Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We move on.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We always move on, Chair. The time moves on.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It takes some considerable time sometimes to move on. The next item is the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Bill 2020. The usual procedures apply. The Bill is not being opposed by Government.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Ó Broin for bringing forward the Bill and the generosity of spirit in which he has set out its context. This week, there already has been much discussion and debate on the upcoming end of the moratorium on evictions. This is a welcome opportunity to focus on a related issue, namely, the quality of accommodation available to those in the private rental market in Ireland.

Ensuring that a stock of high quality accommodation is available for those who live in the private rented sector is something to which we are absolutely committed. We have clearly set out this commitment in Housing for All and we have backed it up with actions and funding over the past number of years. I will come back to that later in my contribution.

The Government will not be opposing the Bill on Second Stage. The core objective of the Bill is after all the same as our own, which is the common goal of ensuring that those who rent have access to the highest possible standard of rental homes. The Bill is also very much in line with the general policy direction the Government is already taking in this area and one we are in the process of pursuing as part of the current comprehensive review of the private rental market being undertaken by our Department right now. The review aims to put in place a private rental sector which gives long-term certainty to tenants while ensuring that property providers, both small and large scale, are encouraged to provide badly needed rental property for all those who depend on it. This was set out in the Government's counter motion on the debate held earlier this week.

It would be remiss of me not to point out some of the potentially serious downsides in the Bill as it is currently drafted. These are drawbacks which I would readily accept have quite possibly not occurred to the Deputies on the other side, but nevertheless their consequences could and would be very significant to the rental market itself. Again, I welcome Deputy Ó Broin's comments in trying to home in on the imperfections. Before I do that, I would like to take a few moments to reflect on the current state of the private rental inspection regime. Is the current system working perfectly? It is certainly not, is far from it and I acknowledge the points made by Deputy Ó Broin. We no doubt will hear this evening that a high percentage of homes fail their inspections. This leads often to the erroneous conclusion that the general quality of accommodation for rent is very poor. This is in my view far from the reality on the ground. The raw statistic of high failure rates needs to be put into its proper context. Local authorities proactively target those properties most likely to be of a poor standard.Theirs is quite rightly a risk-based approach. To take these properties then as representative of the sector as a whole is not completely accurate. Furthermore, the majority of properties fail inspections for a mix of minor and major non-compliance issues, many of which are relatively easy or cheap to remedy. Rental standards are exacting, and rightly so, but it would be wrong to confuse all non-compliances with homes unfit for human habitation and it is far from that.

Excellent progress has been made over the past 12 to 18 months on the number of inspections conducted by local authorities. This reached a record high of almost 50,000 inspections in the past year - some 20% above their pre-Covid-19 levels. This reflects significant concerted and focused effort by my Department in close partnership with the local government sector. The current regulatory regime will be formally reviewed as part of the wider rental review. However, elements of the system are already under examination. For example, I am happy to report work is ongoing on delivering on the Housing for All commitment to develop a roadmap to implement minimum building energy rating, BER, standards for the private rental sector, with the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, currently undertaking detailed research in partnership with my Department. This policy initiative dovetails well with the Government's Climate Action Plan 2023 and, once in place, will help to ensure a supply of sustainable, energy-efficient homes is available to Irish renters. This will mirror the significant progress we are already making in the local authority housing sector through our national retrofit programme. We are, as I say, very much witnessing a positive trajectory in the rental inspection landscape. It is evolving at pace. The strategy of carefully thought-out incremental capacity building is one that is already working. In fact, it is the only one that makes sense at present and I will tell the House why.

This brings me back to the shortcomings in this Bill. Good intentions can sometimes lead to unintended consequences. In the case of this Bill, the proposed certification system which is at the heart of it would be highly likely to have a detrimental and disruptive effect on the availability of rental properties at this critical time. Properties would lie empty for weeks as they awaited certification, resulting in upward pressure on rents and an increase in homelessness. For example, based on 2022 Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, data, my Department estimates that some 101,000 rental units could be unavailable to rent for extended periods during the first year of this proposed new regime as they await inspection by local authorities. This is because many of these would likely fail their first inspection and remain uncertified and unavailable to rent for a further period until non-compliance issues are resolved and reinspections scheduled and carried out. This would undoubtedly have a serious adverse effect on the rental market. This would be bad at any time but I think we can all agree that right now is certainly the worst possible time.

The demands that the proposed regime would place on local authorities in the short to medium term would be highly significant. It can sometimes take up to three inspections before a dwelling reaches full compliance. We could therefore be asking councils to carry out an extra 300,000 inspections in the first year of the proposed new regime. In other words, this would be a five-fold to six-fold increase on their performance in 2022, which itself was a record year. Even if this was something we felt needed to be done right away, it is something that we simply cannot do. Virtually all local authorities have reported difficulties in rebuilding rental inspection capacity post lockdown. The sector reports serious difficulties with staff recruitment and retention with qualified candidates for inspection roles commanding higher salaries in the construction sector.

If this proposal for certification is to work and major disruption of the rental market is to be avoided, it will require an extended lead-in period of a number of years in which inspected dwellings could be certified in advance of any legal requirement for certification and prior to being placed on the rental market. Moreover, the knowledge that a dwelling would be without the rental income for a period while certification is awaited would also deter continued investment in the rental accommodation market at a time when there is a need to increase rental supply. We must seek to improve standards while encouraging landlords to stay in the market. The current regime does, for the most part, strike that balance. It should be noted that non-compliance with the existing minimum standards regulations is not grounds for eviction. The tenant remainsin situas the local authority engages with the landlord in a collaborative way to remedy non-compliance issues. This means that there is minimal impact on supply in the rental market under the existing inspection regime.

I will conclude by again welcoming this Bill and the chance it has given me to talk about the important progress currently being made in the private rental inspection regime. Would the common goal we all share, which is that of a higher quality supply of rental accommodation, be helped by the provisions in this Bill? In general terms the answer to that would have to be "Yes" which is why the Government takes no issue with the good intent behind this Bill at this time. Again, I refer to Deputy Ó Broin's comments in respect of trying to perfect the Bill. However, what matters is results not intentions and that is what we should judge our own success by. On the implementation as it is now and at this time, this Bill would have a potentially enormous adverse effect on Ireland's rental market. For this reason alone, it would need significant amendment to be workable.

While not opposing the Bill, the overall Government position is to continue progress made on increasing inspection performance while allowing a greater examination to take place of the wider private rented sector which the Government has now commenced and have committed to seeing through in the next number of weeks and months.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is being proposed by Deputy Ó Broin is a straightforward set-up on a national car test, NCT-type inspection and a checklist. We can all see the wins with this for tenants, particularly for those who are in substandard and the nightmare-to-rent type tenancies which do not work for anybody.

This is a very easy sell and I was listening to the Minister of State in respect of what he said about unintended consequences, and all of that. First, and excuse me if I am mistaken, I believe we are talking about a four-year lead-in. As Deputy Ó Broin has said, he is looking forward to working with the Government side to find a solution. We are open to anything which can deliver this because there is an acceptance that we want to offer this kind of service to good landlords where they have their checklist done. The RTB inspections create difficulties for landlords when they happen. I fully understand what the Minister of State has said where one could be non-compliant on some very basic issues that need to be and can be rectified in a non-expensive way, or others that involve major building work. There are significant works which need to be done in certain properties and there are some properties which should not be in play at all and that is the main issue we are dealing with here.

It is unfortunate we are addressing this issue in the middle of what is a complete disaster, crisis, or call it what one wants. The Minister of State brought up the issue in respect of the eviction ban and as much as we welcome these exchanges with the Government side, it is very difficult not to mention that issue given the period we are facing into.

I am probably going to put a couple of questions to the Minister of State on issues on which I am looking for clarity. They are issues that constituents are facing and about to face. The Government proposed solutions but I find there is insufficient detail at this point on criteria and timelines.

The Bill is easy to explain but since I am fairly sure I will do a really bad job of explaining it, people will do far better to listen to Deputy Ó Broin. The fact is that we are talking about a straightforward, NCT-style checklist, because people understand that. We need to make sure, when we have a system, that it is effective and that we do not create huge obstacles for those trying to use it.

Issues arose in the public domain regarding RTB registration. At the time, my constituency office got a considerable number of calls from landlords who experienced difficulties trying to use the RTB system, including when trying to contact the RTB. Rental agencies approached us because they were not able to do what they had done previously for their clients, thus creating obstacles. Those affected were trying to be compliant. This has to be avoided. It creates another issue for landlords. Some of the conversations in the past while have been about those landlords who have left, so we need to make sure when putting the checklist and systems into play that the service can be easily accessed. However, let us be absolutely clear: we have all seen really bad accommodation where you would not put an animal. We have also seen the accommodation offered by a considerable number of really good landlords who are attempting to do the right thing. This Bill could facilitate them.

Until we get to grips with the crisis we are dealing with, we will have difficulties and considerable issues. I hope the Minister of State will interact with Deputy Ó Broin and others to try to find a solution to this problem. There is not much point in having unopposed legislation if it withers on the vine. That is of no benefit to anybody and is a complete waste of the time of all of us who are in here talking.

It is very hard to talk about checklists and private rental without talking about local authorities themselves. We are all looking for solutions whereby local authorities can increase supply, including of council housing. We are possibly talking about tenants in situand even about local authorities, alongside approved housing bodies, possibly purchasing for those who are not in HAP tenancies or on housing lists but who face eviction. There are timelines for all the solutions.

One of the criteria will entail inspections of properties but we know local authorities absolutely hate dealing with transfers. They say that since the two properties concerned must be done up to a particular spec, it entails a cost at either end. They much prefer somebody new coming off the housing list and a single property. However, a large number of their own tenants are in properties that do not meet any spec whatsoever. I am sure many Deputies note this. Let us consider the circumstances if I contact Louth County Council, for example, in the hope that somebody will be put on the retrofit list to deal with an issue that has not been dealt with for many years regarding windows, doors and all the rest of it. The plan may have a ten-year run-out, meaning a considerable number of people would be at the tail end of it, resulting in huge issues.

There are questions for both local authorities and the Department on the funding streams for maintenance. That is one of the worries when people talk about a tenant in situ. Local authorities state that if they were to buy more properties, they would need to ensure they are given sufficient money and resources to ensure their upkeep. That is a question that needs to be dealt with – over many years, I would imagine. I would imagine that local authorities were happy enough with AHBs doing some of the work that they probably should have done, on the basis that they found it easier to draw down funds. Not only that, they probably had a better set-up in regard to having sufficient moneys for the maintenance work.

There were policy shifts over many years to move away from council housing and from local authorities building council houses, but we see at times the unintended consequence of local authorities always opting for AHBs in the circumstances in question. This has changed somewhat but we are not going to deal with any of this until we get absolutely real about accepting we are in the middle of what is an absolute disaster and that we really need to do all and sundry to address it. In dealing with this matter as a crisis and emergency, we should react as we did to Covid. It was dealt with as an emergency and crisis. People were put in position and one made sure that whatever needed to be done was done. This is irrespective of whether we are talking about emergency procurement rules, planning legislation or other measures because we are way beyond the place we need to be.

We also need to ensure we have targets that make sense. We really need to increase what we offer, whether we are talking about affordable mortgages, cost rental accommodation or council housing.

I said I had questions. I am back here asking about tenants in situ. Is there going to be a change to the criteria for councils? I have used the example of Louth County Council. It will buy a property only if the person in it on the HAP is five years on the housing list. If you were subject to choice-based letting, you could bid on a two-bedroom house but could not do so if the property happened to be a three-bedroom house. We will have major issues in this regard. I would like to see what flexibility there is. The Government really has to push that. What is the timeline for the legislation or whatever is required to deal with those who are not in HAP tenancies? When will the cost-rental piece be in operation?

As regards the legislation, we all accept that we want the outworkings to involve a checklist system that will provide tenancies of a good standard. That will help both tenants and landlords. However, we really need to get to grips with the circumstances we are in.This was not a particularly good week from the point of view of delivering a solution.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague Deputy Ó Broin for introducing this Bill to the House back in 2020.

Last November, the National Oversight and Audit Commission report for 2021 was launched. It is damning regarding private rental accommodation inspections, to say the least. The report stated that between 2016 and 2021, there was an increase of 14% in the number of dwellings found to be non-compliant and that the number of dwellings that became compliant in 2021 actually fell by comparison with the number in 2020. The report states that in my county, Kildare, 88% of dwellings inspected in 2021 were not compliant with the standards regulations. These are people's homes.

Many of the homes that families live in are not up to the standard in the regulations, and the numbers are going in the wrong direction. The current inspection system is clearly not working. Sinn Féin would like 25% of private rental properties in the State to be inspected every year. Deputies Ó Murchú and Ó Broin have both said our Bill proposes the establishment of an NCT-like system that would set out prerequisites for the letting of quality accommodation. The meeting of standards such as fire safety standards should be a prerequisite, not an afterthought. We should not have to ask for this. People's lives are affected and it is unacceptable that many are forced to live in substandard accommodation.

6 o’clock

In my constituency, I know of students crammed into a small four-bedroom house that has been poorly converted into a nine-bedroom house with bad insulation and no fire doors. It is not good enough. It damages people's quality of life and can lead to severe health complications down the line.

I urge the Minister of State to support our Bill and to resource local authorities so that more inspections of private rental properties can take place. This would not only protect renters but also protect good landlords. Good landlords complying with housing standards and RTB regulations should be rewarded and not undercut by landlords who cut corners and blatantly flout regulations. Again, I urge the Minister of State to support the Bill and put much-needed protections in place for renters and those who rent out property.

I listened to Deputy Ó Murchú talk about retrofitting. I am all in favour of retrofitting but in some areas in my constituency where retrofitting is happening, we are retrofitting houses while the windows and doors are falling off so we are effectively heating the garden. This needs to be addressed.

Chris Andrews (Dublin Bay South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill and all the work Deputy Ó Broin put into it. It is very important legislation because it is clearly very important to have minimum standards in private rented accommodation. In my constituency, there is a huge amount of private rented accommodation in Rathmines, Harold's Cross and Sandymount. I believe the vast majority of landlords will welcome this Bill. It will help them and their tenants.

The idea of an NCT for private rental accommodation is a very important proposal. While the Government is not opposing the Bill, the concern is that it will be allowed to wither and die, which is what happens generally to Opposition proposals.

I highlight, as I have done many times previously, the fact that there are no minimum standards for flat complexes and public housing across Dublin city. Perhaps there are in theory but in practice, there are none. I was in York Street yesterday. A resident called me up and asked me to have a look at something. He pointed out that the bedroom window, the sitting room window and the bathroom windows in his apartment have no handles. They are locked tight. Two years ago, Dublin City Council told this tenant the handles were broken and would be taken away and put back on later. That was two years ago and he has not yet seen them. The windows have been locked tight since then. That is the sort of neglect residents in Dublin City Council properties face day in and day out.

Another tenant in York Street showed me a balcony door where if you open it out on to the balcony and the door swings closed, you cannot open it because there is no handle on the outside. It is madness that tenants of Dublin City Council properties have to live in those sorts of conditions. The flats in Pearse House, Mercer House, Whelan House and O'Rahilly House in Ringsend were built to take people from the tenements. As one person said to me recently, they are now living in modern-day tenements. There needs to be urgency but there is no urgency in Government.

I was at a meeting with tenants in St. Andrew's Resource Centre about four or five years ago at which Dublin City Council stated it was going to knock down the small block of flats in St. Andrew's Court. A design team has been appointed but people are still waiting four or five years later. A private developer built 21 apartments down the road within two years. There is no sense of urgency. Dublin City Council and the Government show neglect again and again. The Government cannot wash its hands and place the blame on local authorities. It must accept that it has neglected tenants living in the flat complexes for years.

Another time, a resident rang me in desperation because the sewage pipes were flooding into the public domain in Canon Mooney Garden flats. Raw sewage and toilet paper were floating around. This is where children's toys such as skipping ropes are stored. This is happening every three or four months and I get a call when it does. The council told residents at one point that it would take ten days to get a choke car out. This is not acceptable. People cannot be allowed to live in conditions like that.

We are talking about minimum standards. Dublin City Council and the Government have accepted that there are no minimum standards for flat complexes. It is horrendous. I honestly do not know how there has not been a revolution from those living in the flat complexes. How they have not protested much more aggressively, to put it kindly, is beyond me.

I met a resident in a two-bedroom flat with two sons and a daughter. There is a 25-year-old, a 22-year-old and a 13-year-old girl - two boys and a girl - living in one bedroom. How can that be acceptable? How can the Government stand over that? I know the Minister of State does not stand over it but there must be some sort of urgency here for people living in flat complexes in Rathmines and Donnybrook and all the flat complexes across the city. I am naming the ones in my constituency because they are the people I know and I can see the conditions they have to live in. Raw sewage coming up in public areas because of the neglect by Dublin City Council and the Government is just not acceptable. It is unfair.

The Government must have some minimum standards for flat complexes so residents can report when the heating is broken. The water tank in York Street burst and all the tenants underneath had to be moved out. In fairness, it has been fixed. Normally there are three estate managers in Dublin City Council in the Dublin Bay South constituency dealing with flat complexes. Today, due to illness and promotions, there are no estate managers so tenants come to us as public representatives. We should not have to do this. As a result of the neglect and lack of urgency shown by Government towards those living in flat complexes, we end up having to raise these issues on the floor of the Dáil, which we should not have to do. It is frustrating for me as a public representative so I can imagine how horrific and depressing it is for residents and how having to put up with these unacceptable standards affects families' mental health. We need to see fast-tracking and a sense of urgency regarding regeneration programmes for those living in flat complexes. I will continue saying this until there is some sense of urgency about addressing the neglect of those living in the flat complexes by Government and Dublin City Council.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what is a very modest but very important Bill. I think the Minister of State has acknowledged the importance of moves in this direction, which it appears the Government is prepared to take. I remind the Minister of State that this Bill dates back to 2020 and the situation is acute, as previous speakers outlined. It dawned on me - not that I required prompting - in a very acute way before Christmas when I was contacted by some individuals in a community in my home town of Drogheda.

They alerted me to the fact that a local landlord, or at least someone who was subletting a home from a local landlord, was preparing to funnel almost 30 people into what I would describe as a modest family home to which a number of small extensions had been added over the years. Having consulted with the local authority and others, it dawned on me that there are limitations in law, in terms of the protections provided for individuals and the regulatory landscape more generally, when it comes to quality, safety and overcrowding. There is no legislative definition of "overcrowding". I understand the challenges this would present. The issue of overcrowding in rental properties is worth considering. I do not have the answer in this regard. Some have tried over the years. From my recollection, Deputy Barry Cowen and some others introduced a Private Members' Bill some years ago by means of which they sought to address questions of that nature, but I do not know where that Bill is at this time. I suggest that it would be worth revisiting this matter, particularly in the context of all the challenges the rental sector and those who rent are facing. It is extraordinary to think that such basic things as insuring and properly certifying that a property meets the minimum fire safety standards before renting it out are not already contemplated in legislation. When the Labour Party released its election manifesto in 2020, we stated that renters need a break. That is more true today than it was then. We have consistently called for greater security of tenure for renters. In line with this Bill, we also called for an NCT-style inspection regime of rental premises and a minimum standards certificates system in order that tenants know the places they are viewing - if they ever get to the top of the very long queues that usually obtain - at least meet the minimum safety standards. We went further than that. Labour would oblige local authorities to publish annual statistics for inspections of private rented accommodation in order to ensure that regulation is enforced. That should be done in a transparent way. We are happy to support the Bill, which calls on landlords to prove their compliance with minimum standards and fire safety standards before properties can be rented.

The Bill also provides that the landlord's certificate of compliance with these standards would be based on an independent inspection by a suitably qualified professional from the relevant local authority and that certificates must be provided to the Residential Tenancies Board, as part of the tenancy registration process. This aspect is crucially important. For too long, we have relied on self-certification when it comes to housing in general. The State's failure to provide independent enforcement of basic building standards has led to untold misery for homeowners and renters across the country.

The certification envisaged in the Bill could be rolled out on a phased basis for pre-existing rented properties over four years. The Minister would decide on the charge to the landlord for obtaining a certificate. This is important because, as well as those entering the market, existing renters must to be protected.

The Government cannot wash its hands of the need to ensure that there are safe and secure living conditions for renters in the private rental sector. Deputy Andrews spoke about the difficulties those renting public homes can also face. It behoves us all to address that problem in circumstances where the State is directly involved. We cannot forget that the State often underwrites the payments to these private landlords through schemes like HAP and that it therefore has a duty of care to those tenants. We should be using that transfer of resources to private landlords as a way to leverage and enforce better conditions in the rental market. No cash without conditions.

The country continues to be in the grip of a housing and homelessness crisis and while the Government will list of statistics produced on performance in housing provision. I understand why the Minister would do that. It is valid and legitimate. The truth is that the problem is massive, as the Minister of State knows only too well. To be, he acknowledged earlier that the situation in the rental sector is far from perfect. Let us at least guarantee that those lucky enough to secure a rental property in this insane market can live in their homes with the peace of mind that at least, their home is safe. It is just a pity that it is taking so long to address an issue that is staring us in the face. It is something that should be addressed. I hope it will be addressed on the basis of the impetus provided by Deputy Ó Broin’s Bill and the Minister of State’s work in the Department.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond to some of the comments from Deputies before I make my closing remarks. I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. This has been a useful debate, sparked by Deputy Ó Broin bringing the Bill forward.

I note the comments made by Deputy Ó Broin on the support provided by the previous Minister for housing back in 2017 to this type of approach. Even since 2017, significant progress has been made while it is far from perfect. Deputy Ó Murchú spoke about the issue of the four-year lead-in. I was not sure if he was referring to a four-year lead-in or a four-year cycle, but it is the four-year cycle with which the Government has an issue in terms of reinspections. It is creating obstacles that could hinder the effective approach to an inspection regime. That is not something which any of us wants to see happen. He also mentioned two points around the RTB registration. That has been raised before by Deputies. I think it is being resolved. There is also the matter of tenant in situ in relation to two- and three-bedroom homes. I might get back to the Deputy on that.

Deputy Patricia Ryan said the numbers are going in the wrong direction. That is not the case. The numbers of inspections are going in the right direction. There are certainly not enough of them. We have a very stringent system in place in the context of the inspection regime, and rightly so. It is right that we do that. I do agree with the Deputy that a good inspection regime will protect good landlords as well. It is absolutely correct to say that.

Deputy Andrews also stated that the majority of landlords would have welcomed these inspections. I agree with him. The Deputy and I have spoken at length here, including on in respect of a Topical Issue matter relating to Dublin City Council flats and the issues relating to responsibility for their upkeep. It is not the case that there are no minimum standards. There are standards in place. The Deputy previously raised the issue of mould in Dublin city flats. Our Department has met with Dublin City Council in relation to this. We produced a leaflet and a short video, which is available on our website. It is important to note that the issue of mould could be addressed by public awareness and better awareness of ventilation in flats. This is the direct responsibility of the local authority, which, in this case, is Dublin City Council. Our Department does engage with Dublin City Council on these issues.

Deputy Nash referred to overcrowding in rental properties. We acknowledge that this can be an issue and it can lead to some of the other issues raised by Deputy Andrews. I thank all the Deputies for their contributions.

This intent behind the Bill is undeniably positive, as is the principle that informs it. The quality of rental accommodation is critical to the success and sustainability of the residential sector and by extension of course to the wider social and economic needs of the country. As I stated earlier, while the Bill, as presented, has obvious technical and practical operational shortcomings and would give rise to significant unintended consequences, the Government will not oppose it on Second Stage.

It is probably worth stating that all landlords have a legal obligation to ensure that their rented properties comply with the standards set down in the regulations relating to such properties. Responsibility for enforcement of the regulations rests with local authorities. Anyone letting or offering to let accommodation that does not meet the standards is in breach of the regulations and acting illegally. Anyone – including a prospective tenant who views the property, a sitting tenant, a neighbour or another landlord – can report such properties and landlords to their local authority. They do act promptly and inspect the property. If it is found not to meet the standards, they can and do take action to ensure compliance with the regulations, up to and including a prohibition on the reletting of the property.

Local authorities already have a strong legislative framework available to them which provides for the issuing of improvement notices and prohibition notices where landlords are in breach of their obligations. Failure to comply with these notices is an offence. The maximum fine for an offence is €5,000 and €400 for each day of a continuing offence. The current approach taken by most local authorities is a pragmatic one that seeks to balance the needs of tenants, particularly around property availability, and those of landlords. Increasingly, it is working as inspection and numbers ramp up and standards improve. It causes minimal disruption to the market at a time when any adverse impact on supply would be, to say the least, unwelcome.

It is important to note that the average number of inspections per annum in the period from 2008 to 2017 was about 20,000. The provision of increased Exchequer funding to local authorities in recent years to aid increased inspections of properties and ensure greater compliance with the regulations has enabled local authorities to build inspection capacity incrementally. This, coupled with the Department’s more active involvement in the area through, among other things, setting yearly inspection targets for each local authority, saw the number of inspections increase to approximately 29,000 in 2018 and 41,000 in 2019. However, because of the need to protect tenants, landlords and inspectors, pandemic restrictions saw the number of inspections fall to approximately 26,000 in 2020 and 20,000 in 2021. In 2022, inspections climbed to an all-time high of close to 50,000, more than 20% up on pre-Covid levels. The current system is improving rapidly all the time and this reflects a concerted and focused effort over the past 18 months by the local authority sector and by my Department in terms of investment and support.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to conclude to allow the Deputy an opportunity to answer.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá sé sin ceart go leor. To conclude, I thank Deputy Ó Broin for bringing forward this Private Members' Bill. The certification of private rental accommodation has obvious merits. Let us take this positive and progressive idea forward and consider the best way to implement it so that it benefits everyone involved in the rental market sector. However, it can and should only be introduced in a manner that does not have a detrimental effect on supply in the rental market. To do otherwise would not be sensible. I welcome the Deputy's comments about working with the Government to try to improve the inspection regime generally.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister of State knows, I am a very reasonable person. In fact, the Tánaiste has taken to extolling the virtues of my reasonableness at Leaders' Questions on several occasions recently. However, the Minister of State's response to the text of the Bill tests my reasonableness. He said it would have an enormous adverse impact on supply. There is nothing in this Bill that would have any adverse impact on supply. All I have done is framed legislation that would give the Minister the power, by way of regulations, to design the regime. We deliberately left it as open and as flexible as possible to avoid the very things he said. For the sake of clarity, if I were asked how to design the regulations, I would suggest that a rolling four-year inspection regime, with 25% of properties inspected each year, would be sensible. There would also be a four-year lead-in, which would mean that the actual legal requirement would only kick in after the first four-year cycle. This would be the only way one would do it. Of course I am open to discussion on whether that is four, five or six years, but that is the way I would do it.

The Minister of State also said that a consequence of the Bill would include having much needed rental stock left empty. That is simply not the case. Nobody is going to design a regime where upon first inspection, if there are issues, particularly minor issues, a tenant who is in situwould be forced out. That makes no sense. Only the most narrow-minded reading of the way in which these regulations could be implemented would conclude that.

The Minister of State also said that this proposal would place high demands on local authorities, which I do not agree with at all. He has quoted the figure of 50,000 inspections in 2022. On the basis of the current number of registered tenancies - we only have 2021 data - some 70,000 inspections would need to be carried out per year. According to the NOAC data, only about 17% of inspections require a second or third inspection. That would mean if there were a minimum of 70,000 inspections each year over four years, and if the percentage was the same as NOAC's - we assume it would be lower because more properties would be inspected, including more compliant properties - it would push the annual inspection figure up to 80,000. I have no idea where the Minister of State got the figure of 300,000. I presume officials were asked to give the most extreme case as to why the Bill is difficult. We do not even have 300,000 rental tenancies registered with the RTB as of 2021.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figure is based on reinspections.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.