Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and the work both of their organisations are doing.

It is important when talking about HAP not to talk about it alone because it is only one of four rental subsidies in the market. We have HAP, the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, the rent supplement and long-term leasing. For next year, the Government has provided €1.05 billion for the rent supplement. There are currently 100,000 tenancies subsidised by the State. That is one third of all tenancies in the rental market. Next year, both the amount of money and the total number of people subsidised will increase significantly. Part of the problem is that rental subsidy started out as a short-term stopgap with rent supplement. Government policy currently regards the rental accommodation scheme, HAP and long-term leasing as forms of social housing, not as temporary measures to meet the cost of private rental while waiting for adequate social housing. That, in itself, is a problem that needs to be reviewed.

I absolutely share both organisations' concern over the current operation of HAP. I want to highlight a couple of issues that are of particular concern to me. The first is that it now takes many local authorities about ten weeks to process HAP applications. Very few private sector landlords, particularly those who are semi-professional or who are accidental landlords with a mortgage payment to meet, can wait ten weeks before getting a payment. It is causing a real difficulty. Neither the Department nor the authorities in Limerick, which manage HAP, will give us a straight answer as to why that is the case. Is the delegates' experience reflective of that?

I fully agree that the change of practice involving HAP being backdated to the date of application rather than the date of tenancy commencement is really problematic. It is not unusual for three or four weeks to pass before documentation comes in, leaving the tenant in very vulnerable circumstances. Have the witnesses further thoughts on that?

I have two other concerns. Homeless HAP, which is a necessary support, is having a distorting impact in Dublin. We have to be honest about it. Standard HAP applicants are being priced out of the market because landlords know that homeless HAP is available. Local authorities are now providing homeless HAP four to six weeks in advance of a notice to quit being issued. I am not arguing against that. It is a necessary function but there is a distorting impact that we have to name and start thinking about.

Another group of people affected by this comprises those households whose income is just above the threshold for social housing supports and who are now competing with people on HAP and homeless HAP. Their income levels might not be very different. Have the delegates any thoughts on that?

I am firmly of the view that the HAP was badly designed. A review is needed urgently. Organisations such as those of the witnesses cannot carry out a huge survey of thousands of applicants as that is the responsibility of the Housing Agency and the Department. Most of us who deal with many HAP applicants will have had many experiences like the ones the witnesses have expressed here today.

My one concern is that if we raise the HAP limits, either by having a 50% discretionary limit across the State rather than the 50% limit for Dublin and 20% outside Dublin, or if we index link HAP to something else, there is an incentive for landlords to keep pushing the rents up. Dublin rents are flatlining, according to Daft and the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, but rents in other urban centres are increasing. In Cork, Galway, Sligo and Waterford, the rate is between 3% and 5%. The more money put into rental subsidy, the more rent goes up. I am not arguing against the increase but I would always have been of the view that there needs to be a cap as well as an increase. Where an increase is provided, there should be a cap of some level on the entire rental market.

I have a question for both witnesses. Maybe this is the first one they could answer. It is all very well for us to have this discussion, express concern and sympathy and agree with the witnesses, but what do they want us to do? That is the important point. The witnesses are here in front of the committee. Is there specific action they would like us to take on foot of the evidence they have given us? I refer to taking an action from today rather than just discussing an issue that most of us have some experience of, although we appreciate the work the witnesses are doing and the research they have presented to us.