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

I know that, but this is my point. If one inspects 25% of existing tenancies - 70,000 tenancies - and 17% of them require a second inspection, or more, which has been the trend of recent years, it would bring the number of inspections up to 80,000 or 90,000 at the most. Therefore, if we are at 50,000, which is better than the 2021 report I referred to earlier, getting to 70,000, 80,000 or 90,000 per year would not be that difficult. On top of that, if landlords knew that there would be an inspection once every four years, they would ensure that the property would be maintained after the first certificate, and this would make the future inspection regime lighter. If there was a very simple charge of €100 or less every four years, which would be only €25 per year in real terms for the landlord, it would offset the cost to local authorities, as local authorities currently have to cover the full cost of the inspections. Therefore, the idea that anything in this Bill would have the outcome outlined by the Minister of State tests credibility.

I return to what I said at the start. The only reason I tabled this Bill is because I want the Government to do it. I want the Department to sit down with the Opposition and with landlord and tenant organisations to design a system that is simple, cost effective and fair but, crucially, enforces standards.

I want to challenge two other things the Minister of State said. We simply do not know the extent of compliance in the private rental sector. Even with 50,000 inspections, given that there were 270,000 registrations as of the end of quarter 4 of 2021, we only have a picture of a tiny section. As a Deputy in a constituency with a large private rental sector, my experience is that there is widespread compliance. That does not mean there is not a significant minority of rental properties that have minor breaches, mixed breaches and serious breaches. My experience is that of widespread compliance. The problem is that we do not have any evidence to say that this is the case across the State. If we had a minimum of 70,000 inspections each year over four years, only then would we get visibility of that. Therefore, I do not think one can say there has been extensive progress other than that we are now exceeding the 2019 level of inspections; it is still too low a level of inspections. I presume the 50,000 figure includes second and third inspections, as the 20,000 figure does. The actual number of properties being inspected is probably only in and around 40,000, although I will let the Minister of State respond to that.

I also take issue with the argument that the current regime meets the balance, as the Minister of State described it, between the need to ensure adequate compliance and the need not to disrupt the sector. There should be no compromising of the standards. If we are going to have a system that mandates compliance, of course, we have to give a lead-in. We accept that. However, the idea that the current regime meets the balance ignores the fact that a significant number of people today - men, women and children - are living in rental properties that do not meet the standards. A significant portion of those properties do not meet the standards in a way that has a negative impact on the well-being and quality of life of those living there. None of that is in any way to criticise what I believe are the vast majority of landlords who are compliant, who obey the rules and who do a good job; that is my experience. However, if 5%, 10% or 15% are in breach, and if half of those are in significant breach, that is a lot of people.

I always take the Minister of State at his word. Having listened to his scripted speech, my worry is not that he is opposing the Bill but that it will die a slow death on the desk in my office, along with all the other Bills that I and other Opposition Deputies have brought forward that the Government has not opposed but does not progress. I urge the Minister of State and his officials to listen to us today. We have an opportunity to improve our private rental sector in a way that is not disruptive or costly to the State, landlords or tenants. We could do a good day's work if we collaborated together to craft legislation or craft a good set of regulations, which is what is contained in the Bill, thereby giving greater flexibility for further changes to improve the system. I urge the Minister of State to take that back to the senior Minister, who I know pays avid attention to everything brought back to him from these meetings and takes copious notes, and works them all into his plan. That is why we all get along so well when we have debates like we had earlier this week.

Finally, on local authority properties, my colleagues, in particular Deputy Andrews, made a very important point. We have the most appalling set of double standards in our rental sector. I live in the private rental sector. I get a basket of rights as a consequence of the Residential Tenancies Act. It is not perfect and I would really like to change it, but I get a basket of rights. I have a good landlord. However, if my landlord breaches those rights, I have a low-cost, non-judicial mediation and dispute resolution board. If I am a tenant of an approved housing body, I have that basket of rights and that opportunity. We do not grant the same rights and the same opportunities to resolve disputes for our local authority tenants, the tenants of the State itself. They do not have the same protections as approved housing body social housing tenants or private renters, or, indeed, those in receipt of social housing support, like HAP and the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, in the private rental sector. If they did have problems, they can go to a councillor but that often does not resolve the issues, or they could go to a solicitor, which is prohibitively expensive.

At some point, we are going to have to have a grown-up conversation about ensuring that all tenants in the rental sector - social, affordable or private - have the same rights, the same standards and the same access. I am not naïve about the complications of that, the length of time it would take or the money involved and we could not just put all of the 140,000 to 160,000 local authority social housing tenancies under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act in one year. However, we are going to have to do that at some point and the earlier we start to phase in those tenancies, maybe on a local authority by local authority basis over an extended period of time, the better. The idea that the State gives its own tenants fewer rights and less recourse to address those rights than it does private rental tenants or approved housing body tenants simply is not justifiable, and the Minister of State and I know that. While we could do the NCT thing pretty quickly, if and when we do that, the next conversation will be on how we ensure all rental tenants have the same rights and the same recourse to vindicate those rights in those cases where they are breached.

I look forward to the phone call from the Minister of State on Monday and I will make myself available to his officials whenever they want. Let us sit down and sort this out. However, as always, I will not hold my breath.

See this speech in context