Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The first thing all of us are agreed on is that rents are continuing to rise. All of the data from both the RTB and daft.ieconfirm that. It is important to remind ourselves just how much they have risen to. In my constituency in Dublin Mid-West, and this is reflected in many areas, an average two-bedroom or three-bedroom family home is currently going for an asking price of €1,800. That is not even the top of the market. That is an annual cost to the household of €21,000. The idea that it is only in rent pressure zones that families are feeling that kind of pressure clearly is not the case, even where rents might be lower than that.

The Minister is right that when one reads the daft.iefigures, the rate of rental inflation in the last quarter appears to slow. However, if that level of rental inflation was to carry on over the course of 12 months, in a number of those areas it would breach the 4% limit that the legislation is meant to prescribe. I would be worried even by that slowing rate of rental inflation from the limited figures that we have.

The other concern, which many of us are beginning to hear in our constituency offices, is that because the policing of the 4% is in the main left with the tenants, particularly tenants at risk of losing their homes who may have a notice to quit, we are beginning to see in the private rental market what we saw for decades under rent supplement, which is under the counter additional payments above the cap. One of the things I urge the Minister to look at in the review is some way other than requiring, for example, a struggling family with only a month or two left on a notice to quit from being the only mechanism for policing whether or not the 4% limit is being adequately adhered to where it applies.

I am also concerned about the exemptions. This needs to be looked at very carefully in terms of what the differentials are going to be between, for example, the rents of refurbished and new properties on the market and those that are covered by the rent pressure zones, if there is data to that effect in the review period. I will make the same point I have made a number of times. The fact the rent pressure zones are based on local electoral areas, LEAs, is causing problems in some areas. I have used the Waterford case repeatedly because in that area, if the Minister went below the LEA to the district electoral division, DED, he would at least start to give some comfort to people in those areas that are facing rents as high as they are in my constituency. In the LEA as a whole, they currently cannot avail of the rent pressure zone. It is something that we are told the RTB is looking at.

Outside the rent pressure zones, the markets still reign supreme. These are families under huge pressure. We warned that this was going to happen. The Minister's own explanation of the slowing of the rate of increase in the rent pressure zones proves the point. We are essentially incentivising landlords outside the rent pressure zones to push their rents up as fast as they can within the existing legislation to the already unsustainable levels in Dublin city, Cork city and elsewhere. That needs to be urgently reviewed.

One of the worrying things about the daft.ierental report that came out last month is that it is now seriously warning about the opening up of a two-tiered rental market. I know this because I experience it myself directly. People like me who have been in a rental property for a long period of time with a stable landlord actually have rents significantly below the new asking prices. However, new entrants into properties on my street are at the very top end. Some action is going to need to be taken to find a way of preventing a two-tier rental market opening up, widening and becoming the norm.

Vacant possession notices to quit are currently the single largest cause of family presentations of homelessness in the Dublin region and I presume it is similar in Cork city. The Minister knows this. Those families are presenting as homeless not only because they receive a vacant possession notice to quit, but because, as Deputy Boyd Barrett said, they simply cannot access private rental accommodation. These are not just families on HAP. These are working families, single people on low part-time incomes etc. The Bill is timely because many of us feared that struggling renters, whether they are accessing HAP or working full or part time, would not get the level of relief that was promised to them when the Minister introduced the legislation in December. The evidence is pointing in our direction and we will see where it will go over the next number of quarters.

I believe the Bill has real merit. The reason I say that is because to date, all of the conversations we have had in Government and Opposition benches on rent issues is how to constrain rents and stop the accelerating rise of rental inflation. This is the first time we have a specific Bill that tries to move the conversation on to situations in which rents are already at unsustainable levels and whether there is some mechanism, legislative and legally sound, that can start to draw those rents back to affordable levels. While this Bill may or may not be the most technically correct way of doing that, the very fact that it is being put on the table means that I believe it is deserving of at least committee scrutiny and further discussion and debate rather than being rejected in the House. The reason Sinn Féin is supporting the Bill is because the principle of it is right and worthy of moving forward.

In the few minutes I have left, I will respond to the Minister's contribution. First, his rental strategy is not comprehensive. I said this when we had a very limited time to debate it in December. It is to date the weakest part of his housing strategy. It is the shortest in terms of length, detail and specific commitments. Most of the things the Minister listed in terms of supply, services and standards have not yet been actioned.

Some of them do not even have concrete deadlines.

The Minister is right that the demand is too high. It is also because too many different types of households that should not be pushed towards the private rental sector are being pushed because of Government failures elsewhere. Social housing is the most obvious one. It is misleading to talk about there being 10,000 social housing units in the pipeline. Here is the reason. A significant number of those have neither planning permission nor agreement from their local authorities to proceed. In my constituency, a third of the properties the Minister is claiming are in the pipeline will never go ahead. Two significant developments in Dublin Mid-West, which the Minister visited today, are not only not at planning stage but will never get off the ground. If that is translated across other areas, the 10,000 figure simply is not credible.

I make the point all the time that supply in and of itself will not guarantee affordability. In the run-up to the height of the boom, both in terms of private rental accommodation and first-time buyer accommodation, supply increased to historic highs but affordability was not guaranteed. Supply on its own, without adequate measures such as the ones outlined in the Bill to ensure affordability, will not address the concerns many have.

Once again, the Minister has said measures such as these will have a negative impact on current supply and future investment and, once again, he has provided no evidence to support the claim. We had exactly the same conversation when we debated the Minister's previous legislation. If there is some evidence - something concrete and tangible - to say these measures, the consumer price index or other measures that have been proposed will negatively impact supply, the Minister should present the evidence to us. In committee we are all very sensible, reasonable and rational people. We will look at it and study it. Simply stating over and over again that giving struggling renters a break will damage existing and future supply and investment is not evidence that is the case. I have no doubt we will be back here in three or four months when the next round of data is out and continues to show people in private rental accommodation are under huge pressure. Struggling renters need a break. What the Minister introduced in December is too modest and piecemeal and does not apply universally to all renters who are having difficulties coping with astronomical rents. This issue should be allowed to go to committee because it does not deal with the crucial issue that even with a reduced rental increase of 4%, those rents are already unsustainable. They are already putting huge pressure not just on families out of work who depend on social welfare but on students, young working families and older people who, because of changes in their lifestyles, have ended up close to retirement and back in the private rental sector. They are fearful of what happens when they go onto State or low occupational pensions and will not be able to meet market rents as they stand.

While I have no doubt the Minister has no intention of considering this Bill and allowing it to proceed, I have no difficulty supporting it. I urge others to support it in order that we can have a more detailed conversation at committee. If we are back here in three or four months when the review is being conducted with the evidence on the table and the data from the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, and daft.ieconfirming that yet again that struggling renters are not being assisted by this Government, I would urge the Minister then to consider much more substantive changes to the existing regime than suggested by his warning at the end of his remarks.

See this speech in context