What the correspondence suggests to me is that the Government introduced rent caps purely for reasons of political expediency - not because they thought it was a good idea or the right thing to do.
"Look, if we don't introduce some form of rent certainty those head bangers on the opposition benches will force through something far, far worse!".
Fair enough. That's the reality of politics I suppose.
The negotiations/discussions then seem to have focused on whether rent increases would be capped at a % above inflation, 4% or 5% and whether the restrictions would apply for 3 years or 5 years. No mention in the press reports of any consideration being given to properties rented below market rates - whether due to the 24-month freeze on rent increases or otherwise.
However, I wonder if the cabinet fully appreciated that Mr Coveney's proposal would have the effect of capping rents for thousands of units below prevailing market rates for years to come?
Given the chaotic passage of the legislation before Christmas (staffers drafting and re-drafting amendments late into the night), I actually wonder did Mr Coveney himself appreciate the full effect of his proposals?