Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)

The way this entire issue has been approached by the Government has been nothing short of shambolic. A series of measures were leaked to the media and subsequently announced. A press conference was going on while we were in the Dáil on Tuesday of last week. What the Minister said at that press conference was different from what was in his press release, which was different again from what the Taoiseach had to say. Then we had the series of measures that were announced again this week in much haste and that were brought forward at the last minute. What was proposed last week very nearly caused a run on the rental market. This has given rise to huge concern among vulnerable renters in my constituency. It is very clear what the priority is here because investors will not be negatively impacted by these changes but renters will. There is one thing about investors that I know from my party's time in government. When my colleague Deputy Kelly was Minister for the environment, he brought in changes in relation to apartment sizes. At the time, he was told – we were all told – that this would be a panacea. However, the thing about these investors is they will always want more. If it is not apartment sizes, it is rent caps. They will come along in time and look for the Government to remove the very limited restrictions it has imposed on them.

Although RPZs zones are a blunt instrument, they are the only protection vulnerable renters have. It is really regrettable that in the context of the suite of changes being introduced, they will be made even more feeble. Rents in my city of Limerick have gone up by 20% in the past year. It is important to note that since RPZs were introduced, rents have gone up by 63.2%. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of RPZs as a policy measure. It shows how weak they are.

Labour has long called for the entire country to be made into an RPZ. This is something that Jan O’Sullivan first proposed as far back as 2016. The measures that were announced will only serve to increase rents and will negatively impact on particular renters who have short-term fixed tenancies such as students, junior doctors or short-term and migrant workers because when they leave their tenancy, which they do regularly because they have to, their rent will reset back to market rate.

There is a fundamental dishonesty about the way this has been communicated to the public. The Government is claiming it is banning no-fault evictions and it is but only in certain very limited situations. Large and institutional landlords usually offer leases of up to one year. Any ban on no-fault evictions will effectively not apply to them. This new system for smaller landlords will actively disincentivise them from providing long-term secure accommodation. We are talking about a policy measure designed to benefit those who are charging €3,000 a month in rent in order to deliver more build-to-rent supply in Dublin. It certainly will not deliver anything in Limerick and probably very little in Cork.

We have tabled amendments to tweak this Bill to ensure that, in terms of its scope, it will provide the strongest possible supports for renters. I am very disappointed that two of these, amendments Nos. 6 and 7, have been ruled out of order. We believe they fall within the scope of the Bill.

There is a provision in amendment No. 7 that a fine of €100,000 would apply in respect of landlords who break the law. This is designed to provide a real and genuine safety net for landlords. I am disappointed to have had these ruled out of order. I note there is nothing to stop the Government bringing forward its amendments. I ask the Government to seriously consider the measure that proposes a fine for landlords who do not comply.

We have also tabled an amendment to provide for a two-year rent freeze in light of the level by which rents have increased in the past decade and the fact that they will continue to increase under this regime. I ask the Government to work with us to accept the amendment and give hard pressed renters a break. The Government consistently does the same thing as the previous Government and the one before that but expects different results. The fact is that this is only going to negatively impact renters. There is no certainty that it will deliver the level of institutional investment the Government believes it will. The fact that the Bill is being debated a week after it was announced means that some landlords have already increased the rates. If the Government wants more evidence of that, it need only look on websites such as daft.ieand askaboutmoney.ie.

I have been inundated with emails from students who are concerned about what is proposed and how it will apply to them. Galway and my city, Limerick, have very little in the way of purpose-built student accommodation. We are heavily dependent on the private rental market in Limerick in order to house students. Students leave their accommodation every May and June and then scramble to find accommodation in late summer. Up to 100 students in Limerick are living in hotels during the week because they cannot get accommodation. The fact that there is nothing in the Bill to safeguard or protect students living outside of purpose-built student accommodation means that rents for those students will rocket and will increase every single year after they leave their accommodation.

I also want to talk about short-term lets. Some of the Minister's colleagues, including the Minister, Deputy Foley, and the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, have raised concerns about the regulation of short-term lets. Under the Bill, short-term lets will all come under the 2019 Eoghan Murphy legislation requiring owners to apply to their local county councils for planning permission. Given the delays in planning and the shortage of suitably qualified planners, I am eager to find out how the Government intends to deal with this and what additional resources local authorities and their planning departments will get. Local authorities are already understaffed, under-resourced and overworked. I am concerned there could be a level of chaos in regard to this.

Many students are very concerned because landlords are not registered with the RTB. There is a power imbalance between renters and landlords in this country. We have some of the weakest tenant rights in Europe. There is a clear need to beef up the RTB because it can barely cope with the volume of work and disputes it is currently dealing with. What additional measures and staffing resources will be put in place?

The Labour Party will not seek to actively obstruct the passage of the Bill. We will work constructively with all colleagues in the House to ensure that we put in place a suite of measures that safeguards renters above and beyond any other policy objective. That is our overriding priority.

As stated, I tabled a number of amendments, only one of which is in order. I ask the Government to work with us in the Labour Party, accept our amendment on a two-year rent freeze and perhaps consider bringing forward its amendments on a complete ban on no-fault evictions and the introduction of increasingly punitive measures for rogue landlords.

Rents have skyrocketed over the past decade. The measures in the Bill will, in the round, cause rents to increase again. My priority is renters and making sure that their rent does not go up any more. Under what is proposed by the Government, we will return to a situation whereby people will be evicted from their properties because they cannot pay the rent. There has not been an increase in the rate of HAP in over a decade. I ask the Government to consider what we are proposing and work with us within the remit of the Bill to strengthen it.

See this speech in context