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

I am not minded to support the amendment. I appreciate that the original definition did not take into account pre-63 properties or the protected structures to which the amendment relates. However, the Minister of State has gone too far in trying to solve that problem. The definition is too broad. It would have been possible to provide a more specific definition or, for example, to waive the BER rating change or provide greater flexibility in adaptation for persons with a disability. A 12-month vacancy period is too short. When the original rent pressure zone legislation was being introduced, with the inclusion of a reference to substantial refurbishment, many on the Opposition benches made it clear that the provision was too broad and urged the then Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Coveney, not to allow the legislation to go through with that broad definition. We were proved right. That deliberate exemption was widely abused, which is why the improved legal definition of substantial refurbishment was contained in the Act which the Minister of State is now trying to amend. I am not opposed to trying to find a way to tackle the difficulties in the case of pre-63 properties or protected structures, but this is not the way to do it. On that basis, I will not support the amendment.

See this speech in context