Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is. I wish to be associated with the words of my colleagues about the Home Sweet Home campaign. I believe it is remarkable and tremendous. We need more communities to rise up and take action in the absence of the Government listening. That is linked to this. Deputy O'Brien spelt out very clearly what we are dealing with when we are talking about the algorithms, the t/12 and what they mean. The reality of what the Government is asking us to support today is that, in the area of Cork, tenants on their first rent review will have to pay up to €521 extra. In year 2, that could go up to €542 and in year 3, €564. That means that renters in Cork listening to this debate could possibly need to find an extra €3,200 over the next three years to pay to their landlords. In Dublin, in terms of the average rent, that figure would be €4,567. Those figures are important to amplify. While Fianna Fáil representatives talk about how they are uncomfortable with this 4% increase, though it has been pointed out that they voted against rent certainty legislation on three separate occasions, that is what they are going to support today. By either their inaction or their action, they will support a measure that means renters in their communities in Dublin and Cork will be faced with those hikes over the next period.

I am deeply frustrated at how this process has gone. My interjections both last night and today have been specific to the amendments that are before us. Because of the rules of this House, I have not gotten a response about rent reviews that will be taking place after the enactment of this legislation for areas that are not deemed pressure zones but that will subsequently be deemed pressure zones. Regardless of notification being sent to the tenants in accordance with section 22(2), can the Minister confirm that if areas are deemed by ministerial orders as rent pressure zones, given the 90-day notice, then the rent notice will not have effect and sections 3 and 4 of this legislation would take place? That would mean that it would interfere with the process and the cap of 4% being put in place, despite how unsatisfactory that amount is.

See this speech in context