Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

As has been stated, the purpose of this Bill is to extend the emergency period specified in the Planning and Development, and Residential Tenancies, Act. That makes perfect logical sense. It would be impossible, I hope, for anyone to oppose an extension of the emergency period. The aim of the extension is to further assist tenants who have been financially impacted by Covid-19, while recognising and balancing the constitutionally protected property rights of landlords. That is a challenge because there are judgments from superior courts that state that this cannot be a one-way street. While we may not like it that we have property rights in the Constitution, the Government and Minister must act according to the best legal advice. There are countervailing rights and the balance that one must strike is very important.

I note this opportunity was not wasted by the Minister, and he has made some permanent amendments to landlord and tenant legislation. That is of interest. The first of the main amendments is to restrict upfront payment of rent or a deposit to secure a tenancy to a total value that does not exceed two months' rent. That will make it more accessible for tenants. Second, the Minister is also providing an opt-out from the upfront rent payment restrictions for students residing in student-specific accommodation. Third, there is a requirement for a student residing in specific student-like accommodation to provide a minimum termination notice of 28 days to the accommodation provider or a longer period, should the student wish to do so. We have many former student leaders in both Houses of the Oireachtas and I proudly count myself among that number. This is a very good day for the Union of Students in Ireland and what it stands for. I caution against people trying to circumvent the Act by dressing things up and calling the agreements licences rather than lease and tenancy agreements, simply to remain outside the remit of the RTB. This raises the bigger question of having a consolidation of the legislation. It is a matrix of different amendments and far more complicated than it should be. It ought to be simplified for both landlords and tenants.

One issue, if I may mention it on Second Stage, which I hope the Department will consider, is a deposit retention bank. There is often a great difficulty in getting money returned when the RTB makes a determination that a landlord has unjustifiably retained a deposit. This money was never the property of the landlord and is held in trust as it is the tenant's property. This would be a significant bank of money that would gather interest and returning a deposit would be done efficiently and promptly. If there is no further appeal to the RTB, as there should not be given that its decision is final and binding, barring a procedural challenge to the High Court, once the appeal period of time is spent, the tenant could use the determination order to have the deposit returned immediately. Tenants would not be at the mercy of landlords who drag things out by holding back the deposit until they are forced to return it. I know this applies to only a small minority of landlords.

There is much at stake in RTB cases. Recent legislation allows for one-member tribunals. This is a significant responsibility for members of the tribunals. I prefer three-member tribunals because there is so much at stake. The home enjoys a pre-eminent position, and rightly so, in our Constitution and the collective wisdom of three people is better than one when the stakes are so high.The private rental market is a vital cog but it cannot on its own resolve the housing crisis. People have to accept that and appreciate that while it is vital, it is only one part of the jigsaw. It is important when we balance those constitutional rights as much as we can in favour of tenants that we do so in a way that does not scare more landlords to run to the hills because many landlords are trying to get out of this business. I mean accidental landlords, the big hedge funds.

Housing is the greatest challenge facing our country but once the Minister continues to adopt his inclusive approach, on which I commend him, and continues to listen so attentively as he has done, and once we almost take the politics out of it and put people, their safety and a roof over their head first, Ireland has a chance of beating this and winning and our people will come first. One aspect of that is the cost-rental model, which is a matter for another day. Landlord-tenant disputes will arise. I hope the legislative remit of the RTB will cover those. It is a wonderful dispute resolution mechanism that is accessible to all.People get two chances, the adjudication in private followed by the appeal to the tribunal, a de novo hearing. The cost-rental model is the future. It is an exciting week for the Green Party. The Minister took on board core Green Party policy, which has been repeatedly and consistently championed by Deputy Duffy and many of us for years. Just like our view on climate change, we welcome people adopting and coming on board with such established Green Party policy. No one owns policy. It has been tried and tested in Vienna and is a roaring success. It will not solve everything but all parties should take it on board.

The Minister addressed the Fine Gael parliamentary party and that of the Green Party, and we hope to have him back soon. He brings all the Members supporting the Government with him on this testing journey.

The strategic housing development process has been mentioned today. It has been an unmitigated disaster. The number of times decisions by An Bord Pleanála have been overturned by the High Court has been an unintended consequence. We must be so careful in our next move. We took two steps backwards with that. I acknowledge that there is a commitment in the programme for Government to phase it out but I am concerned that for some years to come it will clog up the system because they are in on time and still getting in on time. We will have to put up with this where it will have to be litigated in the High Court, which is not the way to do housing.

Maybe every so often there should be a publicity campaign on behalf of the Department. The RTB is open to all. There is no prohibition on it. It is private in adjudication level disputes the first instance. No tenants should feel they have to put up with a dreadful situation. They will get a fair hearing from the board but they must know it is there for all to create fairness, equality of treatment and, most of all, to be a voice for those who would not otherwise have one.