Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)

I thank Deputies Murphy and Coppinger for introducing the Bill and allowing us the opportunity to discuss this very important matter. Sinn Féin is always happy to support any Bill the intention of which is to strengthen the rights and improve the living conditions of people in the private rental sector. While no Bill, especially no Opposition Bill, is perfect or going to solve the problem by itself, allowing Bills such as these to progress to at least Committee Stage allows for further consideration of the matters and proper discussion. My difficulty with the Government’s opposing this Bill is nothing the Minister of State has said and nothing in the new housing plan, bar a very vague commitment, sets out what the Government is going to do not only to address the energy inefficiency and energy poverty experienced by people in the private rental sector much more so than in other forms of tenure. There is not even a recognition that further action needs to be taken.

At the centre of all this is that we have a set of minimum standards. When Eoghan Murphy was the Minister we were told, as Deputy Murphy will remember, we were going to move to a situation where 25% of all private rental properties would be inspected annually, so that on a cycle of four years minimum standards could be enforced. In fact, I tabled a Private Members’ motion back in 2018 which the then Government did not oppose that not only prescribed 25% inspections annually but also sought to ensure a form of certification of compliance with minimum standards was provided. That was something we were told funding would be delivered and targets set for but it never materialised. There is merit in having a considered discussion in committee as to whether or not those minimum standards should be improved, especially in relation to energy efficiency. My view is they should. That could be the specific targets or the timelines set out in Deputy Murphy’s Bill. These are matters our committee could rightfully consider. We could listen to the views of tenants, people involved in retrofitting and energy efficiency, tenants’ and landlords’ organisations, etc. However, because the Government is denying this we will not be able to have this discussion in this format at committee, although we will find other ways to do so.

It is really quite startling because on Tuesday EnergyCloud Ireland came before the committee. The Minister of State is well aware of EnergyCloud and he and his party colleagues are supporting it.

In one of the questions I asked, I made the case that while EnergyCloud is currently focusing on social housing tenancies, there are far greater levels of poverty in the private rental sector, the tenant purchase sector and the modest-income private homeowning sector than there are in the social housing sector, which the witnesses confirmed. I said that while it has a pilot under way in Cork at present, this is an issue that would have to be addressed.

There is one area where I am not completely in agreement with Deputy Murphy. I think we need to look very carefully at mechanisms to assist landlords who are currently unable to cover the costs of retrofitting and improving the energy efficiency of homes to do so for the benefit of tenants. That is an area that needs greater work. The ESRI report engages with this question to some extent. There is the whole issue of the split incentive. Why would a landlord invest in upgrading the stock when the primary benefit is to the tenant? It is an issue we have to come back to because, in the main, we have a very large volume of private rental stock that is old or older. The Minister of State is right that the number of inspections has increased but inspections are predominantly led by demand or by age. My own local authority, which has one of the highest levels of inspections in the State, predominantly inspects older properties or inspects properties at the request of the tenant rather than systematically inspecting all properties.

While I know it does not come under this Bill, it must be said that some of the worst rental stock in the State from the point of view of energy efficiency and energy poverty is not in the private rental sector. Flat complexes built in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, particularly those in inner urban Dublin but also in Cork city, such as the Oliver Bond flats, Countess Markiewicz House or Pearse House, are in an even worse state. I say this because it is pertinent to the Minister of State's Department. For many years, Dublin City Council did not invest sufficiently in upgrading and maintaining that stock but it is currently doing the right thing. It has very advanced plans to increase the energy efficiency of that stock and to implement basic minimum standards. However, the Department and the Government are holding them back. Initially, they insisted that any capital works funded for the upgrading of those inner-city flat complexes had to increase density. The Government and the Department have now moved on and are now saying they cannot reduce density. In many of these locations, that is not possible. It is right and proper that Deputy Murphy's Bill focuses on the private rental sector but it would be remiss of any of us to have this conversation without acknowledging that the State, which should be the best landlord in the public and private sectors, is the worst in many instances. The very good efforts of the communities in those flats, the local elected representatives and Dublin City Council are not being adequately supported by the Department. That needs to be addressed.

I will make a couple of additional points. This is not a criticism of the Minister of State but he referenced the ESRI report and the 330,000 rental dwellings recorded in the census. The most recent figure for RTB registrations is 240,000. That 330,000 relates to dwellings and not tenancies but that means the total number of registered tenancies should be greater than 330,000 rather than 240,000. That highlights the ongoing and very significant level of non-registration, which is a criminal offence. That is relevant to this discussion.

Over many years, the Government has often argued against Opposition Bills by reference to unintended consequences and the ultimate impact on renters of a loss of stock, as the Minister of State has mentioned. Part of the difficulty with that is that it is always the tenants who ultimately have to pay the price. In this instance, they will pay the price through energy inefficient homes, even higher heating bills and health consequences. I am not appealing to the Minister of State to change his mind, because he has been given his instructions and will vote accordingly, but we need more than a vague commitment to examine this matter in a relatively vague and unimpressive housing plan. Far too many people will be sleeping in very expensive and very cold homes tonight. What I am therefore asking Deputy O'Sullivan to do with whatever limited powers he has as a Minister of State is to go back to his Department and his line Minister, who is also his party colleague, and say that he supports Deputy Murphy's argument - I did not disbelieve him when he said so at the start of his speech - for retrofitting and for improving the living conditions of the people living in some of the poorest quality homes in the State. I ask him to continually make the case in his parliamentary party and in his Department for urgent action on that vague commitment in the programme for Government. If he does not believe the approach of any of us in the Opposition are correct, will he set out what additional measures, extra investment or extra incentives, if that is the desire of Government, there will be to ensure that the 750,000 people who live in the private rental sector according to the census are living in homes that meet minimum standards and that those minimum standards are adequate, particularly given the very high rents that renters are either paying themselves or that are being covered through a combination of RAS, HAP or rent supplement and tenants' own top-ups?

As I have said, this Bill is not perfect. No Bill that any of us on this side of the House propose is. We do not have the benefit of civil servants or the ability to table Bills that place a charge on the State. The purpose of these Bills is to provoke debate and drive greater consideration of matters on Committee Stage. It is unfortunate the committee will be denied that opportunity but I am sure we will find other ways to raise, discuss and consider this very important matter in the time ahead.

See this speech in context