Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Nov 2012

Vol. 784 No. 1

Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Michael McNamara

As I was saying before the adjournment of the debate, I welcome the increase in the number of inspections of private rented accommodation across the country. I thank the Department for publishing the number on its website. I will focus on County Clare because it is the constituency that I represent. In 2005, there were no inspections of private rented accommodation in the county. By 2006, the number had increased to 174. In 2007 and 2008, the numbers were 197 and 134, respectively. In 2009, there was a jump to 601 inspections. In 2010 and 2011, the numbers were 450 and 355, respectively. The jump was occasioned by the increase in revenues provided by the then Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to local authorities to carry out those inspections.

In the examination of the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report by the Committee of Public Accounts, the methodology of and criteria for activity-based inspections were outlined. I was glad to note that local authorities were asked to identify the particular areas and categories of accommodation being targeted for inspection on the basis of the risk they posed of not complying with the regulations, for example, older, dilapidated properties, properties that are subject to rent supplement payments, properties at the lower end of the rental market and properties not registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. The latter is an interesting conundrum. If a property is not registered with the PRTB, it is difficult to know how it might be identified by the local authority.

I wish to focus on properties that are the subject of rent supplement payments. As I outlined yesterday, properties have come to my attention. It is a matter of concern to many Deputies, including myself, that State moneys would be expended in the form of rent supplement on inadequate properties. We are all aware of the pressures in the rental sector. There is a fierce debate on whether the reduction in the rent supplement is forcing rents down and whether a number of landlords are refusing to accept rent supplement.

It would be a source of particular concern to me and many Members of this House if rent supplement was paid in respect of properties which did not meet the required standards. While I welcome the increase in inspection of rented accommodation and acknowledge the constraints on local authorities currently, the number of inspections could and should be increased dramatically in light of anecdotal evidence of many landlords not bringing their properties up to standard. It would also create employment in the building sector.

Deputy John Halligan

Data from the 2011 census published by the Central Statistics Office revealed significant growth in the number of rented households between 2006 and 2011. The rate of home ownership dropped from 74.7% to 69.7%, and I have no doubt the figure has dropped again since the information was collated. The need to properly regulate the private rented sector has never been more important. However, this Bill is a missed opportunity to address some well-known and well-documented problems which tenants and landlords face, namely, by bringing in line this useless quango, and that is what I call the Private Residential Tenancies Board.

Although demand for the services of the PRTB is constantly increasing, the board has never lived up to its promise eight years ago of replacing the courts in most disputes in the private rented sector. All the evidence and the facts show that. For instance, the rules for termination of tenancies are a legal minefield. Even after a dispute has been determined by the PRTB, there is no guarantee whatsoever of compliance by either party. I am increasingly hearing of cases coming before the Circuit Court, and I am sure the Minister of State may be too, to enforce a PRTB order, adding further cost and delay to an already difficult process.

The PRTB is supposed to provide a dispute resolution mechanism in a timely manner to both landlords and tenants. In practice, it is taking shy of one year in some cases for this organisation to get even a hearing in place. Both landlords and tenants urgently need a system to fast track resolutions, as was promised originally. However, the PRTB dispute resolution procedure rarely facilitates fast outcomes and this Bill fails to set a statutory timeframe within which a determination order should be issued following an application to the PRTB for resolution. This is of no help to the landlord who has been left short weeks or months of rent and who is struggling to repay a buy-to-let mortgage. It is certainly of no help to the tenant whose deposit has been unlawfully withheld by the landlord, and I understand that the withholding of deposits by landlords accounts for almost three quarters of all complaints by tenants to the PRTB. The Minister of State said she would bring forward an amendment to identify a system to address the problem of deposit retention. That was indicated in the programme for Government. What is the status of that amendment?

Based on some cases in which I have been involved, the PRTB is totally ineffective in dealing with anti-social behaviour among tenants. One of the functions of the PRTB was supposed to be to deal with anti-social behaviour in private rented houses but, in effect, it is actually discouraging people from coming forward about anti-social behaviour because it insists that the people who make the allegations or complaints reveal their identity if they wish to make a complaint about one of their neighbours. I know of an instance where a person is living with threats of violence and intimidation and where drug dealing is going on openly in the street every day. I have encountered several cases along these lines. The last thing those people want to do is to go public. I know decent people who are living in hell because of anti-social behaviour and the PRTB is doing absolutely nothing about it. There is little on record of it evicting people, dealing with the tenants involved in anti-social behaviour or dealing with landlords. All the facts are there and the Minister of State can look at them. At the very least, the PRTB should accept a situation where public representatives or the Garda can make a complaint on behalf of a resident.

Given the many shortcomings of the PRTB, is it worth maintaining this organisation? Either the Government brings forward proper legislation which will effectively deal with the many problems facing landlords and tenants or it should abolish the PRTB as just another quango.

Many landlords are not registered. What effort is the PRTB making in this regard? It was put in place to ensure landlords were registered. In regard to the quality of accommodation, if one gets a local authority house or accommodation under the local authority rental accommodation scheme, the local authority will check the quality of accommodation. What is the role of the PRTB in that regard? As far as I know, it does not check accommodation.

In regard tax compliance, I know many landlords who have five or six houses and they stuff ten or 12 students or people into them. They are not checked by the PRTB. I could bring the Minister of State to places in Waterford and show her five or six such places. Nobody knows whether these landlords pay tax on their earnings and the PRTB is useless in that regard. In private estates - this has been well-documented - there is no recourse whatsoever in regard to anti-social behaviour. What is the purpose of the PRTB in the first place?

Originally, there was a dedicated officer in city councils who dealt with anti-social behaviour in private estates, who would check to see if landlords were registered and tax compliant and who could check the quality of the accommodation people were living in. The Bill, although well-meant, will do absolutely nothing to ensure landlords are tax compliant and provide quality accommodation and to deal with the very serious effects of anti-social behaviour. Individuals buy up seven or eight houses, rent them out and do not even live in the constituency.

If I had my way, I would abolish the PRTB. I will table a question next week to find out the cost of running the PRTB and how many people are employed by it and its effectiveness in dealing with all the points I have made. We should really consider going back to the local authority which is best placed to deal with problems in private housing estates because one has someone on the ground living in the city, county or town. The PRTB is not on the ground in constituencies and it works from an office in Dublin. It is out of touch with what is happening in estates all over the country.

Deputy Seamus Healy

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Private rented accommodation is a growth area which needs to be regulated properly. House ownership has begun to fall, as my colleague, Deputy Halligan, said. Until now the Private Residential Tenancies Board has been ineffective, in particular in areas with anti-social behaviour and in terms of retention of deposits, rent arrears, inspections and standards. The elephant in the room is the fact that local authority housing and State provision of housing are not covered by the Bill. This Government, like the last one, has effectively abolished the whole area of State provision of housing for housing applications. This Bill does not cover local authority tenants. It should be noted that 98,318 households are waiting for accommodation.

That is an increase of 75% since 1991. It is even more interesting to note that the number of households waiting for three years and more for housing is 36,277, the number waiting five years and more is 16,239 and the number waiting seven years and more is 5,508. That is an acknowledgement of the complete failure of the State to provide housing for its citizens. In that context, it is unacceptable that the State should divest itself of responsibility for the provision of housing for housing applicants. There is no local authority house building programme at present. There has not been one since this Government took office, nor was there such a programme for a number of years under the previous Government. That is unacceptable and should be changed. Housing should be provided by the State for housing applicants who simply cannot provide housing from their own resources.

In addition to building houses, I would have no difficulty with the State purchasing many of the houses it has leased under the long-term leasing scheme and the rental accommodation scheme. It is extraordinary that the State is, effectively, prepared to pay the mortgages of private landlords. At the end of the lease period these houses will return to the landlords after the State having paid the mortgage on their behalf over a period of years. The provision of housing accommodation for the 98,318 households that are not in a position to provide housing from their own resources should be undertaken by the State, and the current policy should be reversed.

This Bill must be significantly amended as it proceeds through the Oireachtas. It must be strengthened in a range of areas. Local authority tenants should be brought into this system. The Private Residential Tenancies Board should be properly funded and staffed to ensure it is effective. Local authority tenants are entitled to the same rights as other tenants. However, they currently effectively have no appeal system and in the event of a complaint or a difference of opinion with the local authority they are left to refer their situation to the Ombudsman. That is unacceptable.

The staffing and funding of the Private Residential Tenancies Board are crucial. If the board is not funded or staffed properly it will be unable to safeguard the rights of tenants. Sadly, that has been the situation up to now. The board has not been effective in delivering for tenants. The number of complaints by tenants to the board is significant and 72% of the complaints relate to the retention of deposits. That does not appear to be covered in the Bill but it might, and should, be dealt with as the Bill proceeds through the Stages. This is an area of huge contention but is one in which the board has not been effective. It is an area that must be fully regulated. Where the board has made a decision on those complaints, approximately 80% of the deposits have been returned to the tenant, indicating that the preponderance of right is with the tenant in these cases.

I acknowledge the work done by the voluntary housing agencies or the approved housing bodies, AHBs, as they are now called. When I was a councillor they were voluntary housing agencies or associations. Respond! Housing Association, Clúid Housing Association, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and various local voluntary housing agencies have provided housing throughout the country and should be commended for that.

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to an issue that is not part of this legislation but which applies to legislation generally and is something Members of this House must examine. It is the question of how agencies such as the Private Residential Tenancies Board, Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, and others deal with public representatives. There is significant difficulty for elected representatives, be they Members of the Oireachtas or local authority councillors, in supporting their constituents in respect of contact with these agencies. I will quote a reply to a representation I made to SUSI on behalf of a constituent. This also applies to this legislation as it is an issue that has arisen repeatedly, particularly in recent years. The reply states: "Many thanks for your query. This application is currently awaiting review and should be reviewed within two weeks. We will contact the applicant directly with the outcome." There is a tendency on the part of these agencies if not to refuse to deal with elected representatives certainly to do so on a minimal basis. That is unacceptable. Members of this House and local authority members have been requested and authorised by constituents to raise queries and it should be made clear to these agencies that such representatives should be facilitated in making representations.

Earlier, I referred to the issue of staffing and registration. Despite the fact that this Bill will create a significant amount of additional work for the Private Residential Tenancies Board, it appears that current employment policy will ensure that the number of people working for the board will be reduced. Will the Minister confirm if that is the case? The current staffing of the board is approximately 70 and it is suggested that it will be reduced to 33. Will the Minister deal with that and confirm that proper funding and staffing will be put in place to support the board in fulfilling the statutory responsibilities it will have arising from this legislation?

There is also the issue of the registration fee of €90. The voluntary housing agencies have indicated that there is considerable difficulty with the payment of this fee.

I ask the Minister of State to examine it. I have a concern that agencies will have difficulty in payment of the fee. I have a serious concern that the fee will be transferred to the tenants so a further household charge will be payable by tenants.

I draw the attention of the Minister of State to rent supplement and the widespread practice where tenants are forced to pay a top-up to landlords. It is widespread throughout the country and is unacceptable. It should be dealt with without delay either in this legislation or in whatever other manner is necessary. I draw the attention of the Minister of State to the mortgage to rent scheme, even though it is not addressed in the Bill. There is considerable difficulty with the scheme, which is not being operated by the banks. Other Deputies had a difficulty in pursuing the scheme on behalf of constituents. I asked the Minister of State to examine this to see the changes necessary to ensure it is properly operated by the banks and available to people.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

Deputy Barry Cowen raised this matter as a topical issue yesterday.

Deputy Joe Carey

I propose to share time with Deputy John Paul Phelan. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2009 provide the regulatory framework for the private rented residential sector and the operation of the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. I welcome the amending Bill, which extends the remit of the Act to tenancies in the voluntary housing sector, streamlines and simplifies administrative processes, reduces the size of the board from 15 to 12 members and introduces measures to increase the take-up of mediation services. I welcome that the Minister of State has pointed out that she is prepared to include other issues related to housing on Committee Stage. In that regard, I welcome her opening remarks.

In the context of the legislation, I want to bring one issue to the attention of officials and the Minister of State. I refer to the anomaly whereby the structures and tools available to the authorities in dealing with anti-social behaviour in private rented accommodation are not robust enough. In some cases, State bodies are providing rent supplement without vetting or investigation of prospective tenants. A blank cheque is issued, which is not the case when local authorities provide housing. A minority of tenancies cause serious problems but their impact on everyone else is increasingly significant. The issue must be dealt with.

In July, the following notice of motion was unanimously passed by Ennis Town Council, having been proposed by Independent Councillor Michael Guilfoyle:

That Ennis Town Council write to our Clare Oireachtas members to ask them to put in place legislation that would protect tenants in rented accommodation from unscrupulous landlords, and in turn landlords be made accountable for the behaviour of their tenants. The H.S.E. should be instructed to view a tenancy agreement prior to sanctioning rent subsidy.

We need to see more action taken. The notice of motion sums it up and I forwarded it to the Minister of State who indicated she would take action and that this Bill could be used as a vehicle to it address the anomaly. All local authorities have adopted anti-social behaviour strategies in accordance with the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. Each strategy applies to the administration by a council of dwellings in its ownership, dwellings subject to rental accommodation availability agreements and tenants' purchases of dwellings. However, the strategy does not apply to private rented accommodation and, therefore, councils have no legislative powers in this regard. Rent supplement is administered by the community welfare service, which is attached to the Department of Social Protection. The community welfare service is only responsible for the payment of rent supplement and is not responsible for dealing with anti-social behaviour. Responsibility for rent supplement will be transferred to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government over the coming years. I ask that the standards applied to local authority housing be brought to bear immediately on those associated with rent supplement. As it stands, anti-social behaviour in private rented accommodation is a matter for individual landlords and the Garda Síochána. This is not a sufficiently robust system. The Garda Síochána and landlords say they need the help of the people affected by anti-social behaviour in order to do something. I can understand this perspective but it is difficult to act as a witness or complainant in the circumstances where one must continue to live beside those about whom one has complained. The current tools are not robust enough.

I asked the Minister of State to examine best practice elsewhere in Europe, how one becomes a tenant there and the vetting standards elsewhere. According to the 2011 census, the private rental sector houses some 19% of all households. Of 305,000 households in the private rented market, 92,000, or 31% of the market, involves rent supplement. In broad terms, I welcome the Bill as it has been presented but I ask the Minister of State to revisit the legislation on Committee Stage with a view to applying standards applicable to local authorities to the private rented accommodation sector, which will come under the remit of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in the near future.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

I welcome the legislation. I echo the comments of previous speakers in respect of what this Bill is trying to achieve and the inclusion of the main items. I welcome the inclusion of the voluntary and co-operative housing sector under the terms of the Housing Acts, which is a step in the right direction. The reduction in size of the Private Residential Tenancies Board from 15 to 12, the measures to increase take-up of mediation as a form of resolving disputes between landlords and tenants and the formal merger of the rent tribunal with the Private Residential Tenancies Board are welcome.

The Minister of State with responsibility for housing is prepared, during the course of discussion on the Bill, to examine the topic of rent arrears and a deposit protection scheme. As a number of speakers pointed out, the major source of contention between landlords and tenants since the establishment of the board seems to be the retention of deposits. Almost three quarters of the difficulties arising between landlords and tenants relate to retention of deposits.

I also note from information supplied that the activities of the board itself, despite comments by previous speakers, have been impressive. It has managed to increase the number of cases being dealt with and there has been a significant reduction in waiting times for the resolution of difficulties by the board. That is to be welcomed.

I hope the Minister of State, in her concluding remarks, will give an outline of how she intends to deal with the matter of the retention of deposits by landlords. Historically, 72% of complaints to the board have been in this area. The Minister of State has indicated her willingness to amend the Bill to include some provisions in this area. She might enlighten us as to what she intends to do.

I agree with Deputy Carey and others who spoke about anti-social behaviour. A difficulty exists for families in private rented accommodation making a complaint against a neighbour. It is difficult to make a formal complaint while continuing to live adjacent to the subject of the complaint. Existing provisions are not adequate in this regard and even have the potential to aggravate an already difficult situation. If tenants are engaging in consistent anti-social behaviour there needs to be a safer mechanism for neighbours to register a complaint and to ensure that prolonged transgressions will not be accepted. People have an expectation, which is not unreasonable, to live in peace and quiet in their own homes. This goes to the heart of what the Private Residential Tenancies Board was envisaged to do, which is to resolve disputes and allow people to get on with their lives.

More and more people are now renting privately and all indications are that we will see a significant increase in private renting in the future. More people will decide not to purchase their own homes, or will not be in a position to do so, but will live for longer in private rented accommodation. Many parts of the capital city and other parts of the country have, traditionally, seen large numbers of private rented units. In other parts of the country there has been a high turn-over, with people in college or in certain employments living in private rented accommodation for a limited number of years and, over time, moving on and buying their own homes somewhere else. We are going to see a significant increase in the number of people living in private rented accommodation in the long term.

As a public representative, I have come across an increase in the difficulties caused by anti-social behaviour. There is an inadequacy in local government and within existing legislation to deal with some of these very difficult situations. The Bill, or some further legislation in the not too distant future, could be used to ensure a more satisfactory regime for resolving some of these ongoing difficulties.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There has, clearly, been a policy switch to go along with the change in the choices people are making because of what has happened in the property market. It is appropriate that we have legislation to govern the rented sector.

The Bill might work in principle. I ask if it will work in practice. I am not filled with confidence in the Private Residential Tenancies Board. If constituents come to me with a tenancy problem, such as a tenant being unable to recover a deposit or a landlord being unable to collect rent, I advise them to go to the Private Residential Tenancies Board, but with the health warning that they should not expect anything to happen for at least 12 months. That is not a solution for people. One of the biggest elements of the problem has been the non-return of deposits. The setting up of a deposit scheme, separate from the board, will address this issue, but it must do so. The board has lost credibility. It is overloaded with work and the number of staff is insufficient to deal with complaints in a timely manner.

We are brilliant at creating problems and then trying to resolve them. Many problems have arisen with the centralising of systems. We remember the medical card fiasco. The SUSI third level grants fiasco is ongoing. While the centralising of this service for the private rental sector was, in principle, not a bad idea, it does not work in practice. Responsibility for certain problems was shifted from local authorities to the board, but many of these problems were not being resolved at local authority level in the first place. It would be useful to take a look at the capacity of this organisation to deliver. If it does not deliver to the growing private rental sector, problems will arise that will have to be resolved down the line.

The board must have credibility. People will judge it very quickly. If they find it does not resolve their problems, they will see no point in going to it. If the board takes a ridiculous length of time to resolve a problem, people will dismiss it. We are told it will take, typically, two to three months for one of the tribunals to hear an appeal. Can we honestly say that? What arrangements were considered to ensure this is the timeframe we are talking about? Two to three months is not unreasonable, but more than that would be. Organisation must match the legislation. Let us not fool people. I do not have a problem with some of the initiatives in principle but I question whether they will work in practice.

There is a great variety of housing associations and co-operatives. Some are very strict and some are so loose that residents have had to take on the entire responsibility for management. They cannot get insurance and have had to do major repairs because the governance element of the housing association has all but disappeared. In others, a tenant may not hang a picture on the wall without applying for permission in duplicate. This variety is going to cause us a problem.

Legacy issues will present the Private Residential Tenancies Board with a new range of problems that have not been encountered so far. The biggest problem I have come across in the private rented sector is in the area of rent capping.

The Taoiseach said in the Dáil a few weeks ago, when someone said top ups were being paid, that those people were breaking the law by topping up but the rent caps in some parts of the country are so far below market rents that they will lead to families being made homeless. I have been speaking to the Minister for Social Protection about this for the past year. The problem manifests itself in different ways throughout the country but in an area like north Kildare, where some places are part of the Dublin commuter belt, it is not possible to find property to rent for the amount allowed under the rent cap.

In Threshold's report for last year, 61% of clients surveyed reported their landlords sought additional top up payments. The new arrangement, a good idea in principle, avoids two application processes to get rent assistance, whereby a person must be an approved housing applicant to then get rent assistance. It will go to the local authorities and it is likely there will be issues like this appearing at the Private Residential Tenancies Board as a consequence. We must be realistic about what is happening. My experience in north Kildare is that almost everyone is topping up. Those who are not have been in their accommodation for many years and have a good relationship with the landlord.

People have a notion that individuals end up homeless but I am talking about families with children. I am told by parents that they have ten weeks to find new accommodation and it is impossible to find a place in the area. They will have to take their children out of school and move to another part of the county or even the country. We will end up with families in hostels being shown on "Prime Time" and speaking on "Liveline" before the penny drops. We want to avoid this at all costs but it has already started. This is the issue that crops up most in my constituency office and is the one issue I feel completely frustrated in doing something about. There is no advice we can give people on this. The Taoiseach said these people are doing something illegal and we must pass on the information if they are topping up. There are so many people doing it that we all know it is happening.

Another issue that crops up is how to find rented accommodation, even more than deposits, which is a problem in towns like Maynooth where there is a lot of student accommodation. A further issue is anti-social behaviour, where one family can cause misery for everyone around them. If we move to a system where people can be moved on only to cause the same problems elsewhere, we are not dealing with the problem. We must change the culture if tenure is going to change. Landlords must see this as a long-term issue. On the other side, there must be a realistic mechanism for dealing with anti-social behaviour, which happens in private rented and local authority accommodation. It is a small number of people but they cause major problems.

Delays are a big issue in the private rental market. There will be an increased demand for the services of the PRTB while the number of staff will be reduced from 50 to 35 this year alone. How can there be a better service with less people when there is already a problem? This must work in practice because there is no point in just having good principles. If we can deal with issues through mediation rather than the courts, it would be preferable. It is less costly and more accessible to people who would not have the funding to undertake a court case. The mediated approach is a good idea but it must work in practice.

Someone mentioned the need for anti-social behaviour strategies in local authorities. We have a lot of organisations and institutions that must have strategies but there is no point in having them if they are not used. We have a resistance to doing things on a multi-agency basis. Often problems require multi-agency solutions and I would like to see something in that respect in addition to the PRTB being initiated. Often training is needed, including for tenants, and there might be Garda or HSE involvement. That is part of the governance solution that must be considered if we are to change the choices people make. If issues are dealt with comprehensively, it often needs more time for the agencies but this approach offers a longer term solution, which is to everyone's benefit.

The Threshold report was useful because it showed the shift in tenure and much of that shift was economic. People no longer feel the need to get on to the property ladder, they are now happy to rent. This is not just about having a roof over a person's head, it must be someone's home as well. The notion that the tenant cannot even paint a wall must be changed, so people can make a place into a home rather than just a temporary arrangement, particularly when children and schools are involved, and landlords can see the long-term nature of the tenancy. Often, landlords are willing to take less of a rent if they are satisfied with the arrangement and the person is looking after the house. We must get to a point where that is seen as a return on the investment people made in the property, often as a form of pension.

This is a changing area and other issues will crop up.

We have not even begun to talk about the shared ownership loan. Many of those houses will come back into the hands of the local authorities because there will not be the ability to fund the other side of the mortgage, particularly for people who got the loans at the upper end of the age scale. They will not have the time in their working lives to assume the other side, nor do I believe there will be the finance to offer people. I believe that group of people will end up back with houses within the local authority stock.

I rang a number of auctioneers in my area to find out why they will not get involved with rent assistance. Essentially they said that it is too complicated to deal with the centralised system where the rent assistance is allocated. It is so complicated that it is completely off-putting for them and they feel they would be unable to remedy the situation if the rent was not paid.

Rights that have been developed over time in the rental sector are being circumvented by some of the policies applied under rent assistance. A person, who has been in a house for five years, assumes a certain number of weeks' notice to quit that property. However, a person on rent assistance will be told he or she has 13 weeks to find somewhere else even though the tenant may have a legal entitlement to six months' notice. However, the Department is breaking the contract by virtue of being unable to pay. So one side of the Government is granting people rights, but the other side is interfering with those rights, which is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently. The Government cannot demand of people, who are in the private sector and not getting rent assistance, that they respect the rights that are on the Statute Book while at the same time intervening in a way that infringes on those rights with pretty devastating consequences for many families.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I wish to share time with Deputy Áine Collins.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

This is an issue of special interest to every Member. I agree with many of the opinions expressed by Deputy Catherine Murphy in this regard. I do not agree with the shift towards private rental as opposed to reliance on the local authority system, to which we have become accustomed for many years. The old system had far greater stability with far greater commitment of the individual to the house. People believed it was their entitlement to own their house at some stage. That has all been put in abeyance because of developments in the housing sector in the past ten years or so. I do not blame those who are now in opposition who were responsible for allowing that to happen.

However, we have imported the worst practices from the UK which have been found to be most punitive for the tenants, most unreliable in meeting the housing needs of people and most expensive for the tenants. It has not necessarily been of any great benefit to the landlords either. Extraordinarily, at a time when it should not have happened at all, 100,000 families are now on local authority waiting lists, which is an absolute disgrace. None of those families has the possibility in the foreseeable future of being housed by anybody. The suggestion is that they be referred to private rented accommodation in the meantime. However, when the market tightens up, as it invariably does, those people have nowhere to go or else the rent is increased in which case the Department of Social Protection must take responsibility for doing the job of the local authorities.

I also attribute some blame to the local authorities in recent years for what I regard as resiling from their responsibilities on housing gradually and inexorably. The system is disorganised and dispute-ridden. The dispute resolution mechanism does not seem to work. It is heavily bureaucratised in its paperwork requirements resulting in countless people in countless offices having to pore over countless application forms containing ridiculous questions such as "Where were you born?" and "What is your language?" Two or three lines further down the same question is asked under a different guise. I do not know what has happened, but we now have serious issues.

Deputy Catherine Murphy made reference to the shared-ownership scheme, which is an appalling morass. People entered that scheme on the basis that it was a flexible scheme, which, incidentally, was also imported from the UK. They were advised that part of the equity would be subject to their ongoing mortgage interest payments etc., with which there is no problem. The other part of the equity was based on rental. They were told clearly and repeatedly that the only requirement there was that they would have to pay rental on that part of the equity and they would be obliged within 25 years to enter into an agreement to purchase the second half of the equity, but nothing more than that. Over the years that was changed, by whom I do not know. However, now they must purchase the second part of the equity in the 25 years. That was never intended and people were misled. It is utterly crazy and cannot be done. The result is that the rental part of the equity in terms of cost to the tenant exceeds the purchase part, which is also utterly crazy. It just does not add up. Those vulnerable people in that sector of the housing market are being punished for being there. They are being caught between the State on the one hand and the private sector on the other, which is appalling.

Some years ago in this House we decided it would be beneficial to everybody to simplify the language used in drafting Bills. In terms of simplicity personified, section 4(5) states:

(5) The Table to section 34 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph 4:

“4A.—In the case of a dwelling referred to in section 3(4)(a) (inserted by section 3 of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2012[this one]), the dwelling or the property containing that dwelling is to be returned to the public authority, referred to in section 3(2A) (inserted by section 3 of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2012), concerned because the period for which that dwelling or property was let to the approved housing body concerned will, in accordance with the tenancy, between the approved housing body and the public authority, expire within 6 months of the service of the notice of termination under this section and that tenancy between the public authority and the approved housing body is not being renewed.”.

The case rests there. Even Deputy O'Dea would be dumbfounded by that one. I have never seen anything like that in my life and I have been in this House for a few years now. It is utterly incredible. I do not criticise the Minister of State because I am quite sure she did not draft it herself. That section must be the ultimate in terms of trying to confound and confuse everybody.

I wish to refer briefly to a number of points made by previous speakers, one being the question of anti-social behaviour. It has become an appalling problem in both public and private residential areas. It must be remembered there are those who, by virtue of having no commitment to a dwelling or to their or their children's future in that dwelling, think they can do what they like and they make life utterly unbearable for their neighbours. The time has come when they must have responsibility for their actions. We cannot allow such behaviour by people whether they have a drug addiction or some other problem. We must help out where we can but we go on indefinitely allowing the dumbing down of residential areas by virtue of the anti-social activity of a minority of people.

I wish to refer the voluntary housing agencies in particular which are covered under the Bill. Many voluntary housing agencies do good work but I have serious issues with the formation of agencies under the capital allowance scheme where the State bought and paid for properties and handed them over, free gratis, to voluntary agencies whose only responsibility is to collect the rents and they get a grant from the State to carry out maintenance on an annual basis. We imported that model from the UK. It is possibly the most irresponsible thing that was ever done by legislators. I cannot believe that it happened. Some of these agencies are reliable, responsible and good but some are not. Some of them do not operate at all and some operate in a very haphazard fashion. It is their intention in some quarters to acquire the properties in their own right at some stage in the future. There are currently moves afoot to do that and careful attention is being paid to the day that will dawn when they will be able to do that and challenge the State. This kind of thing is outrageous. Waiting in the wings is the most appalling scam in this area that will occur in the next ten or 15 years if it is allowed to continue.

I have spoken to the Minister of State about this and she understands this quite well. This is not a criticism of her because she and her colleagues inherited this problem but something has got to be done about this as a matter of urgency. Where the State has bought and paid for something, it has a right to own it and if it wants to let a property to a tenant, it has the right to do that while being responsible, upfront and direct in the first instance and not handing it over to somebody else to administer it. I blame the local authorities, to some extent, for allowing this to happen as well and they, in turn, will blame the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government over the same period, but whoever was to blame we are now in a difficult, doubtful and dangerous situation. There are more than 30,000 houses held in this fashion by various voluntary bodies throughout the country. Some of them administer well, some do not administer at all, some have not met for years and some have no structure - there is no accountability, they do not collect rent or do anything. It is appalling. I hope that in the course of this debate there will be an opportunity to review the entire scheme with a view to finding out to what extent the State can protect itself because we have had enough inquiries in recent years. We can prevent something of this nature, we should do it and we should do so now.

I wish to refer to the point made by Deputy Catherine Murphy on the rent support scheme as it currently applies. I have always believed that the Department of Social Protection should not be forced to the extent it is forced to support the rental system. The State through the local authorities should be providing housing for people who are within that income bracket. That was always the case and it worked very well. A general ceiling on rents is applied across a whole area but that does not work because there are variations within areas that make it virtually impossible for somebody to acquire a house that falls within that rent level. People then start to top up the amount and those with relatives or friends to pay the top-up can be housed but those who do not have that facility cannot. They are on the point of being homeless and will be made homeless. I ask the Minister of State to bear that in mind.

Another issue regarding the voluntary housing agencies is how the rent is determined. The local authority has a system whereby the net income is taken into account in determining the rent but some voluntary housing agencies have a system whereby the gross income is used to determine the rent level. It is appalling to have such a variation in that system and I do not know for what purpose that is done. This is another area that requires urgent attention and there is provision in the Bill to do that. It is the one aspect of this complicated legislation that I welcome.

I wish to refer to an issue on which I have spoken in the House on many occasions over the years, as has the Acting Chairman. We need to achieve some level of reliability, continuity and safeguards in the interests of people who become tenants in the future. The more we move away from that, the more short-term rental accommodation we introduce in the country, the more disorganised our society will become and the more vulnerable people will feel in rental accommodation because if they lose their job they may have to move on quickly and their children will have to attend new schools. They may not be able to get accommodation where they want to get it and as a result the whole social structure of the lives of those families will be seriously undermined. There is a huge area we as legislators need to attend to as a matter of urgency and I would like to have an opportunity to comment further on this on Committee Stage.

Deputy Áine Collins

This Bill is an addition to the regulations provided for in the Private Residential Tenancies Act 2004. That Act and the Private Residential Tenancies Board have achieved considerable success since 2004 and this Bill adds to that. The whole housing market has changed dramatically since 2004, we have gone through the worst boom and bust in any housing market in the world. Irish people, traditionally, have been very attached to owning property, both personally and for investment purposes. This mindset is beginning to change rapidly because of recent events. Up until now we had very few professional landlords in the residential market, few investors who sought to stay in the rental market over the longer period and few investors who worked to give their tenants long term security of tenure. This is now changing. Many young couples will not be able to purchase a home in the foreseeable future. With changes in lifestyles and job mobility, many others may opt for good, well-controlled rental accommodation with security of tenure.

Given the difficulty in getting mortgages along with the fall in incomes, many people may never be in a position to purchase their own homes. Traditionally, these people would opt for social housing of one kind or another. For middle income families this is not an option. They are earning slightly too much to qualify for social housing but too little to get a mortgage under the strict criteria now being enforced by banks. The increase in private rental housing is inevitably going to increase to meet this demand. This new market is now going to become more vibrant. For that reason it is essential that the Government lays down very clear guidelines as to the standard of private residential properties available for rent.

The market will provide some safeguards for tenants. Professional landlords will see the advantage of providing good accommodation at a competitive price along with security of tenure. This, in turn, will guarantee the landlords stable and long-term rental income. This approach will enable households to access good quality housing appropriate to their household circumstances and in a community of their choice.

The Government's housing policy statement published in June 2011 marked a profound change in the State approach to housing policy. It takes account of the dramatic cycle of growth and collapse of the residential property market. It places explicit emphasis on choice and equality across all housing tenures.

Due to recent events and Government policy, there will be a move from focusing on the promotion of home ownership. Other forms of good quality secure housing under the private rental system will become a real alternative.

While many people, perhaps a majority, will aspire to home ownership, other households may not want or may not be in a position to own their own homes. As the Minister of State said, a well-balanced housing sector requires a strong, vibrant and well-regulated rental sector as an integral part of our housing policy for the future. The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 forms the basis for this legislation. This amendment adds to the 2004 legislation and the work of the PRTB. The Bill will extend the remit of the Residential Tenancies Act to approved housing bodies such as Respond!, Clúid, and many more. This is a welcome development but there is still one major step to be taken. At some stage in the near future local authority housing must be brought within the remit of the tenancies legislation. The reason I presume this is not being done at this stage is due to the nature of some local authority housing stock. Some of the stock, particularly older houses, is not up to current day standards. There are many reasons for this, including a lack of funding from central government, lower rents paid to local authorities than in the voluntary housing sector, a lack of resources to provide adequate advice and help to disadvantaged families, and a lack of enforcement of responsibilities of tenants in some local authority estates.

If local authorities are to be the inspection agency for private rental accommodation, they must first get their own affairs in order. They must, as quickly as possible, be brought under the same regulatory authority as private rental accommodation. Local authorities will need assistance from central government to help them ensure the required standards for rental housing are achieved. In providing the required inspection services for the rental housing sector local authorities must be able to enforce the intentions of the Government and the Minister of State, which are expressed in various tenancies Bills. We need to improve the quality and standards of rental accommodation and provide a greater deal of security for tenants and landlords. I commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

Deputy Durkan stated the dispute resolution system does not work and I must say I concur absolutely with this sentiment. The difficulty I have is that it will not work as a result of this Bill either. I have no objection to the provisions of the Bill in principle, and I support it in so far as it goes, but my difficulty is that it does not go very far. This is now a vital area of the economy.

The 2004 Act was pioneering legislation, introduced at a time when the only recourse for people in rental disputes was the courts. This was fine for multi-million commercial tenancies but not appropriate for the private rented sector. The 2004 Act set out to establish a cheaper and supposedly speedier alternative system through which people could have their problems resolved quickly. It also set out to provide a certain security of tenure to tenants and to outline in as clear terms as possible the obligations of landlords. As with any pioneering legislation we were aware when we prepared it that it might not work in practice, and that its implementation would certainly give rise to certain difficulties we were not able to foresee at the time of drafting because it was a radical departure. In light of this we decided the legislation would be reviewed after five years. The review was put in place as promised and it was clear certain aspects of the legislation were not working as intended.

In addition to this, there had been a substantial change in the reality of what we were dealing with in the interim period. In 2006, 323,000 people were in private rental accommodation. This figure jumped dramatically to almost 500,000 last year, which was an increase of almost 50%. At present, approximately one in five people occupying houses are renting privately. This is a sea change. The context for this is that one in five mortgages are under water. Obviously the private residential tenancy sector will grow, and reference has been made to the buy to rent scheme which is not working. I hope the Government will manage to get it off the ground fairly quickly because many people come to me under the illusion it is working. It is not working and it is not an option. Inevitably the private residential tenancy sector will increase because of the difficulties we have with mortgage arrears.

We are trying to amend complex legislation to make the system simpler and more user-friendly while the market segment in question is growing. If the Bill is the response to this, I find it extremely disappointing. The Bill changes the name of the Private Presidential Tenancies Board to the residential tenancies board. This is hardly radical. It reduces membership of the board from 15 to 12 so we will have fewer jobs for the boys, which is fine, but I do not see what it will do for landlords, tenants or the sector as a whole. It will reduce the quorum for board meetings from five to four. My goodness, I am underwhelmed. It reduces the dispute cooling off period from 21 days to ten days. This is welcome but hardly a radical departure.

One aspect of the Bill which will have consequences, but I suspect not the consequences in the draftsman had in mind when the Bill was being drafted, is that it extends the jurisdiction of the Private Residential Tenancies Act 2004 to the voluntary and co-operative housing sector. This means its remit has been extended. Any studies and reports I have read indicate this will involve a substantially increased volume of work, which will obviously require an increase in resources. I understand not only are resources not being increased but they are actually being reduced. Therefore, as Deputy Durkan stated, the procedure is not working largely because of intolerable delays which are not the fault of the PRTB but due to a lack of resources while the number of clients and cases are increasing, and we will unilaterally add new work to the case load and reduce the resources available to deal with it. This does not make the slightest bit of sense. I agree that on paper and in principle it is good that the Private Residential Tenancies Board should deal with the community and voluntary sector, but if it does not have the resources to deal with what it has already and those resources are being reduced, it is an insane move.

The review of the 2004 Act showed difficulties and intricacies in the legislation governing this area. These intricacies, difficulties and ambiguities are being allowed to remain almost as they were. The rules for the determination of tenancies are extremely difficult and ambiguous. It is a quagmire. There is nothing I can see, from the start to the finish of the Bill, to help explain, clarify or simplify them. At present the procedures are unwieldy and they do not facilitate easy and fast outcomes. I can see nothing in the Bill, or in how the Private Presidential Tenancies Board is being restructured, that will improve these procedures. The procedures will be even more lengthy and equally convoluted and complicated. We need a scheme to facilitate speedy outcomes. We need a scheme which is speedy, efficient, cheap and user-friendly. There is no suggestion of this in the Bill.

We also have the running sore of anti-social behaviour, and there is nothing to deal with it in the Bill. I will return to this subject. I do not know what is the Government's intention with regard to one of the big problems in this area, namely, deposit retention. There is nothing in the Bill about deposit retention schemes. I understand that when the Bill was published last July, the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, stated the Government would deal with it, presumably by way of an amendment.

This is a fundamental area. There is a simple system operating in the United Kingdom. I agree with Deputy Durkan that some of the practices we have imported from the United Kingdom are not conducive to this country - they are not even conducive to the country in which they are being operated - and they should be discontinued. However, I have read of the procedure in the United Kingdom and it seems to be an efficient one that would instantly solve, in so far as it can be solved, the problem of deposit retention. It is inexplicable that the Government could publish legislation in July, indicate its intention to add this to it and, six months later, when we are debating Second Stage of the Bill as published, we still do not know what its proposals are in this regard-----

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

We only got the research last week.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

-----particularly when there is the simple scheme to which I referred. Although I could be wrong, I would guess that the deposit retention scheme that we will see here will be similar to that which applies in the United Kingdom. I stand open to correction on that.

There is also the question of compliance. I have been involved in and advised on cases with the Private Residential Tenancies Board where the party who lost the case simply did not comply the order and stated they would disregard it. The other party had to go to the Circuit Court to enforce the order of the PRTB, involving a return to the courts system the PRTB was created to get away from in the first place. I would have thought that something would have been done about that in this legislation. I also fail to see that. Perhaps it is there and I did not read it properly. When there is increasing non-compliance with orders of the Private Residential Tenancies Board, surely there is something in the Bill to deal with that short of one having to go to the Circuit Court, which defeats the purpose.

Other Members adverted to the problems with rent supplement. I am not blaming the Government exclusively for those problems because I must confess they were there when we were in government and when I was in Cabinet. I tried to persuade the Cabinet, not only once but on several occasions, to bring about some changes, and despite my persuading my colleagues of the necessity for those changes, the changes did not take place and I very much regret that. Those changes should have been made by the previous Government, which had adequate warning. However, the parties which comprise the present Government promised in their election manifestos to change this system, which is a significant issue in urban Ireland, and on the basis of those promises they got many votes.

The changes seem to be timorous and slow in coming. The Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, will be aware, because we represent the same constituency, of what happens if somebody comes to my clinic complaining of a family in receipt of rent allowance, where a large part of their rent is paid for by the taxpayers, occupying a house in the neighbourhood and causing mayhem. Deputy Carey stated that it is only a minority of families who are involved in this. I thank God it is only a minority of families. If they all were behaving the same way, we would have to leave the country. The minority who are causing this mayhem are causing a great deal of grief and suffering for many decent honest persons who have worked all their lives, are trying to pay their mortgages, often with considerable difficulties, and who must put up with this carry-on in addition to all of that. When somebody comes to complain, one's first action is to check with the Private Residential Tenancies Board to see whether this tenancy is registered. I cannot speak for any other part of the country, but in several cases in Limerick, one as late as last week, despite rent supplement being paid, the property was not registered. Perhaps the Minister of State, on the advice of her officials, could explain in her reply how the HSE can justify paying rent supplement in respect of a property that is not even registered. There are dozens of such properties in our constituency alone. If this is a lacuna in the previous law, is there anything in the Bill to change that? If not, there should be.

The obvious next action, even if the tenant is registered, would be to approach the landlord and state that his or her tenants are causing chaos for one's constituents and ask him or her either to give those tenants notice or pull them into line, but one is told that, under the Freedom of Information Acts, they cannot identify the landlord for a Deputy. It is my experience, following several cases in Limerick, that when the landlord is not identified and one is not told who is the landlord, one cannot approach him or her and the local residents' association cannot either. One is told that one should make a complaint to the Private Residential Tenancies Board, but one must put one's name to the complaint. I can assure the House that, in parts of Limerick, to put one's name to a complaint to the Private Residential Tenancies Board puts the person in mortal danger and for that reason, many such complaints remain unprocessed.

Rather than going through the lengthy, complex and convoluted process of the PRTB and having to name persons upfront, would it not be better if the landlord could be identified in order that we could approach him on behalf of the tenants to try to find a quick resolution? Some years ago there was a great deal of controversy in this country when the European Commission decided to put up on the Internet a list of farmers in receipt of European Union grants, which included their names, addresses and how much they received. Why is there not a register of these private sector landlords to show who they are, where they live and how much the taxpayers are paying them? One is dealing with a daft situation whereby taxpayers are suffering because of the activities of tenants whose rent those same taxpayers are paying. There is no justification for it. I would expect to see the Government moving now, after two years in office, because the parties opposite were not slow in the promises they made about this when they were looking for votes.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

Deputy O'Dea himself did not do much.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

I acknowledged that. The Government is two years in office and all we have is this Bill which, frankly, is a combination of the mundane and the minuscule.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

If Deputy O'Dea listened to my introductory speech, he might have heard.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

There is nothing here, bar changing the name of the board, reducing the numbers for quorums, etc.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

There is much more.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

It is doing nothing for the people of Castletroy, Caherdavin and Farranshone, all those areas within the Minister of State's city where residents are being plagued by the activities of these tenants, a large part of whose rent is being paid by the victims.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

If Deputy O'Dea had done the same with the 2004 Act, including the exchange of information----

Deputy Willie O'Dea

The Government is in office two years and the problem has continued.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan)

Through the Chair.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It includes much improvement on the 2004 Act.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan)

Through the Chair.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

It is a long time since 2004 and the problem has continued unabated.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It could have been done under the 2004 Act.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan)

The Minister of State is provoking the Deputy.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

Deputy O'Dea is provoking me.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

The point is that there is a sort of vague notion that it all will be handed over to the local authorities next year. I have documentation from the Minister of State's colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, which states that this changeover will take place on 1 January. Is that the date?

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It will not take place fully on 1 January.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

This is like Animal Farm where "four legs good, two legs bad" became "four legs good, two legs better". In adding one word, the Minister of State changes the meaning of the slogan.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

We never committed to changing it over fully on 1 January.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

The promise to everybody was that this would all change from 1 January. We are now told it will not all change on 1 January.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

Deputy O'Dea was told that long ago. There is no point in saying otherwise.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

It does not matter. It is merely another empty broken promise from the Labour Party.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It is not an empty broken promise.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

The Minister of State can merely add it to the list and the mountain keeps growing.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

Deputy O'Dea is some person to talk about broken promises-----

Deputy Willie O'Dea

The point is-----

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

-----given the state of the country his party handed to us.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan)

Through the Chair.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

The Acting Chairman should tell that to the Minister of State. She would want to watch her blood pressure. It is rising.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

Deputy O'Dea would want to watch what he is saying because people remember.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan)

Through the Chair.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

Failure has obviously gone to her head.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

I can give Deputy O'Dea the figures for 2010, if the Deputy wants them.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

The promise was that all this would change on 1 January. We are now told, shock horror, in a revelation here on the floor of the Dáil, that it will not change at all on 1 January.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It was never going to change fully on 1 January.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

It will be changed to some extent. I suppose there will be a pilot scheme. There are enough pilots in the Government to equip the Israeli air force. This is rubbish.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

Deputy O'Dea has some cheek to talk about matters changing. Look at the mess he left us with.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

This Bill consists of juggling. It is tinkering with the problems. As I stated, it is a combination of the mundane and the minuscule. There is no change to reflect the deficiencies which practice has shown in the 2004 Act and, more importantly, the dramatic changes since.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It is a long time since 2004.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

There is no change in the rules which are needlessly complex and intricate.

There are no extra resources for the new problems that have been brought within the PRTB's ambit.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It would be nice if the Deputy had left us some resources.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

There are no new imaginative provisions on anti-social behaviour and there is nothing about compliance. We are now being told that the much vaunted changeover, which was sold as a fundamental policy plank and which attracted a lot of votes, will not take place as promised on 1 January. It is a pity.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

May I correct the Deputy? It was not promised on 1 January.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

I have documentation from the Department of Social Protection, which I am sorry I did not bring with me.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan)

The Deputy is provoking the Minister of State, but he should speak through the Chair.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

He provokes me all the time.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

When one is dealing with the Labour Party one must bring the written evidence. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, tried to tell me last week that expenditure on child benefit had actually risen and that she had failed to support private landlords. One must have written evidence when one is dealing with them now. I have documentation, which I will publish after this debate, that says that change will take place on 1 January. However, it will not take place then, which is another broken promise. Therefore, the situation continues as is.

I have no difficulty, in principle, with this Bill. Why should I come in here and bother to vote against changing the name of the Private Residential Tenancies Board, reducing its membership from 15 to 12, and reducing the amount for a quorum from five to four?

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

The Deputy is trivialising the Bill.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

I am not opposing it because there is little or nothing to oppose.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan)

Deputies Brendan Ryan, Seán Kenny and Ciarán Lynch are sharing time. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Ryan is first with five minutes.

Deputy Brendan Ryan

I welcome the Bill. The private rental sector is an area which requires stronger legislation and I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction. As the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, said here last week, it is a Bill which strengthens the operational efficiencies of the PRTB and broadens its remit in order to ensure the good working of the private rental sector.

A strong and functioning PRTB is vital for a well-functioning and transparent private rental sector. This is something, however, which does not exist in Ireland at this time. In the history of the State, the private rental sector was a small - some would say niche - sector; a short term option for people before they took their first steps onto the property ladder and bought their first home. Now the private rental sector has become a long-term housing option for many people, particularly young people setting out on their way in the world.

What we need is strong legislation to strengthen rights and provide adequate protection for tenants in the private rental market. If people are to raise a family or want to commit to a particular community or area, then a mortgage should not be a precondition. People need to feel secure in whatever home they have and I welcome this Bill as a step towards providing this protection and security.

I do have some concerns that the two aims of this Bill may be in conflict with each other. They are: bringing the voluntary and co-operative housing sector under the governance of the Residential Tenancies Act; and speeding up the dispute resolution service provided by the PRTB.

The inclusion of approved housing bodies under the auspices of the Residential Tenancies Act will only further burden the resources of the PRTB. I ask the Minister to address this as the Bill moves through the House to ensure the PRTB is adequately resourced to deal with any increase in its case load. In this regard, I share the concerns that other Deputies have expressed in the House today.

In recent times, we have seen a centralisation of rent allowances, medical cards, Garda vetting, as well as the effects of SUSI. In all of these cases the problems got worse as a result of centralisation, which was due to a lack of resources. I urge the Minister of State to examine this area to see what resources are required to deliver these services.

The PRTB is already overladen with work and it is taking upwards of eight months for tenants to get a resolution to their claims from the date of application. The vast amount of claims from tenants to the PRTB centre on the issue of deposit retention, with the most recent figures stating that such claims make up 72% of all tenant claims to the PRTB. Of those, 45% of deposits were returned in full. There is obviously a major problem in this area and I know the Minister of State is aware of it.

The issue of deposit retention is not covered in this Bill. However, there is a commitment in the programme for Government to establish a tenancy deposit protection scheme. The Minister of State has stated her commitment to enacting this in subsequent legislation and I ask her not to delay in this regard.

Deposit retention is a critical issue for many in the private rental sector and for those on low incomes. It can form a crucial financial bond which gives them the flexibility to move address. When a deposit is held by a landlord, especially on spurious terms, the tenant can be stuck in a difficult situation. They are unable to stay at their current address due to a desire to move, and a breakdown in relationship with the landlord, but unable to afford the deposit and first month's rent in advance for a new property.

It is not unusual for a person to need the assistance of community welfare officers, who themselves are operating under stricter and tighter budgets. It is an unsustainable situation and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Tenants of approved housing bodies, AHBs, have existed in a legislative limbo for a number of years. While I welcome some legislative clarity in this area by bringing these tenants under the protection of the PRTB, a mechanism is needed whereby the local authority still has responsibility for tenants and can still support the tenant in his or her dealings with the approved housing body as a landlord. This also applies in the internal RAS scheme.

I am talking about a simple amendment whereby if the tenant has difficulties with a landlord, that is, the approved housing body, he or she may ask for the local authority to intervene on his or her behalf. This should be dealt with specifically in the legislation by way of an amendment, so I ask the Minister of State to consider this seriously.

Approved housing bodies can and do charge higher rents than the standard 11% differential rent charged by local authorities. This is an anomaly. The AHBs and RAS schemes can often be the solution to local authorities' housing provision to these clients. Once that is done they are left to their own devices in dealing with private landlords or AHBs. It is an important issue which I hope the Minister of State will take on board.

We must ensure that once a person is on the housing list their application is not too easily discharged by a local authority to an approved housing body or, indeed, a RAS arrangement.

I welcome this Bill as a positive step forward but we still require much further legislation in this area. Private rental arrangements have turned into long-term living arrangements and, as such, we need a comprehensive suite of legislation to protect people and ensure they have security in their homes. This is a step in the right direction, as I said, but further legislation is required in this area.

Deputy Seán Kenny

This Bill seeks to amend the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 and 2009, and the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. Its objective is to streamline and simplify those Acts and reduce delays in the dispute resolution service of the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. The Bill makes provision for the inclusion, within the remit of the Residential Tenancies Acts, of tenancies in the voluntary and co-operative housing sector.

The issues of rent arrears and deposit retention are not addressed in the Bill as published, but the Minister of State has signalled her intention to include these at a later stage in the legislative process. I warmly welcome this initiative.

In its 2011 annual report, Threshold states that it dealt with over 3,000 cases involving the retention of deposits. Deposits may only be retained by landlords in limited circumstances, namely rent arrears, outstanding utility bills or damage to the property above normal wear and tear.

The programme for Government contains a commitment to introduce a rent deposit scheme and legislation is currently before the House to follow through on this important policy goal. The Minister of State has signalled her intention to examine the findings of a PRTB commissioned report into the viability of a deposit protection scheme. That report has been published and examines the options for a deposit protection scheme.

Over the coming weeks, the options in the report will consider the best way to offer the greatest protection to tenants in this area.

This will be done at the least cost to the Exchequer. While these are complex issues, it is important to deliver on deposit protection in the context of the current Bill. Deposit protection schemes exist in a number of countries, such as England, Wales and New Zealand and under such schemes, the deposit is paid directly to a third party and retained until the end of the tenancy.

This Bill will amend certain provisions of the Residential Tenancies Acts, which govern the private rental sector, as well as the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. One of the PRTB's most important functions is the provision of a dispute resolution service which mediates disputes between landlords and tenants outside of the court system. The largest category of cases referred by landlords to the PRTB, comprising 31% in 2010, relate to rent arrears, while most cases referred by tenants, a total of 72% in 2010, relate to deposit retention. Decisions made through the dispute resolutions service are legally binding. Increasing demands have been placed on the dispute resolution service in recent years, which has resulted in determination orders taking as long as eight months to be delivered. Two of the Bill's aims are to speed up the dispute resolution service provided by the PRTB and bring the voluntary and co-operative housing sector under the governance of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. A study carried out in 2011 by the Housing Agency examined the implications of bringing the voluntary and co-operative housing sector under the remit of the PRTB. The report identified two potential issues, namely, an increase in the workload of the PRTB and the affordability of paying registration fees for the approved housing bodies. It also is intended that the Minister of State will address the issue of non-payment of rent by tenants who remain in situ. This, I understand, will be addressed at Committee Stage of the Bill.

The PRTB was established in September 2004. One of its main functions is, when called upon, to mediate disagreements between landlords and tenants. When a landlord takes on a new tenant he or she must, by law, register the tenancy with the PRTB and include the names and details of the tenants. The landlord pays the PRTB a fee per tenancy. I believe there is a level of non-compliance in this area that must be addressed and I ask the Minister of State to consider this issue. The most common complaints made by tenants are about the refusal of landlords to refund deposits and 72% of all cases taken by tenants in 2010 concerned this issue. As public representatives, Members know this to be true. The most common landlord complaints concern rent arrears and breach of other tenancy obligations and 68% of all cases taken by landlords were regarding these matters. Orders made by the PRTB are legally binding. If a landlord or tenant is dissatisfied with the decision of the board, legal recourse to the High Court is then permitted albeit only on a point of law.

Initially, the PRTB was funded by the Exchequer but it has been self-financing since 2010. From February 2009, properties for rent must meet new minimum physical standards as outlined in the Housing (Standard for Rented Houses) Regulations 2008. Each individual local authority decides on its enforcement strategy and inspection arrangements. The PRTB is currently entitled to retain 80% of the registration fee income to fund its activities with 20% of the fee going to local authorities for inspections of private rented residential accommodation. In its recent submission, the Coolock-based Northside Community Law Centre stated that quite often, the quality of housing in the private rented sector is poor. They cite Threshold in suggesting that up to 78% of private rented property is sub-standard. The PRTB should interface more effectively with local authorities in enforcing standards and I note inspections by many local authorities are slow. Unless adequate resourcing is provided, particularly in light of an increased workload, this issue will continue to be a significant problem. The number of inspections carried out by local authorities has been increasing in recent years. However, concerns have been expressed as to the outcome of the inspection process and how effectively it protects tenants. In my experience local authorities do not use all of the 20% of the PRTB fees they receive for inspections and instead use the money for general housing expenditure. I believe they only carry out inspections when particular private dwellings are brought to their attention. This must change and a better system of inspections must be put in place by local authorities and, in particular, to inspect the older stock of private rented dwellings, much of which is sub-standard. I ask the Minister of State to consider this issue.

The demand for the dispute resolution services of the PRTB has increased, while the staff numbers working in the PRTB have reduced. The published annual report of the PRTB for 2010 stated that was a challenging year for the disputes resolution service, with an unprecedented 2,230 dispute applications being received, representing an increase of 20% over the 2009 figure. The report goes on to note that most of this increase was due to rent arrears complaints from landlords against tenants. However, it also noted that deposit retention remains the largest overall cause of disputes. In 2010, some 59% of applications for dispute resolution were from tenants, 37% from landlords and 4% from third parties. From 2009 to 2010, there was a 93% increase in tribunal hearings but despite that increase, waiting times for a tribunal hearing have been reduced from six to eight months in 2007 to between two and three months in 2009 and 2010.

This legislation will further improve our system of tenant-landlord regulation. The measures that promote mediation in dispute resolution are particularly welcome. I firmly believe that mediation can give people in a dispute a speedy, effective way to resolve issues. The extension of the registration requirement to a large number of voluntary housing tenancies is also a major development. It is the first step in a process that will see statutory regulation of the voluntary and co-operative housing sector in the coming years. This will bring greater transparency and accountability to this important sector, which is playing an increasingly active role in social housing provision.

Some provisions of this Bill aim to speed up the dispute resolution service. In this context, settling disputes through conference calls may not be permissible in future. Housing associations are non-profit organisations which provide housing for those who are in need and at affordable rent levels. In general they are companies limited by guarantee without a share capital. Approved status is given by the Minister under section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992. While voluntary and co-operative housing is considered as one sector, there are important distinctions between the two, in that voluntary housing is provided by non-profit organisations, whereas housing co-operatives are self-help and jointly-owned member-user associations or societies. The members share responsibility for their co-operative and are represented on the management committees or boards of directors of such companies. The approved housing bodies, AHBs, are not covered under the Residential Tenancies Act. This means that tenants do not have the same rights as private sector tenants and their landlords do not have access to the PRTB. If there is a dispute, the only avenues open to either landlord or tenant are the courts, which may be costly. This can be particularly difficult for social housing tenants, many of whom are in receipt of social welfare benefits.

One of the most significant aspects of the Bill before Members is the inclusion of dwellings let by approved agencies within the remit of the Residential Tenancies Act. This will extend to the large majority of the not-for-profit AHB sector the same range of tenant and landlord rights and obligations as pertain in the private rented sector. I commend the Minister of State and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government with responsibility for housing and planning, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, on the hard work she is doing in this area. I also commend the excellent work done by Threshold on housing rights of the less well-off. I look forward to engaging with them on the housing reform agenda over the course of 2013.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I, too, am delighted to be able to speak on this important legislation and on the whole sorry and sad saga that has obtained in the private rented sector, as well as in some public or local authority rented areas, over the years. There have been many issues and disputes, as well as all kinds of unsavoury situations arising, with which there has been a failure to deal.

Ar an gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na daoine i gComhairle Contae Thiobraid Árann Theas, namely, the housing officers and directors and above all, the tenant liaison officers for the tremendous work they have done throughout the county and its towns since I became involved in the county council and certainly for the past 15 years since they were set up. They were the people with their fingers on the pulse and on whom public representatives, both local and national, could count when someone came to one's clinic with all kinds of problems.

It was not a very nice job but it was done without fear or favour. Ms Crowe and Ms Collins in my county had compassion in their actions, achieving good outcomes in mediation through a soft approach in most cases. There will always be a few people one cannot satisfy but in the main the work was very good.

In 2004, a previous Government set up the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. The Minister of State is introducing this legislation and probably will not heed my call but the board should be closely examined and disbanded. Some 80% of the funding collected is kept for the body itself, with a supposed 20% passed to local authorities to carry out inspections.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

That is true.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I do not doubt the figures. There is a big difference between 20% and 80%. Where does the 80% of funding go? Is this another quango?

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It funds the work carried out by the body.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I accept that but the split of 80% and 20% is not, by any standards, reasonable for the work done by local authorities.

The private rented sector has exploded because of the so-called building boom, with an ensuing crash, and there is now a staggering number of people in private rented accommodation. Standards vary enormously, with some excellent landlords interested in their tenants and their well-being and who do everything above board, but there are also serious cowboys. There are people of my age who decided to buy one or as many as ten houses, and they contributed to the boom and bust, driving up prices but using the properties as rentals. In some cases, these people have gone missing and cannot repay the banks, leaving tenants in properties with all kinds of problems and issues not being dealt with.

We need proper legislation and an organisation with teeth, vision and passion to deal with the issues. This matter mainly affects ordinary, struggling, working families with a noble objective of having a roof over their heads. These people are willing, ready and able, with the support of social welfare and rent supplements, to rent a decent house with a decent standard of living. It is a noble entitlement and I believe a constitutional right. There are rogue landlords in many areas as well as the many good landlords. We were told mediation, when established in 2004, would speed up dispute resolution but I do not believe it has done so. It may have happened in some instances but in general I am not happy with the PRTB. It should be disbanded, with a reinvigorating new body in its place.

I am a member of voluntary housing committee, with long-standing involvement in the building of such houses. With voluntary and co-operative schemes, there are two different groups in the sector. There are 300 or 400 small voluntary groups; I am a member of one which has 17 units. There is a voluntary board running that process, meeting the requirements of legislation and housing people who could not find housing through the county council or others. We are ensuring ongoing satisfaction with living standards, etc., and I pay tribute to the lay people on that board. This organisation sourced architectural services, planning and funding necessary to house people. It is one of the most satisfactory aspects of public involvement to which I have been party. There are many groups like that.

There are also a dozen big organisations such as Respond! and Foscadh that do good work but in the past ten years, with the building boom, they have lost touch with the voluntary groups I spoke about. They became massive organisations with big turnover and a large staff. Some of them became developers in their own right. Everything is not rosy in the garden and there are many issues and barriers for tenants. In my case, a tenant can telephone me or any other board member to raise an issue. One would find it sometimes difficult to connect with liaison officers from Respond! and Foscadh. People may be moved into houses amid great excitement but some estates were never finished. Some people are begging to get out of these estates but they cannot.

I am not saying we should throw the baby out with the bath water. The voluntary sector has made an enormous contribution, with the likes of Respond! doing much other work with social developments. Nevertheless, we should be careful. It is difficult to deal with delicate issues in any legislation but we must consider the smaller groups as well as the bigger groups. The existing legislation contains too much legal jargon. I speak as chairman of small board but also on behalf of tenants and landlords who cannot understand the complexity of the current legislation. Why can we not have something simple that works and why should we pile on extra legislation that people do not understand? People are intimidated by these laws, even when they want to challenge them.

I know the Minister of State has a hard job in a difficult area, particularly with the current depression in the market. Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, the 2004 legislation has failed miserably with its use of the PRTB and the different manifestations of problems in dispute resolution and mediation, etc. This boils down to money. One does not mind paying if there is resolution but what happens when the process goes around in circles and there is a lack of engagement? It can be too legalistic, meaning people must engage experienced lawyers to get advice. With the voluntary sector being brought into this process, we will not be able to deal with it. I am on a voluntary board of lay people, most of whom are older than I am, as we started this process in 1996. We are very proud of what we have achieved, with a high standard of housing, very good tenants and a good relationship all around. We do not want to have to deal with this new process.

The volunteer spirit of engagement, which was illustrated by Fr. Harry Bohan and the people who started Respond! has evolved. The ordinary groups represented by the Irish Council for Social Housing - of which I was a board member for a number of years - are not able, willing or ready to deal with these issues. I am not saying we want to avoid responsibilities or that we will disobey the law, as that will not happen. If the process becomes legalistic, with much red tape and form filling, it will become more intimidating for volunteers. We are talking about busy people who have challenges arising from sickness, unemployment or failing businesses; they are good people and I salute their good work. Nevertheless, they will not be able to handle the extra requirements and will have no interest in it. That is a personal belief. These people have seen how the PRTB has worked since 2004, including its failures.

We are to abolish or amalgamate local councils, which provided local contacts. We have seen what has happened with the SUSI body that is handling third level education grants. There must be local contact and we should not abandon a system in order to send the process to a centralised location. It will become too bureaucratic and intimidating for the ordinary people to deal with it.

Before the Minister of State does anything else, I ask her to consult with representatives of voluntary bodies such as the Irish Council for Social Housing. She has done this already. The council is mainly made up of smaller groups. I did not like how the bigger groups operated within the council over a number of years; they came from all over the world, including England and Northern Ireland. They got their way and became all powerful. They had staff to attend meetings, including retired Department officials who knew the system. There is nothing wrong with that but the balance shifted away from the smaller groups or the companies limited by guarantee. These smaller groups were still housing people with good satisfaction rates. That council became skewed.

Across the board we seem to be taking away the possibility for people to help themselves with the aid of volunteers.

Everything is becoming too bureaucratic and we are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Debate adjourned.