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

I will give the Minister of State a real world example. I live in a protected structure in Clondalkin which I rent from the Church of Ireland. It is one of four houses built in the 1870s. They are beautiful and unique stone buildings. The current rent has complied with the 4% rent pressure zone cap in the past two years and is less than half the current market rent in the area. My rent is currently €936 per month, while the market rent in the Clondalkin area is between €2,000 and €2,200 per month for a house of comparable size, albeit one built in this century, rather than 150 years ago. Through the amendment, the Minister of State is allowing my landlord to make some alterations to the property next door to me if it becomes vacant, sit on it for a year and then charge €2,200 for a property that is currently being let for €900. That would be permissible because it would be in line with the market rent. The landlord would not have to do anything to the property, apart from leave it vacant. One may ask why a landlord would do so as it would involve the loss of rental income for a year. However, if one can achieve two and a half times the rent currently being received without having to do anything other than sit on the asset, one may choose to do so.

The problem is that the families who live next door to me are on low to modest income and there is not enough accommodation available for such families. The Minister of State is correct that the amendment will have a limited impact and only affect a very small number of properties. However, it could result in the property in which I live or the neighbouring properties moving from a rent of €900 per month to €2,200 and, thereafter, €2,400, €2,800 and so on. There is a need to work out a solution for properties which, for example, cannot be adapted under the disability regulations or have a BER rating. That should be done because there are derelict properties in this city that could be renovated and rented. However, the amendment is too broad and not the right way to achieve that aim. For every property the amendment may affect in a positive way - that is what the Minister of State is trying to achieve - we may lose a property which is currently on the market for families on modest income who are working and renting. That is not a risk we should take.

See this speech in context