Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Mar 1999

Vol. 502 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Private Rented Sector.

Mr. Hayes

This week the Government announced the latest set of initiatives designed to respond to the growing housing emergency. It was another PR opportunity for a Government which is only now responding to the housing crisis following almost two years of inaction. While the Government shed crocodile tears for tenants facing an insecure future, the measures enacted to afford greater security and protection to the tenant have yet to be enforced. We have a proud history of enacting laws which are not enforced.

On the question of landlord registration, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has adopted a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach. If it is the intention in our housing policy to provide good quality and affordable accom modation for tenants within the private rented sector, it must surely follow that regulation of some description should be brought to bear on this sector. It was with this in mind that the last rainbow Government introduced legislation in 1996 requiring landlords to register with their appropriate local authority. The legislation made sense. By registering such property a start was to be made in terms of ensuring standards and value for money within a sector of the housing market which has always been regarded as a poor relation. Registration would not only seek to increase standards but was also designed to provide tenants with protection from unscrupulous landlords.

It is, therefore, unimaginable that a law which was passed by the Oireachtas has remained virtually unenforced since its enactment in 1996. This situation is nothing short of a scandal and reflects poorly on the Minister who has direct responsibility for housing policy. The Minister will, no doubt, argue that it is the responsibility of local authorities to enforce the law in this area. Indeed, at last week's Question Time, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, explained to me that he recently dispatched a letter from his Department to county managers informing them of their obligations under the registration law. A letter in nearly two years of office does not signify adequate ministerial action.

For the record, I would like to inform the House that between 75 and 80 per cent of all housing units in the private rented sector have yet to be registered. The latest figures released by the Department of the Environment and Local Government show an actual reduction in the number of registrations from 26,651 in June 1998 to 23,847 in September 1998. Similarly, the number of registered landlords has dropped in the same period from 15,951 to 13,779.

Since 1993 only 53 prosecutions have been taken against landlords for failing to comply with the housing regulations which were introduced that year. Local authorities, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Minister of State with responsibility for housing seem to have no difficulty in turning a blind eye to landlords who want to evade their legal responsibilities. What would happen if the Department of the Environment housing inspectors refused to inspect the standards that applied to newly built housing units? Would a public outcry be heard? The failure to apply existing law to the private rented sector would not be accepted in any other part of the housing market.

I understand that a case has been taken against the Department and the Minister in relation to the registration fee which is incurred when a landlord registers his property. The Minister should either challenge this through the courts or introduce amending legislation at once. If the £40 fee involved in each registration unit is such a major difficulty, a simple way of resolving the problem would be to abandon the registration fee altogether. What is important is the registration of property and not the potential for this scheme to be a revenue stream for local authorities.

It is quite obvious that the black economy is alive and well in the private rented sector. However, it is unacceptable that where health boards pay out huge sums of money for rent subsidy, no information on the landlord is ever transmitted from those health boards to the local authorities. It is a classic example of one public institution failing to communicate with another. I hope this Adjournment debate will propel the Minister into action and afford him the opportunity of enforcing law that is currently in place.

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

I thank Deputy Hayes for raising this important issue. My colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal, Deputy Molloy, is unable to be in the House this evening to respond to this debate, so I will do so on his behalf.

Local authorities, as housing authorities, are responsible for the enforcement of the Housing (Registration of Rented Houses) Regulations, 1996. As in the case of other responsibilities entrusted to local authorities, it is a matter for each authority to put in place arrangements to ensure the effective implementation of these and other regulations applying to private rented accommodation.

The requirement to register applies generally to rented dwellings with certain exceptions such as formerly rent controlled dwellings, temporary convenience lettings, lettings by State bodies, local authorities or certain approved voluntary bodies, lettings to family members by a landlord, or where there is a single letting in a house in which the landlord is resident.

An initial and an annual registration fee of £40 is payable by the landlord to the local authority per unit of accommodation. The fee generates an income to assist local authorities in carrying out their functions in relation to enforcement of the various statutory requirements relating to the private rented sector.

The range of enforcement measures available to local authorities include regular advertising of registration requirements, carrying out of inspections or other investigative procedures to identify unregistered houses, issuing individual reminders to landlords, issuing notices to landlords specifying a registration deadline and initiating prosecutions against known non-compliant landlords. It is regrettable that there is a significant level of non-compliance by landlords with the regulations and a concerted effort by many of them to evade their obligations in this connection. However there is no basis for the figure of 80 per cent non-compliance as claimed by the Deputy. He appears to be overlooking entirely that there are many rented dwellings to which the regulations do not apply and which are not required to be registered.

A number of factors have been cited as contributing to the failure by landlords to comply with their statutory obligation to register their rented dwellings. First, landlords' representative bodies have been opposed to the regulations since their inception, although their views were taken into account when the regulations were being drafted and some amendments were made on foot of their representations. Second, they have sought a judicial review of the regulations mainly on the basis of arguments put forward that the initial £40 registration fee is an arbitrary charge and represents additional taxation on landlords. The case is still before the High Court and is at the discovery stage. Its existence has been well publicised among landlords, many of whom, I understand, advance it as their reason for not registering when pursued by local authorities.

The Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal is concerned to see an improved level of compliance with the provisions of the regulations and, to this end, local authorities have been regularly urged by the Department to take all steps open to them to secure compliance by landlords with the regulations. The latest instruction in this regard issued to local authorities as recently as mid-January 1999.