Obviously, tenants do not buy that newspaper or advertise in it. Throughout that assessment of the private rented sector is a belief that, at the very least, supply has met demand which has consequently levelled off. Some of the articles in the supplement seem to suggest that, in some areas, there is an excess of supply. Therefore, there is a different context today.
If the commission on the private rented sector were to re-examine this matter now, I am not sure we would end up with the same formula that appeared in its report. There are a number of reasons for this. According to the legislation, at any time, even within the four year period, it is open to a landlord to seek repossession of the dwelling if: the landlord needs the dwelling for his or her own use; for the use of his or her own family; the landlord wants to use the dwelling for some other purpose; wants to sell it; or if the tenant does not comply with the terms of the tenancy. It is not as if the dwelling is entirely locked into a situation where the landlord cannot repossess it. Even within the four year period there are many ways in which that can happen.
Under the terms of the legislation, it is proposed that, after four years, the landlord can seek repossession of the property for no reason. In a situation where the market was increasing rents, and I presume this is what some people were thinking about four years ago, one could have the best tenant in the world in a secure situation, but if one thought one would get an extra €400 per month for the same apartment, a landlord could simply evict the existing tenant and get a new one. It was a different market some years ago.
Given that we are legislating for the commission's report almost four years after it was published, we should look at this matter afresh. I do not think there is a case for the four year tenancy provision. We should have a simple situation, including a probationary period, after which a tenant receives an entitlement to a tenancy which is covered by the protection provided for in the legislation. Thereafter, as long as the landlord is letting that dwelling as private rented accommodation and provided the tenant complies with the terms of the tenancy, that good tenant should be entitled to first refusal on the tenancy.
The question of terminating the tenancy is dealt with under the terms of the legislation which provides for the circumstances in which a landlord can seek recovery of the dwelling. In so far as the protection of the tenant is concerned, it can be dealt with by way of having a different length of notice required, depending on the length of tenancy involved. Arguably, one could say that the four year tenancy is an improvement from the tenant's viewpoint, provided that the tenant only seeks a four year tenancy. At the other end of the scale, however, after the traditional 20 year tenancy, a tenant could automatically qualify for a 35 year tenancy. That provision is being done away with, so only tenants already in a 20 year tenancy will qualify for that.
There are gains on both sides in the length of tenancies but there are dangers with a four year tenancy arrangement. Trap number one is that people letting on a short-term basis will terminate tenancies short of six months so that the tenant does not gain any rights. Trap number two is at the four year stage where a landlord, even with a good tenant, may decide to terminate that tenancy to avoid that tenant getting a further four years' entitlement. That is unfair from the tenant's point of view. To answer the Chairman's question, the difficulty will be that, if one has a two year tenancy, one can look forward to a further two years' tenancy. That is provided for, but if one has completed a four year tenancy, one will go back onto probation with the same status as an unknown tenant who views the house or apartment on day one. That situation is unfair.
Housing market experts argue that there should be a strong private rented sector and that private renting should be an option for housing, the same as purchasing. They argue that people should, as they do on the European mainland, look on renting as a stable form of providing housing. That will not happen as long as we have the four year arrangement. As long as the four year tenancy formula is the basic entitlement to tenancy, tenants will still see private renting as insecure accommodation since the only security one has is up to four years. After that, one is once again at the mercy of the landlord.
On the other hand, if the type of arrangement I suggest were in place, it would provide more protection for the tenant and create a different climate for private renting in which prospective tenants would see private renting as secure accommodation. As long as they complied with the tenancy and the landlord were prepared to rent, they would have security of tenure. To have that thrown up in the air every four years is not secure accommodation. If that is the essential formula being used, people who might otherwise be quite happy to rent — for their entire lives, if needs be — will now see that the most they will get is four years and use those years to look around to see if they can buy. They will certainly not look at renting as a stable and secure long-term option.
I understand that the formula came from the commission on the private rented residential sector. It was a compromise, and I can understand that. I compliment the chairman of the commission once again on the great job done in getting broad agreement from interests which, at the time, were very much at odds on what was required. It was a compromise to get a report. The four year idea came to be that compromise. We should not be locked into that; circumstances now are different. I believe that the commission would now look on it differently. There is a need for us to break out of that four year formula.
I have no problem with the idea of probation. It is reasonable since, when a prospective tenant visits, a landlord has no way of knowing, other than perhaps by looking at references, whether the tenant will be good or bad. Three months is long enough for someone to know whether he or she has a good tenant. Once someone has completed the probationary period, he or she should have security of tenure. There are ways in which the landlord can recover the property if he or she wants to do so. The arrangement whereby, at the end of the four years, the tenant goes back on probation is unfair to the tenant, bad for the sector and will underscore the climate of uncertainty and lack of security that has characterised it. It is also unnecessary given the protections for landlords which are in the Bill. Will the Minister of State look again at recasting the way in which we approach this?