Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Nov 2003

Vol. 575 No. 1

Residential Tenancies Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Ó Fearghaíl

I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute briefly to what has been a lengthy and interesting debate on this Bill. As stated by many Members, the legislation is long overdue.

In reviewing the debate that has taken place so far, it is clear the Bill is being considered and debated in the overall context of the Government's successful housing programme. I come from a similar background to many Members of the House where, on a day-to-day basis, I deal with housing issues and the concerns of people seeking local authority housing or private rented accommodation, including issues relating to the management of local authority properties or estates and tenant-landlord conflicts.

It has become clear to me over the years – I would say it is my political priority – that providing good quality secure accommodation for individuals ensures they are in the best position to maximise their educational, health and employment prospects and potential. There can be no disputing the fact that those who enjoy the benefit of good quality, secure and affordable housing are more likely to be able to participate fully in the education system, and move on to long-term employment, while at the same time experiencing a better overall level of personal health.

Coming from that point of view, I am particularly happy to acknowledge the success of the Government's housing policy where supply is seen as the key element in solving the problems that exist. We can philosophise as much as we like, but the demand can only be met by building houses. The record level of output in recent years, which is likely to be exceeded again this year, is genuinely impressive. It means the target of 600,000 dwellings to meet an anticipated 10-year demand is well on the way to being achieved, and earlier than when the target was first set by the Government in 1999.

The Government continues to put a heavy emphasis on the provision of social and affordable housing. The range of measures aimed at meeting the needs of those on low incomes has been greatly expanded. I am sure Deputy Durkan will agree that our local authority, Kildare County Council, has, to say the least, been tardy in delivering its own housing programme or significant numbers of affordable housing units.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy never said a truer word.

Mr. Ó Fearghaíl

People aspiring to owning their own houses in Kildare have received an enormous welcome boost with the Government's decision to make lands at Magee Barracks available for affordable housing under the terms of Sustaining Progress. The €1.7 billion allocated towards capital funding for houses in 2003 is intended to deliver 13,000 units of social and affordable housing throughout the country. Output from the voluntary sector is also high, with more than 700 units of accommodation completed in the first six months of this year. Despite some difficulties with the shared ownership scheme, almost 5,500 families have availed of it over the past three years.

Homelessness is a very serious issue, perhaps the most serious housing issue confronting us. The Government is committed to tackling the problem. Throughout the country local authorities, together with health boards and other statutory and voluntary bodies, have come together to draw up local homeless action plans, which are currently in the process of being implemented.

However, most action is required in Dublin. I note from a response to a parliamentary question from my colleague, Deputy O'Connor, on the issue of homelessness in Dublin, that in the three year period 2001-03, almost 1,500 persons will have been housed by the local authority, voluntary sector and the Threshold housing access unit in the four Dublin local authority areas. In addition, 1,000 emergency beds have been provided and a range of strategies have been put in place, involving the health boards and the Probation and Welfare Service, to address the needs of those leaving hospitals and mental heath facilities and homeless offenders. Much has been done and much more is in the process of being done. In that context, with much activity in the housing area it is appropriate that the private rented sector be studied and regulated.

Traditionally, we have placed a high value on home ownership. As we rapidly become a multi-cultural society it is inevitable that rental accommodation will meet the needs of an ever increasing proportion of the population. For too long, rental property has been viewed as a stop-gap measure meeting short-term needs, filling the gap between leaving the family home and either purchasing one's own accommodation or moving to local authority provided accommodation. It is essential in this changing environment that people have the choice to opt for rental accommodation as a means of meeting their ongoing housing needs.

The Bill seeks to strike a balance between the interests of tenant and landlord and their particular rights and responsibilities. That there has been a widespread welcome for it and the principle it contains is proof that the Minister has got the balance right. Like other speakers, I have had representations from both sides of the argument in respect of the proposed six-month probationary period, with landlords suggesting the period be extended to 12 months and, unsurprisingly, tenant interest groups suggesting a three month initial period. Common sense would suggest that the six month period proposed strikes the correct balance.

The word "balance" frequently comes to mind when studying this legislation, not least in the matter of the residential tenancies board and its proposed tenancy tribunal. In almost 20 years as an active public representative and having witnessed many landlord-tenant disputes in my constituency, I recall no case where the tenant proceeded to take court action against a landlord, though in some cases such action might have been justified. The process envisaged in the Bill whereby disputes may be referred to the board for mediation or adjudication or, subsequently, for public hearing by the tenancy tribunal is one that will readily be availed of by tenants and landlords.

That the Bill sets out the minimum legal obligations of landlords and tenants and addresses in a straightforward manner the important issues of maintenance and repair, deposits and anti-social behaviour is welcome. These are areas around which most difficulty has focused in the past. It is appropriate that the Bill gives recourse to third parties to make a case to the private residential tenancies board.

We are all aware of the extent to which a minority of unreasonable and irresponsible tenants can make, and have made life difficult for their neighbours. Recently, a newly married couple in my constituency fled their dream home because they could no longer tolerate the antics of a number of people renting an adjacent property. In this case, approaches to the absentee landlord, the Garda and the local authorities failed to resolve the problem. Under the provisions of the Bill, such third parties would have recourse to the private residential tenancies board which in turn could make a determination in the matter.

Another major aspect of the Bill is that it provides security of tenure for the tenant for four years while allowing the landlord the option to terminate the tenancy within six months, without giving a reason, but restricting the landlord to ending the tenancy in limited and verifiable circumstances thereafter. In that respect it is reasonable to provide for the ending of a tenancy in the identified circumstances – sale, change of use, major refurbishment or to meet the needs of a family member – provided that in each such case the facts are clearly demonstrated.

It has to be acknowledged there is a major improvement in the quality of accommodation available for rent in recent years with an ongoing increase in the number of purpose built units throughout the country. It is still the case that a minority of tenants continue to live in totally unfit accommodation. In many cases – Kildare is no exception – these tenancies are being subvented by the local community welfare officer. It is essential that there is co-ordination in the future between the community welfare service and the proposed private residential tenancies board to ensure rental subsidy is not paid in respect of properties that could be deemed to be unfit or properties with no planning permission. This legislation is likely to lead to a more professional approach to the rental market, which in turn will generate a better environment for tenants, enhanced property standards and an increased investment in the sector.

While I support the Bill I am disappointed it has been found necessary to bring it forward. It is an inescapable fact that if local authorities had taken seriously their responsibilities under existing legislation in the area of registration and enforcement, the additional provisions of the Bill could have been delegated to them for implementation and the need to establish yet another State body could have been avoided. In my county, one of the fastest growing in the country, and one in which NUI Maynooth is located, a mere 580 landlords have registered just 696 properties, a fraction of the overall rental units in the county. Given that there is no full-time staff commitment within Kildare County Council dedicated to registration or enforcement of current legislation, this low figure is not surprising.

This is well balanced and well crafted legislation and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Connaughton

Those of us who have been involved in politics for some time agree that the Bill strikes a reasonable balance between the landlord and the tenant. As many of my colleagues have said, it has been meandering its way through the House for a long time this year. There will always be a conflict of interest between the tenant and the landlord. It has always been that way. The Minister is trying to provide defined rules in legislation which both sides will understand and try to work towards.

When introducing the Bill in June, the Minister said it was historic, groundbreaking and so on. I would not go that far. I would prefer if the Minister had devoted more of his time to ensuring young people got an opportunity to own their house. That would resonate much better with them. However, that is not an issue for today but we will return it because we must consider this matter in its totality.

The vast majority of people rent accommodation because they have no alternative, although in certain case, those on middle or higher incomes may chose to rent. Particularly in recent years, more people have wanted to rent than there were units to rent. If there are more buyers than sellers the market becomes distorted. This applies to all transactions, whether it be for flats, rented accommodation, apples, sausages or cattle. That is a law of business and it is there regardless of what one does.

In the university cities, such as Galway in my area, or Maynooth, or others, in August and September of every year when youngsters are going back to college and the first years are starting out they and their parents must endure no end of torture in seeking accommodation, apart from the financial implications. Like everything else in this world there are bad landlords, who are always in trouble – they are in a minority but they exist. The same is true of tenants, some of whom never improve even if they live to the age of 90. Thankfully, between those extremes most people get on with the job and manage to work out a way of life. Most people, however, would not rent if they had an alternative.

When I hear the glowing tributes which the Minister of State paid to himself in his opening remarks, as Ministers and Ministers of State always seem to do, I have to set them against the recent Book of Estimates. I wonder if the Minister of State were writing his speech today would it be as it is here now. In the Book of Estimates a new hand grenade is being thrown into the rental accommodation area with the withholding of rent relief for the first six months. That will have a profound effect on a large group of people and it will cause serious trouble. No one would deny that there will always be people who will try to circumvent or dodge an issue, and some who are not entitled to it will receive rent relief, there is no question about that.

I assume the Minister's backbenchers will bring the word back to him that this will hit innocent and deserving people. Community welfare officers will have a most unenviable job because from what I see of the regulation they will have to be judge and jury without precise regulations as to how they operate. In the context of this Bill that is as serious an issue as has come up in this category for a long time. I hope that over the next month or two it will be refined somewhat because it is crude. I heard the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, on radio recently and in so far as he canvassed with us here his heart is in the job. He comes from the right family and the right area, in the middle of Dublin city where housing problems are more acute than in areas outside Dublin. Irrespective of how often one announces that 50,000 or 52,000 houses were built last year or promises to do the same again, it is not worth a fig to the 60,000 people, and more, who are on the housing waiting list.

I was a member of a local authority for many years until recently and, like everyone else here, as a public representative I have a great deal to do with housing and have seen dramatic changes even in the past five or six years. I do not understand why Fianna Fáil decided to discontinue the first-time buyer's grant a year ago. I thought the party would be too smart from an electoral point of view to do such a thing. Some members of Fianna Fáil argued that €3,600 was a negligible amount in the context of a house costing €200,000. They also argued that when the grant was in place builders added it to the price of a new house. When the budget was announced there was a 1% VAT increase on building material and that was a major blow to young people. However, that was nothing to what is happening now as local authorities seek development contributions. The Minister of State and his colleagues tell us not to blame the Government for that. They say that the local authority is exercising its capacity to raise funds locally. That is hogwash and the Minister of State knows it as well as I do. In effect this is asking the local authority to carry out the capital programme which the Government previously had to fund.

As a result of lack of funding from the Exchequer for work the Government should have been doing, several of my constituents who are trying to build or buy their first homes will now, in County Galway, have to pay €13,000 or €14,000 on top of that. This is instead of receiving €3,600 as they would have done a year ago. Regardless of what the ESRI, various building societies and the plethora of monthly housing reports say, house prices are rising, maybe not as steeply as hitherto. When one is trying to save to buy a house, even for as little as €140,000 or €150,000, the 10% increase, even if that is a lesser increase than the year before, makes a difference. Then the Government comes along and puts another €14,000 on top of that. The Minister of State can massage the figures but he will be crucified in every county council chamber around the country.

Mr. N. Ahern

We are not doing that. The councillors may do it, but I will not do it. The councillors have the option to do so.

Mr. Connaughton

It is the same racket that Fianna Fáil tried in 1977 but it will not work this time because all people have to do is compare what happened this day last year with what is happening now. They will ask why they had to pay so much more in terms of a development contribution. They will not say that the manager of Galway County Council caused it – it was not because he was put into a financial straitjacket. Even the Fianna Fáil councillors around the country, of which there are many, particularly those in control of county councils, will try to devise a formula of words to enable them to pass the Estimates with some honour, which they will not be able to do. Many more people will tell the Minister of State the same story. Deep down he knows it is true and it is a sleight of hand. Whatever the Minister of State says the young people will know that the responsibility for this lies with central Government.

There are many problems in so far as this Bill is concerned, for example, the provision for the first six-month period which allows the landlord to break the tenancy. I assume there have to be compelling reasons and that the landlord could not do this willy nilly. I am not an expert on the Landlord and Tenant Act but does the tenant have to leave after four years unless a new tenancy is agreed? Does he or she have no hold on that property? I cannot find an answer to that in the Bill.

Mr. N. Ahern

There would be an interval of a few weeks but the tenant has no hold. There would be three months notice or whatever.

Mr. Connaughton

After that it is a blunt instrument and the tenant walks away if that is what the landlord wants.

Mr. N. Ahern

Until six months have elapsed, then the tenant has a hold again.

Mr. Connaughton

I understand. As for landlords, I have no particular interest in bashing them at all. They are important players in all of this. There have been very good landlords over the years and landlords who should never have been allowed to make a penny in that business because they exploited tenants thoroughly. As for standards, which is a very important aspect, I hope this new Bill will get across to all local authorities and to landlords and tenants alike that from now on there must be a certain standard of accommodation below which a tenant will not have to accept. I know tenants who live in dreadful conditions. One would not expect to see a human being in them. I hope that as a result of the publicity this Bill will get and the powers that are in it, it will empower local authorities or health boards or whoever else is involved to do what they should do. It is very important that there is a supervisory role for the authorities to ensure that the standard is met.

There is another aspect to housing. Some 95% of tenants who talk to me say they regard every pound spent on rent as money down the drain. They say they are housed for whatever week is in it, but that it does them no good for the future. That is a fact of life. The problem is a vicious circle well known to the Minister for State. As the years go by and rates for tenants rise, there is hardly any money left for young people trying to put a few quid together for a house deposit. Then, because of demographics, there are a lot more people to be housed over the years. I will grant that to the Minister of State. It was true that we built more houses, but given the set of circumstances, we have never had more people looking for houses. The circle goes around and around.

I have a question for the Minister of State, to which he might refer when he is summing up. I happen to be an advocate of the affordable housing concept. When it was first introduced I could see it had a lot to offer. We use it reasonably well in Galway, though not to the extent I thought it would be. Indeed it is not used anywhere to the extent that five or six years ago I thought it would be. That scheme is the vehicle or conduit by which most young people will one day get into a house they can call their own. Why is it not happening?

In my little village of Mountbellew we have seven or eight affordable housing units. They were built in jig time and sold. We will not go into all that. The cost of the land was low. I then noticed in the last couple of years in small places like Portumna and maybe Ballinasloe that the subsidy paid by the Minister of State's Department was called into question in some instances. For instance, we were told that the houses could be sold at about €120,000, that the Government subsidy should not be scorned and that the houses were cheap. That is of little use to a lot of people on very low incomes not much higher than the social welfare allowance. When one lives in a place like that, one's options are very limited. One cannot go anywhere else. Most of the time there is no rented accommodation.

Mr. N. Ahern

The subsidy is only for the site value. If one has been sitting on the land for many years, the site does not have a high value.

Mr. Connaughton

I understand that. I am glad to get the chance to put this point to the Minister of State today, because it is a technical but important matter. A loan of €120,000 or €125,000, a figure which I appreciate is very low in the Dublin context, can in many parts of rural Ireland be a huge amount to find for someone who has not got the resources to borrow it. The Minister of State needs to look again at the way this kicks in. If we could manage to house people in units costing €120,000, €125,000 or €140,000—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has two minutes left.

Mr. Connaughton

I am sorry I have not 22 minutes.

Mr. S. Ryan

The Deputy is motoring.

Mr. Gogarty

He should take his time.

Mr. Connaughton

In that context, there is a tranche of people at that level who, if they cannot be accommodated with affordable housing, have only two options. One is that Galway County Council or some other council will have to build them houses. We are talking of a minimum cost of €150,000. That is the cost today of building a council house. If that is not possible, and it is not, because we have about 1,200 or 1,300 people on the Galway housing list, their only other option is to start renting. That is no use to most of those people. It is a complete waste of time. That all happens because affordable housing has not turned out to be what it should be.

Mr. S. Ryan

I hope the Deputy is not looking for rent subsidy.

Mr. Connaughton

We got done on that in the Estimates. I sincerely hope the Minister will look at the issue I have mentioned because it is the simplest way of housing many people in the future.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, on his thoughtful and careful stewardship of this issue through the House. I congratulate him too for the strong role he has played on the social democratic side of our party and its movement. He has always stressed this kind of issue as being very important, because this Bill essentially protects tenants from ruthless or heartless landlords. Such people have been an unfortunate tradition in this country, and it is mainly our own people who have to a certain extent been preying on tenants rather than providing for them and providing the kind of accommodation they richly deserve.

It is important that this Bill has finally come through the legislative pipeline and is now becoming a reality. For many years we were lacklustre in our performance in this area. We left tenants abandoned to what in certain cases, a minority of cases, turned out to be rapacious landlords who had no regard for health, safety or indeed the situation of a tenant hard pressed for money.

This is balanced legislation. It balances the rights of the tenant with those of the landlord. I have never been a landlord, and I do not have much sympathy for that class of person, but the landlord has a role to play in providing housing in this country. Housing supply, as identified by Deputy Connaughton, is a very important issue. With this Bill we are starting on a great new venture which reflects the modernity of our country and our coming to terms with the fact that we are not in Thatcherite terms a Government or economy or a country which is aspiring to force everyone into becoming a home owner.

I was struck by Deputy Connaughton's suggestion that it is a tragedy that someone would never end up owning his or her own home. The reality of most modern economies outside Ireland, on the Continent and elsewhere, is that a great many people survive in rented dwellings. There are very strong economic arguments for having a strong rental market and a substantial percentage of the population depending on rented rather than purchased accommodation. This is a very desirable situation which the Minister of State referred to in one of his speeches on this Bill.

Considering the mobility of labour, there are strong economic arguments to suggest that people should not own their own homes, or that if they do, they should not be overly dependent financially on a mortgage. If one is dependent in that way, one is unable to move or be mobile when the economy changes and requires mobility of labour, in terms of moving to one part of the country or another. That is very important for the ongoing development of this economy, not least because we are now embarking on a programme of decentralisation. We have to be able to provide for a situation where people of a certain age or disposition can move from Dublin to Galway, Mayo, Leitrim or wherever when they wish to do so, and allow them to do so without any punitive measures or financial discouragement.

The Bill provides for that and for the basic decency and security which a tenant deserves. The four-year provision is to be applauded and it is balanced by the six-month probationary period which the tenant must serve at the beginning of a tenancy. Other fair measures in the Bill include the establishment of the Private Residential Tenancies Board which will hear appeals in the case of disputes between landlord and tenant. The law will be applied in a full and fair manner and all will be treated equally. Those who breach the spirit of the Bill will be punished, and rightly so. I am impressed by the significant financial punishment that would apply for an unscrupulous landlord who would invoke one of the four or five criteria that apply for ending a tenancy of a tenant who may be vulnerable. There is provision for fines of up to €20,000 where a tenant is evicted by a landlord who claims one of the four criteria, for instance that a member of the family requires the accommodation or that the property is to be sold. If there is a material deceit or abuse of the law in that case, a significant penalty applies and that is to be welcomed. That penalty will, I hope, banish the rackrenting, ruthless landlords who have been evident in this marketplace.

Approximately 11% or 12% of the housed population is dependent on rented accommodation. In Germany the figure is approximately 30% which is very high in European terms. I suspect that in the coming years in Ireland there will be a gradual but steady climb in the number of people who do not own their home, and perhaps happily so. They may regard it as more desirable to rent rather than own their home and would prefer not to make the significant financial commitment of a mortgage, which is binding.

A recent report stated that overseas firms are arranging packages where money is pooled for mortgages. Deputy Connaughton was rather emotional in his appeal for everyone to own their own home. When the maturing and developing mortgage market is examined it may be the case that many people will buy their own homes but never actually own them because the financial institutions will take a much greater share in the housing property market. The more prolonged mortgage will mean people will never own their own home in the pure sense of ownership as in having it as an asset which they can liquidate and encash in its entirety. This is a welcome development in some ways because it means that the level of cash being paid into a mortgage or rent can be reduced because of the prolonged rental or mortgage agreement. It means that capital is not being wasted or buried in a house, in bricks and mortar. There are compelling arguments for encouraging more people to take a more diverse investment approach to their financial future, such as stocks and shares, equities, pension funds, life or medical insurance. These methods are better for the individual because they will have greater security in the future.

It is important that this is stated because in the past the argument of rent versus ownership has been very emotive. It is not always the case that ownership is the best for society in general. I was particularly struck by the rhetoric employed by Mrs. Thatcher in this regard when I lived in rented accommodation in England. She went on lyrical forays to praise the benefits conferred by home ownership. I am not as convinced as she seemed to imply that it confers significant benefits. There is no doubt that it has a steadying influence on society but there is a point where an obsession with home ownership becomes a sterile and conservative influence on a society. It can breed a form of conservatism and an unwillingness to consider other investments.

I am a member of a Government which has a social, caring and democratic edge and it has had the courage to reduce the capital gains taxes that apply to investments. The general treatment of investment capital has improved enormously in a manner that has increased employment and the ability of ordinary people to invest in something other than the family home to their profit.

I draw the Minister of State's attention to the provisions dealing with anti-social behaviour in sections 15 and 76. This is a timely and welcome development. I hope these are not vague provisions and that they will operate efficiently and effectively. Anti-social behaviour is a major issue of concern in my Tallaght constituency. Because of the varying price of houses, there are whole swathes of my constituency which, while they are private houses, have become rented dwellings. In some of these areas there has been the unwelcome development of unregistered and unscrupulous landlords and tenants behaving in an anti-social manner, making life hell for the long-stay residents who have purchased their homes.

Prior to this legislation, anti-social behaviour was addressed by the local authority where a person in a housing estate behaved in an anti-social and intimidating fashion towards a neighbour and disrupted the whole neighbourhood. It could not be tackled in a meaningful way, however, if it involved those living in private rented dwellings, and the Bill tackles that problem for the first time.

The provisions on anti-social behaviour are very welcome. They will help stabilise many areas in my constituency and elsewhere where there is a preponderance of rented dwellings. Tenants will now have rights they did not enjoy before and landlords will have obligations with regard to maintenance of the property. Sections 15 and 76 are very important provisions. They provide that a third party or a neighbour may tackle the phenomenon known as the neighbours from hell syndrome, where a person decides to behave in a harassing manner towards a neighbour, where there is persistent and annoying behaviour by one person against a neighbour or against a series of neighbours on a street. The third party can take an action to the tenancies board to enforce the terms and conditions of the rental contract. The obligation is on the landlord to vindicate those rights and ensure that the person behaving in an anti-social manner will be swiftly dealt with.

The case law which will build up as a result of the Bill will tease out the detail. If a difficulty or ambiguity arises with regard to these specific provisions I hope the Minister will give a commitment to act swiftly to amend and enhance the sections. I do not need to preach to the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, about the importance of these provisions. He is a man who has been rooted in his constituency in his time as a backbencher and a Minister of State and is aware of the needs of the individuals he serves in public life. He knows more about daily life and how it plays out in urban and suburban estates in this city. He will be mindful of this and it should not be necessary to include stronger deterrents in this section of the Bill to prevent the thuggery, intimidation and harassment that can ruin a neighbourhood for decent people. Neighbours from hell can cause awful problems. There is an area in my constituency, and Deputy O'Connor would know about it because he represented it as a county councillor, where such behaviour became a terrible problem due to the preponderance of rented accommodation and difficult, nasty individuals. It led to many home owners moving out of the area to escape the situation.

In recent years we have struggled to achieve two basic objectives – to reduce house prices and ensure the funding of a mortgage is not so onerous as to create the threat of negative equity. Many experts from the Opposition and elsewhere have tried to preach to the Government about the housing crisis and the gap between supply and demand. Being brutally honest, the Government had to be careful not to create over-supply in the market with the consequent potential for negative equity such as I witnessed when living in London in the 1980s. People there were living miserable lives with huge chunks of their income going to mortgages while house values had collapsed. That is a major risk because it squeezes disposable income, reduces consumer demand and kills the economy by attacking consumers' ability to spend.

The other reason housing supply is still in deficit is simple. Fianna Fáil is sometimes a very far sighted party—

Mr. S. Ryan

Sometimes? It is a long time since Fianna Fáil was far sighted.

Mr. English

It sees from one election to another.

Mr. C. Lenihan

—but no one could have foretold the enormous economic improvement we would bring about after 1997, with 40,000 people entering the State every year at the height of the boom. Deputy English said Fianna Fáil sees from election to election, but between 1997 and 2002 an extra 200,000 people entered the State. A whole swathe of voters who had returned from America, England, Australia and the Continent—

Mr. English

They are sorry they came home.

Mr. C. Lenihan

—added to the enormous pressure on the housing market, the health service and all of the other public services we provide. The result was an even greater need for housing that could never have been anticipated. We did not foretell our success, although we were glad to achieve it, and now we have to deal with the problems caused by that success, particularly in relation to housing and the health services. Very few of those people who returned from abroad, however, voted for the Opposition parties who put themselves forward as the people who would solve all of their housing and health care problems.

Mr. English

They have learnt their lesson. They will not do it again.

Mr. C. Lenihan

Hundreds of thousands of people swarmed back to Ireland because of the opportunities presented by our economic success but very few of them voted for the Members opposite.

Mr. S. Ryan

Is there no secret ballot in the Deputy's constituency?

Mr. C. Lenihan

They did not vote for them for good reasons. They knew that the lavish false promises made by the Opposition on health care and other areas could never be paid for because they were so outlandish.

Mr. English

They were ideals, not false promises.

Mr. C. Lenihan

That is why Fine Gael suffered its worst electoral defeat ever and is now facing the possibility of outright disappearance.

Mr. English

We will see about that in June next year.

Mr. C. Lenihan

We would not welcome that because we feel the enemy we know is better than the one we do not.

No one appears to know what the Labour Party stands for anymore. It is now a hybrid of decommissioned Marxists and communists who have given up on the bi-polar communist scene to become social democrats wearing red roses. This is what we are faced with and that is why people in rented and private accommodation, people of property and no property, are rejecting the parties opposite. Everywhere I go, despite the many self-inflicted injuries the Government has suffered, people in the street still tell me the alternative is worse.

Mr. S. Ryan

The alternative Fianna Fáil is the Progressive Democrats Party.

Mr. C. Lenihan

Even Fianna Fáil supporters who are unhappy with our performance tell me there is no alternative to the progressive, liberal, reforming Government we have that is providing and sustaining prosperity.

Mr. S. Ryan

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the long overdue Residential Tenancies Bill 2003. The Bill proposes to implement elements of the report of the Commission on the Private Rented Sector published in July 2000. It is indicative of the lack of commitment on the part of the Government that we are still on Second Stage of this much needed Bill.

The Bill is welcome but it is modest in its scope and fails to deal with the issues of registration and declarations to the Revenue Commissioners. With the objective of improving the Bill, the Labour Party will submit a range of amendments and I hope the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be as open in his approach as he normally is. The rights of private sector tenants have been completely disregarded over the years and it is imperative that the views of all sides of the House are taken into account so that we enact the best possible legislation.

Why has this important legislation not been a priority over the years? It is obvious that the landlord lobby has more influence on the establishment, particularly on Fianna Fáil, than the tenants. Tenants tend not to vote in large numbers – many do not even register – and, therefore, they are perceived as powerless. It is unfortunate that the people's needs are not given priority over pressure groups when legislation is being drawn up.

In the private rented sector there are, in footballing terms, two divisions. At premier league level, in the expensive rented accommodation, leases are part of life and provide security of tenure for their duration. In the lower division are the thousands of tenants who have been deprived of the security of a lease. Such security is very relevant and it means a great deal to an individual or a family. A lease which provides individual tenants and their families with security of tenure means so much to them.

As one who has never lived in private rented accommodation, it was not until I discussed problems with my constituents in my clinics – this highlights the importance of clinic work – that I came to realise what can and, in numerous cases, does happen when lease arrangements are not in place. Unscrupulous landlords can use this to get rid of tenants more or less at will. Thousands of landlords do an excellent job and provide a great service but, unfortunately, there are unscrupulous landlords who have used the system to get rid of tenants more or less at will. The knock-on effect is that tenants realise at an early stage that they are not in a position to negotiate, resist inappropriate rent increases or demand the implementation of existing legal requirements.

A tenant has a legal right to a rent book and to have the structure of a premises maintained by a landlord. As politicians, most of us would be aware of cases where tenants who fought for their rights were dealt with effectively by landlords. A notice to quit would arrive for anyone who was prepared to take them on. While it is true that a notice to quit does not in itself compel a tenant to vacate a premises, the reality is that many vulnerable people, most of whom have no experience of legal matters, would take the option to move out or crawl back to the landlord on his terms. Unfortunately, that has been the reality of life for tenants in Dublin and other areas throughout the country. The message is quickly put out that few tenants succeed in the courts, given the lack of rights-based legislation for tenants. In as much as the Bill provides for this, I welcome that element of it.

A month ago I was contacted by a constituent of mine. His family, with a modest income, consisted of his wife and two children. They were renting a rundown premises which in all probability had no planning permission and they were looking for a local authority house. As they had been in the house for a number of years, I asked them where they were on the housing list. To my astonishment I was informed that they were not on the list as they had never applied. When I asked them why they had not, it transpired that the landlord, when granting them the tenancy, stated emphatically that if an official of the council or an inspector from a local authority ever turned up to inspect the dwelling, he would ensure that the family were out on their heels overnight. His tenants never applied to the local authorities from that address because they were afraid. They had nowhere to go. As the family were in dire straits at the time, they accepted the tenancy. Thankfully, that family is now housed by the local authority. This is a further example of the type of bullying by unscrupulous landlords that has taken place over the years. The Bill is the first step in regularising the sector and it is to be welcomed in that regard.

I have outlined the need for security of tenure and it is one of the main features of the Bill. Tenants will have security of tenure for four years. The landlord may end a tenancy by giving four weeks' notice. All tenancies will end after four years. The tenants may continue to occupy the premises, although I may be wrong in that from what the Minister said earlier, but they will be considered to have a new tenancy. I have a problem with this in so far as landlords will be able to end the tenancy during the first six months without giving a reason. This is unfair. The issue should be revisited and perhaps we should avail of the detailed debate on Committee Stage to do so.

One of the major issues concerning the private market is rent. It is a problem for everybody. Excessive and non-negotiable rent increases have been the bane of many tenants over the years. The same dictatorial approach by many although not necessarily the majority of landlords has resulted in ordinary tenants being evicted and made homeless.

Under the Bill, rents shall not be set either at the beginning of the tenancy or at subsequent revisions at a rate higher than the market rate. I have some difficulty with the concept of the market rate because it is vague and can vary between streets. The requirement to pay the market rent creates hardships for some categories of tenants, especially those on low incomes. For the majority of such people, the possibility of a local authority dwelling is but a dream in the short-term given the performance of the Government and its predecessor over the past six years.

While the Minister may say that more money has been provided, the fact remains that, in the six years the Government and its predecessor have been in office, the numbers on the housing lists have increased from 27,000 to nearly 50,000, an increase of almost 100%. If we equate that to the number of individuals involved, between 150,000 and 200,000 individuals could be looking to the State to provide housing.

Mr. N. Ahern

It is 109,000. The Deputy should quote the record correctly.

Mr. S. Ryan

The fairness of the system in terms of the market price will depend to a great extent on the Private Residential Tenancies Board which will adjudicate on such disputes. Accordingly, it is vital that we have a broadly-based board consisting of people with the necessary knowledge and expertise. In the past, Ministers, and even some Ministers from my party, tended to take the opportunity to fill boards on the basis of political patronage. The composition of this board is too important for such a practice and, in any event, the public is disillusioned with that that type of cronyism. I think the Minister gets my message.

It is estimated that as few as 20% of private rented tenancies are registered in accordance with legal requirements and regulations. Since 1996, all such properties are required to be registered with the local authorities. It is estimated that there are 150,000 tenancies in the country of which 120,000 are still unregistered. It is obvious to me and to any fair-minded person that the majority of landlords have decided to give the two fingers to the statutory requirements of this State. Over the years, county managers failed to pursue these people while at the same time they had no difficulties in vigorously pursuing outstanding charges, through the courts if necessary, against ordinary PAYE workers. Is that a case of double standards? County managers do not need to be concerned about changing their policies or their ways.

This legislation has not changed anything. The Government has not got the message from what has happened over the past ten years. It has learned nothing from public scandals, such as the Ansbacher and overseas accounts scandals and the tribunals, all of which have shown how far some people will go to avoid paying their legitimate taxes. It is an utter disgrace that provision has not been made for the transfer of registration information to the Revenue Commissioners. What message does that send to people? Non-compliant landlords know that the Government is prepared to accept the non-payment of taxation. Compare that with the approach taken by the Government to membership of credit unions and to people paying their way. There are concerns about what might happen if a gun was put to these people's heads. However, in the context of equality, that issue must be addressed.

Since the Book of Estimates was published on 17 November, things have changed, particularly in terms of the rent supplement. The State has acknowledged that private rented accommodation helps to meet the housing needs of people. I referred earlier to the shortage of local authority housing and to the number of people on the housing lists and in receipt of rent subsidy. The rent subsidy has been abused. I have spoken to community welfare officers in my constituency who cannot quantify the abuse, but they know it is happening. However, what the Minister for Social and Family Affairs did was a disgrace and it will have a detrimental effect on the housing requirements of our people.

I received a document recently which was signed by people who deal on a daily basis with those in need. It was signed by the director of Threshold, the director of the Simon Community, the vice-president of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the chief executive of Focus Ireland, the director of One Parent Exchange & Network, the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, the chief executive of the Irish Refugee Council, the director of the National Youth Council of Ireland, the general council of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, the chief executive of Age Action Ireland Limited, the chief executive of the Children's Rights Alliance and the director of Cherish. They clearly outlined the impact of the changes to the rent supplement.

The Government must deal with this issue. If people are being refused rent supplement, there is no point in the Minister for Social and Family Affairs saying that no one will lose out. The money will not be provided to the community welfare officers because there is a cutback of €50 million. What will happen when they do not get rent subsidy? Will they be made homeless? The Minister stated that they should go back to their local authority, but they cannot get a local authority house. Will they get priority over everyone else on the housing list? This is a major problem which must be addressed.

Yesterday we saw the first criminal conviction of a public figure for corruption in the planning process. As a former member of Dublin County Council and a member of Fingal County Council since 1994, I have more than 20 years experience and I am keenly aware of the relationship between politicians and developers. The details from the Flood and Mahon tribunals have been revealing. The downside is that all politicians have been branded as corrupt. It is believed that we are all in receipt of brown envelopes for legitimate election expenses. However, nothing could be further from the truth as far as I and members of the Labour Party are concerned. I welcome yesterday's decision and I hope more charges will be brought.

I do not accept that the planning process has been cleared of the undue influence of builders and developers in terms of rezonings. The planning process in County Dublin, for example, has been smeared. County development plans are now being drawn up throughout the country. Everything must be done in a transparent way and the draft plan which goes on display must be based on the views of the managers and the planners. However, they are also required to consider the representations they receive.

I want to bring to the Minister's attention my concern about a current variation in a local authority. Given that a final decision has not yet been taken, I do not propose to say any more at this stage. However, I want to put on the record that I may contact the Minister in the future, depending on the decision taken by the local authority in question.

I welcome the Bill. There is a lot to be done on Committee Stage, but I hope we will get a Bill with which most of us will be happy.

Mr. McGuinness

I welcome the Bill and I commend the Minister for taking action in this area. When considering the Bill, we must reflect on the history of housing in this country and the roles of local authorities and private landlords. There is no doubt that the roles of both have changed dramatically in recent years. There is a large number of people on the housing list. There is a culture in this country of owning one's home. We have a higher percentage of home owners than other countries in Europe and that is driving the next generation to find and rent their own accommodation or to apply for local authority housing.

Many changes have taken place, including the provision of money by the Government and the introduction of different schemes, such as the shared ownership scheme and other schemes operated by local authorities. Interest rates have reached a new low and mortgages are more readily available. However, what did not happen were the changes which were necessary in the private housing market. The law favours landlords. There is no need for them to refurbish and maintain their properties and to provide a good standard of accommodation to tenants. That is generally the case throughout the country, although there are exceptions. Some landlords will put as many people as they can into one house and try to extract as much money as they can from them. This needs to change along the lines of European standards under which proper rented houses are available – town houses, flats, bedsits and so on – which provide a reasonable standard of living. A changeover is taking place in terms of what is available. This legislation will bring about change, but there is also a change in attitude among landlords towards their tenants. We need to speed up that process to come into line with European attitudes and make sure tenants get a better deal.

The housing problem has been referred to by many speakers. As long as I have been a member of my local authority – 25 years – there has been a housing problem. It is extremely difficult for a local authority to keep up with the number of houses required at any time. In Kilkenny almost 1,000 people are on the housing list and the number continues to grow as the local authority continues to provide houses, which means it never catches up. That said, it is making an effort to fulfil the need and deal with certain numbers from the list every year. The increase in the price of land and the construction of houses has not helped. We need to address this problem.

Perhaps we need to understand the profile of those on the housing list long-term to provide a better, more focused housing programme. In some local authorities, for example in Kilkenny, there is duplication because there is a county council and a borough council. We must define the profile of the applicant and either construct the houses required through the local authority or buy turnkey developments from private developers. If we do not go down that road, we will never be able to deal with the long-term applicants on the list.

Local authorities are making good use of voluntary housing schemes but this could be exploited a lot more. We need to put many more houses on the market at that level. In my area, the notion that one cannot buy a Respond house – Respond is a voluntary housing organisation – should be investigated because people have a desire to own their own houses. It is important within society that this is achieved and we must acknowledge that. We must also acknowledge that we need to put in much more effort through the local authority in the provision of these houses.

The Bill deals with the responsibility of the landlord in terms of repairs, upkeep, the policing of anti-social behaviour and so on. The same can apply to local authorities. There is a need to employ people within the housing sections of local authorities who will engage directly with the local authorities we represent. They will take the problems we encounter in some housing estates, such as anti-social behaviour and drug and alcohol use, and deal with them in a truly professional way, not just identifying them but also solving them, perhaps by introducing the health board or other agencies to ensure a workable solution is found. As the Government, we are the landlords when it comes to local authorities and we should take full responsibility for what happens in the State in partnership with the local community.

This partnership must be strengthened by the presence of certain officials who will drive the policy and ensure that a solution is found to the various problems in certain estates. Solutions can be found. Problems need not be so ongoing and ingrained in these communities that they cannot be dealt with. For the betterment of these estates and the quality of life of the population within them we need to deal with these problems.

The same applies to the older estates and the need to upgrade them and continue a proper repair programme. We need to put more money into the system and ensure that the older estates are brought up to the standard we expect in this day and age and ensure that the houses now surrounded by newer, modern houses – every urban centre has developments situated around older schemes of houses – also enjoy an improvement. The rising tide should lift all boats. It is only through a focused policy that we will deal with the issues that are beginning to emerge.

For those left waiting on the housing lists and who find themselves needing the protection of a Bill of this kind, it will not happen overnight. Local authorities will be asked to police these measures or at least respect the various sections to ensure that the rights of the tenant are acknowledged. For those providing houses in the private sector, this is a two-way street. There are rights on the side of the tenant and responsibilities for the landlord. However, there is also responsibility for the tenant. The law can be acknowledged by the landlord as he fulfils the various sections of the Bill, but the tenant has a responsibility to behave properly and ensure the property is at least kept in shape. Tenants should not do anything to reduce the value of the property through their behaviour.

To achieve this in a similar way to the partnership between the local authority and the community, there is a need for co-operation and partnership between landlord and tenant. We can introduce as much legislation as we like in the House but, if the basic business relationship between landlord and tenant is not friendly, the local authority will be in trouble and there will be accommodation that is poorly maintained. I welcome the Bill because it establishes the rights of which I speak for both parties.

One of the issues emerging because of the numbers on the housing lists and the profile of applicants is that of elderly men and women who have been on the housing list for a number of years and are living in private rented accommodation. They quietly go about their lives and pay their rent but have come to an age at which they are finished their work and it has dawned on them that they are living in poor accommodation.

We must make a greater effort through the local authorities to reach out to these people and provide proper accommodation for them. They should be housed in a complex or in group housing with others of their own age. At present, the elderly men and women scattered throughout many urban centres are outnumbered by young people who are a source of anti-social behaviour and therefore a nuisance to the elderly who once enjoyed the accommodation in which they lived.

We need to absorb these people into the system of local authority housing, where they can enjoy their later years in greater security and comfort. This Bill offers them some form of protection – four years' tenancy and the right of complaint to the Private Residential Tenancies Board. This is covered in sections 7 and 56. I would like to see this working in conjunction with those who are employed within the local authority so that it is done in a sensitive way, on the understanding that the best end for such people is that they are given local authority accommodation. In the interim, they are at least given the protection and security offered in the Bill and the individuals do not have to confront those causing nuisance or vandalism within the house.

There can be a poor mix in a house, often when it is occupied by a large number of people. Some of those people are on housing lists and have almost become prisoners within their own homes because they are not pushing their case and the list is growing. The majority of people on the list are young and agitate constantly to get their houses while the others fall behind. I make a special appeal on their behalf that we do something positive for them while at the same time ensuring that if they complain, or complaints are made on their behalf under this legislation, they will not be subjected to further nuisance or vandalism.

The protection of the rental structure and its management also arises under this legislation. A number of long-running issues have been raised at various times, and this Bill confronts those issues head-on. It gives both tenants and landlords a way of dealing with problems. I understand the rent is to be linked to the commercial rate that is achieved at the time. This will form a guideline for both the landlord and tenant. Rents have increased so substantially in many urban centres that they bear no resemblance to the original rent when the tenant first moved into the home. In some cases, the landlord has either bullied or forced the tenant to acquiesce and the rent has been quickly increased to a point where it better reflects rent one would expect to pay for more modern accommodation.

In a way, the rent allowances that were introduced skewed the market. When the allowance was introduced it cost approximately €5 million per annum and it now runs to several times that. While changes have been made, everyone should recognise that a huge amount of money has been committed to the scheme. The effect of the scheme, particularly in the earlier years, has seen rent increase above reasonable levels. Because of the demand created at the height of economic growth in 2000, rent was knocked out of place and continues at this level even thought it does not reflect the standard of the accommodation. We are getting poor value for money from the rent subsidy.

The scheme should be reviewed in the context of the local authority house building programme. If we were to accelerate that programme, we might find that people become less reliant on the rental subsidy. The sooner we can move towards this and provide people with their own homes, rather than giving them money to pay inflated rents, the better it will be for those on housing lists.

When talking about the upkeep of accommodation, I reflect on the involvement in this issue by members of the clergy in my constituency, who highlighted it almost 20 years ago. They pointed out that some landlords did not pay attention to the conditions of the accommodation they were providing. They completely ignored the efforts of the local authorities to bring these properties up to date and were willing to allow people to live in squalor. While this has improved over the years, it has not improved enough. I am glad the Minister is dealing with this issue in the Bill and ensuring that property is kept to a reasonable standard. In turn, the tenant will acknowledge this effort and ensure that the property is kept in respectable repair. This is an important element of the Bill as this can sometimes be a source of disagreement between landlord and tenant. As I understand it, this can be the subject of a complaint to the private residential tenancies board.

A fine of €20,000 is mentioned in the Bill. This will serve to focus the attention of the landlord on what might happen if they eject someone from a property. This will make for a better landlord-tenant relationship.

I hope that some of the finer details of the Bill can be settled on Committee Stage. This is good legislation and should be welcomed by all involved in politics. After all, we deal with this issue at the coalface and know the problems we are facing. This Bill is reasonable and is a move in the right direction. When it is enacted, I hope the local authority makes it workable.

Mr. Gogarty

My constituency has a high level of rented accommodation. I alluded to this some time ago and I think the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was paying me a compliment when he accused me of having constituency envy. While many of the people in my constituency may live in rented accommodation, they are still fine, decent and upstanding people drawn from many races and religions. I hope the Minister was paying me a compliment, otherwise he was insulting those people. I would prefer if the Minister were around for that debate.

Mr. English

It was insulting.

Mr. Gogarty

The Deputy is correct. In many cases, the constituents of leafy Dublin Mid-West have no choice but to live in rented accommodation. While some parts of the constituency, at least those areas where the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, dares to canvass, may be called leafy, some of the other areas are among the most deprived parts of Ireland. When people cannot find a home or have no security of tenure, it diminishes the sense of community. The breakdown of community leads to other problems and, inevitably, anti-social behaviour and crime. Net Garda strength has increased by only 31 since the Government came to power. The stoppage of overtime payments has affected some operations and the use of public order vehicles. If one looks at the cycle, one can see that lack of proper legislation contributes to social breakdown and crime. As long as one is well off and does not live in such areas, one does not have to suffer.

I point this out because the idea of owning a home is a dream that may never be realised by many of my constituents. They may never get a home from a local authority as local authorities are not given enough funding, or are encouraged to sell land to developers rather than build.

The Bill seems to be a genuine attempt to address the problems facing tenants and landlords under current legislation. Sections 12 to 14 make a reasonable attempt to ensure that landlords meet their obligations and that tenants are not penalised for seeking their rights. I have some concerns regarding the provision preventing a rent review more than once every 12 months. That period could be extended but even the 12 month limit is welcome, as is the right to review rents where no right is currently provided. Even as it stands the Bill will improve the position of tenants by promoting greater regularisation and professionalism within the housing sector.

The Bill has many weaknesses and enforcement will present problems. Even local authorities have problems enforcing the law so the new board will also have problems.

The private rented sector is currently increasing following a decline until the mid-1990s. One in every eight households now lives in private rented accommodation. I hope what I say about these households will have an impact on the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and on the Tánaiste, if she reads the Official Report. These households include the most impoverished and marginalised members of society. As my colleague and party leader, Deputy Sargent, has already pointed out, at least one third of tenants in private accommodation are in receipt of social welfare rent supplement, which reduces the choice of rented accommodation for many people unlucky enough to be in this position. Many adults and children live in appalling conditions. In my constituency there is some fairly good quality rented accommodation in the suburbs of Lucan and Clondalkin although there are cases of large families being packed into houses. In other places, particularly in inner city areas, tenants live in appalling conditions.

Some people live in neglected forgotten areas which many politicians would not even visit to canvass but where gardaí are charged with trying to maintain order in the face of huge underresourcing. The decent citizens, who are the majority in these areas, live in a constant state of fear of the increased incidence of thuggery and criminal activity. I do not wish to mention Limerick, because this behaviour is found everywhere. When social conditions break down crime increases, criminals mobilise, drug pushers move in and take over and the people who have been living in the area for a long time have to suffer. Gardaí, to their credit, do the best they can with the resources they are given. I make no apology for pointing out this under-resourcing during this debate. Gardaí will be under even more pressure unless we ensure a proper social mix with the proper planning and facilities provided. People who do not come from salubrious areas such as Dublin South-East live in difficult conditions.

Deputy Boyle has already spoken about the poor quality of the housing provided, even in the areas designated for urban renewal schemes. Deputy Sargent mentioned insulation and energy efficiency. Not many Deputies read up on energy matters but I have been doing so. Some experts suggest that oil production is likely to peak between 2006 and 2013. What the Greens have been predicting about global warming, possible climate change effects on sea levels and how we will cope with increased flooding, is already happening. Of even greater significance is the fact that when oil production peaks and it costs more to extract the remaining oil from the ground we will see a major increase in the price of oil. Much rented accommodation uses oil or gas for fuel. Our gas reserves are also quite small and gas prices will rise along with oil prices. The issue of renewable energy must be addressed. A measure could be added to this Bill to ensure that private rented accommodation is properly insulated and as energy efficient as possible. Rented accommodation should have even higher standards of energy efficiency than owner occupiers currently enjoy. That is a matter for a number of Departments but an energy efficiency measure could be added to the Bill.

I note the media attention given to Punchestown and the criticism of the Minister for Finance. The PD tail wagging the Fianna Fáil dog is coming home to roost again. This is the sort of dog that eats greedily from the hands of developers, nuzzles up to those well-off enough to pay for dietary supplements if they are coeliacs and are insulated from the cutbacks but cocks it leg to the rest of society. That is why I referred in the Estimates debate yesterday to people feeling they are being spat upon and urinated upon. Unless politicians are seen to take proper action in the provision of housing as well as in cutbacks we will be seen as elitist and separate. I do not know of even one Deputy who lives in rented accommodation, unless in a second house close to the Dáil in Dublin. Mr. Pádraig Flynn sent out the wrong message about politicians on "The Late Late Show" a few years ago when he said it was difficult to keep three houses. That sort of patronising arrogance is perceived to be typical of politicians. It behoves us to change those perceptions and to be seen to take action, even if it means clamping down on landlords who would exploit tenants. Many landlords are business people who wish to make an honest living but there must be legislation and rules to control this sector.

It seems that in some areas of Dublin, Limerick, Cork and other parts of the country, horses have better accommodation than people living on rent allowance. This is not good enough. I hope the amendments proposed by organisations such as Threshold and tabled by Deputies are seriously considered by the Government so that the Bill, which is a genuine attempt to address some of the problems facing tenants and landlords, can be improved.

Tenants in private rented accommodation are currently exposed to rent increases almost at will. While there is some protection for longer term tenants, periodic or probationary tenants are liable to be evicted with only 28 days notice and no valid reason. For the 100,000 people who are in receipt of rent allowance and others who are in receipt of family income supplement or on low wages, day-to-day life is fraught with insecurity and worry. Their situation is not improved by this Bill. Unscrupulous landlords can and do take advantage of those not in a position to argue for their rights. This can be because of a lack of options, because they feel intimidated or because lack of education means they do not know their rights. In many cases they receive no assistance with these difficulties. A notice period of more than 28 days is required and the time required to qualify for decent notice needs to be reduced. One might call me naive but I believe two months would be ideal in both these cases. A qualification period of three months would, nevertheless, be acceptable.

Some flaws stand out in the Bill like members of the Progressive Democrats on a community employment scheme or, given that there are no members of the Progressive Democrats in the Chamber, members of the Cabinet who subscribe to the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. The flaws have the effect of watering down the Bill and making it a little ambiguous – maybe this was the intention. This legislation should be as rights based as the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill.

Section 4 contains a glaring omission in terms of bedsits. The wording should include "units where bathrooms may be shared by occupants of different tenancies within the same building". Otherwise, those who live in bedsits will not have recourse to the new board.

The board is supposed to be the bee's knees when resolving disputes. My colleagues and I do not necessarily agree that the establishment of the board is the best option. The allocation of more power locally, where possible, in addition to proper funding, might make the current system work. It has not worked in terms of enforcement because the resources have not been in place. However, this is beyond the scope of this debate.

Section 6 refers to the servicing of notices by post. Many have alluded to this during the debate and therefore I will not discuss it in detail, but I hope an amendment will be made in this regard. However, the best method – this cannot be included in the Bill – would be for the landlord to issue the notice in person – if landlords are looking for money they visit the individual in person as quickly as they can.

Section 9 lists the penalties for committing offences under the proposed Bill. A daily fine of €250 is touted for each offence. This is small in relative terms and should be increased in line with other fines. Threshold, in its submission, called for a fine of €500, which is the per diem fine in the Licensing of Indoor Events Act 2003. I have no reason to disagree with Threshold in this regard.

I praised parts of sections 12 to 14 because they spell out the obligations of landlords and tenants much more clearly than was hitherto the case. However, there is still ambiguity. Threshold stated in its submission that section 12(1) provides that the obligations under this section are "in addition to the obligations arising by or under any enactment". Furthermore, it stated:

However the inference that section 18 of the 1992 Act and the 1993 standards regulations are part of a landlord's obligations will not be recognised by all those concerned. Compliance with minimum legal dwelling standards at the low priced end of the rental market has been problematic, and an express obligation in the Bill should help to improve matters. An amendment should make explicit the landlord's obligation to ensure that the rental property complies with the minimum standards legislation as currently enacted or as amended from time to time.

Threshold's request seems reasonable and I hope the Minister will see fit to heed it.

Section 12 also requires tightening up to ensure that deposits are promptly returned because, in some cases, the money involved is crucial to the families concerned, particularly if they are seeking a new home. Furthermore, under this section, the reasons for which landlords could reimburse tenants for repairs could be specified. Again, there may be a reason for the ambiguity that exists in this instance. Threshold lists various reasons for reimbursement, including a burst water pipe, a blocked toilet and an inoperative cooker. Other reasons could include an inoperative washing machine. These reasons could be specified and provision could be made for others, yet to be decided. This would copperfasten the section.

Section 14 has some good provisions to discourage landlords from retaliating against, threatening or intimidating tenants who seek to assert their rights. We know that tenants will be able to inform the board about non-compliance with the provisions of the Bill, but a far better deterrent would be to make certain actions an offence, particularly if the enforcement issue is catered for.

On the provisions under section 16 to address anti-social behaviour, I and my party do not want to be regarded as anti-landlord – we agree with landlords on this – but we are in favour of proper legislation. These provisions discourage landlords from retaliating against, threatening or intimidating tenants, who in many cases may just want to point out their rights. Tenants can approach the board to draw attention to non-compliance with the Bill. However, we must examine what constitutes anti-social behaviour. Section 16 needs to be transparent to rule out unjust accusations.

Section 19 does not clarify who has to prove a rent is above the prevailing market rate. Tenants who may not have had proper educational opportunities may have fewer means at their disposal to obtain the necessary information needed to make a case to their landlord. The board will not provide clarity in terms of how one proves rents are excessive or who does so. We need to examine this. Threshold, with which I do not necessarily agree, suggested that further details be provided, and I agree with it in this instance.

There is a need for enforcement because local authorities have consistently failed to register landlords. What chance will the new board have without the adequate resources? Will the resources be provided? Who is more likely to go to jail for non-compliance? Will it be the landlord, for evicting a family wrongfully or the family who, for genuine financial reasons, defaults on a payment? These issues need to be raised.

Time does not permit me to discuss Part 4. I wanted to get a few issues off my chest regarding the impact of bad housing policy on society and communities, and I hope the points my colleagues and I have made will be taken on board. I draw the Minister's attention to the submission by Threshold, which also made some valid points.

Mr. Killeen

I welcome the Residential Tenancies Bill, which will comprehensively reform the private rented sector, and I commend the Minister for his work in this area. There is agreement on all sides of the House that tenants will benefit in terms of security of tenure and the provisions for rent reviews. I welcome the mechanism for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants.

One of the great weaknesses of the existing system is that it is virtually impossible to resolve disputes outside the courts. The courts are regarded as a very unattractive option by many, not least because of the costs involved and the very long delays that arise in many cases.

It is fair to say there has been a long-standing negative view in Ireland of residing in rented accommodation. This view has arisen against the backdrop of a very strong tradition of home ownership and the aspiration of many to own their own homes – generally, they achieve this goal. There has also been a deep-seated anti-landlord bias in the Irish psyche because of the folk memory of evictions etc.

In some respects, this has probably inhibited our ability to address real problems in the private residential sector, which we have been reluctant to do.

Presenting the Bill last June, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, described it as the most far-reaching legislation in perhaps a century and a half, which is true. It is also the case that some less important legislation has managed to achieve its aims, which is not always the case with legislation.

The private rented sector plays a key role in overall housing provision and, in many respects, is becoming more important. When the programme for Government, Sustaining Progress, which contains a commitment to reform the sector, was drawn up, considerable work was under way on this issue. A number of bodies, notably the Commission on the Private Rented Residential Sector, have contributed to the debate on this sector. The commission's recommendations have largely been adopted in the legislation.

I recall thinking when it was established that a body with 18 members would find it difficult working effectively and efficiently. I now acknowledge that its broadly-based membership was an advantage. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been to reach agreement on some, if not most, of the conclusions of the commission's report because some of its members were drawn from very different perspectives and were not the kind of people one would have confidently expected to reach agreement.

Everybody will acknowledge that it would have been impossible for the commission to accommodate all the competing demands, but it did a good job. Some of its members have complained that the Minister of State has not implemented all their report's recommendations. He has gone a long way towards doing so and has addressed the general thrust of the commission's proposals in a fair manner. This is a reasonable and workable balance, the upshot of which will be a much improved private rented sector.

As the Minister of State said, it will be necessary to support some of the legislative provisions through fiscal measures. This has happened to an extent already, notably in the Finance Bills of 2001 and 2002, which provided tax incentives in allowing mortgage interest and refurbishment costs to be offset against rental income. While these provisions have clearly contributed to increasing supply, the Minister of State will need to consider further measures in light of continued significant demand for rented accommodation, which arises as a result of a number of factors, not least mobility.

I noted that the Minister of State referred to his interest in the use of public private partnerships in this area. I hope that whatever he has in mind will not fall foul of the Stability and Growth Pact, EUROSTAT or various other constraints. We have all come across worthy projects which would have proceeded had it not been for the snares in these pacts and EUROSTAT.

Further refinement of Part V of the Planning and Development Act is necessary. This provision is an excellent concept that has been difficult to implement. Its considerable potential should be examined. There is also significant capacity in the voluntary sector, particularly at community level, to adopt the social housing model. To date this model has been primarily advanced by organisations at national or regional level, which have done a wonderful job and built up high levels of expertise and experience in this area.

Voluntary organisations in small local communities in rural areas have also provided social housing. In Lissycasey in County Clare, for example, the local community acquired a site, effectively parish property, and successfully built a small number of social housing units. Obviously in such a confined area, the management team will be small and such communities will lose the scale advantages available to national bodies, but they bring properties to the market by constructing and making available houses which have a throughput of people. They also create pride in the fact that the local community was the entity which adopted the social housing model and provided accommodation of this nature.

There is a massive level of goodwill and support for the kind of model described by Deputy McGuinness to provide housing for older people in their own communities. This area should receive much greater attention from the Minister of State and the Department and much greater encouragement from the housing sections of local authorities.

Demand for accommodation is substantial in a number of categories of people who frequently encounter significant difficulty in finding acceptable housing due to financial considerations. One such group is young separated people, generally men since the female partner and children usually remain in the family home. This is one of the areas in which the number in need is growing and to which policy should be directed. The private rented sector can play and has played an important role in this area.

There is also a subgroup across all communities of people who are barely capable of independent living or need, at least, to be living relatively close to family or with access to a mixture of family and community support. For a variety of reasons, such people are often most successful when they live outside the family home. Clearly, this is one of the areas in which social housing could play a role but, with the right incentives, the private rented sector would also be prepared to play an important role.

Irrespective of the kind of legislation, policies or resources applied to this issue, there will always be difficulties caused by mobility. For example, cities and towns with universities or other third level colleges have major short-term demands for accommodation, which tend to be accompanied by shortages. Likewise, they experience an oversupply at certain times of the year. It is difficult to devise a policy to successfully address such circumstances, particularly one based on a public sector approach. To be fair, the issue is being managed fairly well by the private residential sector.

Many issues affect supply, including planning. While this is particularly true in rural areas, it is also increasingly the case in towns and built up areas. We have a considerable amount of work to do in this regard.

It is also fair to acknowledge that the building industry has provided a record level of housing in recent years. In 2002, for example, 58,000 units were completed compared to 34,000 units in 1996. This enormous growth is being repeated year on year. With output levels of around 50,000 units in the past three years, the sector's performance has been impressive. At the current rate of provision, the aim of constructing 600,000 units in ten years now appears attainable. Considerable improvements have been made since 1997 and a number of serious constraints have been removed.

Ultimately, additional supply is one of the most important factors in securing lower rents. There has also been a general improvement in the quality of rented accommodation. Once this Bill has been enacted, it will be much easier to address the problem of quality. In the past, at least a minority of tenants lived in poor conditions, which their landlords were simply not prepared to address. Perhaps this was due to a lack of incentives or the absence of an agency charged with ensuring they took action.

A number of speakers referred to the effects of anti-social behaviour. Local authorities had enormous difficulty addressing this problem. The private rented sector was having similar difficulties. A Threshold report, if I remember correctly, acknowledged that the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 was successful in helping local authorities to address anti-social behaviour, although obviously the manner in which it was applied did not meet with the full approval of Threshold.

The public sector housing programme impacts enormously on how the private rented sector operates. There has been massive investment in the Traveller accommodation programme. It is hugely expensive and we have been trying to learn from the mistakes of the past. However, it also helps to address housing issues in general.

There is an urgent need to put a system in place to ensure that public housing is quickly repaired, reallocated and reoccupied. Sometimes considerable cost is involved in refurbishing a house after tenants have left it but, most frequently, the damage occurs in the period after one tenant has left and before the house is reallocated. Local authorities claim, with some justification, that they do not have sufficient resources to make the house habitable immediately for somebody else to move in. However, they are losing on the double. They are losing rent while the house is unoccupied and, in most cases, the price of the glass in the windows which is invariably smashed. There is also the price of making the place secure and, in terms of impact on the neighbourhood, they are losing badly.

Part 8 provides for the establishment of the Private Residential Tenancies Board. It has an enormous range of functions. It sets out the minimum obligations for tenants and landlords, tracks rent setting and reviews and deals with many other areas. The Bill excludes holiday accommodation, employment-related and business lettings and social housing. In light of what I said earlier, this is probably reasonable but it could be expanded.

The Irish Property Owners Association was a party to the commission. It has written to complain about a small number of provisions in the Bill. It is concerned about the four year right to occupy following an initial six month tenancy. On the other hand, tenant groups, such as Threshold and others, have the opposite view. The Minister seems to have struck a reasonable balance between the two. However, the board will need to keep this under close review. The Irish Property Owners Association is not keen on compulsory registration, especially with regard to the frequency with which it might be required and the fees that will be charged. Given the history of the sector, however, this provision in the Bill must be given a chance.

The association's third complaint relates to a package of measures, including taxation measures, to make the sector more attractive. This can be reviewed frequently; indeed, it should be reviewed annually. As was proven with the implementation of the Bacon proposals and the rescinding of some of them, this is something that impacts more quickly than most people would expect.

Members have received correspondence about how the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has addressed problems with the rent supplement and the six months requirement for the supplement. Many of the people who have written to me agree that the existing system is both flawed and expensive. They also agree that the rent supplement was not designed to be a social housing programme. They go on to express fears about the effect of the changes made by the Minister. This issue would be better addressed within housing policy provisions rather than social welfare provisions. I suspect that the fears of the people who have written to Members are considerably exaggerated but its impact in the housing area is best addressed in the context of housing policy.

We have also received letters from constituents and others who think they are constituents about the right to housing. They refer to waiting lists of 48,000 households. I understand that several of these people are registered with as many as five local authorities and that this figure is grossly exaggerated. It is not updated frequently enough. They claim there is a need for 7,000 social housing units per annum. That is a daunting target and it is difficult to see it being provided exclusively from the public purse. The Minister's idea about enticing the private sector into this area has a great deal of merit. These people are also, quite reasonably, looking for transitional and short-term housing rather than long-term bed and breakfast accommodation for families. That will be difficult to achieve. However, a stock is needed to deal with the serious problems that arise in this area.

Threshold has been actively campaigning on behalf of social housing and housing requirements. During a budget debate some years ago I said that the CORI report tends to be the bible of Opposition Members. I have been here long enough to have been on the Opposition and the Government benches. The report is adopted with some vigour by all Members when they are in Opposition but tends to be quickly dismissed when they are in Government.

I would not blame Threshold if that organisation thought the same applied to it. It has produced some interesting and good reports. Its submission to the housing commission was fair and solid. The report by Tony McCashin of TCD is an important work. I do not agree with everything in it but it contains much useful information. The proposal for a national rent indexing system would be difficult to accomplish and I presume the commission concluded that the market was a better leveller. However, the report is good.

The organisation's profile of landlords in Dublin city, which was carried out a couple of years ago, is also interesting. It found, for example, that 61% of landlords have only one property. It also found, presumably on the basis of the figures, that speculative investors have been the key factor in increasing house prices and that 70% of them entered the private rented sector during the 1990s. Many people will be surprised at those figures.

I commend the Minister on introducing comprehensive legislation.

Mr. English

I welcome the Bill, although it is probably a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. In many towns outside Dublin there is a surplus of rented accommodation, so many of the problems the Minister is hoping to solve with the Bill will be solved by people now having a choice of rented accommodation. The Bill was needed five or six years ago.

The Bill became necessary because of the housing crisis that began in 1996. If there had been a proper supply of houses, people would not have been under pressure to rent. When one needs rented accommodation, one will take what one gets and not argue. One will also pay as much as one can afford. People did not have an option to complain because they were afraid they would lose their accommodation. I welcome the Bill but it is a pity we had to wait so long for it.

I have to address some of the comments made by Deputy Conor Lenihan. It is a pity he is not present. He seems to have run away quickly after making his contribution. He said that nobody could have anticipated the housing crisis and that it only happened in 1997. Not everyone could have anticipated it but some people did. Developers bought the land so they obviously anticipated it. Why else would they buy land? Even if I can forgive the Deputy and his Government for not anticipating the crisis, I cannot forgive them for doing nothing in the seven years since it began. House prices have increased by approximately 150% since 1996. People did not cop on just last year that there was a housing crisis, this was known since 1997 and 1998. Deputy Lenihan should not try to avoid the issue by saying the Government did not anticipate the problem. A good Government must have the ability to react at the time and not years later. There is no point closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Not having the ability to react is a failure of Government.

Deputy Lenihan said that the 200,000 people or so who returned home during the so-called good years added to the housing crisis. Many of these people regret returning home because they believe they were conned. They were invited home by the Tánaiste. They came home to a housing crisis, transport crisis, health crisis and child care crisis.

Mr. N. Ahern

It is negative thinking.

Mr. Durkan

It is a fact.

Mr. English

My job here is to relay what people are saying.

Mr. N. Ahern

That is very negative thinking.

Mr. English

I am stating the facts, and if the Minister of State cannot face up to the facts there is no point in sitting here listening to me. He should take a break for a while. These people are sorry they came home. They borrowed money, took out mortgages and got badly stung. They were delighted to go back. It was not because of the weather they wanted to return to Australia or America but because of hardship and the lack of help.

One aspect I welcome is that it will no longer be necessary for people to take their grievances to court. People will be able to put their argument and the board will make a decision. This should be extended to the rental sector. I am aware of a lady who returned home from America and who has a problem in regard to the house she is buying. There is an argument about two metres of ground in the back garden. This argument has been going on for years and it is not being resolved. The only way the lady can resolve the problem is to take the case to court. We should consider setting up an arbitration service to deal with these and other issues. Councillors and Deputies are approached constantly about issues such as garden fences being in the wrong place or a tree blocking someone's view. These are social issues that could be solved outside the courts.

Deputy Lenihan said this is a progressive Government which solves problems. I do not know what country he is talking about because I have not come across such a Government. Perhaps it is somewhere Deputy Lenihan went on holidays.

Mr. Durkan

Progressively worse.

Mr. English

Prices have increased by 150% since his progressive Government took office in 1997. The number on the housing waiting list is approximately 50,000. I am sure the Minister of State will dispute the figures, but there are approximately 2,000 people on the housing waiting list in each county. There are at least 4,000 or 5,000 people homeless and living on the streets. These people are also waiting for houses, even though they would settle for any type of accommodation. Has the Minister of State spent many nights on the streets? I have, and I have spoken to these people. I will bring him out one night and he can walk the streets and meet them.

Mr. N. Ahern

Of course they are there, but the Deputy should quote the correct figures. The number of homeless people is 130.

Mr. English

The Minister should cop on to himself. We will go down to the Simon Community and count the number of sandwiches and soups they give out. The number is a lot more than 130. There is nearly that number in Navan.

Mr. Durkan

I am surprised at the Minister of State, and not for the first time.

Mr. English

The Government owns a hotel not too far from here. It was bought for refugees a number of years ago at a cost of a few million pounds. It is not the only one of these hotels that is empty. Rumour has it that it costs approximately €400,000 to secure it each year. The Government has an empty hotel just sitting there while there are homeless people on the streets. I must question the comment that it is a progressive Government. These hotels would help to relieve the housing crisis.

It was stated that people would not vote for Fine Gael because they did not believe our comments, so they voted for Fianna Fáil. They voted for Fianna Fáil because they thought they could trust them. However, they got a rude awakening. We will see what happens in the next election. The people were, sadly, let down, and that is a pity. I have no fear that during the local and European elections next June, and the subsequent election, people will turn to parties other than Fianna Fáil. Deputy Lenihan claimed that Fine Gael made false promises.

Mr. J. Brady

That was in the 1980s, when Deputy English was not around.

Mr. English

Perhaps I am lucky I was not around.

Mr. J. Brady

Fianna Fail had to make the tough decisions.

Mr. English

We will all make tough decisions. I was a baby in the 1980s.

Mr. Durkan

Fianna Fáil made tough decisions in 1977 and watched the country sink to its knees.

Mr. J. Brady

What about the national debt?

Mr. Durkan

In 1977 Fianna Fáil was responsible for the country sinking to its knees, and the Deputy should be ashamed to mention it. It abolished car tax and rates, and the country went down the tubes.

Mr. J. Brady

Is the Deputy proposing to bring back rates?

Mr. Durkan

Fianna Fáil abolished them and said there was no need for them.

Mr. B. Smith

The Deputy is a joke.

Mr. Durkan

Fianna Fáil also abolished car tax.

(Interruptions).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. English

I would say to Deputy Brady that it is my choice to vote whatever way I choose. If I vote against issues it is for a good reason.

Mr. J. Brady

Will the Deputy be able to vote for tough decisions?

Mr. English

I have no problem voting for tough decisions but I do not vote like a sheep, I vote as a person who listens to the people.

Fine Gael was accused of making promises it could not fulfil. Fine Gael has put forward two points of view. The first one relating to health would have ended the two-tier health system. It was also prepared to change outdated housing initiatives such as the shared ownership scheme and so on. That is progressive. We were not making false promises.

I made a comment which I should back up. I said to Deputy Lenihan that the Government often makes decisions between elections. The proof of this is obvious because there is now a housing crisis. Fianna Fáil stumbled through the last election and the housing crisis still exists. When the Taoiseach was stuck for something to say in Sligo or Galway, he said he would make it easier to obtain planning permission and release State land to build housing, which I hope he does. This is a great idea because it will reduce the cost of sites. I hope he will do it in Gormanston and other areas around Dublin. If he fulfils his promise we will probably see these houses in three or three and a half years' time – more than likely there will be an election in that time. This so-called Government is going from one election to the other.

Mr. B. Smith

Some 62,000 houses were built in 2003.

Mr. Durkan

Who bought them?

Mr. English

At what cost?

Mr. Durkan

What is being done with the houses?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Durkan

Surely the Deputy knows that the financial institutions have bought them. There are no longer houses for individuals.

Mr. English

The problem is the price of houses. People have mortgages amounting to €1,200 or €1,500 a month. This is almost a full wage for most people. This is a noose around their necks for 20 or 30 years. Many banks are now giving 40 year mortgages. They are providing these mortgages so that people can afford to buy the houses, not for the good of their health.

One of my biggest fears is that the Bill will put a lot of pressure on local authorities, which are underfunded. The Minister rightly said the last regulations have not been enforced and only about 20% of landlords are registered. The regulations were not enforced because local authorities did not have the time or resources to act.

Mr. N. Ahern

Money was not the problem.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order please.

Mr. English

Where is the money?

Mr. Durkan

That is not possible. How many people can buy a house for €130,000?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy in possession should be allowed make his contribution without comments from other Members.

Mr. Durkan

I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. N. Ahern

Money from Revenue sources—

Mr. English

If the council dug it up.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would prefer if Members and the Minister of State did not intervene.

Mr. English

It would need a bar to take it up.

Mr. Durkan

It would be helpful.

Mr. English

The Bill provides that landlords are required to maintain the structure and interior of the rented dwelling to the standard existing at the commencement of the tenancy. However, no investigation is carried out at the beginning. It is at the discretion of the local authority whenever it has the time to do it. Where is the standard recorded for the commencement of the tenancy? Landlords must apply to the board to be registered within the first month. I have no problem with that. Would it be useful, during that first month, when getting the property checked out by the local authority, if landlords were to include a certificate with their application? That might speed things up as the property would be checked out at the beginning, while a certificate may save paperwork in the long-term.

Regardless of when council staff have to check out a property, does the Minister realise the amount of work involved and the additional staff and resources that will be required? Local authorities are already under-funded by Government with the result that they cannot maintain their own council houses. That is another issue. We are setting two standards here. The legislation is concerned with private rented accommodation and it will require private landlords to have their properties up to standard, yet many local authority houses, which ultimately belong to the State, are not up to standard. Deputy Brady is aware of this, having raised the issue at many meetings of his local authority. In some properties the windows are falling out, there are no gutters, no central heating and so on.

Mr. Durkan

It is a disgrace.

Mr. English

We will now have two levels of accommodation in terms of standards.

Mr. Durkan

The Government should be ashamed of itself.

Mr. English

If local authorities cannot provide funding to get their own houses in order we cannot expect other landlords to have their properties in order. It is like the kettle calling the pot black. A Government should lead and set standards for itself that others will follow.

Mr. Durkan

That would be a bridge too far.

Mr. English

On the issue of funding, and I am pleased Deputy Brady is here to back me up, Meath County Council has very little money.

Mr. Durkan

The Government does not believe it.

Mr. English

We cannot fill potholes or repair houses and now we will have to monitor this area and check properties. The Bill provides that some of the money from the registration fee will go to local authorities. How much, or what percentage? I have seen no figures to indicate what the board will cost to run. The registration cost per tenant is €70. Is that charge sufficient? I would like to see the figures, including the amount the local authority will get. While they will be given money to support their activities, they will probably have to increase the rates or raise money in another way. In view of this, is this another example of legislation that will not be implemented? While it is a good Bill, there is no point in passing it if its provisions are to be ignored.

Tenants have a responsibility to maintain and upkeep the properties. Will a register of tenants be compiled in order that landlords can identify tenants who have caused problems in the past, whether it be anti-social behaviour, damage to property and so on. Such a register would be helpful and it would save time and money for the board and local authorities.

Mr. N. Ahern

The records will be available.

Mr. English

The records for the landlords will be available but will the records for the tenants?

Mr. N. Ahern

The information will be available but it will not be published.

Mr. English

The Bill states that the landlord must ensure tenants fulfil their obligations to their neighbours and third parties. What can landlords do? I appreciate they can probably terminate the contract by giving notice, but what will happen in unusual cases? For example, I recently encountered a case where the tenants involved were killing goats in the back garden because of their differing religious beliefs. That would not be healthy. While it is an extreme case, landlords often do not know what to do in such circumstances. What must they do to fulfil their obligations under the legislation? Will they always have to the board and, if so, will it take months to resolve the matter, as happens in cases before An Bord Pleanála, or will decisions be made quickly? Can landlords do certain things without going to the board? I ask the Minister to clarify this aspect. Landlords are reluctant to act because such cases constitute a grey area and they do not know what they can or cannot do.

If a tenant forces the landlord to breach his obligations, what is the punishment for the tenant, apart from being given notice to quit? The Bill provides that the tenant cannot sublet without permission from the landlord. What happens if the landlord refuses permission? Does he have to approach the board again? To whom would the subletee be responsible? Is he responsible to the original landlord or to the person who is subletting?

Mr. N. Ahern

To the original landlord.

Mr. English

In regard to the six months probation period and the four year tenancy, is it envisaged that another six months' probation will be allowed after the four year period has expired? If the same person is willing to rent for another four years will he or she be allowed a shorter period, say of two or three months? It is unfair that they would have to have to go through a second six months period during which time they could be put out of their home. If a tenant has proved himself or herself in the first four years there should be no need for a second six months probation period if they are to rent again.

I have a concern regarding the notice to quit by the landlord after the six months probation period on the basis of the property being sold, change of use, refurbishment or occupancy by a family member. It is easy to put up a "For Sale" sign. The Bill recognises this can happen. If the tenancy is ended and the reason proves to be false the tenant can claim compensation but that does not solve their housing problem. It would be too easy for the landlord to state that he or she could not get the market value. Therefore, an explanation should be given to the tenant in writing stating why they are being asked to quit. They would then have proof if it turns out that they were asked to leave under false circumstances. This would do away with grey areas. Rather than compensate the tenant, could the tenant be given the first option to return to the house in the event that the landlord takes down the "For Sale" sign a week later and does not sell the property?

The Housing crisis amounts to a failure by the Government.

Mr. Durkan

One of the many.

Mr. English

Part of the problem with renting and so on is that people are unable to build their own houses. I spoke to the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, about planning permission and he has some ideas that he will apply across the board. What about making some of the council housing schemes more accessible? The shared ownership scheme is out of date. Two people on a reasonably good wage who could not afford to borrow to buy a house will not pass the shared ownership test. They will get caught in the middle. It needs to be re-examined with a view to making changes, including to the income limits.

Mr. Durkan

Hear, hear.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has expired.

Mr. English

Am I not allowed an extension of time because of the interruptions?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Brady can speak for himself.

Mr. English

Both sides encouraged it.

Mr. Durkan

It is hard to have a debate on this subject without becoming emotional and, unfortunately, we got emotional.

Mr. English

There is one important point I wish to make.

Mr. B. Smith

The Deputy should make constructive suggestions instead.

Mr. Durkan

Any suggestion would be useful if it would last for a few years.

Mr. English

If they were listened to it would be great. A person with a disability who may not be able to work or may be married with children, where neither parent is able to work because one has to mind the other, and may be in receipt of a carer's allowance or a disability benefit, cannot buy out the house at present because neither has an income from employment. That is a pity. If a person has a muscular disease which may last for years they can never own their own house. These people must rely on the rented market. Will the Minister of State consider changing this aspect of the market? If people are in genuine need perhaps they could buy out the house.

Mr. N. Ahern

Anyone can buy if they have the ability to repay.

Mr. English

The Minister of State should not dismiss my point. Under the regulations one must be earning an income. One cannot use social welfare payments. The regulations are clear.

Mr. J. Brady

I would like to share my time with Deputy Brendan Smith. I welcome this Bill and I compliment the Minister of State and the Minister on bringing it forward, on the great work they are doing, the amount of money they have contributed to rehousing people and building so many houses over recent years. I compliment my colleague, the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, on the work he did to improve housing across the country.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy is going to upset me. I will be embarrassed listening to this.

Mr. J. Brady

In my county, where I was a councillor for 30 years, I have seen a major improvement in the quality and standard of houses built today compared to 30 years ago.

Mr. Durkan

We have the worst housing situation in the world – not the worst in Europe but in the world.

Mr. J. Brady

The houses constructed today are top quality.

Mr. Durkan

Duplexes, one house on top of another.

Mr. J. Brady

The houses being constructed by local authorities with money from the State are ten times better than those in the private sector. That is a credit to recent Governments which have seen a wrong righted. We all know that the quality 20 and 30 years ago was deplorable, whereas the houses today are of a very high quality.

The Residential Tenancies Bill 2003 provides for the legislative reforms of the private rented sector recommended by the commission on the private rented residential sector and accepted by the Government. It introduces a significant measure of security of tenure for tenants, specifies minimum obligations applying to landlords and tenants and provides for the establishment of a private residential tenancies board to resolve disputes arising in the sector, to operate a system of tenancy registration and to provide information and policy advice. The Bill restricts rents to market level and also contains provisions for procedures for the termination of tenancies, including gradated notice periods linked to the duration of a tenancy. There are also some consequential changes to other legislation, including the Landlord and Tenant Acts and the Housing Acts.

Part 1 contains the usual provisions of a general nature dealing with such matters as commencement, interpretation, service of notices, offences, regulations and orders, expenses, and the scope of the Bill. The Bill does not apply to formerly rent controlled and long occupation lease tenancies and holidays, employment-related or business lettings. It also does not apply to owner-occupied or social housing or where one of the occupants of the dwelling is the landlord. However, it may apply to rented dwellings where a lease or written tenancy agreement has been entered into and the landlord's spouse, child or parent is a resident.

Part 2 of the Bill specifies explicit obligations that apply to landlords and tenants of all tenancies regardless of whether there is a written tenancy agreement. It imposes an explicit requirement on landlords to maintain the structure and the interior to the standard that applied at the commencement of the letting. There is a corresponding responsibility on the tenant to remedy any disrepair – other than normal wear and tear – attributable to the tenant's acts or omissions. The obligations applying to tenants include a prohibition on anti-social behaviour.

There is an explicit onus on landlords to enforce tenant obligations. Failure to do so will enable another party, who can show that he or she is adversely affected by the tenant's non-compliance with the tenancy obligations, to refer a complaint to the board concerning the landlord's failure to enforce.

Part 3 deals with rent setting and reviewing, on the basis of market rent. The rent payable may not be greater than the open market rate as defined in the Bill. Rent reviews should be no more frequent than once a year unless there has been a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation in the interim. Rents may be reviewed upwards or downwards.

Part 4 provides for security of tenure on the basis of four year cycles whereby tenancies will be deemed terminated at the end of each four year period and a new tenancy will come into being. Assuming the dwelling continues to be let to the same persons for the first six months of each tenancy, the landlord will be free to terminate without giving a reason. For the remaining three and a half years, termination will be possible only where one of the grounds specified in the Bill applies. These include tenant failure to comply with obligations, proposed sale, occupation by the owner or a family member, change of use or major renovation of the premises. The first cycle of these tenancies is called a "Part 4 tenancy" and each subsequent one is called a "further Part 4 tenancy" in the Bill. The tenant will be free to terminate at any time, subject to any fixed-term agreement. A Schedule to the Bill contains aspects of the application of the security of tenure measure to sub-tenancies.

Part 5 specifies the procedures to be followed to terminate validly a tenancy. Termination is to be by way of a termination notice, regardless of the reason for the termination. The Part introduces gradated notice periods linked to the duration of the tenancy, ranging from four weeks in the initial six months to 16 weeks after four years. These apply to landlords and tenants. It also details the procedures applicable where a sub-tenancy has been created out of the tenancy that is being terminated.

Part 6 outlines procedures for the resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. The principal function being assigned to the private residential tenancies board being established under Part 8 is the resolution of all disputes arising between landlords and tenants of dwellings to which this Bill applies. This means that the board's dispute resolution function will replace the current role of the courts in dealing with such matters for these tenancies. The board will, for example, deal with disputes about the refund of deposits with which the Small Claims Court now deals, disputes about breaches of tenancy obligations whether arising from the provisions of this Bill or under tenancy agreements and disputes surrounding the termination of tenancies in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. The board will deal with cases involving rent arrears and disputes about whether a rent sought exceeds market rent.

The dispute resolution procedures to be followed by the board have been refined and developed from those described in the report of the commission on the private residential sector by the ad hoc private residential tenancies board, established by the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal. The process will consist of two stages. Stage one is either mediation or adjudication and is confidential, and stage two is a public hearing by a tenancy tribunal. The tribunal is composed of three persons drawn from the board's dispute resolution committee.

Debate adjourned.