I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 19 of Principal Act 2. Section 19(4)(b) of the Principal Act is amended, in the definition of “relevant percentage”— (a) in paragraph (a), by the substitution of “0 per cent” for “2 per cent”, and (b) by the deletion of paragraph (b).”. One of the great things about the truth is that it always comes out. Over the coming months and into next year, the impact of the changes the Minister is making, not just here but in the coming months, will be plain for everybody to see. We warned when the Minister's predecessor, Simon Coveney, introduced the rent pressure zones that they would lead to a two-tier rental market, exclude large numbers of renters and create widespread difficulties for many and we were proven right. Interestingly, Simon Coveney made many of the same charges then that the Minister is making now. He was proven wrong. He ran screaming from the Department of housing but renters were left with the consequences of his actions. We will return to the debate over how this operates in real time in the coming months. I want to speak specifically to the amendments. I am delighted the Minister referenced Dr. Michael Byrne from UCD because he is one of the most astute observers of the private rental sector. One of the central criticisms he has made in public and in writing of the Minister's proposals is that they would wipe out all of the affordability gains of the rent pressure zones since 2016. This is exactly what he has said. He has indeed welcomed some of the security-of-tenure provisions but he also says, in his article in the Irish Examiner today, that what the Minister is doing on rents, which is what we are here to discuss today, will not only wipe out those affordability gains but will actively undermine the Minister's security-of-tenure measures. I agree with him. Therefore, I have no difficulty whatsoever quoting him on the floor of the Dáil. I repeat that the Minister will wipe out all of the affordability gains that renters have secured. Why is this? It is because the majority of renters do not stay in their rental properties for more than six years. It is not simply a question of choosing to stay. Almost 5,000 notices of termination are issued quarterly. We still have a significant number of single property landlords availing of what was always their intention to cash in on their pension pot lump sum, which is entirely understandable when market prices were so high. The tenants of those properties will have to find somewhere else to live. That is the whole problem. The fact the average tenancy is less than four years means the churn in the 240,000 registered tenancies will have an impact that I am not even sure the Minister fully understands when the substantive proposals he will bring forward in the autumn come into force from 2026 onwards. The Minister is right that the minority of renters who have very long-term tenancy arrangements will get the protections he has outlined but the more than 80% of renters who are not in that position will be badly damaged by what the Minister is doing. I do not say this to misrepresent or to scare. I say it because I understand the private rental sector, how it operates and how bad Government policy impacts on it. The only confusion that has been sown in recent weeks is on the Government side. This is not me saying this. I am sure the Minister or his advisers read all the Sunday newspapers That is the conclusion they reached and I agree with them. With respect to the amendments, the problem is that right now rents are simply too high for existing and new renters. Let us look at the figures. The figures in the Residential Tenancies Board report for quarter 4 last year showed new rents averaging out State-wide at €1,680 and in Dublin at €2,477. State-wide new rents were up 5.5% last year. With regard to existing rents, including those renters allegedly protected by the rent pressure zones, State-wide average rents were €1,440 and in Dublin they were €1,865. Last year, average rents for existing renters, 83% of whom are in rent pressure zones, rose by 4.6%. Some of this is because of the exemptions in the RPZs but I have no doubt that a large volume of it is because of non-compliance. Worse still, when daft.ie published its quarter 1 report for this year, so this is more up-to-date information, average new rents throughout the State were €2,023. In Dublin city the average rent was €2,470. Many of us who represent large urban constituencies know that a new rental coming on the market today costs €3,000 or €3,500. This is even in the suburbs I represent, such as Clondalkin and Lucan. What the Government should be doing in the first instance is preventing rent increases across the board for an emergency period. Renters simply cannot afford more rent increases. This is why amendment No. 1, and almost all of the other amendments I have in this group and others, seek to do several things. Amendment No. 1 seeks to amend the principal Act so that for a period of three years rents cannot be increased for all renters across the State. Meanwhile, all of the detailed, concrete proposals for addressing supply, which not only have I published but which I speak about on a regular basis, could be activated. The fundamental flaw in the core argument on the Government side is that this is all about supply. What this misunderstands is that if it is not the right kind of supply in the right place at the right price, it does not meet people's housing needs. It is not that anybody on this side of the House is against private sector investment but there is a particular category of private sector investor who is only interested in high-price, high-yield, high-density developments in expensive parts of Dublin and, possibly although not guaranteed, in the docklands of Cork, where rents will be set at a level even higher than now and will never come down. This rental stock will have no impact on renters everywhere else. It is not just about supply. It is the right kind of supply in the right place at the right price. This is something the Minister's predecessor did not understand, and it seems the Minister and his colleagues do not understand it today. I make no apology for saying that a Government that stands up for renters should stop rent increases for an emergency period. This would not be indefinitely or in perpetuity but for an emergency period. It would create a breathing space for renters, alongside which a Government that was serious about tackling the supply and affordability issues would put in place the types of policies that I and others have set out in great detail. Sinn Féin's alternative housing plan, A Home Of Your Own, is still our housing plan and I still speak about it on a regular basis. The Government continues to ignore or fails to implement the overwhelming majority of the Housing Commission's proposals. Ultimately, this comes down to choices. The choice in the debate today is very simple. Does the Minister want a policy that will allow the rate of increase of rents for renters to accelerate at a greater pace this year, next year and the year after that or does he say enough is enough, renters cannot afford further rent increases and we have to stop it right now? That is what the amendments are about and I commend them to the House.

Sentiment score: -0.06

I move amendment No. 3: In page 3, line 25, to delete "28 February 2026" and substitute "23 June 2028". The amendments in this group are straightforward. They are connected to amendment No. 1, the purpose of which was to ensure that rent could not be set above zero, effectively giving rise to a ban on rent increases. This was to change the principal Act and the amending legislation in order that the ban would last for three years. As I articulated on Second Stage and while speaking on the first group of amendments this evening, our view is that renters are paying rents that are too high and that we need an emergency ban on rent increases. That should be for a period of three years. Crucially, and contrary to the misrepresentation by the Minister earlier, it is not a question of doing this and nothing else. It is to create space, in particular breathing space for renters, while better policies and investment measures for increasing social and genuinely affordable rental and purchase, but also for large-scale private sector investment for good quality homes in every county in the State for working people to buy, could be delivered. On that basis, I commend amendment No. 3 to the House.

Sentiment score: -0.08

One of the issues the Minister did not respond to at the closing of his Second Stage speech was raised by his Government colleague Deputy Carrigy and I. One of the consequences of extending the rent pressure zones to areas currently not designated is that, theoretically speaking, Eoghan Murphy's 2019 short-term letting regulations would apply. Obviously, the Government has decided to take a different course, which is Peter Burke's short-term letting register, and the Minister, Deputy Browne, and his officials will produce new planning guidelines to go along with those. One assumes that will make a distinction between areas that are currently designated rent pressure zones, where there is a very high demand for rental properties and the need to take a very tough line on unregulated short-term letting, and a more flexible approach that will allow local authorities to have more discretion to ensure a balance between the tourism economy and long-term housing need. Given the fact that there are a lot of people engaged in the provision of tourism products in those rural countryside, high-tourism areas, who will be looking at this, I invite the Minister to use his response to clarify whether it is his intention to seek the application of Eoghan Murphy's 2019 short-term letting regulations to the areas that are coming in to the RPZs. We know that is not going to work anyway because those regulations are unenforceable. If that is not the intention, which I presume is the case because the Minister is working with his colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Deputy Burke, some clarification here or communicated to the local authorities would be reassuring for people. We all accept that there has to be regulation of short-term letting in high-demand urban areas as well as rural countryside areas, but what I have outlined is one of the consequences of the rushed nature of this legislation. Therefore, I am not inviting the Minister to continue arguing with me about a three-year rent freeze, as we do not agree on that, but it would be valuable for him to clarify what his view is of the application of the 2019 short-term letting regulations on these new areas the day after this comes into effect until the short-term letting register and consequent planning guidance is issued by his Department.

Sentiment score: 0.17

To be very clear, my view is that the Eoghan Murphy 2019 regulations should not be applied because, first, they are unenforceable and, second, the Government and the Opposition are currently working on a mechanism to do that. Therefore, I am inviting the Minister to say that they will not be applied.

Sentiment score: 0.38

That is factually not the case. In fact, in the original rent pressure zones of Dublin and Cork, and also in the successive waves of rent pressure zones, those short-term lets operating outside of planning law continue to operate outside of planning law. The reason for this - the Minister was not responsible for it - is that Eoghan Murphy did not put any effective enforcement mechanism into the 2019 regulations. Dublin city and Cork city attempted, very valiantly, to enforce the 2019 regulations but, unfortunately, because the burden of proof is so high when one goes into court, which is what ultimately had to happen, they were not able to proceed. Whatever one's view of short-term letting in urban and rural areas is, that has created a situation right across the country where, in the overwhelming majority of cases, short-term lets are operating outside of planning law. It is not a bad idea for the Government to introduce a register, subject to the details. It is not a bad idea for the Government to have a twin-track approach on the planning side by differentiating areas of high housing demand versus areas where there is a requirement for tourist accommodation. I would like to see the details of all of that. In the interim, a change is being made and the Minister seems to be suggesting that, from the day after this Bill passes, he is expecting local authorities to enforce the 2019 short-term letting regulations in the new areas coming under the RPZ rules. That is not possible. They are unenforceable. It would be better if we were just honest with people and dealt with short-term letting through Peter Burke's legislation and the Minister's new planning rules. I am just unclear what the Minister thinks will actually happen in that respect after this Bill passes.

Sentiment score: 0.08

That is not the proposal. I am asking for the Minister to clarify his position on it. That is all. It is a reasonable request. His own Government colleague from Fine Gael, Deputy Carrigy, the Chair of the housing committee, asked for the Minister to clarify and he ignored him as well as me.

Sentiment score: 0.03

That is not what I am calling for.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Just to be very clear, I am not calling for any legislative change. A set of regulations were introduced in 2019 that do not work and are completely unapplicable. That is why in Dublin, for example, where we need a very tough approach to unregulated short-term letting, we need new regulations. We have been calling for that for a long time. All I am asking the Minister to do is clarify his intentions, but it is clear. He seems to be suggesting he will expect local authorities to enforce a set of 2019 regulations that are utterly unenforceable. All I was asking for was clarity. I am not proposing any change to the legislation. Given it is a matter that many Government members of the housing committee raised, I was inviting the Minister as a courtesy to clarify it. Instead, he has decided to go off on some track to try to misrepresent the Opposition once again. That is his prerogative. It is an issue that, because of the rushed nature of this, he gave no consideration to. When we ask for clarification, he refuses to provide it, but that is the Minister's prerogative.

Sentiment score: 0.11

I move amendment No. 4: In page 3, line 27, to delete “28 February 2026” and substitute “23 June 2028”.

Sentiment score: -0.15

I move amendment No. 5: In page 4, line 11, to delete “28 February 2026” and substitute “23 June 2028”.

Sentiment score: -0.15

I move amendment No. 8: In page 4, line 14, to delete “28 February 2026” and substitute “23 June 2028”.

Sentiment score: -0.15

I move amendment No. 9: In page 4, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following: “Report on ban on rent increases 5. Within a week of the passing of this Bill the Minister for Housing will publish a report on the introduction of an emergency ban on rent increases for all private rental tenants, including existing tenancies, new tenancies in existing rental stock and new tenancies in new rental stock.”.

Sentiment score: -0.53