Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I want to open by commenting on one important thing. We hear the line again and again that supply is the issue or supply is the problem. We need to be really clear that profiteering is the problem. That is the problem. Supply is important, but profiteering is what has been the obstacle in housing. I have seen it over the last ten years in these Houses, again and again. Senator Andrews spoke earlier about the area where I live. There are empty apartments all over those areas where the rent is kept at an artificially inflated level because they are parts of portfolios which allow investment in a theoretical rent in a series or set. They are being treated as assets and portfolio objects rather than homes. There are those empty apartments and then, when we talk about supply in our city centres and in communities throughout the country, there are areas where the planning permission is already there for public housing and other initiatives, and the Government has stalled in delivering those houses. There is not an obstacle there. There are also the many thousands of planning permissions that are already in private hands that have not been enacted because many are waiting to see if they can make more money if they build it later.

This has been a consistent approach, reflected again and again in bad idea after bad idea. I am being very frank. The strategic housing developments and others are constantly going to those who are profiting from a housing crisis and the Government is asking them what they think it should do next. We have done it again and again. We have asked the developers, and they will say something like "lower the standards". Then the standards get lowered and they do not deliver the housing because they have abandoned the permissions they already have because now they can do a new planning permission application and get it for lower standards. Or, they tell the Government they need it to lower planning standards and make the planning process easier. They get the planning permission and do not use them, or in the case strategic housing development, they got the planning permission and then they did not use them. They just have land that is worth a lot more now.

Similarly, in the area of rental, so much of it has been led by what the large-scale actors want. It is a case of how we can entice those who benefit very well from a dysfunctional rental market to engage more with it, rather than representing the interests of the public. That is where the language of balance comes in. Let us be clear, the duty of the Oireachtas and the Government is to the public and to the needs and rights of the public when it comes to the need and right to have a home that is secure and which allows you to plan your life, whereby it can be the base from which you engage in society. It is also important for social cohesion, which should be a priority.

Regarding this Bill, last week the Government announced its plans to make massive changes to the RPZ system in March next year, which included the piece in front of us and a number of other measures. However, the Government did not seem to anticipate how such an announcement would create this highly volatile, precarious situation for renters who are currently living outside a rental pressure zone. It is entirely predictable that landlords, whose goal is not to provide the public with housing but to maximise profits, would seek to raise the rent considerably in that period of time. That is why we are seeing this somewhat scrambled-together Bill now. The other changes may not be coming later, but this measure is clearly an attempt to protect against the unforeseen, but entirely foreseeable, outcome of the Government's announcement.

The Government should be taking urgent action. We should have a rent freeze. We were told many times it was impossible. It is a litany of things we were told were impossible that then happened. I think we were told vacant property taxes were impossible and possibly unconstitutional at a reasonable level, and then they appeared. It would be great if, when the Opposition comes up with ideas, those ideas were listened to, taken seriously and properly considered, rather than the time lag we have between things such as the Opposition looking for vacant property tax to be properly applied or for rent freezes, as it did a number of years ago.

The Bill before us seeks to cover the oversights and spare rentals from the RPZs from the consequences of the announcements last week. The way it has been presented has been somewhat messy. A crucial point is the Government could have done this already. We were told constantly how extending RPZs across the country would be unconstitutional. Those arguments do not seem to apply currently. It would be interesting to know what has changed. Under section 24A(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, which this Bill is seeking to amend, the Minister already has the power to create new rental pressure zones. This emergency action from the Government is coming in the context of why that power has not been used. That is the power in law already, whereby the Minister could have been declaring a number of areas as rental pressure zones and is explicitly allowed to under the Act. The Act already allows new areas to be declared. Why has that not been used effectively? Why is this blanket measure coming in rather than making immediate use of that power under section 24A(5), particularly in the context of the response to the announcements last week? Section 3(c) of this Bill, seems to make a lot of what is in 24A of the Act of 2004 somewhat defunct. It makes it complicated in terms of how that will be impacted. We have the ministerial power to declare rental pressure zones and now we have legislation in terms of the declaration of rental pressure zones. It is not clear how those will intersect. It seems the implications maybe have not been fully considered in that regard, which is concerning for renters, many of whom are quite frightened this week.

While the Bill is attempting to make a last-minute intervention in terms of renters outside the rental pressure zones not being caught out with massive rent increases, and that has been the headline, that the Government is going to create this big rent pressure zone, even though it already could have created it, but chose not to, there is also a lot of very bad news for renters in what the Government were announcing. An end to the ban on no-fault evictions is really concerning, because while I am entirely in favour of a ban on no-fault evictions, I am concerned the delay and lag will lead to a situation whereby we are seeing a lot of no-fault evictions in the next few months. That issue is not being tackled or protected against. There are concerns around the six-year tenancy piece which affects predictability for households of knowing they can plan their lives, they can plan their children's schooling across a number of years in the same area, and they can have employment and know they are going to be able to build their career in that area. That limitation is a key consideration and concern. Focus Ireland has highlighted that the new regulations will create an even more complex private rental market in Ireland, with tenants' rights being dependent on the circumstances of their landlord and when the property was built. The resetting of rent every six years creates a deep concern, while doing so on the commencement of a new tenancy creates a risk of incentivising new tenancies. An issue that should and could have been addressed, and perhaps still will be in the subsequent legislation, is the position in circumstances where there has been substantial refurbishment. Currently landlords are allowed to put up the rent where there has been substantial refurbishment. That is an issue in terms of addressing climate action. We have constantly said that retrofitting should not be used as an excuse in relation to the hiking of rent because that creates a perverse dynamic against renters seeking to engage around that. It is also an issue for persons with a disability where accommodations have been made in relation to them. This means that one of the most vulnerable groups within the rental market is not properly protected. That issue was not addressed.

In my remaining time I will talk about the enforcement of RPZs. For clarity, the quarterly rent index shows there has been an increase of more than 10% for existing tenancies in Galway in the last quarter of 2024 and that Limerick city saw an increase of over 20% over the past two years. These are rental pressure zones already. Where is the enforcement if existing tenancies that are meant to be protected by the RPZs are seeing hikes of 10% and 20%? Enforcement will be crucial.

There is no balancing piece. The duty of the State is to protect its citizens in their right to housing. That is the priority. Commercial interests will be very good at looking after their own interests. However, the interests of the public and the State are actually where our responsibility lies. That needs to be paramount in the next set of legislation.