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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I thank the Minister of State for taking the time to debate the Bill. The background to the legislation is that back in 2017, RTÉ Investigates produced a very hard-hitting documentary called "Nightmare to Let". It produced, rightly and justifiably, a significant public outcry. It also created a significant debate in the Oireachtas over the challenges for those renters who live in substandard and, at times, outright dangerous rented properties, but also more generally the lack of an adequate regime to protect both renters and good landlords from rogue operators in the State. In the immediate aftermath of the documentary, I tabled a Private Member's motion. We had a very full and frank debate here. Eoghan Murphy was the Minister at the time.

At the core of that Private Member's motion was the call for a policy initiative that has long been the proposal of Threshold, the organisation which, as the Minister of State knows, advocates for the rights and entitlements of private renters. The proposal was for a simple and cost-effective regime to inspect and certify private rental properties in order to demonstrate that they meet minimum standards. The debate in the Oireachtas was very good and not unlike the position of the Minister of State, the then Minister, Eoghan Murphy, and Government did not oppose the motion.

It is important to reflect on where things were at, at that particular time. The National Oversight and Audit Commission, NOAC, in 2018 produced a report which stated only about 7% of private rental properties were inspected across the State. The records of different local authorities were widely at variance. My local authority, South Dublin County Council, had a strong record and about 20% of properties were inspected. Other local authorities inspected a tiny number of properties.

What was also significant is that because the inspections were generally at the request of a tenant or, in the case of my local authority, for older buildings that might be at higher risk of not meeting standards, of the properties that were inspected the percentage that did not meet the standard was very high. Unfortunately, that provides what may be an inaccurate picture of the nature of the private rental sector because we are not inspecting enough properties and do not have a representative sample.

The data from NOAC, unfortunately, do not separate minor infringements of standards from very egregious ones. Even though the data show us clearly that not enough properties are being inspected, they do not give us enough visibility in terms of the overall state of the private rental sector and the variance between minor infringements which, for many tenants, are not particularly significant versus those more significant ones.

In response to that Private Member's motion, Eoghan Murphy said he was not opposed to a national car test, NCT, style system and would consider it. I am not sure whether he did but he never did anything about it. He provided some additional resources to local authorities. We were told over a number of years that it was hoped that the resourcing would move towards about a 25% inspection rate across the State, year on year, something we strongly supported.

Obviously, Covid-19 intervened and the restrictions on movement and certain public sector activities like inspections were impacted. During a period when we should have seen a significant improvement in inspection rates, we saw no real change. In fact, the most recent data from NOAC statewide are for 2021, a year when there were significant Covid-19 restrictions. There was an inspection rate of 6%. Nothing had changed in the intervening years.

Partly because of that frustration felt by me, organisations like Threshold and those renters who unfortunately are left living in substandard and, in some cases, appalling and dangerous conditions, I drafted a Bill. We made quite an effort with the Library and Research Service, the Bills Office and Threshold to try to produce as good a Bill as we could because it was a genuine effort by the Opposition to table something the Government could improve if required and introduce at a later stage. The Bill was introduced on First Stage in 2020. That seems a very long time ago, and we are still in the same position.

The Bill was selected in the lottery. It proposes a number of simple things. It tries to put in place a statutory underpinning for an inspection and certification regime. We all know the NCT-style system works in our car industry. Given it is so easily understood, it is a valuable way of thinking about certification.

Local authorities would have the responsibility to inspect. They would move through 25% of the private rental stock each year and, therefore, in four-year cycles would inspect 100% of properties. There would be a very modest fee for landlords, possibly something as high as €100 for an inspection, which would provide a landlord with a four-year certificate. It would be required to be displayed in a property when advertised on platforms and various other things, although that could be a matter of regulation.

When any tenant goes to rent a property, he or she would know that it meets the standards, just like a building energy rating, BER, or NCT certificate. This will be good for good landlords because we know large numbers of landlords - in fact, I hope the majority – are fully compliant with the law when it comes to minimum standards. If we do not ensure all landlords keep those rules, then rogue landlords can undercut the good ones and make it more economically challenging for good landlords to operate on a level playing field.

I have spoken to a significant number of landlords about the proposition. They like the idea of something simple and straightforward, that does not cost them and is periodic. It also would be very useful if, on foot of the inspection, a local authority could provide a copy of the certificate to both the landlord and the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, in case there are enforcement issues it wants to look at. It would mean that over a period of four years, we could have a full inspection of the stock and clear visibility of its quality. An NCT, not unlike a BER, could set out whether breaches were minor or serious and to what extent they are compliant.

I want to go back to the nightmare to let because unfortunately, we still have rental properties like that. In my constituency, a large residential home was bought recently and converted into multi-unit multi-bunk bed accommodation for multiple families. I suspect it had no planning permission and did not comply with building control regulations. Very quickly, the property was populated by a large number of families with a large number of children. My understanding in this case was that the Dublin Regional Homeless Executive, which was paying via the self-accommodation scheme for a number of families in the location, had a concern. It went in to inspect the property and found it was not compliant with fire safety. The five families living there have since been moved to alternative emergency accommodation.

The difficulty is that tells us that in that instance, a significant risk to life was at play in a property where families with children were residing. That is not the responsibility of the Minister of State, but if we had a system like that proposed in the Bill and local authorities were funded through a modest charge to proactively inspect every single rental property in a given administrative area, it would capture such cases and ensure higher levels of compliance.

If the comments of the Acting Chair at the start of the debate are correct, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the good Member's information, I am happy that the Government will support the Bill. However, Eoghan Murphy supported the Private Member's motion in 2017 and nothing has happened since. Even the additional funds provided have not led to an increase in the number of inspections.

In his response, I ask the Minister of State to give me some indication of whether the Government is interested in working on this. It would always be much better if the Government put forward the legislation. On a number of occasions, I have tabled Opposition Bills, most recently in regard to the rights of student renters. The Government supported the Bill and we sat down and hammered out the detail. The Government tabled its superior Bill because it has the good offices of the officials beside the Minister of State. I was able to withdraw my Bill and we were able to unanimously agree on the best possible way of dealing with the issue. That is what I would like to see here.

I am more than happy for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to take all of the credit and publicity when the final Bill is passed, as long as renters get more protection. Therefore, if this something the Minister is serious about, I ask him to let us know and work together. I suspect our colleagues on the Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage would be more than willing to work with officials to put in place a regime that is cost-effective, low-cost for landlords, revenue-neutral for the State, protects tenants and good landlords and improves the quality of our private rental sector.

In addition to the Minister of State's scripted speech, which I am sure he will read as eloquently as he always does, I urge him to go beyond it and let us know what we will do after the Bill is passed unopposed by the House.

See this speech in context