I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(f) in subsection (5A)(a), by the deletion of subparagraph (ii).”.

These amendments are very practical. What they do is not just attempt to protect tenancies, which I know is the general goal of the legislation, but also to try to ensure the protection of tenancies is not placed at odds with other stated Government priorities, for example, in terms of retrofitting and, of course, in regard to the area which is not touched on as much, that of adaptation under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These are issues we were discussing just this morning with the…

I welcome the clarity concerning the Disability Act. The proposals I have been discussing with the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, for a combination retrofitting and adaptation grant is something I think would be very useful. We may still need more clarity on that but perhaps it would be covered by this. However, while I appreciate the placing may not work in that this applies to RPZs, the fundamental point I was talking about is not the matter of a tenant needing to leave for a period. It has always been the c…

I will withdraw it.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 5, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(f) in subsection (5A)(a), by the deletion of subparagraph (ii), (g) the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (5A): “(5AA) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (5), a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy shall not be deemed to have taken place where the works carried out to the dwelling concerned result only in one or both of the following— (a) in the case of…

I withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 5, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(f) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (5B): “(5C) Notwithstanding subsection (5), in setting, at any particular time, the rent under a tenancy of a new dwelling in a rent pressure zone, where no tenancy in respect of that dwelling has previously subsisted, an amount of rent shall not be provided for that is greater than the amount determined by the formula— RB_room x (1 + 0.02) where— RB_room is the med…

Are amendments Nos. 3 and 4 grouped?

Perfect. On amendment No. 3, again, with respect, while the protections are there, they are not working. I will not go back into the previous area but I really urge that it be examined. While a tenant may make long-term energy savings, most tenants do not have the upfront money to risk a rent increase. They may have the future energy savings over a ten-year period but if it means they might end up with a rent increase it is something they are going to be concerned about. While the landlord has the benefit of an ass…

There are two fundamental issues there. First, with absolute respect and this is one of the flaws in many of the enforcement issues, the onus has been put on the tenant. The nature of this is that these are new potential tenancies and new properties that are coming on stream. There are no tenants to complain that the rent is too high because such people are not in a position to be the tenants. We are speaking about properties which, as I have just outlined, remain empty in many cases. Second, even if there is a ten…

I move amendment No. 4: "In page 6, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “ 5. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 24C: “Annual report on enforcement of rent pressure zones 24D. On an annual basis following the commencement of this section, the Minister shall cause a report to be laid before the House on the enforcement of rent increase restrictions in all rent pressure zones, including data which summarises— (a) all rent increases deemed to be an offence…

This amendment relates to the issues of the powers and protections and their enforcement. I am hopeful that the Minister of State might be able to accept this amendment. I hope it is possible. The amendment goes to the fact that while the Residential Tenancies Board has different powers, the investigation and sanctions unit of the Residential Tenancies Board only sanctioned 29 landlords in the last 12 months for breaching the residential pressure zone limits. We would all have to be extraordinarily naive to believe…

It is great to hear that more than 240 cases are to be confirmed but only 29 have been confirmed thus far. The monetary amounts may be large, but that only raises the alarm in terms of the money that has been potentially wrongfully taken from tenants. If that monetary amount is attached to only 29 cases, there is a really serious concern. It is good to hear that there are 250 cases in the pipeline. That is a positive story. Why not have those figures publicly available? With respect, as an Oireachtas Member I may h…

I move amendment No. 6: In page 8, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Long Tenure notice period 7. Section 33 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following after “section 34”: “, and subject to a variable notice period determined by the duration of the tenancy. For a tenancy of more than two years duration, each additional year of duration shall increase the relevant notice period by thirty days, granting additional tenancy protection to the tenant, and a longer notice period kno…

In these amendments, I am trying to address an issue of lengthy tenancies. Some people rent for their whole life. For persons who may have been renting for 15 or 20 years and older people there is a particular vulnerability for older people who may be trying to seek housing in a new market and may either have a very limited fixed income in terms of pension or, sometimes, a very insecure employment or partial employment, which can cause real difficulties. I refer to the classic phrase "young professionals" which is …

I might just flip that around and say that 18% of landlords own a vast amount of rental property. The Minister of State referred to the majority of landlords only owning one or two properties, but a small number of landlords own huge amounts of property. This proposal is appropriate. Such landlords will not be stuck in these circumstances. Sometimes the small landlord gets pushed out, yet at the same time we are talking about large-scale investment funds and what they want. They have lobbyists. The argument can be …

I know the Minister of State has been engaging very constructively with my colleague, Senator Ruane, and I commend her and both Tadhg Browne, her current assistant, and, of course, Sebastian McAteer, who has done really important work in developing this legislation. I am very proud to have this Bill brought forward in the name of the Civil Engagement Group. In the short time I have, I will focus a little on why this represents best practice, some of the strengths within the Bill, and why we need it now. I urge the …

I had hoped that the sensible amendment tabled by the Labour Party Senators might have been accepted as it is better than the current section 7 in that it addressed the issues of the duration of tenancy and sequential tenancies. It is important that we recognise Part 4 and recognise that there is a duration issue beyond the question of simply qualifying as a Part 4 tenancy. For example, we may and should look to having longer periods of notice and I know the option already exists to an extent. I want to indicate my…

Tairgim leasú Uimh. 20: I leathanach 17, idir línte 15 agus 16, an méid seo a leanas a chur isteach: “Caighdeáin teanga sa tsainfháil phoiblí 9F. I gcás go ngabhfaidh comhlacht poiblí do phróiseas sainfhála poiblí lena bhféachfaidh an comhlacht poiblí le conradh a dhámhachtain as seirbhís phoiblí a sholáthar, ní foláir don chomhlacht poiblí sin a chinntiú go ndéanfar breithniú cuí ar chumas an pháirtí faoi chonradh na caighdeáin teanga do sheirbhísí pobal-inrochtana a leagtar amach in Alt 9E a chomhlíonadh, agus go…

I will not dwell on this amendment. I mentioned the local employment service as an example. To be absolutely factual, it is 100% the case that it does not have to go out to tender. There is very clear guidance within EU law, procurement law and the 2014 directive on that, but I will leave it aside. I want to make it clear that there is nothing in my amendment that is tied to that example. The amendment, very importantly, relates just to the principle. It is the same kind of principle that applies to the public duty…