Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

First and foremost, there are elements of this Bill that I welcome and that are entirely necessary. There is a great deal of difficulty with the 2004 Act in terms of its implementation from the RTB perspective and from the perspectives of landlord and tenant. Some of the provisions are cumbersome and difficult in terms of administration. I disagree to a certain extent with Deputy Healy-Rae but I also agree with some of what he said as well.

In the first instance the rental market is a critical component in the housing market. Without it, the numbers of people in unsuitable accommodation or homeless would be in the tens of thousands rather than at or about 10,000. Our taxation system is punitive for landlords. I am not a landlord, which I am keen to put that on the record. However, having worked in the industry for 12 years, I have come across far more difficulties arising from tenants than from landlords. It was not a matter of 50:50 but more like 90:10, to be honest. Many good people, tenants and landlords, do what they are supposed to do and make a telephone call if there is a problem or call in. I have even known landlords to drop in with Christmas presents and so on. That actually happens, believe it or not. They are not all ogres or faceless corporations. The reality, however, is that this Bill oversteps. Criminalising a landlord and providing for the potential of a jail sentence is overstepping the mark. I am keen to highlight one particular section with which I have a difficulty. Outside of the provision of information to the Revenue Commissioners or acquiring a driving licence or passport, I am unaware of a civil matter in respect of which a criminal offence is created. In this case, the offence is created for forgetting to update the RTB register when a rent increase takes place. That is exactly what is set out in section 17. That is much worse than a bad landlord being prosecuted, which is a good thing. It is a little much for an offence to be created for non-compliance with the requirement to update rental information on the RTB register. That is too much. I have no difficulty with a fine or a series of warnings but creating a criminal offence is too much.

I have no difficulty with the registration of tenancies and I appreciate that there is an administrative cost associated with it. However, like every new cost and administrative charge that is introduced in this country, it will only ever go up. The cost has gone up since it was introduced in 2004. Given the increasing number of rental properties in the market, the registration process should be more simplistic and the costs should be covered more easily.

Perhaps the registration fee should be prescribed in the Bill because the Government needs to recognise the position in which accidental landlords find themselves. I was a landlord for just under a year while I was between properties, which meant that I was a tenant at the same time. Taxation stands at 50% and there are other registration fees. The registration fee was €90 and no doubt in five years it will be more than that, probably over €100. For accidental landlords like me and for individuals caught in negative equity, finding this additional money is a difficulty, particularly if incomes are limited or family circumstances have changed. Many Deputies will know that people who took out mortgages between 2006 and 2008 most likely overpaid for their homes in comparison with those who bought homes up to recently. Such individuals would, therefore, have very large mortgages. If they lost their jobs in the interim, the pressure on them to pay their mortgages and tax has been difficult. People, including some in my constituency, are still caught in this trap.

I refer to sections 15 and 16 and the approved housing bodies, AHBs, that are accommodating tenants on our housing lists. We should abolish the registration fees for AHBs. It is true they are receiving money for this, but they are providing a public service and they, as quasi-State service providers, should not also have to pay the State.

The Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, came to the Chamber in the middle of my contribution. Earlier I described the creation of a criminal offence of non-compliance in the context of updating the rental register, dealt with in section 17, as overstepping the mark.

I understand the rationale regarding notice periods and I accept that such periods can be different in other jurisdictions. As a result, I do not have a difficulty with these changes. However, I wish to draw attention to the converse aspect, namely, the notice periods provided by tenants. More often than not, tenants leave properties because their life circumstances change, they want a different property, they might have moved jobs or lost jobs and so do not have a choice in the matter. However, some people question why, when a landlord must give 60, 90, or 120 days notice depending on the length of the tenancy, a tenant is not obliged to do so. Under the Bill, a landlord who is delinquent can be prosecuted by the RTB. The latter will be able to act autonomously and will no longer have to do so on the basis of complaints. That is a welcome step in the right direction. However, if a tenant does not give notice and if the landlord is owed two or three months rent, under the law, the RTB cannot prosecute that tenant. Therein lies an inherent inequality. I do not support prosecuting tenants who may have lost their jobs, been obliged to emigrate or whatever. However, any law these Houses pass must be equitable. It must be a two-way street. If someone is a good tenant or a good landlord and he or she pays his or her taxes, then the law is on his or her side. If, however, he or she is a bad tenant or landlord, then the law is not on his or her side. This Bill is 100% on the side of the tenant because the landlord, particularly in the case I highlighted, is being criminalised for an administrative error. What if he or she did not click "complete" on the online registration form? What if he or she simply forgot to register because of circumstances that occurred during the lengthy notice period when the rent review takes place? There are always circumstances in which other events can dominate people's thinking for a period.

I accept we have a huge amount of work to do regarding our housing market. We must ensure that we can provide affordable properties to people who are fortunate enough to be able to take out mortgages. Then there is everyone else who cannot. We should consider the position of landlords who pay tax at 50%, particularly those who may not be institutional landlords. These people are not involved in the sector for commercial reasons but, rather, because they may have inherited property or they thought it a good idea to invest in property for pension purposes in later life. Many individuals followed the latter course and were encouraged to do so under the previous taxation system. We must look in a fair way at those individuals. The Minister will have to have a discussion with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, on this matter. Creating a criminal charge in respect of an administrative error is a bit much. I have no difficulty with the State prosecuting an individual who breaks the law. We are debating what will become an Act of the Oireachtas. At that point, it will be the law and people will be obliged to comply with its provisions.

Others have stated that it is unfair to criminalise landlords for being bad. Perhaps, however, it is time that we clamped down on these individuals who rent out substandard properties, properties that do not comply with building safety or fire regulations and properties with access and egress issues. All over this city there are older properties that have been modified but not to the appropriate level to make them safe. Dublin City Council has shut down several large-scale rental properties recently, which is a welcome development. I have no difficulty with clamping down on the landlords in question but there does not have to be a criminal offence. If local authorities and the agencies responsible for ensuring that building standards and fire and safety regulations are adhered to in the context of rental properties, we must ensure that they have sufficient funds to do facilitate this. The latter would mean that a delinquent landlord who does not maintain properties properly would be caught immediately or within a reasonable period and told that the property has fallen down on whatever points of fire safety or health and safety and that improvements must be made. If we properly fund the administration of the rental market and the social housing market, we will not have delinquent landlords at all because we will be able to monitor them more closely. As already stated, however, criminalising the failure to complete an administrative function is too much.

I commend the Minister on the other aspects of the Bill. The administrative changes in section 7 on notice periods and errors in notice documents are welcome. It was the case that if this happened, there was a need to go back to the start. In a lengthy tenancy where there is a six-month notice period, if it was only caught after three months, it would have to start again and that could be problematic, not only for landlords but also tenants.

See this speech in context