Housing Minister defends new rental measures as he indicates short-term letting will be ‘outlawed'
Earlier this week Fianna Fáil Housing Minister James Browne announced a number of measures affecting the rental market from March 2026.
The announcement sparked questions and concerns, and rents were also at the centre of an event in Galway City on Friday, where housing charity Threshold opened new regional offices.
Questioned by the media, Minister Browne said the measured are 'really important' and the Government is on the right track to 'to bring a permanent way to address the rent situation'.
Defending the newly announced measures, Minister Browne highlighted a balance had to be found between protecting the renters and attracting investors, as he acknowledged the complexity of the situation.
He said: 'There's always going to be a challenge around the complexity of doing anything like this. There's no one size fits all solution to this type of complex situation.
'We've existing tenants, we want to protect them, but we also have to get the supply going. Because the only way we're going to get rents down is by getting that supply moving and we need a massive step change there.'
In particular, concerns were raised about the six-year restrictions and the possibility rent prices would hugely increase after that period.
However, Minister Browne argued the measures will actually bring more security to tenants.
'What we're doing is giving a minimum security tenure of six years to the tenants who entered into a new tenancy from next March, which means that when they go into that property, the rents can't increase by any more than inflation or 2pc. That gives them that level of security.
He added at the end of the six years landlords will not be able to 'charge a mad number' but will have to follow the market.
ADVERTISEMENT
'But landlords need to be able to reset that rent to market every so often, leaving six years has that right balance to it.'
At the same time, questions were raised over the effectiveness of these measures to attract investors.
The Fianna Fáil politician argued the reforms will give investors the security they need. He said the current situation with Rent Pressure Zones meant investors could make a loss, if inflation rose above 2pc, causing 'a blockage.'
'That 2pc means that investors can make a loss, if inflation went above that. And that's why they were saying that they wouldn't invest.
He added the Government will be taking other measures to close what he described as "a viability gap" for new builds.
'Government will be taking other measures in the coming weeks and months to close that viability gap.'
Minister Browne also said that more is in the pipeline, including measures to 'effectively outlaw' short term lets.
'Short-term lets have increased significantly right across this country. It's having a very real impact on the provision of rental properties. It's not anything in particular against short term lets, except for in a housing crisis where there is an issue of supply.
'We have to take priority decisions and the priority has to be for people to have homes over short-term lets.
'So we'll be passing legislation, to effectively outlaw short-term lets in the absence of planning permission, but outlawing them in the towns of 10,000 and above is the current proposal. And then in areas below 10,000 the local authorities will have the option to see whether they need to bring that ban in for short term lets.
'It's a tough decision for people who are, I suppose, making any income of short-term lets, and they do provide a certain economy in certain areas, but we have to prioritise providing homes, and that's what we were doing.'
Talking about the lack of enforcement of existing legislation around short term lets, he added "it should come to an end now".
'I think there has been a lack of enforcement around short term lets, people providing those facilities in the absence of planning permission, which is unlawful, and we'll be doing a very strong communication message to people in advance of the new legislation that even what a lot of people are doing is actually breaking the law, and it should come to an end now.
'I'll be bringing further strengthening measures to give more power to local authorities in terms of resources to be able to crack down these short-term lists and also that communication piece is really important as well.
'We have over 15,000 homeless people in this country, most of which are in emergency accommodation and I'm very concerned.
'I don't want anybody in a homeless situation.
'Ultimately, the only way is increasing that level of supply otherwise what we have is very vulnerable people fighting over the same amount of properties and that is never going to solve this solution.
'So I'm acutely aware of the situation, we're working very hard to address it. We will continue to take the necessary measures while we're waiting for those homes to be built to protect people as much as we can in this country in what is a very challenging situation.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
15 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Donegal blood, Mayo heart: Sunday will be complicated for Martin Carney
On local radio which has helped him enjoy a reborn appreciation akin to a veteran act that steals the Sunday afternoon at Glastonbury, cheering in that part of the press box isn't just tolerated, it is mandated. And so Martin Carney, informed by the industry maxim 'You're your audience', is happy to give Mid-West Radio's listeners what they want: unashamed partisanship. This is exclusive subscriber content. Already a subscriber? Sign in Subscribe to access all of the Irish Examiner. Annual €120€60 Best value Monthly €10€4 / month Unlimited access. Subscriber content. Daily ePaper. Additional benefits.
Irish Times
39 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Los Angeles is only the beginning: Trump is normalising military enforcement of law and order
When a country's leader celebrates their birthday with a big military parade it doesn't look much like democracy. Today, as Donald Trump turns 79, that is precisely what will happen in Washington, DC. Yet as tanks roll down the city's wide avenues, a nationwide mass opposition movement is forming. Trump casts the use of the military as a necessary tool against growing disorder, while his opponents will try to frame it for what it is: a power grab that threatens the foundations of American democracy. Today's events will escalate the conflict that began in Los Angeles over the past several days – and ratchet up the battle to control the narrative. On June 6th, workplace raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) rounded up and imprisoned hundreds of people, many of whom have the legal right to live and work in the United States . Inevitably these raids sparked protests, which Trump used as justification to call in the national guard and the marines. He depicted LA as a city 'invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy' that 'would be burning' if he had not acted decisively. Armed forces have rarely been used to suppress civil unrest in the history of the US or any other democracy. One has to go back to the Rodney King riots of 1992 – also in Los Angeles – for precedent, and all the way back to the Selma marches of 1965 when they were deployed to protect a peaceful civil rights march, despite the objections of state and local authorities. READ MORE It is deeply ironic that Trump poses as a figure of law and order when a mob of his supporters led an insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021 during which more than 150 police officers were injured. Trump called it a 'day of love' and pardoned all of the perpetrators on his first day in office. Now he also grossly misrepresents the real situation in Los Angeles. While there is sporadic violence, it is hardly on the scale of the King uprising or even, arguably, this week's rioting in Ballymena. Most protesting in LA has been non-violent, and it was entirely non-violent until June 7th, when Trump called in the national guard. His actions have provoked violence, not quelled it. Yet images of a few protesters burning self-driving cars or throwing rocks at the police, endlessly circulated on right-wing social media, give ostensible credence to his claims. Trump appears to have deliberately manufactured a crisis for political reasons. In the short term, he needed to rally his base behind him. His budgetary legislation – his so-called 'big, beautiful Bill' – is stalled in Congress. Because it would massively inflate the national debt, it has proved controversial among many of his own supporters, most notably Elon Musk, with whom Trump had a very public falling out earlier this month. But the spectacle of public disorder in a liberal city and state more friendly to undocumented migrants has united his supporters. Trump's actions also have a longer-term political goal: normalising the use of military forces in law enforcement. American law generally forbids the domestic deployment of the armed forces. Two of the exceptions are in cases of invasion or insurrection. It is hardly a coincidence that the US president and his supporters have consistently referred to the 'invasion' of migrants and labelled protesters exercising a basic democratic right as 'insurrectionists'. Yet Trump's actions do not come free of political risk. His show of force is actually an admission of weakness. After all, if the Maga movement could be sure of winning future elections, it wouldn't need to resort to military force. But it would likely lose fair and free contests in 2026 and 2028. A majority of Americans disapprove of Trump's performance as president. His economic policy – a main reason he was elected – will hurt ordinary voters. In addition to inflating the national debt, the 'big, beautiful Bill' would massively redistribute wealth upwards to the richest Americans, take away health insurance from millions of Americans and stoke inflation. Most Americans may approve of Trump's goal of deporting undocumented migrants but most disapprove of the draconian methods he is using. The deployment of armed forces to LA has not been popular. Trump needed to generate political unrest to act the strongman, but in so doing he has sparked the first massive protest movement against his rule. Protests have spread beyond Los Angeles to other big cities including Chicago, Houston, New York and San Francisco. The vast majority of protesters have been non-violent. The previously planned 'No kings' demonstrations – happening today to challenge Trump's military display and his authoritarianism – have been given new energy. More than 2,000 demonstrations are planned throughout the country. Trump has also unified the political opposition. The Democratic Party, which has been lost at sea for much of Trump's second term, now seems to understand its role. Democrats at all levels of government are voicing their support for peaceful protest and their opposition to Trump's use of the military and taking some personal risk in doing so. California governor Gavin Newsom has become a prominent spokesperson, a role that led Trump to threaten his arrest. Senator Alex Padilla from California was tackled and handcuffed by FBI and Secret Service agents just for trying to ask questions during a press conference by Kristi Noem, Trump's homeland security secretary. Much of what happened in the US these past several days was predictable, but it is unclear how things will play out from here. The potential for violent clashes is very high. So far, Trump's narrative of civil unrest is focused on the meme of protesters burning cars. The authoritarian danger of his use of the military remains abstract, as troops have not yet been used to suppress protests. The opposition may soon have its own defining image if a US soldier is recorded beating, clubbing or shooting a nonviolent protester. Trump's second term might well be defined by violent clashes on American streets and the reverberating battles of interpreting that unrest. Los Angeles is only the beginning.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Ireland will have to commit substantial funds to arms procurement whether it approves or not
All they talk about in Brussels these days is defence. And with a sense of urgency and common political will that is a product of real fear that the EU itself is existentially threatened . A fear that the threats from Russia to Ukraine – regarded, as one senior European Commission official put it, as a 'de facto member state' – and Vladimir Putin 's wider ambitions against former Soviet states now part of the union are serious. And that the US can no longer be relied on for military support or even nuclear deterrence. The talk is all of meeting new Nato targets of raising defence spending to between three and five per cent of GDP. Russia, member states are warned, has been massively expanding its military-industrial production capacity with an estimated spending in 2024 of 40 per cent of the federal budget and up to 9 per cent of its GDP (up from 6 per cent in 2023) on defence, a commitment only possible in an autocratic state impervious to public sentiment. Ireland, despite its new commitment to bolster its army, remains the poorest performer in the EU class at 0.5 per cent this year. Member states' defence spending has grown by more than 31 per cent since 2021, reaching 1.9 per cent of the EU's combined GDP or €326bn in 2024, almost double the amount spent in 2021. Not enough, however; now a target of €800 billion in the next few years is being discussed. A measure of how seriously the debate is being taken has been the union's willingness with unprecedented speed to raise its sacrosanct fiscal rules, allowing member states to break debt limits to expand their military spending . READ MORE The thrust is now being driven by the EU White Paper on Defence Preparedness 2025, published recently. It was the subject of a well-attended debate this week in the Institute for International and European Affairs, which turned inevitably to the issue of Ireland's own national preparedness and its role next year in steering the EU presidency discussions. Centre stage will be the roll-out of the white paper proposals to revitalise states' military capacity and transform national defence industries to break reliance on foreign, notably US, imported weapons. A new defence financing initiative, Safe, will see the European Investment Bank raise €150 billion to lend to the private sector on condition 65 per cent of loans are for European-produced weapons. Ireland is not planning to dip into the fund, but Minister of State for Defence Thomas Byrne told the meeting that, in the spirit of 'principles-based pragmatism', we might yet do so. Ireland will also have charge of brokering a deal on the next seven-year budget (the Multiannual Financial Framework, or MFF). The process always severely stretches member-state solidarity and will particularly test them this time, with a huge increase in collective defence spending being proposed. That, at a time when all are cash-strapped, will require a massive breach of the one per cent of EU GDP budget spending ceiling, or as Prof Brigid Laffan warned, 'tough trade-offs' on long-standing policy areas. Like agriculture. Ireland cannot stand on the sidelines. It will necessarily have to commit substantial funds to arms procurement as a net contributor to the MFF, like all others, whether or not it approves. [ Parlous state of Defence Forces once again laid bare Opens in new window ] The EU white paper bears a remarkable resemblance in its scope and thrust to the paper produced in Ireland in 2022 by the Commission on the Defence Forces and which prompted our own commitment to major upgrading of the Defence Forces. The white paper, the EU Commission's senior defence official, Guilaume de la Brosse, insists, is not about redefining EU defence policy 'but about the specificities of member states, serving national agendas', and both starting a discussion about preparedness and capabilities and pointing to a way in which the needs may be addressed more efficiently, collectively and individually. The white paper projects are all 'voluntary'. Like the Irish commission's silence on neutrality's merits, it is not saying European collective defence must take a particular form, but that if you want a capability to deter aggression then this is how to do it – and it is best done collectively, ensuring interoperability and as little duplication as possible. [ Poll shows Ireland's attachment to neutrality is strong but nuanced Opens in new window ] Critical to getting both imperatives through will be important changes in the nature of defence discussions throughout the EU – not least in Ireland, where the debate has largely been confined to political and policy circles. Both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have engaged strongly, echoing common EU-wide concerns, but public opinion remains largely indifferent, albeit clinging to vague, often contradictory notions of 'neutrality'. There is often an unwillingness to acknowledge the need to upgrade our defensive capacity or even a need for it. A fundamental challenge remains a public unwillingness to perceive real new vulnerabilities or threats to ourselves – like to our vital undersea cable networks or to cyber attacks, or threats to the territorial integrity of our European partners – as urgent and requiring radical action. Although sympathetic to their plight, and generously receptive of refugees, Irish voters have yet to recognise that their problem is our problem, a real threat to our union, and to develop a real sense of obligation to fellow members of the union arising from our membership of this huge 'peace project'. From a narrow national perspective, as Minister Byrne acknowledged, 'working together is the only way forward'. This debate urgently needs to expand beyond Dáil Éireann's narrow confines.
