I support the Bill and I must acknowledge that many of the proposals are welcome in principle. Tenants across the country, and particularly in my constituency of Dublin Mid-West, have had a torrid time over the past 20 years with many people facing termination of tenancy with few viable options for alternative accommodation. We do need more protection and a simpler and more transparent system. While the Bill has some positive elements, I do not think it will go far enough. It will not lead to more homes being built or more homes in the right areas with transport, education, community and other facilities alongside them. The core problem in Dublin is the shortage of supply. In my constituency, more than any other part of Dublin, we have seen huge tracts of land already zoned. We are carrying the load, with tens of thousands of housing units zoned but insufficient building taking place. Alongside this, thanks to almost every political party in this Chamber, appalling decisions were made to benefit developers but not the people living in the areas who need the facilities. These areas will be ghettoised without proper transport, education and community infrastructure. We had a chance with Clonburris strategic development zone but a hames was made of it but this is another day's debate. In terms of assisting with supply, nothing in the Bill addresses barriers to construction such as costs, slow delivery, planning and other aspects. We have the gradual disappearance of smaller landlords, the type of people who are more likely to charge affordable rents in return for a reliable and, in one sense of the phrase, low-maintenance tenant. Instead, we are pushing the boat out for investor landlords, making it easier for them to hike up their rents. I get the logic, and I support the 2% rent freeze, but there is still a real risk that some of the measures could push up rents even higher. By exempting new units from certain caps, the Bill could end up creating a two-tier market, as others have said, whereby new developments can charge a lot more, even allowing for the consumer price index. This is something that will continue as long as demand massively outstrips supply and we could do more. There is also a credible concern that the Bill may paradoxically undermine security of tenure despite its stated aim of enhancing it. Restrictions on terminations are very welcome but they sit alongside provisions that may encourage landlords to reset tenancies more frequently than before in order to access the higher market rents. If the financial incentive tends to become stronger than the so-called regulatory disincentive, then tenants may find themselves less secure. We could see certain types of landlords and institutional landlords being more active in looking at ways at getting around the regulations or being flexible in terms of the definitions, such as for "refurbishment". For example, one of the grounds is termination for sale. The Bill does not require proof of actual timelines for listing the sale or specify the penalties for failure to complete a sale. That means a landlord can credibly issue a notice to sell even if it is not ultimately completed. We need to get tighter on that. Regarding the termination for substantial refurbishment, the Bill does not go too much into the definition of "substantial", so a landlord could plan works, provide contractor quotes, carry out limited works and then relet at a higher market rate. Where are the enforcement and inspection to make sure that a loophole is not going to be made? Then there are the own-use or family-use grounds, which are difficult to disprove. If the Bill does not require proof of occupation after the tenant leaves, minimum occupation periods and RTB follow-up checks, then there are going to be a lot of cracks to be falling through. The RTB is already not sufficiently funded. I know of one very dodgy landlord operating in my constituency who has multiple units that I have reported for not being registered with the RTB and for other planning issues. I am not naming names, but I am pointing out that two years later nothing has happened. That is an unfortunate situation. We will see the boundaries of the law being stretched unless we have rigorous enforcement. That is something we need to look at. Can the Minister of State give any guarantees that between Committee and Report Stages we are going to have actual guarantees for the enforcement of these rules? He might also respond to the point about the resourcing of the various bodies that will have to follow through on this. I have to acknowledge there is a lot of good stuff in the Bill but we need to make sure it is actually going to work rather than creating loopholes and leading to people paying higher rents down the line.

Sentiment score: 0.09