Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am proud to introduce this Bill on behalf of People Before Profit. The purpose of the Bill is to make it mandatory for private rented accommodation to achieve a minimum B2 building energy rating, BER, standard by the end of 2030. A phase-in period is allowed in the legislation in order landlords can incrementally upgrade their properties if they wish to a minimum D2 BER by the end of 2026 and a minimum C1 BER by the end of 2028. Limited exceptions are provided for BER-exempt properties. The Bill includes important provisions that prohibit retrofitting from being used as a ground to terminate tenancies or to increase rents. These would both be banned under the Bill to ensure that no tenant would be evicted or have their rent increased as a result of retrofitting. It is crucial to draw a line in the sand on this now in order to prevent renovictions being used by landlords to drive up rents as has happened in some other countries.

I thank the Irish Green Building Council for initially suggesting this idea and Friends of the Earth, who have been supportive and active on this issue and organised an eye-catching event in support of the Bill outside Leinster House earlier on what is an appropriately cold day, showing what the reality is for many renters in our country. I also thank Diana in my office for doing a lot of the work on the Bill. Friends of the Earth will be emailing TDs to ask them to support this Bill.

The reason this Private Member's Bill is necessary is because the Government has failed to implement its commitment in Housing for All to the effect that "A minimum BER for private rental property will be introduced, where feasible, from 2025." This failure is not some oversight on the part of the Government; it is part of a deliberate policy of reneging on and abandoning previous commitments in relation to the climate and the cost of living. Evidence for this is the fact that no revised version of that promise appears in the new housing plan.

Retrofitting is often, and correctly, portrayed as an environmental measure, but its most immediate impact is to dramatically improve people’s comfort, quality of life and health by making their homes warm and cosy. We are now into the first real cold snap of the winter. Hundreds of thousands of families across the country who are renting from private landlords are facing a bitter choice between paying a fortune to heat poorly insulated homes and cutting back on other essentials like food or suffering in the cold for months, wearing coats, hats and gloves indoors and going to bed early in order that they can get under the covers.

I looked back through my emails of what renters have sent me about this issue. I will give some examples of what ordinary people are going in winter in one of the richest countries in the world:

I am currently in rental property covered by homeless hap...I’ve got two small kids my first born is 2 and half and he suffers with asthma and bronchitis, my second born is 4 months and suffers with bronchitis too the property I’m living in is not suitable to be living in with two small kids there’s mold all in the bathroom in the sitting room and in my little boys room it’s also damp I've done everything you can think of to get rid of it and it keeps coming back there’s very poor ventilation and the house is so cold even if I have the heating on my gas bill is costing me a fortune. I am constantly back and forth in the doctors spending a fortune on antibiotics for myself and my two boys I’ve been in contact with the landlord I've tried everything but no one seems to be listening or wanting to help I’m at a loss at this point...being in this property and seeing my boys so sick is really putting a strain on my mental health and knowing nothing is being done is really exhausting.

Another tenants writes:

I moved in two years ago, and the letting agents/landlord, have been ignoring all the issues since then. I have had a revolving door of contractors through, (probably at least once a month, sometimes four or five) but nothing ever actually gets done. I have paid for my own report to be done, and there’s 33% moisture in the walls. I've been told that “the landlord has no money”; “the water gathering on the roof is normal”; “he has 30 properties that are in the same condition, we need to get to all of them first”. I find it a bit concerning that this seems to be an issue across his whole portfolio! ... I cannot keep up with the bills, as there constantly needs to be fans and heating running. Something has got to give. I can't go on living like this. It's all too much. I am embarrassed of my living conditions, even though they are not my fault. I cannot have visitors over. I feel very isolated, and this is not a home, it’s a shelter. This is in distinct contravention to my right to dignity.

A third renter states:

I’m currently renting from an inattentive landlord. There's a list of constant problems due to the dated property which I’m left fixing myself. My eldest suffers from asthma and is constantly sick from the worsening mould all over especially bedrooms. My mental health and anxiety is at an all time high due to living conditions

A fourth renter writes that she has been “recently diagnosed with sarcoidosis, a lung disease that can be aggravated by damp and mouldy environments.”

That is just the tip of the iceberg of the misery caused by living in poorly insulated homes with no minimum BER standards. Ireland has one of the highest rates of excess winter deaths in the European Union because people cannot afford to properly heat their homes. We know that children living in cold homes are more than twice as likely to suffer from respiratory problems like asthma.

The private rented sector is much worse for this than owner-occupied homes because landlords do not have to live in the conditions they expect tenants to put up with. Four in five rented dwellings have a BER below B. Around 45,000 have very low energy efficiency ratings of E, F or G. Another 24% have D ratings. It is even worse for HAP properties, which have the lowest energy ratings of all. Half of them have BER ratings of D, E, F or G. According to the CSO, more than one in five renters has had to go without heating. This compares with 6% of people who live in owner-occupied housing. It is due to a combination of the sky-high cost of rent, the low energy efficiency of rented properties and the fact that tenants on average are much poorer than homeowners and are forced to pay much more to heat their homes.

In the year 2025, it is simply unacceptable that landlords are charging people extortionate rents to live in substandard conditions dangerous to their health. It is even more outrageous that the State is standing over that by subsidising these slumlords through HAP. It is also unacceptable that this human misery comes at such a high environmental cost. It does not just affect tenants; it is driving up carbon emissions and overheating the only planet we all have to live on.

Retrofitting the private rented sector would benefit everyone.

The Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, Darragh O'Brien, is over in Brazil at COP30 as we speak. Yesterday, he told RTÉ "We are heading above that to 2.3 or 2.5 degrees. That would be disastrous and maybe irreversible." He said, "Ireland and other countries have shown how we can start to transition out of fossil fuels. We are doing it. But to set the roadmap for a fair, equitable and just transition while phasing out fossil usage is critical if we're to try to bridge that gap." If he means that, how does reneging on the Government's commitment to bring in a minimum BER standard for the private rented sector in 2025 fit into that roadmap? It does not. It is just rhetoric to cover over retreat from any commitment to our legally binding climate targets.

Every day that is wasted on this is a day longer of wastefully burning fossil fuels to heat draughty, poorly insulated homes. To avoid catastrophic global heating in our lifetime, we urgently need to phase out fossil fuels and switch to 100% renewable energy to power all of our energy needs, including heating, and we need to reduce our energy usage at the same time. Retrofitting is one of the few policy measures that ticks both of those boxes simultaneously. It is a no-brainer environmentally and a no-brainer from a just transition perspective. Renters collectively would save over €500 million a year on their energy bills if their homes were retrofitted to a B2 standard. According to the Government’s new national energy affordability task force, retrofitting saves each individual household between €750 and €1,120 a year. The only reason it is not happening is because tenants are the ones who would benefit and landlords are the ones who would have to pay.

An ESRI report earlier this year estimated it would cost between €7 billion and €8 billion to retrofit private rented properties to a B2 standard. This was portrayed as unaffordable for landlords by comparing small landlords' assets with retrofitting costs. It goes without saying that corporate landlords and big landlords with multiple properties and hundreds of thousands of euros a year rolling in in rents can easily afford to retrofit. What the ESRI report left out was any calculation of the grants and tax breaks already available to landlords for retrofitting. It was really an incredible exercise in propaganda that was seized on by landlord lobby groups to say they could never afford to retrofit, but if we look at the grants and tax breaks available, we find that the finance gap for landlords is far smaller than the headline figures. Landlords are entitled to the same retrofitting grants as owner-occupiers so they can get half the cost of a deep retrofit paid for by the State and 80% of the cost of attic and cavity wall insulation. On top of that, retrofitting expenses are tax deductible for landlords at the higher rate of tax up to a maximum of €10,000 each for two properties. According to the ESRI, the typical financing gap for small landlords of a €25,000 retrofit - their savings less the cost, excluding all the grants and tax breaks they are entitled to - is €14,000. Once we include all the grants and tax breaks, that gap is gone. If landlords do not want to use their savings to pay for retrofitting, low-cost loans are available and the interest on that is tax deductible too. Landlords also benefit financially from retrofitting because it permanently increases the value of their property. Yet despite all this, too many landlords just cannot be bothered to retrofit even though they have the resources to do it and even though it is in their long-term financial interest. That is because landlording is a passive unearned income stream. Landlords own an asset and count the cash that rolls in from it. They are not used to having to do anything to earn that income, so organising a retrofit seems onerous to many of them even if it means that their tenants will have warm homes and save a bunch of money and even it is the right thing to do from the point of view of our climate. I have no doubt that goes for many of the landlord TDs sitting in this Dáil. It would be interesting to know how many of them have retrofitted their properties, including the big landlord TDs and Ministers like Robert Troy, Seán Canney and Michael Healy-Rae. They negotiated the programme for Government and left any minimum BER standard out of it.

Retrofitting is something a lot of landlords will not do unless they are forced. That is what we need to do. That is what this Bill does by legislating for a minimum B2 standard by 2030, the same date by which we are legally bound to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions by 51%.

If a landlord still does not want to retrofit after all the grants and the tax breaks, he or she can sell the property with the tenant in situto someone who will. We think that should be the local authority, which can convert the property into public, social or affordable housing. This should go along with a mass programme of councils buying up HAP properties and retrofitting them. It would be transformative not only for the living standards of thousands of the lowest income families across the State but for reaching our legally binding climate targets. The State should properly fund councils to retrofit council housing stock rapidly, not at the snail's space that is currently taking place. It cannot be done in this Bill because it would cost the State money and we are not allowed to introduce Bills that would do that.

It is no use continuing to target retrofitting grants at better-off homeowners like the Government has done to date. Most of the worst insulated, leakiest and coldest homes are either in the private rented sector or are social housing. That is where the focus of retrofitting should be between now and 2030. It is where the maximum benefit is for quality of life, for health, for the climate and for people's pockets. I eagerly await hearing what the Government is going to do in terms of this Bill. I hope it will not oppose it but we will see.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with quite a lot of what the Deputy had to say. He said that retrofitting the private rental sector would be good for everyone. I agree with him on that. He spoke about 100% renewables being the target. I agree with that target. That is what we should be aiming for and striving towards. The conditions described by the constituent who wrote to him are not good enough and should not be supported. In terms of the provision of HAP, with regard to anyone in that situation, the landlord should not be supported in that regard when one considers what they were going through.

However, I do not believe this is the way to do it because of the other impacts it would have, particularly with regard to the rental sector and the provision of accommodation. This is particularly the case with the deadlines the Deputy has indicated within the legislation. I often hear the Opposition quoting the ESRI when that suits its argument but the Opposition cannot just disregard the ESRI and label it as propaganda when it does not suit its argument. I will go into more detail about what the ESRI report did.

In the programme for Government, Securing Ireland’s Future, the Government has set out its commitment to making Ireland's buildings more sustainable and energy efficient, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and lowering energy costs for households. More specifically, in the Government’s new housing plan, Delivering Homes, Building Communities 2025-2030, published which was last week, there is a commitment to examining policy measures to incentivise increased energy efficiency in the private rental market. This action is aimed at improving the quality of housing stock available to rent and contributing to meeting our overall national climate targets in relation to emissions reduction. It aims to increase energy efficiency and help to alleviate fuel poverty, protect tenants’ health and improve comfort levels in rental homes.

I note that the main objectives of this Bill as initiated are to require residential rental stock to have a minimum BER of D2 by December 2026, C1 by December 2028 and B2 by December 2030. The Government understands that the Bill is a genuine attempt to improve the position for people currently renting property in the private rental sector and appreciates the progressive intentions underpinning it. While the intent of the Bill is clear and the objective of improving the energy efficiency in residential rental properties is a worthy one, the Government is not in a position to support the Bill and has taken the decision to oppose it. Any proposed changes of this nature must be given very careful consideration and it is the Government’s view that the Bill as drafted would have serious unintended consequences.

Despite its positive intentions, the Bill is highly likely to have a detrimental and disruptive effect on the supply and availability of a large number of rental properties. lf implemented as proposed, it would render a significant number of currently rented dwellings unsuitable for letting in the private rental market. Earlier this year, the ESRI published its report, entitled "Exploring investment requirements for energy efficiency upgrades in the private rental sector". The report is publicly available on the ESRI website. This study was commissioned by my Department so that we would have the independent information needed to further our understanding of the level of investment needed to upgrade energy efficiency levels in the private rental sector.

The ESRI report found four in five rented dwellings currently have a BER below B. That would equate to over 260,000 properties out of a total of 330,000 dwellings in the private rental sector, using the 2022 figures. The report estimates over 45,000 rented dwellings have low energy efficiency ratings with BERs of E, F or G. Under this Bill they would all be unsuitable for renting from 31 December 2026 with the introduction of the minimum D2 requirement, unless appropriate retrofit works were undertaken by landlords. A further 155,000 rental units would be unsuitable for renting with the introduction of a minimum C1 requirement by December 2028. An additional 66,000 units would be impacted by a minimum B2 rating by December 2030. In all, some 266,000 private rental units would need to have their energy rating improved by December 2030. The report estimates the aggregate cost of upgrading the housing stock of residential rental properties to a B1 or B2 would be in the region of €7 billion to €8 billion in 2023 prices. It found the average cost of retrofitting would be €30,200 based on 2023 prices. The report also found nearly one in two landlords would have insufficient own funds to cover the €25,000 investment and some are likely to have difficulties obtaining the finance. While the report highlights issues in respect of the ability of some landlords to invest in energy retrofits of their residential properties, it states willingness to invest may be an ongoing challenge and minimum BERs may lead to a reappraisal of the attractiveness of investment, and divestment by some owners.

The consequences for the private rental market of this Bill could therefore be very significant, with the potential for thousands of existing landlords to exit the rental market. This would reduce the supply available for tenants in a market that is already seriously constrained. The exit of properties housing social housing tenants in receipt of HAP would likely result in significant increases in presentations to homeless services and increased demands for homeless emergency accommodation. It would also reduce the supply of properties for prospective HAP tenants, which would also likely lead to increased homeless presentations.

It is important to point out here there are a range of Government supports in place to improve energy efficiency of accommodation in the private rental sector. In budget 2026 we announced record funding of €558 million for Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland residential and community energy upgrade schemes. This is an increase of €89 million on 2025’s budget allocation to support delivery of the national retrofit plan. As part of Ireland's national retrofit plan, the Government launched a new package of supports targeting homes that were built and occupied pre-2011. These supports, which have been made available to non-corporate landlords and approved housing bodies to improve the efficiency of their rental properties, include: the national home energy upgrade scheme, which provides generous grant support for private landlords with higher supports available for AHBs; the better energy homes scheme, which provides support to landlords for step-by-step retrofits; the facility whereby private landlords can also receive support to upgrade their properties under the community energy grant scheme; and 80% grants available to landlords for attic and cavity wall insulation, which are low-cost measures that can be installed quickly and cost-effectively. A tax incentive is also now in place to encourage small-scale landlords to undertake retrofitting works while the tenant remains in situ, under section 32 of the Finance Act 2022. This measure provides for a tax deduction of up to €10,000 per property, against case V rental income for certain retrofitting expenses incurred by the landlord on rented residential properties, for a maximum of two rental properties. Budget 2026 extended the tax incentive for a further three years to end 2028. The home energy upgrade loan scheme launched in 2024 enables homeowners, including non-corporate landlords, to borrow between €5,000 and €75,000 at significantly lower interest rates to complete a home energy upgrade. The Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, together with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, continually keeps grant schemes under review, including terms and conditions, eligibility criteria and rates, and takes account of relevant factors such as demand, research, innovation and evolving technology.

I also take the opportunity to assure the House the Government is committed to ensuring a stock of high-quality accommodation is available for those who live in the private rented sector. The standards for rental accommodation are prescribed in the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2019. They specify requirements in relation to a range of matters, such as structural repair, sanitary facilities, heating, ventilation, natural light, fire safety and the safety of gas, oil and electrical supplies. Responsibility for the enforcement of the regulations in the private rental sector rests with local authorities. My Department’s policy of setting private rental inspection targets for each local authority and providing ring-fenced Exchequer funding to help them reach those targets is working and has resulted in significant increases in inspection and compliance levels across the private rental sector. This reflects a concerted and focused effort by my Department, working in close partnership with local government. Inspections have increased from an average of 20,000 a year in the period 2005 to 2017 to over 49,000 in 2022. There were over 63,500 inspections in 2023 and an all-time high of over 80,000 inspections last year. Preliminary data for the first six months of 2025 shows an increase of over 5% on the same period last year. There has also been an increase in the Exchequer funding being made available to support this work. My Department will provide €10.5 million to local authorities this year to help them meet their private rental inspection targets.

I will conclude by once again thanking Deputies Coppinger and Murphy for initiating this Bill and the Ceann Comhairle for facilitating this discussion. Given the potential unintended consequences of this Bill and its potential serious impact on the private rental sector the Government has taken the decision it cannot support it at this time.

To expand a bit, the figures also highlight that there are too many properties in the private rental sector that are at too low a BER. The reason the Government is opposing the Bill is we feel the timelines, which have been outlined for achieving the higher ratings, would result in the loss of a significant amount of private rental accommodation from the market - and the ESRI report backs that - at a time when so much time is in this House is dedicated to debating the lack of housing provision and accommodation throughout Ireland, which has led to some of the figures we talked about a while ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank Deputy Murphy and People Before Profit for bringing forward this Bill. When we look at housing conditions in the private rental sector, we see that there is an absolute tsunami of situations where people are living in substandard accommodation. I have met people living in the private rental sector who are living with mould and damp. As the Minister of State will know, this is significant because dampness and mould, but particularly mould, have huge health implications, particularly for people who have underlying health issues, young children, babies and older people.

This is important now because there are more people than ever living in the private rental sector. We have never had as many people in this country living in the private rental sector. This results from Government policy over the last 30 to 40 years, which shifted from providing public housing to sourcing housing from the private rental sector through various State subsidies. The Governments of the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s - we are talking about three decades - particularly those led by Fianna Fáil but Fine Gael was also in there at different points, made this shift to getting social housing from the private rental sector without making any moves to ensure that housing was up to standard. We shifted to providing social housing, much of which is for very vulnerable people including families and children, through a sector that has had serious problems with substandard accommodation for many decades and which still does.

There is a huge inequality between those living in substandard accommodation who cannot even invest in their own homes because they do not have the finances to do so and those who do. It is very difficult for those in the private rental sector or social housing to listen to all of these advertisements about grants, to see the investment and money going into solar panels and retrofitting homes, and to be encouraged to invest in solar and green measures in order to reap benefits while they are in the private sector and unable to invest in their homes because it is up to the landlord or in social housing, where it is up to the local authority. It has to be deeply frustrating, as I know it is, for those people who are living in substandard accommodation to be told the Government is making a shift to a green society, a just transition, while they are very much left behind.

I want to talk about the idea that housing is a human right, which is accepted internationally. Indeed, the Irish State accepts it although it does not apply it.

The housing plan did not reference housing being a human right once, which is deeply disappointing. Central to housing being a human right is the quality of accommodation and that it be of a standard that ensures people live a healthy life. Much of our social housing and private rental housing, and indeed homeownership, is substandard. There is a large social class element here, involving working-class areas and disadvantaged communities. People who cannot afford to do up their home are living in the worst conditions and then live with worse health impacts. This costs the State down the line in extra health costs.

I will talk about two people from Ballymun I met in my clinic this week, both of whom are in social housing. They are examples of the impact of substandard accommodation on people. One mother with three children has severe damp and mould in the house. These are not old houses. These are houses built in the past 20 or 30 years. She and her three children have been on steroids for the past two weeks because of bronchitis-related illnesses. Her youngest boy attends the respiratory clinic in Crumlin and Temple Street hospitals and is regularly put on rounds of steroids and antibiotics. She has letters, and I have seen them, from Temple Street in which the consultants state her child - her baby - is sick because of the housing conditions they are living in. She showed me the photographs from her home of the dampness and mould on the pillowcases and bed. There are only two bedrooms. They are in a situation of overcrowding. She has to sleep on the couch because one of the rooms is not safe to live in. She talked about the mould's impact on her mental health. She feels every day the house is making her and her children sicker and sicker.

Another mother has children with complex needs related to autism and disabilities. She deals with the impacts of stress and trying to deal with, support and find services for disability while living in substandard conditions. Poor housing impacts their health. We see this compounding of inequalities and disadvantage. Some wonder why we see explosions of people's anger and frustration. Can the Minister of State imagine what it must be like to live in those conditions? It is similar in the private rental sector.

The issue of substandard accommodation, mould and dampness in this country is a crisis we are not giving sufficient attention to. It is something serious we have ignored. We have ignored it because they are renters. They are either private renters or social housing renters and they have been treated as second-class citizens. It is not okay that we allow this to continue. We need major change and major investment. The State has to do it. There is no getting around this. We have to reconfigure how the private rental sector is organised, seen and treated. These are homes; they are not just places where people stay temporarily. That is the very significant societal change that has happened in the past 30 years. The private rental sector used to be a place where people went for a few years, particularly students and young professionals, and moved on. The sector now provides people's homes for life. There is nowhere else to go.

This lunchtime I was out meeting a family who are being evicted from the private rental sector in my constituency. They have lived in their home for 12 years and have adult children in the house. The mother said she does not know where she will go. They are being evicted because the landlord is looking at March and saying he or she wants them out before March so when the changes come in, higher rents can be charged. Even though it will be an illegal eviction, how do we stop it? That is the point. This was and is their home.

This requires a significant change in the culture of how we treat housing and how landlords understand their role. They are not investment assets; they are people's homes. The State has an obligation to ensure, particularly when sourcing social housing from the private rental sector, that people are living in decent conditions. It will require significant investment and change in how we treat and understand housing and the role landlords play, both private and social. We have to do this because it is costing the State massive amounts in our health services and education. Children who are sick are out of school. There is a compounding of disadvantage and inequality. Substandard housing conditions have this knock-on effect. We need a step change in how we treat and approach substandard accommodation.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Climate change and our economy's addiction to fossil fuels represent one of the biggest cost-of-living threats to householders, families, small businesses and farms in Ireland and this Bill is a practical effort to address part of that issue. I thank Deputy Murphy for bringing it forward.

I will set out the scale of the issue we are facing. Across Ireland, up to 250,000 privately rented homes still fall well below a healthy and comfortable B energy rating. This means thousands of people - families, workers, older people, students - are living in homes that are cold, damp, mouldy and expensive to heat. They are paying for it twice. They pay in rents that are too high and in energy bills that are artificially inflated by the lack of insulation in those homes. This is not just a housing issue but a public health, climate and social justice issue. We know what cold and draughty homes do to the people who live in them and to society at large. They deepen energy poverty, worsen respiratory illnesses, drive up carbon emissions and drain families' incomes. More than half of private rentals are D-rated or worse. One in five, 20%, of people living in rental properties are in properties rated F or G, homes that bleed heat and breed mould. No one should have to choose between paying their rent or their energy bill. No child should grow up in a bedroom where mould is creeping down the wall.

Energy inefficiency is a form of inequality. The Government's refusal to act has left tenants subsidising their landlords and paying extortionate heating bills for homes that are impossible to heat. This is a perfect example of a split incentive at work. Tenants paying the bills, landlords avoiding the upgrades and Government looking the other way.

During oral questions in this Chamber a few weeks ago, I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, to address the delay in progressing the minimum BER for rental properties and to give me a date when the roadmap would be achieved. He could not and now we understand why. Last week the Government published the shiny new housing plan and the commitment to introduce a minimum BER for rental properties has been entirely abandoned. Another climate measure that would help hard-pressed renters and another Government U-turn like so many this year. Instead, we get this incredibly vague statement undertaking to "examine policy measures to incentivise increased energy efficiency in the private rental market." As an objective, it could not be more non-committal if it tried. It is depressing to see such a clear commitment entirely jettisoned. It is particularly depressing when considering landlords are already quite well incentivised to retrofit their rental properties. They can avail of all the grants the rest of us have at our disposal, they can get low-cost loans and they can even deduct retrofit costs from their rental properties.

As Deputy Murphy said when he introduced the Bill, they have not taken the carrot so now there is a need for some element of a stick. The roadmap the previous Government committed to may have vanished but the problem has not. The ESRI's research confirms the scale of the challenge: 240,000 to 260,000 rental properties will need an upgrade.

The overall price tag is big, at €7 billion to €8 billion. Even if you looked at those most urgent ones, those homes with a BER category of E1 or below, retrofitting them will cost between €1.7 billion and €2.3 billion. That is a big challenge. A challenge of that scale demands leadership, clarity and a systematic plan. Instead, we have delay, drift and a vague commitment to examine policy measures, but we also have this Bill which is proposing something that France and the UK have already implemented successfully.

The Bill is not radical. It is reasonable, practical, overdue and, I would argue, absolutely essential. It tackles the root of energy poverty in the rental sector, it gives Ireland the same basic protection that renters already have, as I said, in France and in the UK, and it finally begins to make warm healthy homes a right rather than a privilege.

I am supporting this Bill because renters cannot wait for this Government to put their interests first. Climate targets will not wait for landlords to be adequately incentivised to do this off their own steam. The health issues caused or exacerbated by damp and mould are not going to wait for Government to take this seriously as an issue. Energy poverty will never be addressed so long as renters remain the most at risk of it yet the least empowered to do anything about it. With record high rents in this State, the absolute minimum renters should expect is a home that is warm, healthy and affordable to heat.

Delaying BER standards for rental properties is not only reckless, it is a false economy. The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and the Climate Change Advisory Council have made it clear. If we miss our emissions targets in the building sector, the cost to the taxpayers will be in billions. Kicking the can down the road will not make this cheaper, it will make life more difficult for renters. We have to recognise what the real-life consequence of this delay is. It means a parent putting their child to bed in a damp room, a worker watching the heat escape through their walls and a pensioner rationing warmth in the depths of winter. These are not abstract situations. These are people's lives. Shelving progressive climate measures yet again is not a pragmatic step, it is a regressive step. It is costly and deeply unjust.

We need a plan that lifts renters out of energy poverty, helps small landlords upgrade their properties, cuts emissions and protects basic public health, and uses climate funding for climate action. That is why, when we were in government, the Green Party created the climate and nature fund to tackle major challenges, including the retrofitting of private rental properties, and yet the Government raided this fund that was designed to tackle major systemic challenges such as the retrofitting of rental properties.

Friends of the Earth has called this Bill timely, necessary, and absolutely doable. With the Government having watered down its own ambition to tackle the issue of energy poverty in rental properties, this Bill is even more important. I would argue that this Bill gives the Government a way to deliver on commitments it has repeatedly made but which have now been abandoned. It gives it a chance to redeem itself for the delay and the indecision. If the Government does not take the opportunity offered by Deputy Murphy's Bill, the failure will be the Government's alone.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I look to address some of the comments made.

In relation to the housing plan, there is a commitment within the housing plan in terms of energy efficiency. The Opposition can paint it up and describe it whichever way it wants in terms of it being watered down, but it is there. It is an absolute goal of ours because we agree that people should not be living in cold damp conditions, in private or in public housing.

Housing inspections have increased significantly. There has been a massive ramping up. We have budgeted for increased funding to local authorities to increase that capacity for inspections even further.

Local authorities, I think we can all agree, are getting far better in terms of retrofitting. The work that has been done, certainly in my time in politics and over the last ten years, has been extraordinary. Some are better than others but, for the whole, local authority housing has been made far more energy efficient. The new builds are something incredible.

We can all agree that cold damp houses are unacceptable, that the number of houses with low BER ratings, at 250,000, is unacceptable, and that it is something we need to address rapidly. What we do not agree on is the way to do it. The hard and fast timelines being suggested by this Bill would have unintended consequences and the Deputies cannot dismiss unintended consequences as something that the Government says when a Bill does not suit it. There would be, and it would be the renters who would feel the pinch. If you significantly reduce accommodation stock and private rental stock, it is the renters who will pay the price by significantly increased rents. That is something that I am not just saying. That is something that the ESRI report has alluded to in terms of the cost.

The research is there. The research has identified very significant costs associated with the works while also identifying potential concerns about the financial capacity of property owners to undertake this investment. From this, there is a concern that the imposition of minimum BER ratings on private landlords may lead to a reappraisal of the attractiveness of investment and a divestment by some owners.

The unintended consequences of the Bill, as initiated, are therefore serious, rendering a large number of currently rented dwellings unsuitable for letting in the private rental market. Given the investment that would be required to bring properties up to minimum energy efficiency standards, it has the potential to drive significant numbers of private landlords from the rental market. In a market that is already constrained, this would reduce the supply of accommodation available for tenants, including HAP tenants, leading to increases in presentations to homeless services and increased demands for homeless emergency accommodation. This would have a financial cost for the Exchequer but also come at a significant social cost.

It is vital that an appropriate balance is struck between improving the energy efficiency of homes in the private rental market and maintaining and increasing supply. The simple fact of the matter is that we need private residential rental accommodation and we need private landlords. We must seek to improve the energy efficiency of rental stock without driving private landlords from the market.

The ESRI report will inform next steps in this area and the Government has committed in its new housing plan, Delivering Homes, Building Communities 2025-2030, to examining policy measures to incentivise increased energy efficiency in the private rental market. In the meantime, a range of Government supports are already in place, including for private landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their properties. The Government has decided that the funding available for such measures in 2026 will increase to record levels.

I would also mention efforts at EU level in relation to the energy performance of buildings. A recast EU energy performance of buildings directive came into force in May 2024, which is to be transposed into national law by 29 May 2026. This recast directive is broader in scope then previous iterations, with a key aim being the renovation of the entire building stock and the energy performance of existing buildings. The new measures aim to increase the rate of renovation, particularly for the worst-performing buildings in each member state. Significant work is being undertaken across Government and by the SEAI to determine the impacts of the requirements of the directive, including those related to BER ratings and the progressive renovation of the residential building stock.

While it is recognised that the Bill, as initiated, is well intentioned, it is pre-emptive of these developments at EU level. It also does not take account of the possible negative consequences on the private rental market itself. As outlined, the Government cannot support the Bill at this time.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies Ó Broin, Hearne and O'Gorman for their support and speeches. I am obviously very disappointed, not shocked, given the oral responses we have had over the last couple of weeks, by the Government's response. The Minister of State says that he agrees with the aim that renters should not be living in cold, damp, mouldy accommodation but he does not agree that this is the way to do it.

Let us look at the reality of the Government's policy position and how it has moved. The Government has gone from a position in Housing for All where the Government, not us or the Irish Green Building Council, said its position was that a minimum BER for private rental property would be introduced, where feasible, from 2025. We are almost at the end of 2025. Fast forward to the launch of the new housing plan, it was repeated on multiple occasions by the Minister that the Government would examine policy measures to incentivise increased energy efficiency in the private rental market. It is meaningless to state it will examine policy measures to incentivise. The Government is talking about throwing in a few more carrots when the problem is we need to regulate. We need to enforce minimum standards.

Whatever about the Minister of State personally, presumably he does not like the fact that one in three people living in rented accommodation are in forced deprivation.

Presumably, he does like the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are going to bed cold tonight, in poor standards of accommodation, in both the State and private rented sectors. Presumably, he does not like any of that, but I do not think the Government cares. This is a landlord's Government. We read the housing plan and see the agenda that is being pushed over the past year to accelerate increases in rents and make rents go higher and faster. We hear all the talk of closing the viability gap but profits of €50,000 a year are already being made for every property that is developed. There are VAT cuts that hand over €300 million to, in this case, developers. This is a Government that represents those who profit from the housing crisis, the big developers and the big landlords, and not those who suffer from it. In this case, renters, who are disproportionately poorer and on lower incomes than people who own their own homes, who are disproportionately colder and who disproportionately have health issues, are being sacrificed and the climate is being sacrificed. I know the Minister of State personally cares about the climate, but going back to look at what Darragh O'Brien said, it is clear that the Government has abandoned any real commitment.

I have had two engagements in the last couple of weeks with Micheál Martin, post his speech at COP, to say this is a great idea and he might consider doing some of this telling the truth stuff, and following the science and leading and all of that, but the Government is not interested in it at all. It is one thing to say it in Brazil, but not when he comes home. These are no-brain ideas. These are simple ideas that improve people's lives. Ideas that do not make people's lives harder, but improve their lives radically and reduce emissions, are now off the table because they would involve some costs for landlords. Again, the Minister of State and the ESRI are overstating the costs because of the grants and so on that are available. The impact on the environment is very serious here. Buildings are directly responsible for 40% of energy usage. Operational emissions from the residential sector account for 10% of annual greenhouse gas emissions.

The Government refuses to do anything in terms of agriculture, big tech and data centres, and is doing very little on public transport. Here is something it could do to improve people's lives in a significant way, make people feel warmer and bring down their energy bills, but it refuses to do this as well. Again and again it is the vested interests at the top that the Government refuses to deal with. The substantial argument the Minister of State makes is that of unintended consequences in that rents will go up and we will make people homeless. He said in his opening speech we would have to increase capacity in the homeless sector. That would only happen if the Government took political choices. Every time we talk about anything to do with the private rental sector, the Government acts as if we should not do anything to impact landlords, who are making record profits because rents have tripled in the past ten years. That money has gone from the pockets of renters, taxpayers and the State into the pockets of landlords. It is clear they are doing very well, but we cannot do anything that will impact them because they might exit the market. The impression is given that these people will take the private rented accommodation that they own, pack it up brick by brick, put it in their backpack and fly away. They cannot take their properties away. These are immovable assets. They cannot reduce our housing stock if the State says it will buy it. If landlords want to get out of the private rented sector - fine, the State will buy it and increase the housing stock. Landlords get to get out, which is fine, the tenant gets security of tenure with the State and the State increases its housing stock. That is a win-win-win we should be doing. It is purely a policy choice to say that if we set minimum BER standards, that will have a negative impact on the rental market. It will not if the State steps in and says it will have a properly funded tenant in situ scheme and will buy these properties if landlords want to exit as a consequence.

On the more detailed issues that have been raised, the only detailed point made is the question of timing and whether this is too much, too fast or whatever. That is precisely the kind of thing we could discuss at committee. We first launched this a year ago and time is ticking on. If that were the Government's real objection, that is a discussion we would be open to. It could be discussed at committee and there could be amendments to make it slightly slower, but hiding behind the Opposition on those grounds is the reality that the Government is opposed to any minimum BER standards whatsoever. The general direction of travel is for the Government to lower standards in the rental sector and not to increase them. It is saying we will have smaller, poorer accommodation for renters. Again, it is renters and low-income people who are asked to pay the price for the viability gap and for incentivising more landlords. All of that is just code for allowing them to make more profit.

I will return to the basic point, which Rory Hearne made well, about this having real costs for individuals and for our society. The health costs are immense. A lot of people are living in very mouldy accommodation. We had a huge issue in Tallaght with a housing development that was an AHB. When you went in, there was mould everywhere. It is horrendous that people have to live in such circumstances. Lots of people have a room in their apartment they have basically abandoned because the mould has won in that area and they have had to retreat out of it. The health impact of that stuff is enormous and the Government is basically saying it will not do anything about it. It will consider offering a few more carrots to landlords, but if landlords choose not to take up those carrots it will not do anything about it. A huge number of people are living in energy poverty. That is going to get worse because the cost-of-living crisis has not gone away. The bills have not come down but continue to rise. Hundreds of thousands of people are in arrears on their gas and electricity bills. Instead of taking an easy win and doing something for all these people in the private rented sector, and then doing the same with the State's housing stock, the Government is refusing to do it because it would be some sort of imposition on landlords.

The basic point is you can throw all the carrots you like at landlords, but there is definitely a whole group of landlords who just want the money to roll in. They do not want to do anything or actually have to do any work. That is a fundamental problem. We have to either compel those landlords to do work to ensure their tenants get to live in a basic standard of decent-quality accommodation or, if they are not willing to do it, there is no problem, but they then do not belong in this business and the State will buy the property off them and provide appropriate accommodation. Members should expect to get lots of emails over the coming days to encourage people to vote in favour of this Bill.

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

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time next week.