Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is testament to the Minister's work rate that I have probably seen him more in this House than I have some Members. I thank him yet again for another innovation and provision of support and protections for tenants. I welcome the extension of the protections for tenants in respect of Covid-19 hardships. It is to be supported. To be fair, low-income families have been disproportionately affected by Covid-19, working in the hospitality and retail industry. Therefore, it is particularly reasonable that we extend the supports in that regard.

I also very much support the provisions in this Bill relating to students. It is correct that only one month's deposit and one month's rent, up to a ceiling of two months' rent, should be required upfront, unless the tenant, perhaps by virtue of their circumstances, chooses to waive that.We must remove any barriers that may become an impediment to someone accepting their position in a university that is not close to their home. Those of us living in Dublin have the luxury of not having to worry about accommodation for our young people, but certainly it has been an impediment in the past.

As Senator Ruane said, the time has come to review the provision under section 61 regarding a deposit protection scheme, not just for students but for all tenants. I have appeared before the RTB with tenants who are trying to get back their security deposit which is being withheld for unreasonable reasons. At the same time, I am cognisant of the concerns of landlords who believe that one month's security deposit is not enough if they have a rogue tenant who leaves chaos behind them. Some years ago, I assisted a friend who became an accidental landlord and walked into an horrific scene at the end of a tenancy that cost thousands of euro to fix.

The vast majority of tenants carry out their tenancy respectfully and normally. It is very much their home and prized as their home. At the end of the tenancy, it is not reasonable that they need to get into a row to get their deposits returned. Ideally, we should have a system whereby it is banked with an independent entity so that an independent arbitrator could go out and adjudicate over whether it is due to be paid back. Auctioneers run such a system with security deposits. Many agencies hold deposits in trust for third parties. Therefore, there is no reason this could not be put in as a safeguard. In some cases, it may not need to be paid back but carried forward to the next tenancy.

I welcome section 11, which provides for a sanction for landlords who breach the section 19(b) provision. I believe we should have a whistleblowers provision relating to money sought from tenants under the counter. We hear anecdotally of people who are afraid to report it because they are afraid of losing their security of tenure. We should have some provision, similar to that in employment law, whereby somebody breaching these sorts of provisions will incur a double penalty. It is important we have some sort of whistleblowers provision that brings down a full audit or something equally frightening on a landlord who breaches that.

Senator Byrne spoke about the need for student accommodation. I slightly raised my eyes at that because in Dublin South-Central we have had a disproportionate amount of student accommodation built, disregarding the needs of local tenants.

Senator Boylan expressed her concern regarding the high rents and house prices in Dublin Bay South. I urge her to speak to her colleagues in Dublin City Council, South Dublin County Council and Fingal County Council who since 2011 have voted against 6,000 homes, based on research carried out by Councillor James Geoghegan. Perhaps she might acknowledge the social and affordable housing planned for the Poolbeg site which would provide 900 affordable and social housing units and which is being championed by Councillor Geoghegan. Perhaps she might be unequivocal in her support of that if she is really concerned about prices in Dublin Bay South.