Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 2003

Vol. 568 No. 5

Residential Tenancies Bill 2003: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Today I have the privilege, as Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal, to present to the House flagship legislation, the Residential Tenancies Bill 2003. It is one of the most important housing Bills to have been brought before this House in many years and the most comprehensive reform of the residential private rented sector in Ireland for almost 150 years. This Bill updates the legislation applying to the private rented sector. It brings overdue protection for tenants in terms of rent reviews and much needed security of tenure. It gives landlords and tenants an effective means of resolving disputes that arise between them. It addresses some long-standing deterrents to investing and residing in private rented accommodation and will lead to greater professionalism within the sector. The Bill will thus enhance the contribution of the private rented sector to meeting the housing needs of society.

The Residential Tenancies Bill is the result of a productive collaboration between my Department, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General's office. There has been a high level of anticipation generally about its publication and those with a genuine interest in improving the private rented sector will welcome it. It is a large and fairly complex Bill, involving changes to many long-standing aspects of landlord and tenant law. Its production was an efficient job, resulting in a balanced, comprehensive, innovative and imaginative Bill.

As we begin consideration of the Bill, it would be useful to place it in context. The Government recognises the vital importance of the private rented sector in the overall housing market. This is reflected in the priority accorded in the current programme for Government and in the recently concluded partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, to reform and develop the private rented sector, which is a tenure of choice for an increasing number of our people. It also facilitates mobility, which is a growing feature of the labour market, and it can help to address social housing needs.

Recognising these factors, but aware also that the sector was not reaching its potential, the previous Government established a Commission on the Private Rented Residential Sector to examine the workings of the landlord and tenant relationship and to make recommendations in relation to the sector. This Bill implements the recommendations made by that commission.

It is important to stress that the commission was a widely representative group of relevant interests, the 18 members of which signed up to the measures contained in the Bill. The commission's recommendations did not fully meet all the demands of the competing interests in the sector, and that was to be expected. These demands are born of differing views about the relative rights and responsibilities of those who provide rented accommodation and those who live in it. Consequently, the Bill does not contain everything that accommodation providers and renters might like. However, it strikes a fair and reasonable balance between those demands and it provides a framework for a stable, effective and efficient private rented sector. This, in turn, will encourage further development and growth in the sector.

The Bill is the core element of a wider programme to develop this segment of the housing market in Ireland. The commission recommended fiscal reforms in relation to the private rented sector. Tax reliefs were provided for in the 2001 and 2002 Finance Acts by allowing mortgage interest and refurbishment costs to be offset against rental income. We will also explore other possible means of promoting the development of the private rented sector, including increased investment and greater professionalism. For example, I am keen to explore the potential of public private partnerships in the rental accommodation area, particularly in the context of social and affordable housing. Within the Department, a private rented sector unit has been established to help progress these initiatives, with the development and implementation of this legislation, and to give a more focused approach generally to the development of policy for the sector.

There is a strong inter-relationship between the different elements of the housing market. Development of the private rented sector can contribute to the achievement of overall housing policy objectives. Equally, the availability of a sufficient number of properties for rent is dependent on the provision of new houses generally. The Government has implemented a range of measures in recent years to respond to an unprecedented escalation in demand for housing. Various supply side constraints that we inherited in 1997 have been tackled and we have greatly increased the range and depth of response to social and affordable housing needs. Above all, housing output has been increased to a level that would have been deemed unattainable half a dozen years ago. Almost 58,000 houses were produced in 2002, which is about 24,000 more than under our predecessors in 1996. The scale of this achievement is illustrated by international comparisons showing Ireland not just heading the field in terms of output relative to population, but leading most others by a distance.

The link between the different elements of the housing market is demonstrated by the situation that developed whereby many prospective first-time buyers living in rented accommodation were effectively pushed to buy earlier than they needed to because of the high cost of rent. Meanwhile for some, the increasing drain of rent costs was moving the home ownership target further away. The past 12 months have seen a welcome change. Supply of rental accommodation has increased substantially and rents have moderated and even reduced in certain segments of the market. The huge progress we have made in increasing overall housing supply greatly enhances the potential of the private rented sector.

This Bill will help to ensure that this potential is realised by providing the legal framework for an efficient, attractive, vibrant and responsive private rented sector. It will reform aspects of landlord and tenant law that have been problematic. It introduces a measure of security of tenure, specifies minimum obligations applying to landlords and tenants, contains provisions relating to rent setting and review and provides for the establishment of a private residential tenancies board to undertake a number of key functions within a reformed private rented sector.

I will now outline some of the main provisions of this interesting Bill. I was both a tenant and a landlord in previous years. It is some time since I was a tenant and although I was a landlord more recently, I am not one currently. It was my parents' original home for a short time.

Part 1 contains the usual general provisions, including the scope of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill do not apply to certain types of rental arrangements, including holiday, employment related or business lettings, formerly rent controlled dwellings, or long occupation lease tenancies. Furthermore, it does not apply to social housing.

I refer to Part 8, which deals with the establishment of a statutory private residential tenancies board, because this board is relevant to many of the other provisions in the Bill. I will mention it many times as the tenancies board or the board. The board will have the key role of providing a statutory dispute resolution service. It will also have responsibility for tenancy registration, research, and the provision of information, policy advice and guidelines in relation to the private rented residential sector. The bulk of the provisions of Part 8 are standard matters relating to State bodies. There are also specific provisions for the appointment of mediators and adjudicators to enable the board fulfil its dispute resolution functions.

The board will have a pivotal role in the operation of this legislation and its effectiveness will have a major bearing on the success of the new regime. An ad hoc board is in place, preparing the ground for the statutory role, and helping to inform the development of the legislation. I pay tribute to its members for this work. A number of them also served on the commission, including the chairman, whom I single out for special mention. Mr. Tom Dunne's contribution to the reforms we are implementing has been incalculable.

Part 2 specifies for the first time in statute law certain minimum obligations of landlords and tenants, regardless of whether there is a written tenancy agreement. Landlords are required to maintain the structure and interior of the rented dwelling to the standard existing at the commencement of the tenancy; to insure the dwelling; to allow the tenant enjoy peaceful and exclusive occupation; and to reimburse tenants for expenditure on repairs appropriate to the landlord. It also places an onus on the landlord to enforce tenant obligations. Third parties will have recourse to the new tenancies board, where necessary, to ensure this is done.

For their part, tenants will be subject to a number of specific legal obligations. They must pay the rent and other charges specified in the letting agreement. Other obligations will include requirements to ensure no act or omission causes the landlord to be in breach of his or her obligations; notify the landlord of any repair requirements; do nothing to cause the dwelling to deteriorate beyond normal wear and tear and, if it does, to make good such damage; not to engage in or allow anti-social behaviour; and not to assign, sub-let, alter, improve or change the dwelling without the written consent of the landlord.

Part 3 provides that the rent payable may not be greater than the open market rate and may not be reviewed more than once a year, unless there has been a substantial change to the nature of the accommodation. Rents may be reviewed upwards or downwards. Disputes about the rent charged or arrears of rent may be resolved under the dispute resolution procedures of the tenancies board. Some might have difficulty with the concept of making market rent the legal benchmark. This was an issue subject to considerable debate by the commission. It considered that the market rent approach would be the most appropriate system for this country. In arriving at this view, it had regard particularly to negative experiences with more rigid forms of rent control, especially in terms of its impact on new supply and maintenance of the existing stock of rented accommodation.

Indexation of rent, for example, by reference to the consumer price index, is an alternative approach that has been suggested. However, this has many of the drawbacks of rent control and results in the front-loading of future rent increases to the disadvantage of tenants entering into lettings. A system of indexed rent levels would also mean tenants would be charged approximately 5% more in rent this year than last, whereas rents for lettings in certain segments of the rental market have recently been falling, by as much as 20% to 25% in some cases.

In adopting the commission's proposals regarding market rent, we were also mindful that, unless accommodation providers can get an adequate return, there will not be investment in rented accommodation and there will not be a healthy private rented sector. No model is guaranteed to work perfectly at all times but it is important that the market works as efficiently as possible and delivers a fair deal and value to tenants.

One of the roles that will fall to the new tenancies board will be to monitor and research trends and developments in the sector. This will include reviewing the operation of the legislation. It will be in a position to consider at first hand the issue of rents and examine distortions that might be encountered in relation to a particular case or category of accommodation or a particular area and take such distortions into account in determining a dispute over rent. The board will also have power to make recommendations to me in regard to the operation of this and other aspects of the legislation.

Part 4 introduces a greatly improved level of security of tenure for tenants. This will be based on a four year cycle whereby tenancies will be deemed to be terminated at the end of each four year period. This does not preclude the tenant remaining in occupation but, if he or she does, it will be under a new tenancy. This new cycle of tenancies will start for existing tenancies from the commencement date of this Part. It is not backdated. During the initial six months of any tenancy the landlord will be free to terminate without giving a reason. Once the initial six months have passed, the tenant will have a qualified right to remain for a further three and a half years. A tenancy that has been in existence for more than six months will be known as a "Part 4 Tenancy".

I use the term "qualified" because the owner will have a right to reclaim the property for justifiable reasons such as own or family occupation, sale, change of use or major refurbishment. These grounds are essential to basic property rights and encourage participation in the sector by accommodation providers. Naturally, the tenancy can also be terminated in the event of failure to comply with the tenancy obligations.

Some might prefer a longer security of tenure provision and this might well evolve as the new system becomes established and accepted. As with other issues in the landlord-tenant relationship, there are conflicting views in regard to security of tenure. However, the four year cycle was the commission's judgment, at this point, of a fair balance between landlord and tenant interests and between the need for adequate security and encouraging investment in the sector.

It must also be remembered that the new system represents a major advance on the present position of a virtually absolute landlord right to terminate, subject to only four weeks notice. There will also be a specific safeguard to ensure landlords do not abuse the right to reclaim possession. If a landlord terminates a tenancy on grounds that subsequently transpire to be false, the tenant can refer the matter to the tenancies board and compensation of up to €20,000 may be awarded. Unlike landlords, tenants will always be able to terminate a tenancy, subject to giving the required notice, without having to specify reasons. The Bill will not force tenants to remain in a tenancy for four years or any set time.

Where a sub-tenancy is created, the sub-tenant will be treated as if the sub-tenancy commenced on the same date as the original tenancy and the sub-tenant will have the benefit of the remainder of the former tenant's security. Where a tenancy is assigned, a new tenancy is created and the assignee tenant will commence the six month qualifying period. There are also specific provisions covering situations of a dwelling occupied by multiple tenants that can give rise to difficulty. These include a means to ensure a bad tenant in a multiple tenancy can be removed without unfairly ruining the other tenants' renting arrangements. Termination of a tenancy, regardless of the reason or who is doing the terminating, must be by notice. Part 5 introduces a graduated scale of notice periods for terminating a tenancy, increasing with length of tenancy from four weeks initially to 16 weeks after four years.

Of course, longer notice periods than those specified can be given and shorter notice periods are also provided for in certain circumstances, such as failure to comply with tenancy obligations or serious anti-social behaviour by either party. In addition, it is open to the parties, but only when one has advised the other of the intention to terminate, to agree between them any shorter notice period that suits them. Disputes in relation to termination notices may be referred to the Private Residential Tenancies Board.

Part 6 of the Bill introduces a completely new framework for dealing with disputes arising between landlords and tenants and this will be a major function of the board. At present, if a landlord and tenant are in dispute, the only options available to them are to end the tenancy, endure continued disagreement and unhappiness or refer the matter to the courts, which can be a confrontational, costly and very lengthy process. It would not be too wide of the mark to say that the present situation can play into the hands of bad landlords and bad tenants.

The new dispute resolution mechanism through the tenancies board will be more accessible, affordable and user-friendly. Any dispute arising between landlords and tenants of dwellings to which the Bill applies may be referred to the board, which will largely replace the courts in this area. It will operate a two-stage dispute resolution procedure, with the first stage consisting of either mediation or adjudication. In the first instance the parties in dispute will be offered the services of a mediator. This will give them the opportunity to resolve matters in a friendly way. Both parties will be helped to examine the circumstances and facts of a dispute. The mediator will help them to think through the problem and to choose a solution that will work for both of them. The mediation process will be supportive, non-confrontational, confidential and speedy.

A mediation service is already available nationally on the basis of joint voluntary referral by landlords and tenants and I hope that landlords and tenants in dispute will, whenever possible, choose this route. It is clearly better to reach a mutually agreed solution than to have one imposed by a third party. However, should either of the parties decline the services of a mediator or if the dispute is not suitable for mediation, an adjudicator will be appointed. The adjudicator will investigate the issue in dispute, hear the evidence of both sides and issue a determination on the matter. Both the mediation and adjudication procedures will be confidential.

In the event that mediation fails to resolve the dispute or issues remain outstanding, or should one of the parties reject the adjudicator's determination, the matter can be referred to a tenancy tribunal to be established by the tenancies board. The tribunal will be composed of three persons drawn from the board's dispute resolution committee, which will be formed for that purpose. The tribunal's proceedings will be public and its determinations published. Its determination of a dispute will be binding on the parties and may be appealed to the High Court only on a point of law. Enforcement of any determination orders that are not complied with will be through the Circuit Court.

The dispute resolution procedures to be followed by the board are set out in the Bill. They have been refined and developed by the ad hoc board. The mediators, adjudicators and members of the dispute resolution committee will be drawn from various professional backgrounds and areas of expertise, particularly with experience in landlord and tenant issues and-or mediation, adjudication or arbitration skills and competencies. They will be appointed for a period of at least three years on terms and conditions to be determined by the board.

Part 7 of the Bill provides for a new system of tenancy registration. The 1996 registration regulations oblige landlords to register rented dwellings with the local authority. This system has not worked well. The level of compliance has been low. To be fair, local authorities have faced difficulties in the form of legal challenges to registration.

In future, landlords will be required to register details of all tenancies with the board, which will maintain a public register but this will not reveal the identities of the landlord or tenant, or the rent. The board will supply appropriate details to local authorities for the purposes of their role in enforcing standards and rent book regulations in the sector. I will return to the issue of accommodation standards presently.

It is intended that funding from the registration fees paid to the board will be distributed to local authorities to support their enforcement activities. The fee of each registration will be €70. However, a composite fee of €300 will be applied where a landlord is registering a number of tenancies in the one building at the same time. The fee will be revised in line with general price changes.

In cases where a tenancy lasts longer than four years a new tenancy must be registered at the start of the new four year cycle. The landlord will be obliged to inform the board of any changes to the tenancy. Failure by a landlord to register the tenancy where required to do so by the board will be an offence and may result in a fine of up to €3,000 and-or imprisonment for up to six months. Continued contravention may lead to an additional fine of up to €250 per day.

I would encourage all landlords to comply with the registration requirements of this Bill. I fully intend that compliance with the law will be pursued. Non-compliant landlords will be identified and pursued and penalties applied. I hope this will seldom be necessary as there are practical benefits deriving from registration. In particular, access by landlords to the board's dispute resolution service will be conditional on registration. The data collected will assist the board in its dispute resolution activities, for example, in relation to disputes over rent levels. Therefore it is very much in the interest of landlords that this data be supplied to the board.

Furthermore, the Bill provides that the tenancy commencement date, which may be highly relevant in a dispute about the validity of a termination notice, is the date in the registration application, unless the contrary is proved. The registration data will also be very beneficial for the board's research and information functions. Information on the sector is currently inadequate, as was noted in the commission's report. Good quality information is essential to monitor developments and trends in the private rented sector and to provide a sound basis for policy formulation.

The Bill will provide for the exchange of relevant data between the private rented tenancies board and local authorities. The necessary section will be included by means of an amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage. This provision will be subject to consultation with the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Data Protection Commissioner in the context of the intended use of the personal public service numbers of both landlords and tenants for registration purposes. Such use would require amendment of the Social Welfare Acts.

There has been comment in the media to the effect that the board should transfer personal registration data to the Revenue Commissioners. Local authorities do not have power to do this under the present registration system. Any provision authorising the Revenue Commissioners to seek such information would be more appropriate to taxation legislation. Revenue powers, which would include powers relating to information from third parties, are currently being examined by the Revenue powers group established last April by the Minister for Finance. I will have no difficulty with the board being subject to requirements that may emerge from this review.

I mentioned already that funding from fee income will be distributed to local authorities to support their enforcement activities, particularly in relation to standards of private rented accommodation. Increased supply of new housing in recent years, with tax relief for refurbishment, is bound to have improved standards within the overall sector.

However, I am certain that a proportion of accommodation is still substandard. It is not acceptable in the 21st century that any accommodation provider should offer a product that does not meet minimum basic standards, particularly when the product is to serve as somebody's home.

Enforcement of the standards regulations has been patchy. Some authorities have taken a proactive approach, inspecting properties and taking legal proceedings where necessary, but many others have done little beyond responding to complaints. Demands generally on housing authorities have increased, but it is also a question of prioritisation. Perhaps some authorities still do not regard the private rented sector as being their business. This Bill should signal the need for change in that regard.

I am not advocating a heavy-handed approach or the deployment of an army of inspectors. Even if such resources were available, this would not be warranted given the considerable reduction in the age profile of accommodation generally in recent years. I believe we need an approach that is strategic, reasonable and effective, taking account of best practice by local authorities which have been successful in this area. All possible ways of promoting improvement in standards should be considered. This must, of course, include consideration of how enforcement can be made more effective. Enforcement action needs to be well targeted, for example, on segments of the market such as older properties where standards are more likely to be lower. Resources must also be deployed efficiently, including the potential for collaboration between authorities and information exchange where appropriate. My Department will, in consultation with local authorities and other interested parties, consider proposals for this type of strategic programme. It will also be desirable, in this context, to review the content of the regulations, which are now ten years old.

The board should have a significant effect in minimising the incidence of substandard rented property. The improved registration system will help in identifying the totality of properties for inspection purposes. In addition, tenants will, I am sure, refer disputes relating to standards to the board. In the past, tenants probably had concerns that if they raised the issue of standards a landlord might serve a notice to quit. With improved security of tenure provisions and the prohibition in the Bill against the penalisation of tenants, this should no longer apply.

In order for the board to fulfil its dispute resolution functions, it must be able to rely on proactive co-operation from local authorities. I expect they will provide this but if it is not forthcoming from any authority, I will consider withholding funding that would otherwise be provided from registration income.

Part 9 contains consequential provisions. The most notable is a provision to allow tenants to renounce their entitlement to claim a long occupation equity lease and the abolition, five years after the provision comes into force, of the entitlement to claim such a lease for the first time. These renewable leases of up to 35 years after 20 years in occupation of a tenancy arise under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980. This well-intentioned provision has proved counter-productive, prompting eviction of those approaching 20-year occupancy. I am sure all of us remember the difficulties that arose for tenants of the Mespil Flats some years ago. The changes now being made will prevent any recurrence of that sort and are necessary if successive four-year tenancies are to occur.

There is also provision for injunctive type applications in the case of very serious emergency disputes coming before the tenancies board. This will allow fast-tracking of cases involving imminent danger to life or illegal evictions.

This is a comprehensive, progressive and well-balanced Bill. It balances the needs, rights and interests of those providing rented accommodation and of those living in such accommodation. It introduces an appropriate level of regulation, but not over-regulation. It will give tenants a fair deal, without making unreasonable demands on landlords, something that could depress new investment in the sector. It will promote greater stability in the private rented sector. From that will come added confidence in the sector, on the part of tenants and investors, and expansion to meet housing needs.

I will listen carefully to the contributions from Deputies on this Bill and consider any suggestions that I think will improve it and advance its objectives. However, I will not be prepared to dilute the element of balance, which I have stressed and which ensures that there is a great deal in the Bill for both landlords and tenants. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Allen

Before I address the Bill, I want to protest at the manner in which this Bill was introduced tonight. I am not alone in holding these views. Following the events of Friday, with the business of the House being abandoned due to the lack of a quorum, and the loss of time on the Protection of the Environment Bill, other Deputies and I reasonably assumed that the Protection of the Environment Bill would be given the necessary time to make up for the time lost on Friday. Instead the opposite was the case. There were guillotines, not only on the Bill from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but also on the Protection of the Environment Bill, which meant that we got less than half an hour to discuss, and vote on, that important legislation. The vote on Second Stage of the Protection of the Environment Bill was taken at 7 p.m. – amendments to that Bill must be submitted tomorrow morning in time for Committee Stage on Thursday – and this Bill was introduced at 8.30 p.m.

There is a Minister and two Ministers of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, with an army of civil servants, but the Opposition – both parties and the Independents – do not have the resources to match that pace of business and the unfair procedures that have been followed. I protest strongly at the manner in which the Government is ordering business in this House. It is almost a David versus Goliath effort, but then one must remember that David came out on top. Having said that, we will address the business of the House.

This Bill is introduced against the background that there are 50,000 families on housing lists throughout the country. In my city the number of people on the housing waiting list has exceeded 4,000 for the first time in the history of the city in my memory and that of those who have served on local government for a long time. It is introduced against a background in all cities and towns of poor quality rented accommodation, with Strumpet City conditions. There is poor, if any, enforcement judging by a survey carried out by one of the Sunday newspapers last September prior to the opening of the academic year, which showed that a big percentage of student accommodation in the city was below standard and did not comply with building or other regulations, and nobody seems to care. We have high rents, low standards and no enforcement by the authorities.

I do not lay the blame entirely at the feet of the local authorities because this is about resources, and many local authorities do not have the resources to ensure enforcement. The Minister of State has responsibility to ensure those being exploited, many of whom are students, are not being screwed financially and that they get the accommodation which is in line with the demands on their lives. Academic life is stressful enough without having to live in substandard conditions such as those of Strumpet City.

Having said that, I welcome the Bill. It is a long overdue development in the housing legislation of this country. My party has been a long time calling for the Government to act in light of the changing housing situation. While the coalition Government has commissioned many reports, and even read some of them, it has been slow to act. Nevertheless, the Bill is better late than never.

This legislation gives tenants the security of a four-year lease at the market rate. It obliges landlords to maintain property, while tenants must repair any damage caused and refrain from anti-social behaviour. It obliges landlords to legally register their property and threatens penalties if they fail to comply. It gives an assurance to landlords that their names will not appear on the public record nor will details be passed on to the tax man. It provides for the setting up of an official Private Residential Tenancies Board to resolve disputes. With just one in five landlords registered, the Government must provide a significant carrot to entice them. That carrot will be to allow them legally register their properties without exposure to the tax authorities.

The need for reform in the private sector has long been recognised. The Bill is published against a background where the percentage of the housing stock available for rent has risen from 8% to 13%. This percentage increase is all the more notable because the total number of units has increased substantially. The housing situation is very different from that which pertained when my party left office in 1997. Back then, students could find accommodation relatively easily. They could pay for the places they found and there was hope of some day owning a property, but things have changed utterly. Because of exorbitant price increases, the rental sector is a more realistic option. Home ownership, still the ultimate goal of many, may have to be put off until later in life. It is only right that we frame an appropriate legislative response to changed times.

Lest we underestimate the serious situation facing those in the rental sector and those wishing to enter the housing market, it is important that we are in no doubt about the facts. The first-time buyer's grant has been abolished. It was one of the many victims of the great election swindle of 2002. The little respite offered to young people to help them get a roof over their heads has been taken away and, to add insult to injury, there has been an increase in VAT on house prices. The cost of an average new home is approximately €200,000. That is 25% higher than in the United States and it represents a 180% increase on 1996 prices.

During the 12 month period during which the Commission on the Private Rented Sector held its meetings, 12,000 people contacted Threshold, mostly on the issue of frequent and substantial rent increases. Health boards are paying rent subsidy to 100,000 people. Tenants have had poor security of tenure, while landlords have felt that many policy decisions were framed on the basis of poor and inaccurate information.

Nobody wins in the current situation and it is a shame that it has taken such a long time for the Government to act in the face of this growing problem. Those with the greatest need in all this are those with no home at all. The housing statistical bulletin states that there are 5,581 homeless people in this country. This is a national disgrace. It is an utter indictment of Government policy, a Government that inherited a boom in terms of available resources and promptly squandered them.

The reaction of the groups outside this House who have an interest in this area must be borne in mind during this debate. Threshold has welcomed the Bill as a major step forward for both landlords and tenants. It states that it will redress the imbalance that operates within the sector, but has pointed out that loopholes exist that could see unscrupulous landlords, whom I contend are in the minority, escape the obligations the Bill imposes on them. Threshold has broadly welcomed the proposed measures. It stated:

The publication of the Residential Tenancies Bill 2003 represents a historic day for landlords and tenants with the long overdue enshrining of basic principles on a statutory basis. Threshold believes that the Bill will have a significant impact in redressing the inequitable balance between landlords and tenants in the private rented sector.

While Threshold is broadly welcoming the Bill there are key areas of concern that will need to be addressed and incorporated into the final drafting of the legislation. Threshold is concerned that security of tenure could be compromised by loopholes that undermine entitlements under the legislation, such as the unclear definition of anti-social behaviour and the ability to evict in order to refurbish. Threshold is also highlighting the absence of a clear reference to enforcing minimum dwelling standards and of strong measures to ensure full registration of landlords.

This is a critical issue given that currently less than one in five landlords comply with existing registration requirements. A further issue is that the cyclical six-month probationary period will leave tenants vulnerable to eviction without reason at the start of every four-year tenancy. Aideen Hayden, Chair of Threshold said: "Threshold have been campaigning and fighting for tenants rights for 25 years and the Residential Tenancies Bill represents an important step in improving the inequitable relationship that has existed for too long between landlords and tenants. We believe that a fair and well-regulated sector will contribute to and stimulate the growth of the sector and guarantee its future development into the 21st century.

I believe that is a reasonable and responsible response to the Bill. The first reaction of the Irish Property Owners Association was a little over the top. It described the Bill as flawed because it imposes inflexible, bureaucratic and unbalanced rules upon them. It stated:

The proposal for an automatic four year right to occupy following an initial six month tenancy period is contrary to the overwhelming tenant demand for flexible leasing arrangements. This one size fits all approach fails to recognise the complexity and variety of the residential letting market. An independent survey conducted by IMS-Millward Brown for the IBOA in May 2002 found that 65% of tenants would prefer to negotiate individual flexible lease arrangement.

The proposed compulsory registration and de-registration of each tenancy with the Board will be a bureaucratic nightmare. We fail to see what it achieves or what purpose it serves. We fully appreciate why local authorities should know where rental property in their area is located, but it is an exercise in pure red tape making for the Board to take on this function centrally. No other European country, where there are higher levels of rental accommodation, has such a burdensome system. If countries like Germany with 70% levels of private rented accommodation need no such bureaucracy attached to its dispute resolution process, then Ireland can survive without it too.

I am not saying I agree with those issues but we must listen to all sides and consider their concerns on Committee Stage. The association stated:

It was our clear understanding that the package of measures recommended by the Commission on the Private Rented sector would be implemented in a fair and balanced way. The Commission proposed several tax reforms on Inheritance Tax (CAT), pension provisions and other standard business reliefs designed to "encourage professionalism".

I do not understand the meaning of that sentence. The legislation goes beyond what the commission recommended in many regulatory areas.

I asked for a response from all the groups with an interest in this Bill. The Bill is complex and lengthy and the time between publication and the Second Stage debate is too short to allow for proper consultation with all the interested groups. It is in the interests of this House and of all concerned that we get it right this time. We have been waiting a long time for this legislation. I hope a sufficient period of time will be allowed before Committee Stage so we can consult with tenant organisations and the Irish Property Owners Association.

The IPOA says that this legislation, if passed in the form in which it is published, will damage the sector it seeks to support. While it welcomes some proposals in the Bill which are long overdue, it feels that a pre-occupation with centralised regulatory control will doom it to disaster. Successive Governments have failed to understand properly the needs and the operation of the private rented sector, according to the IPOA, and this lack of understanding has led to a succession of failed and harmful measures. The 1996 registration regulations never worked, existing legislation was tweaked and the measures in the first three Bacon reports sent rents sky-rocketing – mortgage interest relief was scrapped at a time when the demand for rental accommodation was at its highest. The net impact of these measures, coupled with the arcane notion that rental income is unearned income, drove investment out of the sector at a time of maximum need.

I view this Bill in light of the need for proper recognition of rights and responsibilities. As a representative of a party of the progressive centre, I reject the argument of those who seek to jump down the neck of those who own property in this country. It is easy to characterise all landlords as bad, but it is wrong to do so. Similarly, I reject the belief that the market is king. The right to hold and let property is accompanied by a responsibility to treat tenants with the respect they deserve and to grant them the rights they need – rights which are provided for in this Bill for the most part. A vibrant rental sector which is attractive as a medium-term option – not just as a short-term option as it is at present – is vital to the future of our economy. The rental sector needs to be fair to landlords, so that supply can be boosted, and fair to tenants, so that demand can be maintained. We need to root out exploitation, give people the protection they deserve and make the letting of property an attractive option.

The Bill addresses the major areas of importance to the sector. I believe it will stand the test of time after it has been fine-tuned. The inconsistencies in the Bill must be ironed out before it passes through the House, however. The composition of the proposed private residential tenancies board needs to be spelt out more clearly in section 147. The board is central to ensuring that the spirit of the Bill is adhered to and that neither tenants nor landlords can abuse perceived loopholes. The Minister is free to choose whom he wants, as long as he deems them to have adequate experience and there is an equitable balance between men and women on the board. That does not ensure that there is a balance between landlord and tenant interests, however. I propose a balance of five representatives of landlords, five representatives of tenants and five impartial persons.

Section 148(2) allows the Minister to make a subjective decision to remove a member of the board at any time. This gives the Minister great power over the functioning of what needs to be an independent group. This seems to be at variance with what people expect from this legislation. When this provision is taken in conjunction with section 192, the Minister has the power, in effect, to rewrite the day-to-day workings of the Bill, subject to his own interpretations. This is unacceptable and contrary to independent board hearings and clear law-making.

Section 125 of the Bill refers to the publication of the registry details. Although it is acceptable that no information on the specific identity to rent amount is to be included in published accounts, there is concern that full taxes are not paid by all property owners on rental income. I have to ask why this Bill is not attempting to ensure this is not the case. The omission of such a provision is an important defect in the Bill.

Mr. F. McGrath

It is deliberate.

Mr. Allen

There have been significant reductions in certain elements of the tax base in the past ten years. Income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax have been reduced. There have been significant gains in the value of rent and capital values for property investors. It is in the national interest for the Revenue Commissioners to be given access to the registry and specific details to ensure compliance with tax laws. There is no moral or legal case for the denial of such access. If the Minister cannot accept such an amendment, he will invite the questioning of his agenda regarding this issue. The health service, for example, which will be the subject of much discussion tomorrow, will not fund itself. It is important for the less well-off to see that the better-off are paying their fair share.

The number and broad nature of definitions of anti-social behaviour in section 17 could lead to a significant level of ambiguity and could lead to eviction simply because a tenant is not liked. Clarity is needed in this regard. Does listening to the radio constitute interference with peaceful occupation? Does smoking cause damage to persons living in a dwelling? Perhaps a different phrasing is needed to ensure reasonable justice in the implementation of this part of the Bill.

Section 16(c) does not specify how much notice a landlord must give for inspecting a premises or the recourse for a landlord that cannot get in contact with a tenant or cannot reach agreement about the date and time of inspection. Perhaps greater clarity of rights and responsibilities would resolve disagreements before they start.

The Bill is a step in the right direction. It offers hope to younger people that renting their own home need not necessarily be fraught with worry. Given the level of house prices, it can only be a good thing if renting a home is seen as a viable medium-term alternative to home ownership. Bad landlords and bad tenants will suffer as a result of this Bill, but it will also mean that tenants will benefit from greater security of tenure. Property owners who run a good ship will benefit from tenants who see that they have responsibilities as well as rights. I have pointed out the flaws in this Bill and I hope the Minister of State will take heed of my concerns. The lives of everyone involved in the private rented sector will improve if certain changes are made.

The role of the Opposition is to examine legislation and to point out any defects in it. I object to the treatment of the House, particularly the Opposition, in recent days, when Bills have been guillotined or reshuffled. I do not mind if Ministers of State present Bills rather than their senior colleagues. Those of us on this side of the House have a responsibility to consult with and listen to those who will be affected by the proposed legislation. We make judgments on their views and then air the views we have formed following this consultation. This process was not allowed to take place on this occasion, when we were dealing with a landmark Bill. I hope time will be provided between Second Stage and Committee Stage so that all views can be taken into consideration. At the end of this process, I hope we will pass legislation which is important and which will give rights and responsibilities to all involved in this area.

Mr. Boyle

I wish to share time with Deputies Morgan, Finian McGrath and Cowley, with the agreement of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Boyle

Despite its unsatisfactory late introduction today, this Bill deserves to be welcomed. It has been long anticipated and long requested. The Bill was examined by an independent commission, a process which the Government has largely accepted. This is a good way of forming, introducing and agreeing legislation. For that reason alone, everyone in the House should welcome it.

Despite it being one of the better legislative proposals that the Government has introduced or is likely to introduce, it is not a perfect Bill. As Deputy Allen said, it is the role of Opposition to point out inconsistencies and flaws, and to debate and suggest necessary amendments. As the Bill proceeds through the House, that is a role my party will be happy to play.

In terms of housing provision, the balance between those who own their own home and avail of private rented accommodation and those who avail of social housing is far different from that in any other European country, and there are historical reasons for that. Because that mix is so distorted the rental sector, in particular, has developed in a half-baked way. We have allowed standards here that would not be accepted in many other countries in respect of the quality of the housing provided in the rental sector and the ongoing administration of the private rental sector by both local government and central Government. This is an added reason the legislation is so welcome. It will, I hope, put in place the infrastructure that will allow us to bring about those necessary improved standards.

It is heartening to see that the campaigning organisation which has been dogged in its pursuit of tenants' rights has given a broad welcome to the Bill. Threshold needs to be congratulated, not only for taking a positive attitude towards the legislation but for the ongoing work the group does in producing documents that help in housing provision. In the past six months alone, in combination with other organisations such as the Simon Community and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, it did an analysis of the housing plans provided by local authorities in the past year and provided an important critique of those plans.

In recent weeks it provided a publication in conjunction with Comhairle, the citizens advice service, about the use of supplementary rent allowance which, as most people realise, is far from an aid to people seeking accommodation in the private rented sector but is more of a subsidy for people who own property and wish to let it. It suggested that the best policy approach is to introduce a form of rent benefit paid directly to those seeking tenancies so that the market can better define what provision is made for people and how it is done. I hope we will have a debate in this House in the near future that will improve the lot of those who seek accommodation through the private rented sector.

Mention has been made in the debate of the increased number of housing units that have become available, particularly in inner city areas, through the urban renewal tax designation. The Green Party would argue that this provision has not been without its difficulties. Because it has been taxation-led there are question marks in regard to the quality of the housing that has been provided. There has been a lack of proper regulation as to the social effects of placing so many units in given communities. My constituency office is in South Parish, which, technically, is in Deputy Allen's constituency, but the boundaries are blurred in that part of Cork city. There are other examples more directly in Deputy Allen's Shandon area where apartment accommodation was provided through the urban renewal scheme. Very often this is small in scale, housing of a type that undermines community life in the area because it gives rise to what I describe as a five to nine existence. People arrive in their accommodation at five o'clock in the afternoon and leave at nine o'clock in the morning. They have a Monday to Friday existence and do not interact in the communities where they are physically placed. That is something that needs to be examined in terms of general housing policy.

There is much to welcome in the Bill, such as the security of tenure provision. As has been mentioned by Threshold, there are concerns in relation to eviction to refurbish and the definition of anti-social behaviour is very loose. I hope the Government will accept amendments on definitions on Committee Stage.

I welcome the dispute resolution mechanism, where there is currently a serious problem within the private rental sector. Unfortunately, it is too often left to organisations like Threshold to play a role that is not intended for it, in either challenging the issue directly or using other mechanisms such as local authorities to bring about resolutions of many of these disputes.

Ultimately, the Bill seeks to establish the new national board, the Private Residential Tenancies Board, which, unfortunately, seems to be a necessity. The Green Party believes that it would be better to regulate as much of this activity as possible locally. Experience has shown that there is a huge conflict of interest in local government, being both a housing provider and a housing regulator. Very often blind eyes have been turned and there has been a lack of willingness to enforce the legislation that was previously put in place in respect of the registration of landlords and of rented properties. To do so rigorously at local level would have resulted in local authorities adding to an already serious situation in terms of their own housing waiting lists and the need for social housing. If the new board helps to remove that conflict of interest it will do something useful.

In progressing this legislation the Government needs to introduce further parallel legislation in respect of the relationship that exists in other areas of housing, particularly in social housing, not only between local authorities and tenants but in the increasing sector of housing agencies and tenants which is in need of proper definition as to the responsibilities of tenants, housing agencies and local authorities. There are inconsistencies in this regard and while people are more secure in that housing sector if they are fortunate enough to receive housing, they are still open to the type of conflict in terms of maintenance of the property and the quality of the housing they receive. As the debate proceeds I hope the Government will be prepared to take that side of the debate on board as well.

Mr. Morgan

It is our job to be critical of the legislation and put forward necessary amendments. I will leave the more positive elements until later. It is especially disappointing that legislation for which the people of this State have waited so long is so limited. People in private rented accommodation will have gasped in disbelief that legislation brought forward to reform the private rented sector does not tackle the fundamental issue of affordability. This is symptomatic of the Government's failure to tackle the crucial issues in terms of the housing crisis. We had an example of this previously when the coalition Government buckled to pressure from developers in respect to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, has shown he has no backbone in tackling rack-renting landlords. The Minister has sided with landlords, to whom regulation of the private rented sector is a matter of business, as opposed to that of the tenant, to whom it is a matter of their home.

The Bill takes a very hesitant step towards redressing the inequitable balance between landlords and tenants in the private rented sector. Sinn Féin, though welcoming the fact that the Government has at last brought forward legislation to regulate the private rented sector, is disappointed by the significant shortcomings in the Bill. There are elements in the Bill which are blatantly unacceptable. This Bill fails to address a number of key issues of concern to tenants in private rented accommodation, such as the size of rent increases. The failure to address rent regulation and issues regarding affordability will seriously undermine the security of tenure provisions contained in the Bill. Sinn Féin is totally opposed to the provision in this Bill whereby rents applicable in the private rented sector should be at open market levels.

I am amazed that the Government seems unaware that the most serious problem currently facing tenants in private rented accommodation is the issue of unaffordable rents. This Bill, in Part 2, section 24, defines market rent as "the rent which a willing tenant not already in occupation would give and a willing landlord would take for the dwelling." One can imagine a situation where a person who is looking for accommodation, perhaps with one or two young children, arrives on the door step and begins dealing with the landlord. How can this person be described as a willing tenant when in desperation for accommodation? Because of the scarcity of available accommodation they will be forced to accept whatever the landlord decides to charge. They will only be limited by their own ability to pay.

Rent increases should be index linked, not market driven in a situation where, partially due to the Government's failure to tackle the housing crisis, demand far exceeds supply. This Bill, by its failure to address rent regulation, will defeat its own admirable intentions of addressing security of tenure. The limited security of tenure offered by the Bill will means very little to a tenant who is faced with a succession of substantial rent increases annually. It is within the power of the Government to control and set ceilings for rent but, of course, it is simply not interested in doing so.

People who are caught in the vicious cycle of the private rented sector will despair at this Bill. Young people who are paying astronomical rent know they have no hope of getting out of the private rented sector because house prices are unaffordable. They know they will never be able to save the deposit because they are living from hand to mouth and from month to month as they pay these ridiculous levels of rent. In the last budget, the Government did not have any compunction about freezing the maximum allowable rent supplement, yet they refuse to restrict the ability of landlords to increase rent. That is hardly a level playing pitch.

I now turn to one of the most striking disclosures in this Bill. The fact that this Bill specifically and categorically states that the landlord register will not be made available to the Revenue Commissioners makes an absolute mockery of any claim by the Government that it is committed to tackling tax evasion. To include in a Bill an element specifically to facilitate tax evasion is a disgrace. It demonstrates that the partners in this coalition Government, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, are unable to abandon their taste for corruption and illustrates that the Government condones tax evasion by landlords. How can anybody stand over such a provision in any Bill coming before this House?

The requirement in Part 3, section 22, that only 28 days' notice of any rent revision be given is completely inadequate. Most people are paid on a monthly basis and would have great difficulty in meeting this requirement. Part 4 deals with security of tenure, to which I have already alluded briefly. We believe the four year limit on security of tenure is too short and does not take account of the fact that increasing numbers of households will be living in private rented sector accommodation for longer periods as the option of buying a house becomes more remote than ever. Sinn Féin does not agree with the proposal to allow a six month period, following the completion of each four year period, during which the landlord can issue notice to quit without providing a reason. It is unreasonable that a person who has been living in a particular dwelling for four years would be liable to be evicted, without reason, every four years.

Part 5, section 67, specifies the shorter notice periods applicable where the termination of the tenancy by the tenant is due to the landlord's failure to comply with the tenancy obligations. It states that where a breach by the landlord of a tenant's right to peaceful occupation involves behaviour that "poses an imminent danger of death or serious injury", the notice period is seven days. Would the Minister like to live under a threat of imminent danger of death or serious injury for a period of seven days? Would the Minister submit his family to such conditions? All of us know the answer to that. Let there be no mistake about it, the provisions of this Bill will subject parents and young children to dangers such as I have just described, and that is entirely unacceptable.

We have concerns that security of tenure could be compromised by loopholes that undermine entitlements under the legislation, such as the large number of reasons for which landlords can evict tenants – for example, for refurbishment, sale or even use by family members. These are not justifiable reasons, as described by the Minister, and I ask that they be reconsidered. The provision in relation to anti-social behaviour needs to be further defined. While nobody wishes to accept anti-social behaviour in either the public or private rented sector, neither do we wish to allow further opportunities for excuses by landlords to evict tenants willy nilly. Sinn Féin welcomes the establishment of the tenancies board, which is long overdue. It will, I hope, be of assistance to tenants who, until now, have had nowhere to turn when they faced difficulties with their landlords.

People who, in the Minister's words, awaited this Bill "with a high level of anticipation"– I believe that was the term used – will be desperately disappointed. In the absence of measures to address rent regulation, I do not believe that this Residential Tenancies Bill will bring about a significant improvement in the position of tenants. I hope the enforcement of local authority tenancy registration will be tightened up. There would be little point in enacting this Bill if it were to simply rest on the Statute Book without being of any benefit.

I reiterate that the establishment of the board, at least as a resolution mechanism for disputes between tenants and landlords, as opposed to initiating court proceedings, is certainly very welcome and I look forward to seeing how that unfolds. I hope it will prove to be a cost effective and beneficial mechanism for resolving disputes between the parties concerned.

Mr. F. McGrath

I welcome the opportunity of commenting on this Bill. In this debate, I intend to put a different view, in defence of the interests of tenants. Phrases such as "security of tenure" in sections 25 to 55 immediately remind me of Michael Davitt and the Land League. Those great Irish men and women made such a magnificent sacrifice for the Irish people, particularly for the men and women of no property.

Earlier this evening, I was astonished to hear the Government defending its record on waiting lists and housing and social policy. Tonight, I will try to carry on the tradition of Davitt. It is extremely sad that, after years of economic boom, a sector of Irish society is still in the grip of landlords, most of whom are home grown and seem to be obsessed by greed. For that reason, it is essential to remind ourselves of Davitt in this debate. Exploitation and injustice must be tackled. Legislators have a duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society. That is the purpose of this Bill as we need radical reforms of the private rented sector and we must ensure that our citizens are given their full civil rights.

I strongly welcome section 14, which prohibits landlords from penalising tenants who have referred a dispute to the board. This is an important provision, preventing a landlord from bullying a tenant, a tactic which is used to a considerable extent by landlords to impose their way and intimidate their tenants, particularly those who might not have the social skills to defend themselves or know their rights.

I find it extraordinary, at the beginning of the 21st century in a fairly prosperous Ireland, that we seem to have a major problem with the distribution of resources and wealth. Landlords and banks can rip off people, yet nobody seems to care. These are the awkward questions for society and they create tension. We look for leadership and guidance on these important social issues, but the political elite, the business sector, the church and the legal professions all had their credibility seriously tainted by damage and scandals. This is the Ireland of 2003.

The reality is that most wealthy landlords in this State support the major political parties and they will always use their clout, money and power to push their own agenda. Hence, we must always be on our guard, protecting and defending our citizens. I have heard that view represented tonight. The Minister talked of balance, but I do not agree with what he said. This Bill should be balanced in the interests of tenants. I represent their views and the interests of tenants, not the landlords who have the power and resources to look after themselves.

I would like all of us to develop a radical, civic type of republicanism that believes in equality and justice. If one was to delve deeply enough into the problems of anti-social behaviour and binge drinking, one would note that there is a huge absence of civil republicanism, and this starts the day a child enters pre-school. We should ask the French about this. They start their civic responsibilities at an early age. This is a matter we should seriously consider in this debate in relation to landlords and property.

This debate gives us the opportunity to support tenants and to deal with the whole question of equality. Security of tenure is important. I have major concerns about sections 25 to 55 in that, during the first six months of each tenancy, a landlord will be free to terminate the tenancy without giving a reason. This takes away the rights and security, and sometimes the safety, of the tenant. This is dangerous and it leaves room for the bullyboys. I urge the Minister to reflect on these sections.

Section 19 prohibits an initial or reviewed rent from being set at an amount greater than the market rent. This is an important section. We need to be on our guard in relation to high rents and rip-off merchants. If a tenant was paying rent for a flat, apartment or house, he or she would deserve to be treated with respect and to be given a fair price. Let us tackle the recent disease of overcharging customers. It is widespread in Irish society, not just in the private rental sector. Consumers are being hammered and it is time to call a halt to this type of anti-social behaviour.

In discussing this Bill, it is essential not to forget our homeless and all the people on housing waiting lists. We have seen a rise in the number of homeless nationally, from 5,234 to 5,581. They comprise 4,176 adults and 1,405 children. The highest level is to be found in Dublin where 4,060 people are homeless. We need to tackle this complicated issue head on. As a former full-time worker with the Simon Community, I believe we need to listen to groups like the Simon Community, Focus Point, the soup runners and co-workers on the ground when discussing legislation such as this. If we do not, we are going nowhere in discussing this Bill. We need an integrated strategy, back-up plans and resources, and then we can all sit back and think of Michael Davitt.

Dr. Cowley

I welcome this Bill, for which we have been waiting a long time. We are probably the only country in Europe that does not have proper protection for tenants in private rented accommodation. This is an important sector and legislation in this area has been long overdue. It follows from the report of the Commission on the Private Rented Sector, which called for significant reform of this sector.

The Bill is an attempt to reform the private rented sector. Some 120,000 tenants are in private rented accommodation. It is important that we recognise this is a step forward, however, it does not go far enough. There is a concern to ensure that the provisions of the Bill work properly. It is open to unscrupulous landlords to drive a coach and four through the legislation despite its good intentions. How will section 34 be policed? It is important that there is back-up documentation. It is not sufficient for landlords to state that they want houses, they should have to prove why they want them and that it is a legitimate need. What are the safeguards in this regard?

There is a precedent whereby landlords are not particularly good at complying with legislation. Only 20% of landlords are registered. This Bill does not provide for landlords to be registered with the Revenue Commissioners. Failure to do so is a problem. Such lack of provision in the Bill shows a lack of resolve by the Government to do the business in terms of addressing the problem of unscrupulous landlords, the majority of whom do not pay taxes. There is a precedent of low compliance among landlords with legislation in this area, of which due cognisance should be taken in this Bill. Local authorities do not have the necessary resources to deal with landlords and to ensure their compliance with legislation. That should be addressed in this Bill to ensure compliance across the board.

The Bill seeks to ensure a more professional private rented sector. Its enactment would bring more money into the private sector. However, we should not forget the non-profit sector which is an important player in the provision of housing, particularly the provision of social housing by housing associations and local authorities, which is not covered in the Bill. Such authorities provide housing for people on the waiting lists in particular. It was mentioned that we do not want racketeering, as is prevalent in the UK, where landlords are totally unscrupulous and throw tenants out at will. Documentation will be crucial as a back-up to section 34. If a landlord was to use section 34 as a device to get rid of a tenant, it should be proven that he or she is bone fide in what he or she is trying to do. If a landlord put his house on the market, this section should not be used as a device to get it back again in some way or other. A landlord may say that he needs it, but he must need it for a legitimate reason.

The Bill is about attracting greater investment in the private rented sector to build it up and improve it. If that were to happen, it would be welcome. The bottom line is that we cannot rely totally on private landlords; housing associations and local authorities must also play their part.

I question whether this Bill is being introduced a few years too late. It was long promised and the Celtic tiger has been and gone. Perhaps the provisions of the Bill will not achieve as much as they might have done a few years ago. People may believe that property is not as good an investment as it was previously. That will affect the efficacy of the legislation, nevertheless, it is welcome.

My colleague, Deputy Finian McGrath talked about Michael Davitt. He dealt with the land issue, but the housing issue was not dealt with.

Mr. Durkan

He covered housing as well.

Dr. Cowley

The equity secured in the area of land was achieved in the area of housing. It is interesting that 80% of our population lived in private rented accommodation before our independence, but now 80% plus of our population live in owner occupied housing. The private rented sector has a long history. It is important and timely that this legislation is before the House, even though its introduction is long overdue.

I welcome the fact that the legislation puts a responsibility on the tenant as well as the landlord. It is important that tenants also bear their responsibilities. Landlords have been adept at getting their way and getting around the provisions of the legislation. It is, therefore, important that resources are provided to enable this legislation to be effective.

Some 80,000 students live in the private rented sector. They have an ongoing campaign for the provision of campus accommodation. If that group was taken out of the equation, much more private accommodation would be freed up. Approximately 6% of students live in campus accommodation compared to 28% of students in the UK.

A reservation I have regarding this Bill is that the names of landlords will not appear on the public record or be passed on to the Revenue Commissioners. If we were to be ethical, we should be consistent, and there is a lack of consistency in that regard in the Bill. Landlords are prohibited from charging more than the market rate for rent, and this is to be welcomed. The penalty for non-registration, €140, is just twice the normal registration fee. This needs to be reconsidered.

Mr. Gilmore

I thank the members of the Technical Group for facilitating me this evening and I look forward to making my contribution on the Bill when it comes back to the House.

Debate adjourned.