year to control rents at the beginning of a tenancy, precisely because a massive influx of foreign capital looking for a safe haven in the wake of the financial crash caused an imbalance in the rental market in the city. That is precisely the situation with which we are dealing, whereby rents are being driven up beyond people's capacity to pay. In Berlin landlords cannot now set the rent for a new tenancy at more than 10% of the prevailing local average, as contained in the rent mirror produced by the local authorities. In Ireland we need both types of rent control, but in these amendments we are only providing for mid-tenancy controls. We are being incredibly modest; we are not even dealing with the full picture. The reason for this, which I understand and appreciate, is that the market here is a little more complicated because of the numbers of accidental or reluctant landlords or those who bought buy-to-let properties for pension purposes. Some landlords are even renting elsewhere, which is ridiculous.

Controlling initial rents at a particular percentage above the prevailing local average is something we must aim to achieve, but that is not factored into the legislation. We must have a comprehensive review of the market to ensure controls would be balanced and would not have unintended consequences in the economy, but we need to engage in that research. That is why a review provision that I put forward for consideration in the amendments is necessary. We need to take account of the need for control of initial rents also, which is not provided for in the legislation. My amendments are relatively modest in their objective. They seek to ensure people would be a little more secure in their homes and also to put a break on the most unscrupulous of landlords, but we should be conducting much more detailed research into how we can ensure the situation would be far better across the board.

The Minister of State referenced a few times that the biggest problem was supply, but I cannot take this seriously from the Government when I note what it has allowed NAMA to do. In the past month it has allowed the Project Arrow portfolio to be sold to Cerberus for less than €1 billion - €800 million - when it knows that 50% of that portfolio comprises residential units. On the other hand, it is telling NAMA to use money to build 20,000 units over five years in the private market. Again, there will only be a 10% social housing component, which is utterly ludicrous. What is needed is not an increased supply but more certainty and an increased supply of social housing. The private sector cannot deliver and meet people's housing needs, which is why, even under the capitalism system, in the rest of Europe the situation can be regulated and managed. Surely to God we could do the same.

I refer to the Minister of State's comments about the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, which is the biggest joke in this society. It is a disgrace, whether by design or ineptitude I do not know, but it has been toothless in defending tenants and decent landlords because of the way in which it has been set up. Possibly it is as a result of the fact that it has been set up without enough teeth to compel people to come around the table to enforce judgments being made, not only in respect of tenants. Tenants are, in many instances, hard done by, but a large portion of small landlords are incredibly hard done by also. There are instances where people who receive rent supplement payments from the State fail to give them to landlords or where people who trash a dwelling are then left in it for months at a time and do not attend PRTB hearings and so on. That is not good enough. We need to tighten up on the security element and foster decent relationships between landlords and tenants. Unfortunately, the legislation in this area favours unscrupulous landlords and tenants, but the bulk of people are not in that category. Most tenants are decent and just want to have a roof over their heads. Many landlords are okay also; they just want to have their investment protected and receive a certain return on it.

The moral of the story is that we want to meet people's housing needs, we cannot rely on the market. Sadly, these measures will not give them the certainty that they need and deserve.

See this speech in context