Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

As with others, the People Before Profit and the Anti-Austerity Alliance do not agree that trying to limit rents to annual increases of 4% is sufficient to deal with the problem. We will get back to that matter when we return to Report Stage. I would say to Deputy Pearse Doherty that, with respect, I also do not agree that linking rents to the consumer price index, CPI, as was suggested, is the best proposal. We need a rent freeze and we need to link rents to affordability. We will debate that again. I want it on record that some of this debate has, quite frankly, been framed around the figures of 4% and 2% and the argument about the CPI has not had much of a look-in. The arguments relating to rent freezes or affordability have had absolutely no look-in during the debates. Two potential loopholes were revealed last night in the stated ambition of the Minister. In fairness, he responded to that and his officials have worked very hard. He has engaged with the Opposition and, through his efforts and those of his officials, those loopholes have been closed off. The stated intention of the legislation is now the effect of the legislation and that is to be welcomed. However, what has happened does not inspire confidence about what else may be hidden in the Bill in the context of unintended consequences. Deputy Pearse Doherty made that point and I made it last night. Given the complexity, detail and range of issues that covered in the legislation - and in view of the late stage at which much of the information has become available - I am concerned that we just do not know what will be the consequences of some of the other provisions it contains. I hope that is not the case but I suspect that it may well prove to be.

During our consultation with the Minister this morning, Deputy Coppinger and I raised the question of whether - even with the revised formula which closes off the loopholes - what is contained in the legislation is completely unintelligible to anybody who is not willing to put intense energy into trying to understand the dense and complex language and formulae used. This has to be made intelligible for the ordinary tenant and landlord and for the officials of the RTB so that it can actually be understood and implemented. The Minister made a pledge before our meeting that this would be the case. It is vitally important that this is put into plain language so that the legislation will be capable of being understood. The substantive issue can be dealt with on Report Stage but it is imperative to frame what is proposed in plain language. This debate has demonstrated the absolute importance of forensic oversight of legislation. In this case, and in a number of other recent instances, Deputies have been placed in an invidious position. As a result of time constraints and the fact that information is arriving late, the pressure is on us. Should we drop the detailed scrutiny of legislation in which we are supposed to be engaging because we are under pressure to get things passed? I do not know what we are going to do about this. Sometimes the pressure is inevitable but what is happening is giving rise to serious problems. I suspect that the only way it can be dealt with is by more engagement at an earlier stage on the details of such important and complex legislation, rather than having to deal with the details in a very compressed timeframe at the very end of the process.

See this speech in context