Ms Rosalind Carroll:

I will start with Deputy Wallace's comments. Off the top of my head I do not have the top 20, but we will look through our data and send it to him. It is something I thought of yesterday, but I do not have it. I will look and see. If it is not readily available, I am sure we can dig down into it.

I was not aware of the specific model in Switzerland, which sounds very interesting. In terms of where we are at now, I would question the cost of provision in the first instance and whether that would lead to a more affordable rent for people within that model. I do not know enough about it, but I am happy to look at it. Those are my initial thoughts.

I know cost rental has come up here on a number of occasions, which is basically providing for the level of cost. I have looked at that previously and in certain areas in Ireland it would lead to increases in cost unless a significant subsidy is provided from the State. We need to think how those things would happen. The cost benefit does not come until 30 years later on the basis of a maturation whereby the development cost and the mortgage cost come down over that period of time. We need to see how much that would benefit Ireland in terms of economies of scale. While it worked well in European countries, at what scale would we need to introduce it here in order for it to have an overall dampening effect on the rental sector? Nobody has dug down and come up with a quantitative answer.

In regard to regulation of the rental sector and whether it has a dampening effect on supply, what is important from our point of view is that there is a strategy around where we are going with the sector such that we are aware of any likely impact of regulation on supply. I am suggesting not that we do not go there but that we be aware of any likely impact, including a fall-off of landlords and what will happen to the tenants concerned. The point I was making is not that we should not regulate but that if we are to do so, what we are going to do at the weak points where we think issues might arise such should not cause a greater problem. That might require us to think differently about particular issues.

The committee will be aware that under the tax measures introduced prior to Christmas as part of the overall measures to address the rental sector landlords who register with the Residential Tenancies Board to participate in three-year tenancies under RAS, HAP and the rent supplement scheme, can avail of 100% tax relief from Revenue in respect of those tenancies. In this regard existing landlords had to register with us by 31 March 2016. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 tenancies eligible for that relief, although that number may be reduced to 60,000 to 70,000 when mortgage holders are taken into account. To date, only 750 landlords have applied for it. I am not sure that as a measure it has gone any way towards addressing the issue, perhaps because no thought was given to how it would impact on the landlord. For example, the fact that it is retrospective means that it is only after three years that the landlord will get the benefit of the tax relief. Other issues include whether the interest rate, which is currently low, is an incentive and that if the tenancy ends during the three-year period there is no benefit to the landlord. This is not about whether regulations or incentives and so on should be introduced rather our understanding of what is being introduced and any likely impact thereof.

Deputy Catherine Byrne spoke about accommodation standards and asked if local authorities re-

inspect properties. I will pass over to my colleague, Ms Ward, who may be able to answer that question more specifically.