Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for its presentation. We are all aware of current financial circumstances and all Departments have attempted to make savings. I note the following: "The Department currently funds almost 30% of the private rented sector..."; however, three years ago the Department funded 40% of the private rented sector. Therefore, the proportion of the sector being funded by the Department has fallen very significantly. I also note that the budget for 2013 is €403 million and we know that it has been reduced from a figure of €500 million a number of years ago. This is in the face of 250,000 people having become unemployed. It is inexplicable that the proportion of the rental sector being funded by the Department has fallen so substantially in the face of such increased demand.

It has been said that access to rent supplement has been limited by stealth. This has been done by centralising the system, making it difficult for people to access the rent supplement, limiting the capacity of organisations and individuals such as Members of the Oireachtas to intervene on the behalf of clients and so on. There has been a high level of unemployment over the past number of years. Why has the Department's contribution to the rental sector fallen substantially over the period?

I can only echo what other colleagues have said about rent caps. In my area of Dún Laoghaire the Citizens' Information Centre carried out research and discovered not one property in the area was within the rent caps. Dún Laoghaire is a very mixed area. I am sure that the assistant secretary would accept that people are entitled to live in the area.

Recently I carried out an analysis on Cork. I discovered that for a single person wishing to rent in Cork city there was a difference of €150 between the rent cap and rent for property at the same level. The Threshold organisation has consistently carried out research that shows that the level of topping-up is between 50% and 60%. I am a former member of the Private Residential Tenancies Board and my experience of PRTB cases also showed that topping-up is rife.

Aside from what all of the people around the table and in the room have said, evidence suggests that the Department's rent supports dropped by 25% over the past number of years. Last Monday the PRTB Rent Index was published which showed that rents have stabilised since 2010. If rent support fell by 25% but rents stabilised then that demonstrates that the tenants in receipt of rent supplement have been topping-up by a minimum of 25% and rents have remained stable.

With regard to penalising tenants, I accept that moving outside of the law is a different situation but tenants cannot access properties within the rent caps. I do not think that people around the table have lied to the assistant secretary. The reality remains, people must access a roof over their heads in some size, shape or form. It is not a mystery why people do not report their landlords. It is a reality that they must top up in order to find somewhere to live.

I question the sources of the Department's data for a number of reasons. First, the PRTB rent index stated the rents charged but I could not disagree more with its statement. It is my experience that the rents declared on the PRTB registration forms are rents that reflect the stated rent caps, not the rent paid. For example, if the rent cap is €560 then the rent declared is €560 even though I know from having seen PRTB cases that the figure declared does not reflect the rent that is paid.

I have used daft.ieas a source of information. The website reflects rent sought, which give a realistic picture but not a totally accurate one because it does not reflect the prices that are being charged for properties at the bottom end of the market. That happens for a number of reasons. Bedsits or studio style accommodation is not usually reflected in the Daft index because many of the transactions at the lower end of the market are informal. For example, if a dwelling has nine units and a tenant notifies the landlord of his or her intention to leave more than likely someone's friend or sibling will avail of vacant unit. I contend that the Department's sources of data are flawed for two reasons. First, the stated rents on registrations forms do not reflect the rents that are being paid. Second, the Daft index does not represent properties at the lower end of the market.

I wish to make two more points and I apologise to the Chairman for going on. Recently a presentation to the Dublin City Council's housing strategic policy committee noted that the level of people presenting as homeless has doubled in the past 12 months due to a lack of available property at rent supplement level. Homelessness, in particular, is an issue for single people. From past experience I know that a community welfare officer could exercise his or her discretion, particularly when it came to difficult situations such as people exiting homelessness. My information now is that CWOs are discouraged from exercising discretion. I understand that if one exercises discretion one must give an explanation to the Minister, which would not encourage a CWO to exercise discretion. The assistant secretary may correct me if I am wrong.

As a rent review is under way, I can ask that appropriate CWO discretion be reinstated in two instances: First, in the case of persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, and second, where it is clear and obvious that rent caps do not reflect the rents that are being charged.

My last point relates to the transfer cost to the new housing assistant payment, which has been welcomed by all of the voluntary associations working in the sector. HAP will level the playing field for people at the lower end of the private rental market. Does the assistant secretary have a view on how to progress the initiative more rapidly?