Paul Murphy says government is 'gutting' rent pressure zones

Thanks, Ken Corley. This is an incredible brazen display by the Taoiseach. It really is. Three times now you have been asked effectively the same question. I am going to ask it again. It is not clear to me if you do not understand your own government's proposal, you are misleading the House about your own government's proposal or the press statement issued by Minister Brown's department is inaccurate. You need to clarify for us which it is. I quote you not just once or twice but about five or six times now you have said existing tenants will be capped at two percent, new tenancies will be capped at CPI and this is the strongest set of rent protection measures we have ever had. The truth is, if the press statement is accurate, is you are gutting, you are absolutely gutting the rent pressure zones. So you get your nice headlines saying that the rent pressure zones are to be extended to the whole country in significant expansion of tenants' rights when in reality you are getting rid of the rent pressure zones. I will read it for the third time today very slowly for you. All landlords will have the right to reset rent where the rent is below market at the end of each six-year tenancy. Not just new landlords, not just big landlords, not just small landlords, but every single landlord, which means existing tenants, new tenants. Yes, please, if the minister could inform the Taoiseach what is going on here, what is in the policy, that would be very, very helpful. It is what it says in the press statement. It is what it says in the press statement, all landlords. So what you are saying to existing new tenants, all of them, is they get the limited protection of the 2 per cent or CPI if it is new for six years. After six years, at six years it is a free-for-all. They get to reset the market rate. So you have 2 per cent increase, 2 per cent increase, 2 per cent increase, 2 per cent increase, 2 per cent, 2 per cent, and then 40 per cent, 30 per cent, an unimaginable level that is simply not affordable. That is what the press statement is. I will read it again. It does say that. As part of this master of the spin, it also says, tenancies of unlimited duration to be enhanced by the introduction of rolling six-year tenancies. That is some enhancement Taoiseach. You are getting rid of tenancies of unlimited duration and going back to the old system of rolling six-year tenancies. It is Orwellian really what you are presenting. The logic of this government is you want rents to rise. It is not enough that they have doubled over the past year. It is not enough that over the last ten years, it is not enough that a third of tenants are now paying more than 50 per cent of their net income on rent. It is not enough that more and more landlords are actually coming into the market. No, you want rents to go up even, even faster. That is why tenants, renters, people who are trying to buy a house, people who are locked out, who are going to be locked out even further, are going to be on the streets next Tuesday, 6pm, in front of the door as part of a major raise-the-roof mobilisation to stop this government and its landlord agenda. But you announced that March before the proposal is even announced. So that sums it up. That sums it up. You just changed the narrative every time it suits you. And the bottom line is this. No, I will say to you, if you are an existing tenant, there will be no change. Simple as that. There will be no change if you are an existing tenant. Please allow the answer. In terms of new tenancies, new bills and new apartments that will come on stream, hopefully, because this is about supply, Deputy. With the greatest respect in the world, if we had adopted half of what you proposed, we would have no supply at all in the market. That is the fundamental difference. We do need more apartments, we do need more houses and we need more rent into the rental market. And yes, in many instances right now, when the RPZs originally came in, many people are still well below market rates. And if a tenant exits voluntarily and leaves, the tenancy can then reset to market rates. In my view, that is reasonable. When RPZs came in first, many people did not increase their rents. Quite a number did not. And I think in order to keep momentum within the market and keep people in the market, I think that is a balanced response to the current situation. And we do want to bring more investment in to build. And so you have capped at 2%. The second cap is CPI. So basically, there is a cap of whatever the inflation rate is. The inflation rate is forecast to be 2% on average for the next number of years. It is also the focus of the ECB to keep inflation at 2%. Now, if you do not tie it to CPI, say we freeze it, as you are saying, well, why would anyone invest in any new apartment? Why would anyone build a new house or a new rent for a new apartment for rent if effectively you would begin to lose money within a couple of years? So no one is going to make an investment decision on that basis. And that is what you are proposing. That we have a rent freeze for three years or longer. So no one is going to invest in a market where essentially you invest knowing you are going to be losing money fairly quickly. So the package is about getting a balance to incentivise investment into the rental market, whilst protecting existing tenants who will not see an increase in their rent. No matter how much you show that, they will not have an increase in their rent above the 2%, which is part of the RPZ and has been for quite a number of years. And that is the position. And I think these are balanced measures. No, though, you thought you would be fighting a different set of proposals. You announced ages ago we were getting rid of the RPZ. We are not getting rid of the RPZ. We are extending it, making it national and giving stronger protections that tenants had before this package was announced and would be legislated for. Thank you, Taoiseach. Deputy Mark, please. It is not me suggesting it. It is your own press statement saying the right to reset. But it is not just in a written press statement. It is also what Minister Brown told the media. I will quote from him at the press conference earlier. He says, what happens is at the end of the six years is at the rate setting piece so that effectively the rent could be put back to the market, in line with what the press statement says. So which is it? New tenancies are going to be every six years. It is not what you said and it is not what your press said. Taoiseach, please. You will have an opportunity, Taoiseach. No, deliberately. You are the one. You have the press statement, but you defend the idea that if tenants leave due to a no-fault eviction, they leave mid-six years, that it could be reset. You are saying you are in favour of that. You are saying that is not a mistake. Any time a tenant leaves, the rent can be reset. That is a recipe for rocketing rents. How high do you want rents to go? It is also a recipe for constructive eviction where the landlord says, I am not going to fix your heating, I am not going to fix your toilet. I am going to force you out so that I can reset the rent. Taoiseach, your time is up. Taoiseach, your time is up. Taoiseach, your time is up. I am voting on this. Taoiseach, resume your seat. I am not going to allow you to continue to speak. Your time is up. Taoiseach, respond. It is interesting that in the exchange, you acknowledge this new tenancies. I have been saying since I came in that existing tenants would not have their rents increased beyond 2% as per the RPZ. You are uninterrupted because you do not like the facts here. The bottom line, in respect of new tenancies, yes. In respect of tenancies where the tenant has left, so the tenant does not get exorbitant increases, basically the balance here is we need more investment into the market. I know you do not really believe in that. You believe a state in its entirety. That is the fundamental difference. I would argue that if we were to take your policies, we would have no new supply at all. That is a fundamental difference. I acknowledge that. You do not believe in a market-based economy. That is your position. I happen to believe in a balanced economic framework whereby you do have public sector investment and we have unprecedented levels of state investment. But you will need private sector investment to get the level of investment required. I do not think a sustainable state can spend £20 billion per annum on housing alone. That will not suffice. I do not think that people want that sort of approach either.