Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for permitting to raise this issue on the Adjournment. I ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to explain the circumstances in which he appointed to the Private Residential Tenancies Board two members of local authorities who are ineligible to serve on the board. As a result of these appointments, more than 100 decisions taken by the board have been set aside. Furthermore, this debate offers the Minister an opportunity to outline the steps being taken to have the board's decisions reconsidered and indicate whether he intends to review procedures for making appointments to State boards.

A question must be asked about the legality of the Minister's appointments. Under the relevant legislation, the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, a person who is a member of a local authority "shall be disqualified" from becoming a member of the board. In light of the unambiguous nature of this statement, has the Minister acted inappropriately and performed his duties in an illegal manner by appointing the two persons in question? A second legal issue arises regarding the matter of redress in the 100 decisions taken by the board since the appointments were made. Has a precedent been set which will expose the Private Residential Tenancies Board to legal liability?

The Minister must answer a further series of questions. Upon whose recommendations were the two individuals in question appointed? For how long had they served before the matter came to the attention of the board? When did it come to the Minister's attention that two appointments had been made illegally? What specific action did he take on receiving this information? What expenses were the two appointees paid for their participation in meetings of the Private Residential Tenancies Board?

It appears from an examination of the appointments process that little consideration was given to the procedures and protocols clearly laid down in the Act, whereas every consideration was given to political cronyism. The Minister's actions are a reflection of a "one for us and one for them" approach. Is this the lesson the Green Party wishes members of the public to learn from its experience in government?

The Minister's illegal appointment of two councillors, one member of Fianna Fáil and one member of the Green Party, to the Private Residential Tenancies Board did not appear to be a source of embarrassment to him when he sauntered into the House this morning before attempting to saunter out again. His lack of embarrassment is typified in his refusal to come to the House earlier to make a statement on the issue and allow Deputies to have a proper debate. Instead, he will read a few lines and walk out the door at the close of business. This is not the way the House should operate.

The Minister was afforded an opportunity to have this issue aired prior to the Adjournment debate, which would allow Deputies to discuss the issue in an informed fashion. Instead, he has chosen to read out the document he is holding to his chest before running out the door.

The Minister's appetite for appointing advisers is well established. We know, for example, that he has a team of six people in his constituency office, four special advisers in his departmental office and three staff in his press office. The total annual cost of these staff to the taxpayer is €800,000. One may have expected someone with such substantial resources at his disposal to have taken time to read the relevant legislation before appointing a member of his party to a State board. The wording of the Act is unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretation.

The immediate fall-out from the Minister's cock-up has been that more than 100 enforcements and rulings have been set aside, resulting in landlords and tenants being left in limbo. No one is certain what is the current position and the long-term fall-out from this development can only be determined when we know the circumstances in which the two individuals in question were appointed and how the matter came to the board's attention. Judging from the legislation, however, the appointments were illegal. What legal liabilities does the board now face?

This cock-up opens up the possibility that the propriety of other appointments made by the Minister since taking office may also be questioned. A full audit should be carried out of all such appointments and a report placed before the Dáil.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Residential Tenancies Act of 2004 instituted a comprehensive reform of the private rental sector. It set out a modern legislative code which strengthens tenants' rights and supports a more professional approach by landlords. One of the central ingredients of the Act was the establishment of the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, which has a central role in the registration of tenancies and with the resolution of disputes between tenants and landlords.

Appointments to the board are made by me, as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Act specifies that the maximum number of board members shall be 15 and the minimum number shall be nine and, in making those appointments, a mix of legal, professional, operational and other skills is sought. Given the quasi-judicial nature of the board and its regular interactions with the courts, legal representation on the board has always been very useful. When considering further appointments to the board some months ago, I was particularly mindful that the existing board was strongly of the view that a barrister member would be helpful. Accordingly, on 30 June last, I appointed Vincent P. Martin, a barrister-at-law and member of Monaghan County Council to the board. I also appointed Dessie Larkin, a member of Donegal County Council with extensive experience. Both appointments were for the period up to 31 December 2012.

Last month, it was brought to my Department's attention that these appointments were made in error as section 169 of the Act not alone precludes members of the Oireachtas from membership of the board, but also members of local authorities. This provision was overlooked in my Department when the appointments were being made. The result is that both appointments were ultra vires, or invalid, and my office made contact in mid-September with both the individuals in question to advise them of this.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch will have no difficulty in principle with the fact that the people I chose to appoint to this board were councillors. Only yesterday his Labour Party colleague, Senator Michael McCarthy, called on the Government to allow councillors to continue membership of harbour boards.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is a practised hand at reading scripts.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am also aware that, during the various debates in the House and the Seanad on the establishment of the HSE and Health Information and Quality Authority, Opposition parties, including the Labour Party, called for councillors to be represented on these bodies.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister broke the law. He should not refer to debates in the Seanad.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Neither of the two appointees participated in any tribunals of the board, that is, three person appeal hearings. They had, however, attended five board meetings between 4 July and September. While all decisions at the relevant meetings were taken by consensus and with an attendance well in excess of the quorum of five, the board took legal advice on the matter and, in the interests of legal certainty, it agreed that all cases considered at meetings attended by the two gentlemen in question should be considered afresh.

This was done on 19 September when approximately 120 cases brought to the board between 4 July and 9 September were considered anew. Fresh determination orders and decisions were made and communicated thereafter to the parties.

I take this opportunity to emphasise that no decisions were "set aside", as stated in today's edition of The Irish Times. Every case in question was reviewed by the board, which then issued legally correct determination orders and decisions.

It also needs to be stressed that it is PRTB policy to pursue a criminal prosecution when requested in all cases of non-compliance with its orders. In the case of an over-holding tenant, the PRTB will always initially take a civil prosecution, as this would then allow the landlord to recover possession of the property. From time to time, certain issues arise in a case, making it economically unviable to pursue a prosecution. This might be where insufficient information is available as to the whereabouts of the non-compliant party and significant costs would be incurred in establishing this, and where there is little or no chance of recovery of these costs or the financial amounts awarded in the determination order. I stress that the board's policy is to pursue enforcement of its orders, while being mindful of the need to ensure value for money for taxpayers.

I assure the House that the PRTB has made significant progress since its establishment and it is heartening that less than 1% of tenancies end in a dispute. While critical cases such as those involving illegal eviction or serious anti-social behaviour are fast-tracked by the board and handled within weeks, the board is acutely aware that the average length of time to deal with cases needs to be significantly reduced. It has taken decisive steps in this regard, including proposals for amendment to the Act, several in-house operational initiatives and the design of an ICT strategy to optimise the resources available to it. I advise the Deputy that, as Minister, I have secured an increase in the permanent staff cohort from 26 to 40——

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The question is who brought this matter to the Minister's attention.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and I am confident that the collective impact of these initiatives will provide a sound platform from which the board should be able to discharge its functions efficiently and effectively.

I will take no lectures from the Deputy on cronyism. His party has practised it and brought it to a fine art.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Once again, the Minister is talking about this side of the House as if he were sitting here. Who brought this matter to his attention?

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We operate transparent decision-making in appointments. We have appointed three people associated with the Deputy's party to boards.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister answer to the House as to who brought this matter to his attention?

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is something that his party would not have the generosity or the foresight to do.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister failed to answer that question in this House.