Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their contributions. I obtained agreement from the Cabinet this morning on a motion for early signature by the President. The legislation will go to the President for signing once we have concluded our proceedings, which this means that it will come into effect as quickly as possible.

I wish to touch upon a couple of points but not necessarily in the order in which they were raised. Senator Norris referred to landlords and the landlord class. It is worth repeating that 70% of landlords own only one property. Many of them are accidental landlords because of what happened in recent times. It is wrong to tar every landlord with the same brush. We must find another word for those landlords who are abusing people's human rights when it comes to the standard of accommodation being offered, overcrowding and other matters.

It is also important to note that the proposals in the Bill are not new. The Bill has been six months in the making. At the relevant committee and again in this House last week, Senator Murnane O'Connor referred to the amount of time we have given to the Bill. The proposals are not new and the Bill is not being rushed. In fact, it is late. The Bill is not unbalanced. It is trying to bring balance to a sector where there are already very strong laws relating to landlords. The Bill is trying to rebalance some rights in favour of tenants. We have statistics and if someone wants to have a Commencement debate on the issue, we can discuss what happens in the RTB, the percentage of cases that are taken by landlords and by tenants and the percentage of cases where the landlord wins compared with where the tenant wins. There are very strong laws already in place but since the first day I came into this office I recognised that we are at risk of losing more and more landlords from the sector. As more landlords leave, that increases housing insecurity for many because they serve notices to quit, as is their right. In everything we do, we must ensure that we find a balance. We must also ensure that we push back against lazy arguments that are being made, day in and day out, in the Dáil against landlords. That is very important. In the previous budget we introduced 100% mortgage interest relief for landlords. Last year I introduced new guidelines for the build-to-rent sector in order to encourage more landlords to enter that sector. We are doing things for landlords as well and it is important to be aware of that.

It is also interesting to note that what we are trying to do is improve standards in accommodation. This is about raising standards and ensuring that landlords invest in their properties. We must find a balance and ensure that we do not introduce a definition that will put landlords off and have the unintended consequence of bring investment in property to a halt. The definition strives to strike that balance and does so well. The reason we believe that is because we examined the issue in great detail at the committee. We considered the idea of linking it purely to expenditure so that if a landlord spent a certain amount of money, he or she would be able to step outside of the rent caps. However, that was not seen to be viable or easily certifiable. It was not seen as the best way to proceed. We also recognised on Committee Stage that we would like landlords to prioritise in their investments certain things that will bring about greater affordability for tenants in terms of bills and fuel security and that assist in reaching objectives relating climate change and the environment. That is the reason we made two changes to the definition of what constitutes substantial refurbishment. We made changes, via the amendments we brought forward on Committee Stage, to ensure that there would be different ways of achieving a definition of substantial refurbishment that would not include BER. This matter was also dealt with on Report Stage. Senator Norris read out a list of different things but it is a case of using a combination of those. There are a couple of things one can do which, if done on their own, allows one to step outside of the rent cap limitations. Another section refers to a combination of things. In the combination category, we introduced changes in the BER ratings in order to try to incentivise BER improvements by two or three points, as well as improving disability access. They are all very important things to do. We also introduced a stand-alone definition in respect of the seven points on the BER scale. We did so because of the consultation we have had on pre-1963 properties.

Senator Craughwell and I both need to recognise that we are not experts when it comes to the physical works that are done on buildings. He will have meetings, he will get documentation and he will work to advice. As Minister, I will do the same. One of the things that I asked my officials to prepare was a report which we could publish and which Senator Humphreys sought. That report goes through different types of pre-1963 buildings and the different types of work that can be done. It also deals with the different costs that will allow someone with a pre-1963 building to be able to get up those seven points on the BER scale and step outside the rent caps. Therefore, they are not disincentivised from investing and the tenant gets a much greater improvement in the context of the property. If the target is reached, the landlord can increase the rent by more than 4%. However, we brought in rent caps for a reason, namely, so that landlords would not increase rents by more than 4%. The goal is for rent caps or rent controls to be in place, but we must recognise that one of the unintended consequences of not allowing a step-out for refurbishment purposes might mean that people might not invest in their properties. The ultimate aim of the definition is to ensure that we do not disincentivise investment in property and, more importantly, that we get rid of so-called renovictions - there have been reports on these in so many places - whereby people are spuriously invoking substantial refurbishment in order to try to abuse the law when it comes to rent caps or, worse, get their tenants out. Given the amount of attention that this aspect of the Bill has received at different points, we are of the view that we are going to be able to capture that. Where the works might be significant because of the age of the property and the different stages might take up to 24 months, the landlord will not be bound by the rent caps in the next rent setting but only that setting. It is also true to state that even when no works have taken place, the landlord can still raise the rent each year, but by no more than 4%. However, it still is an opportunity to raise the rent, which is important. From the evidence that has been provided, I am of the view that it is possible to meet the new definition, even for pre-1963 properties, but I accept that it is more difficult when it comes to protected structures. We will keep the measure under review and I will publish the document very shortly in order that people can see the work the Department has done.

I think there are in the region of 40,000 to 45,000 protected structures in the country. I do not have the figure in my head for how many are rented properties. From the engagements I have had, I recognise that the owners of pre-1963 properties that are protected structures will find this more challenging but we believe that the documentation we will produce will show that it is possible. We will continue to engage. If further amendments need to be made in time, then we will make them. This is a very robust change to the law to protect tenants but also to ensure that landlords can continue to invest in their properties and avail of their own rights under the rent changes.