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

Do not worry about it.

I thank the Minister for the Bill's outline. Sinn Féin opposed the RPZs when they were introduced in 2016 because we believed that a 12.5% rent increase over three years for tenants who were already paying rents that were too high was unsustainable. We also argued that RPZs would create perverse incentives for landlords outside the RPZs to jack up rents even higher than those levels. During the debate, we specifically warned that it would create a two-tier rental market, with long-term secure tenants subject to compliant landlords while new tenants into the market would have to pay much higher prices. We also warned that there were too many loopholes. For example, many of us raised the significant issue of the lack of any statutory definition of "substantial renovations".

We have been proven right in all of these matters. From the RTB quarterly index, we know that the cap is being breached regularly. From the most recent quarterly index in particular, we see that the two-tier market between long-term secure tenants and new entrants to the market is in evidence. We know that the loopholes, particularly that regarding substantial changes, are being breached actively in the form of regular "renovictions".

In some senses, the welcome changes in this Bill are a kind of admission of failure, in particular, to listen to what many on the Opposition benches warned and, in fact, proposed useful amendments on in 2016. If we had been listened to then by the Minister's predecessor, it would not have been necessary for him to be addressing some of the issues that, thankfully, he is addressing today. I do not say that to gloat in any way but to urge the Minister to listen carefully to what all of the Opposition Deputies will say in terms of potential constructive amendments to this Bill so that we can try to enhance it over the coming weeks.

As the Minister will be aware, my party's preference in 2016 was rent certainty. The Minister will be aware we are strong advocates of a rent freeze as an emergency measure now, but given that rent pressure zones are what is on the table, we will engage constructively with this Bill in the spirit in which it has been presented so that, notwithstanding our criticisms of the overall system, we try at least to make sure it works in the best interests of tenants as well as landlords.

On that basis, I welcome the main provisions, and the Minister will be aware this is Sinn Féin's position. I strongly welcome increased protections for tenants and increased powers for the Residential Tenancies Board, but I urge the Minister to listen to us on the Opposition benches when we say there are a number of significant weaknesses in this Bill which, with sensible amendment on Committee Stage, can be addressed, making it a much better instrument for everybody.

I echo Deputy Darragh O'Brien in expressing disappointment with the delay in the Bill. However, I suspect the Minister privately also has been disappointed in the delay. The delay is not his responsibility or that of the officials in his Department, but I still want to put that on record. Like Deputy O'Brien, I give a clear commitment that my party will progress this Bill through the House as quickly as possible and in the spirit which the Minister has asked us to do, but we will not allow the speed of progress to undermine in any way our responsibility to scrutinise this legislation. The Residential Tenancies Acts have become a complex web of legislation - the Minister knows that far better than me - and it is incumbent on us, particularly on Committee Stage, to spend the requisite amount of time to ensure that this latest range of amendments do not unduly complicate that already complex set of rules and regulations. We can do both of these if we work in that spirit of co-operation.

In terms of the detail of the Bill, first, I welcome the legal definition of "substantial change". It is quite a technical definition. I would hope on Committee Stage that we can tease out some of the rationale for those definitions so that we can get into the substance of that, but I always felt a legal definition was required. I welcome the fact that it is here. I welcome the sensible proposal to roll over Part 4 tenancies when they expire so that they are not new tenancies but simply extensions of the existing Part 4 tenancies, something that should have always been in the original legislation and will be welcomed here.

I welcome strongly the extended notice to quit periods. I would like the Minister to consider two suggestions. The first is a small addition to the minimum notice to quit period of 28 days. All of the notice to quit periods immediately above that have increased somewhat. I suggest even to give it an extra seven days to increase it to 35. Given what is going on in the rental market, some extra little bit of comfort there for tenants would be welcome. If, however, the intention of this amendment is somehow to deal with the large number of family presentations into homeless services because of vacant possession notices to quit, it will not fix that problem. The Minister will be aware of my position. I urge the Minister to consider some form of the Focus Ireland amendment, whether by way of a Government amendment to this Bill or in his next round of legislation, to try to deal with that particular issue. Otherwise, while we might be giving families at risk of homelessness a little extra time, ultimately, if we cannot keep them in those properties, they will still end up presenting as homeless. That does not detract from the fact that this is welcome. However, if it is intended to tackle that particular problem, it will not and, therefore, I urge the Minister to consider additional action.

I welcome the publication of determinations from which many of us benefit, but I have one concern which I would like the Minister either to address on Committee Stage or consider. It is not necessary for the names of tenants and landlords to be published when those determinations go live. The value of the determinations is for us to have that record and others taking cases to have the detail of those determinations. Both for the privacy of tenants and landlords as well as for their own protection and reputation, there should be some consideration of the redaction of the names of landlords and tenants when the full determinations are published. My understanding is that happens currently in Workplace Relations Commission cases. I could be wrong and maybe the Minister could check that. That might be something, although small, worth considering.

I am not clear at all as to why there is a proposition to charge for mediation. The point of mediation is to try to encourage an agreement between landlords and tenants so that we do not have to go through adjudication and possibly to tribunal. If we make it an expense, especially for low-income tenants, or indeed some landlords who may be in financial difficulties with mortgage arrears etc., it is less likely to work. I am not sure of the rationale. I urge the Minister to reconsider that.

I understand the logic in terms of the resetting of invalid notices. I am not against that in principle. I merely ask the Minister to come back on Committee Stage with an explanation as to why it is only 28 days as opposed to a slightly longer period. That is something we need to tease out. I am not opposed to it in principle but some consideration needs to be given.

Contrary to Deputy Scanlon, I think the annual registration is essential. The policing powers of the Residential Tenancies Board with respect to the RPZs can only work if it has access to accurate data. Members will be aware of the limitations of the RTB's quarterly rent index because it only includes new or reregistered tenancies. Therefore, having those annual data makes absolute sense and underpins much of the good powers the RTB is being given. The fee is moderate. I welcome the fact that the approved housing body sector will pay a lower fee.

I do not understand why the Minister has changed the penalty mechanism that is in place. Having a simple flat penalty disincentivises somebody who is breaking the rules from changing his or her mind. The current system, where there is an incremental increase in the penalty, in some sense incentivises landlords who have been notified of the breach to get their house in order much more quickly. I urge the Minister to re-examine that. If there are good reasons he has chosen to move away from that, he might talk us through them in more detail on Committee Stage.

The real substance and real innovation of the Bill is Part 7A, which is the new sanctions regime. All of the comments I will make are in the context of supporting much of what the Minister is trying to do here and trying to ensure that it is an effective mechanism. Sanctioning or having powers to sanction landlords who are in clear breach of the RPZs only works if landlords fear that sanctions will be used speedily to disincentivise breaches. A sanctions regime is also good for compliant landlords. It is galling for landlords who are doing their job right and staying within the law to see other landlords in breach of the rent pressure zones and being able to do that. Therefore, this is not merely a measure protecting tenants. It is also a measure protecting compliant landlords, ensuring they are not being undercut by those in breach of the regulations.

I welcome the important powers of the Residential Tenancies Board both to initiate and conduct the investigations. The provisions are well outlined in the Bill. It is a pity that these powers are only applicable to breaches of the rent pressure zones and non-registration. I urge the Minister to consider whether, in this Bill or in the subsequent residential tenancies (amendment) Bill that we expect later this year, to expand the applicability of the sanctions regime, for example, in breaches of section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act in terms of notices to quit. It would be eminently sensible for this sanctions regime to apply to those.

All rent reviews should be applicable. Why will tenants in rent pressure zones get this added protection but tenants outside rent pressure zones, particularly in areas, whether Limerick, Waterford or Sligo town, that are seeing very significant increases, will not get any protection from this at all? That does not make any sense. That is something the Minister could deal with by way of an amendment to this Bill.

Ultimately, although I do not think the Minister can do it in this legislation, we will need some kind of sanction for serious breaches of minimum standards, such as serious breaches of overcrowding, in the same way as we have legislative provision for serious anti-social behaviour. Maybe it is something that the officials could examine for the subsequent legislation whereby, on foot of an inspection by a local authority or an environmental health officer from the HSE providing a report to the Residential Tenancies Board on a substantial breach of those regulations, sanctions could then be taken.

See this speech in context