Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 9 are related and will be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 19 of Principal Act

2. Section 19(4)(b) of the Principal Act is amended, in the definition of “relevant percentage”—

(a) in paragraph (a), by the substitution of “0 per cent” for “2 per cent”, and

(b) by the deletion of paragraph (b).”.

One of the great things about the truth is that it always comes out.

Over the coming months and into next year, the impact of the changes the Minister is making, not just here but in the coming months, will be plain for everybody to see. We warned when the Minister's predecessor, Simon Coveney, introduced the rent pressure zones that they would lead to a two-tier rental market, exclude large numbers of renters and create widespread difficulties for many and we were proven right. Interestingly, Simon Coveney made many of the same charges then that the Minister is making now. He was proven wrong. He ran screaming from the Department of housing but renters were left with the consequences of his actions. We will return to the debate over how this operates in real time in the coming months.

I want to speak specifically to the amendments. I am delighted the Minister referenced Dr. Michael Byrne from UCD because he is one of the most astute observers of the private rental sector. One of the central criticisms he has made in public and in writing of the Minister's proposals is that they would wipe out all of the affordability gains of the rent pressure zones since 2016. This is exactly what he has said. He has indeed welcomed some of the security-of-tenure provisions but he also says, in his article in the Irish Examinertoday, that what the Minister is doing on rents, which is what we are here to discuss today, will not only wipe out those affordability gains but will actively undermine the Minister's security-of-tenure measures. I agree with him. Therefore, I have no difficulty whatsoever quoting him on the floor of the Dáil.

I repeat that the Minister will wipe out all of the affordability gains that renters have secured. Why is this? It is because the majority of renters do not stay in their rental properties for more than six years. It is not simply a question of choosing to stay. Almost 5,000 notices of termination are issued quarterly. We still have a significant number of single property landlords availing of what was always their intention to cash in on their pension pot lump sum, which is entirely understandable when market prices were so high. The tenants of those properties will have to find somewhere else to live. That is the whole problem. The fact the average tenancy is less than four years means the churn in the 240,000 registered tenancies will have an impact that I am not even sure the Minister fully understands when the substantive proposals he will bring forward in the autumn come into force from 2026 onwards.

The Minister is right that the minority of renters who have very long-term tenancy arrangements will get the protections he has outlined but the more than 80% of renters who are not in that position will be badly damaged by what the Minister is doing. I do not say this to misrepresent or to scare. I say it because I understand the private rental sector, how it operates and how bad Government policy impacts on it. The only confusion that has been sown in recent weeks is on the Government side. This is not me saying this. I am sure the Minister or his advisers read all the Sunday newspapers That is the conclusion they reached and I agree with them.

With respect to the amendments, the problem is that right now rents are simply too high for existing and new renters. Let us look at the figures. The figures in the Residential Tenancies Board report for quarter 4 last year showed new rents averaging out State-wide at €1,680 and in Dublin at €2,477. State-wide new rents were up 5.5% last year. With regard to existing rents, including those renters allegedly protected by the rent pressure zones, State-wide average rents were €1,440 and in Dublin they were €1,865. Last year, average rents for existing renters, 83% of whom are in rent pressure zones, rose by 4.6%. Some of this is because of the exemptions in the RPZs but I have no doubt that a large volume of it is because of non-compliance.

Worse still, when daft.iepublished its quarter 1 report for this year, so this is more up-to-date information, average new rents throughout the State were €2,023. In Dublin city the average rent was €2,470. Many of us who represent large urban constituencies know that a new rental coming on the market today costs €3,000 or €3,500. This is even in the suburbs I represent, such as Clondalkin and Lucan.

What the Government should be doing in the first instance is preventing rent increases across the board for an emergency period. Renters simply cannot afford more rent increases. This is why amendment No. 1, and almost all of the other amendments I have in this group and others, seek to do several things. Amendment No. 1 seeks to amend the principal Act so that for a period of three years rents cannot be increased for all renters across the State. Meanwhile, all of the detailed, concrete proposals for addressing supply, which not only have I published but which I speak about on a regular basis, could be activated.

The fundamental flaw in the core argument on the Government side is that this is all about supply. What this misunderstands is that if it is the right kind of supply in the right place at the right price, it does not meet people's housing needs. It is not that anybody on this side of the House is against private sector investment but there is a particular category of private sector investor who is only interested in high-price, high-yield, high-density developments in expensive parts of Dublin and, possibly although not guaranteed, in the docklands of Cork, where rents will be set at a level even higher than now and will never come down. This rental stock will have no impact on renters everywhere else. It is not just about supply. It is the right kind of supply in the right place at the right price. This is something the Minister's predecessor did not understand, and it seems the Minister and his colleagues do not understand it today.

I make no apology for saying that a Government that stands up for renters should stop rent increases for an emergency period. This would not be indefinitely or in perpetuity but for an emergency period. It would create a breathing space for renters, alongside which a Government that was serious about tackling the supply and affordability issues would put in place the types of policies that I and others have set out in great detail. Sinn Féin's alternative housing plan, A Home Of Your Own, is still our housing plan and I still speak about it on a regular basis. The Government continues to ignore or fails to implement the overwhelming majority of the Housing Commission's proposals. Ultimately, this comes down to choices. The choice in the debate today is very simple. Does the Minister want a policy that will allow the rate of increase of rents for renters to accelerate at a greater pace this year, next year and the year after that or does he say enough is enough, renters cannot afford further rent increases and we have to stop it right now? That is what the amendments are about and I commend them to the House.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am quite personally aggrieved and insulted that in his contribution the Minister compared me and the Labour Party to the far right. I certainly try to avoid making personal charges against individuals. I certainly do not go around the place whipping up hate. As a proud anti-racist, I genuinely urge the Minister to withdraw the remark.

Amendment No. 2 is in my name and its purpose is to provide for no rent increase in rent pressure zones for the relevant period specified in section 2(b) of the proposed Bill. I am doing this because rents are already at record levels. The average rent is more than €2,000 a month and people simply cannot afford to pay any more. We need a rent freeze and we need to give people in tenancies some comfort over the next two years.

Rents are already rising more than what is allowed under the RPZ legislation. That legislation is frequently flouted, as we know. I reject the idea that we have to strike a balance between investors and renters, purely because the entire housing system as it stands is so imbalanced against renters. The changes the Government proposes will not necessarily address the viability issue. There are still issues with roadblocks to planning and infrastructure. The Labour Party believes this will not address the key issue for us, which is protection and affordability for renters, as it will deliver a certain kind of unaffordable build-to-rent supply specifically in Dublin.

This is a simple and practical amendment that will give renters some breathing space for a defined period of two years.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I speak in favour of the amendments as put forward. The Minister is trotting out this line, as the Taoiseach has, that we have no solutions. That is utter crap and he knows it. I have emailed him with the homes for Ireland State savings scheme proposal. It is not correct that we have not put forward solutions. He might disagree with them-----

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Correct.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----but it is not true that we have not put them forward. The Minister can mutter under his breath-----

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please, Deputies. The Deputy to continue.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have put forward solutions. The Social Democrats has put forward a number of solutions. I have written books on it. To say we have not put forward solutions is just untrue. The Minister should be more honest and say he disagrees with our proposals and on what is put forward and outline why.

There is a hole in the Minister's argument. We are separating what has been brought forward today and what will be brought forward in the coming months. We are not opposing what the Government is bringing forward today on the basis that renters need that protection immediately. It is as a result of the changes it is bringing forward in the coming months from March that this emergency legislation is needed and we called for it. I do not believe the Government was planning to bring it forward. If it was, it would have announced it immediately as part of the overall announcement.

As I said, there is a hole in the middle of the Minister's argument that he is protecting renters. If the Government were protecting renters, and that is the sole outcome of these measures, then where is the incentive for more supply? Where is the incentive for landlords to stay in the market? If the Government is doing this with the singular purpose of protecting renters, which means ensuring rents cannot increase further and that renters have protection from eviction, it would not have any measures that incentivise supply through these measures. However, the truth is there are incentives for supply as the Government has set out in its legislation, the most significant of which is the intertenancy change in rent caps. The Government will bring in this change from 1 March. The situation currently is that when a renter leaves a property, be it voluntarily or through an eviction notice - a notice to quit - on the basis of sale or a family member, and a new tenant comes in, the rent charged to the new tenant coming in is still only 2% higher than the existing rent when they get their rent increase. What the Government is changing is that when a new tenant comes into that property, the landlord will be able to increase the rent to the market rent. Is that correct? "Yes" or "No". The Minister does not know.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is speaking to his colleagues' amendments.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay. That is what the Government has set out. When a tenant leaves the property and a new tenant comes in, the rent will be able to increase to market rent. That is one of the Government's clear incentives. It is not true for the Government to say it is protecting renters, because those new renters who are trying to find properties have to then pay the market rent. That is where this will lead. As the Housing Agency said very clearly, this will lead to higher average rents across the board.

That is a really important measure for institutional investors. I am not saying that; the institutional investors have been arguing and lobbying for it for years. Pat Farrell, the head of Irish Institutional Property, has been in and out and he is a former Fianna Fáil chairperson. We know they have been lobbying really hard and that getting rid of the intertenancy was one of the key things. The Government is removing it with these measures. The Government will be removing the intertenancy rent cap. That is not us sowing confusion; that is us being straight. The Government needs to be honest and straight with people that it is removing some of the rent regulation, namely, removing the intertenancy rent cap. That will lead to higher rents. Renters, as they leave tenancies, and young people, as leave their homes to try to enter the rental market, will be facing higher rents in new tenancies.

As I said, institutional investors were looking to get rid of the intertenancy rent cap and increasing rent in line with inflation. The Government is bringing that in for new apartments that have commenced from last week. What that means is the Government has removed the rent cap for new build apartments and linked it to inflation. If inflation goes to 3%, 4%, 5% or 20%, the rent will increase to that level. There will be a different rental regime for those new renters. As I said earlier, it will pull up the ladder for those renters and for others who are trying to find a rental property. We are not sowing confusion or misleading anyone; that is what the Government is doing and what it has presented. On that basis, I support these amendments.

As I said earlier, there is a gap with regard to the protection from eviction. Renters will have no-fault eviction protection when renting from large landlords - those with four or more properties - and corporate landlords. Smaller landlords, however, whom hundreds of thousands of renters will go through in the coming years, will not have the same no-fault eviction obligations. Is it legal to have a form of legal protection for one set of renters and none for another set? Is there an element of discrimination to that? I do not know, but what is clear is that it will provide a lower level of security of tenure for tenants of smaller landlords. That will be the reality.

As I said earlier, we know that there are thousands of landlords every year who breach and break the rental laws. They do it through illegal evictions and illegal rent hikes. The Government is now leaving loopholes open for them where they will be able to continue to engage in forms of breaking the law because there is not sufficient enforcement or regulation. We do not have a culture that means that renters feel empowered. Unfortunately, renters will not feel more empowered with these measures. That is the unfortunate reality. Renters know that rents can be increased to the market rate, as Mike Allen said.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will speak to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which appear to have the aim of introducing a ban on rent increases. The Government's view is that the imposition of a ban on rent increases is highly likely to be subject to a legal challenge and would almost certainly deter continued investment in the rented accommodation market and cause a greater recourse to the State for social housing supports.

The current rent pressure zone arrangements, under which rent increases are capped at 2% per annum pro rata where inflation is higher, were introduced as a balanced set of arrangements to regulate rents. The most effective way to reduce and stabilise rents in the medium to long term is to increase supply and accelerate the delivery of housing for the private rental, cost rental and social rental sectors. Allowing a rent increase of up to 2% per annum pro rata is considered to provide a reasonable balance between stable rent control and allowing landlords to adjust rents in line with general inflation, bearing in mind that achieving 2% general inflation is the stated price stability mandate target of the European Central Bank.

If a notice of termination is served, the rent cannot be reset. It does not matter if it is a matter of selling, putting a family a member in or whatever the case may be. If a notice of termination is served, the rent cannot be reset. There is no incentive there.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete line 22 and substitute the following:

“December 2025”,

and

(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (6):

“(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, rent payable under the tenancy of a dwelling shall not be increased during the relevant period.”.”.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, and amendment No. 8 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 25, to delete "28 February 2026" and substitute "23 June 2028".

The amendments in this group are straightforward. They are connected to the amendment No. 1, the purpose of which was to ensure that rent could not be set above zero, effectively giving rise to a ban on rent increases. This was to change the principal Act and the amending legislation in order that the ban would last for three years. As I articulated on Second Stage and while speaking on the first group of amendments this evening, our view is that renters are paying rents that are too high and that we need an emergency ban on rent increases. That should be for a period of three years. Crucially, and contrary to the misrepresentation by the Minister earlier, it is not a question of doing this and nothing else. It is to create space, in particular breathing space for renters while better policies and investment measures for increasing social and genuinely affordable rental and purchase, but also for large-scale private sector investment for good quality homes in every county in the State for working people to buy, could be delivered. On that basis, I commend amendment No. 3 to the House.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the amendment. This is something we have called for since my colleague Deputy Bacik introduced her renters' rights Bill in 2021. The provision of a three-year rent freeze is contained within that Bill. We believe that a three-year rent freeze is prudent and necessary in order to create space, particularly in view of how much rents have risen in the past decade.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the amendment. There has been a call for a rent freeze for renters. People need it. There is a choice. I was on a show on RTÉ earlier. The Minister has a choice. He can support renters or he can support big business, but he cannot do both. The Government must make a decision. The Minister's argument relates to how we are going to get private money in to develop more houses and apartments. How are we going to stop more people from becoming homeless? How are we going to help more people to keep a roof over their heads? Where is the priority? To me, the priority is to ensure that we do not see any more people - families and children - becoming homeless by having a three-year rent freeze. This would give some support and protection to them.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot accept amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, and 8, which appear to have the aim of extending the operation of rent pressure zones to 23 June 2028. As Members are aware, on 10 June last, the Government approved policy measures to provide for the enhancement of rent controls and tenancy protections from 1 March 2026.

Last week, the Government also approved, as an interim measure, the provision of a two-month extension of rent pressure zones and the deeming of all areas of the country as a rent pressure zone from the day after the passing of this Bill until 28 February 2026 when the general legislation will commence. Accordingly, there is no apparent reason for the Sinn Féin amendments to cover the period until 23 Jun 2028, as new national rent controls will come into operation on 1 March 2026 and upon the expiry of RPZs. The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill 2025 will protect tenants in non-RPZs who have not had their rent reviewed in the past 24 months from high rent inflation during the period from the day after the Bill passes to 28 February 2026. The Government intends to seek the early signing of this Bill into law by President Higgins and it is important for all tenants to be protected as soon as possible under the current rent increase restrictions that apply in rent pressure zones. The Government will introduce a more comprehensive Bill as soon as possible to give effect to the enduring policy measures announced last week to provide for the enhancement of rent controls and tenancy protections for new tenancies created.

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

One of the issues the Minister did not respond to at the closing of his Second Stage speech was raised by his Government colleague Deputy Carrigy and I. One of the consequences of extending the rent pressure zones to areas currently not designated is that, theoretically speaking, Eoghan Murphy's 2019 short-term letting regulations would apply. Obviously, the Government has decided to take a different course, which is Peter Burke's short-term letting register, and the Minister, Deputy Browne, and his officials will produce new planning guidelines to go along with those. One assumes that will make a distinction between areas that are currently designated rent pressure zones, where there is a very high demand for rental properties and the need to take a very tough line on unregulated short-term letting, and a more flexible approach that will allow local authorities to have more discretion to ensure a balance between the tourism economy and long-term housing need. Given the fact that there are a lot of people engaged in the provision of tourism products in those rural countryside, high-tourism areas, who will be looking at this, I invite the Minister to use his response to clarify whether it is his intention to seek the application of Eoghan Murphy's 2019 short-term letting regulations to the areas that are coming in to the RPZs. We know that is not going to work anyway because those regulations are unenforceable. If that is not the intention, which I presume is the case because the Minister is working with his colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Deputy Burke, some clarification here or communicated to the local authorities would be reassuring for people. We all accept that there has to be regulation of short-term letting in high-demand urban areas as well as rural countryside areas, but what I have outlined is one of the consequences of the rushed nature of this legislation. Therefore, I am not inviting the Minister to continue arguing with me about a three-year rent freeze, as we do not agree on that, but it would be valuable for him to clarify what his view is of the application of the 2019 short-term letting regulations on these new areas the day after this comes into effect until the short-term letting register and consequent planning guidance is issued by his Department.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is not an issue on this amendment, and the Deputy is at pains to look concerned but has not expressed his own opinion on it. We are not surprised there. The rent pressure zones-----

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

To be very clear, my view is that the Eoghan Murphy 2019 regulations should not be applied because, first, they are unenforceable and, second, the Government and the Opposition are currently working on a mechanism to do that. Therefore, I am inviting the Minister to say that they will not be applied.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the clarification. Rent pressure zones have been extended to new areas again and again since 2019. On every one of those occasions, short-term lets have been brought in with them. That is the law at the moment and that is how the law will continue.

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

That is factually not the case. In fact, in the original rent pressure zones of Dublin and Cork, and also in the successive waves of rent pressure zones, those short-term lets operating outside of planning law continue to operate outside of planning law. The reason for this - the Minister was not responsible for it - is that Eoghan Murphy did not put any effective enforcement mechanism into the 2019 regulations. Dublin city and Cork city attempted, very valiantly, to enforce the 2019 regulations but, unfortunately, because the burden of proof is so high when one goes into court, which is what ultimately had to happen, they were not able to proceed. Whatever one's view of short-term letting in urban and rural areas is, that has created a situation right across the country where, in the overwhelming majority of cases, short-term lets are operating outside of planning law. It is not a bad idea for the Government to introduce a register, subject to the details. It is not a bad idea for the Government to have a twin-track approach on the planning side by differentiating areas of high housing demand versus areas where there is a requirement for tourist accommodation. I would like to see the details of all of that. In the interim, a change is being made and the Minister seems to be suggesting that, from the day after this Bill passes, he is expecting local authorities to enforce the 2019 short-term letting regulations in the new areas coming under the RPZ rules. That is not possible. They are unenforceable. It would be better if we were just honest with people and dealt with short-term letting through Peter Burke's legislation and the Minister's new planning rules. I am just unclear what the Minister thinks will actually happen in that respect after this Bill passes.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to be clear. After a week and a half of Deputy Ó Broin complaining about there being too many tracks in this legislation and too many different applications, he is now calling for a new track to create a geographical difference between rent pressure zones that have been extended to date where short-term lets are affected and extending it now to where they would not be affected. The Deputy needs to listen to what he is talking about. After a week of giving out about too much complexity and tracks, he wants a new one introduced. That is what he is calling for now.

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

That is not the proposal. I am asking for the Minister to clarify his position on it. That is all. It is a reasonable request. His own Government colleague from Fine Gael, Deputy Carrigy, the Chair of the housing committee, asked for the Minister to clarify and he ignored him as well as me.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is now calling for more exceptions, more tracks-----

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

That is not what I am calling for.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----and more differentiation. After the past week, it is extraordinary that he would call for more exemptions.

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

Just to be very clear, I am not calling for any legislative change. A set of regulations were introduced in 2019 that do not work and are completely unapplicable. That is why in Dublin, for example, where we need a very tough approach to unregulated short-term letting, we need new regulations. We have been calling for that for a long time. All I am asking the Minster to do is clarify his intentions, but it is clear. He seems to be suggesting he will expect local authorities to enforce a set of 2019 regulations that are utterly unenforceable. All I was asking for was clarity. I am not proposing any change to the legislation. Given it is a matter that many Government members of the housing committee raised, I was inviting the Minister as a courtesy to clarify it. Instead, he has decided to go off on some track to try to misrepresent the Opposition once again. That is his prerogative. It is an issue that, because of the rushed nature of this, he gave no consideration to. When we ask for clarification, he refuses to provide it, but that is the Minister's prerogative.

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

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, line 27, to delete “28 February 2026” and substitute “23 June 2028”.

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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 11, to delete “28 February 2026” and substitute “23 June 2028”.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the name of Deputy Sheehan have been ruled out of order as they are not within the scope of the Bill.

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

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, line 14, to delete “28 February 2026” and substitute “23 June 2028”.

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

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“Report on ban on rent increases

5. Within a week of the passing of this Bill the Minister for Housing will publish a report on the introduction of an emergency ban on rent increases for all private rental tenants, including existing tenancies, new tenancies in existing rental stock and new tenancies in new rental stock.”.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill will now be sent to the Seanad.