Dr. Robert Sweeney:

There seems to be some uncertainty as to how much households are paying in top-ups. I mentioned already that the Department's figures are 28% but a survey by Threshold suggested that 48% of HAP tenancies are topping up and that many of them are topping up such that their total housing expense is in excess of 30% of their net income, which it should not be.

In terms of the distortionary effects, basically, landlords will accept or demand a top-up because they are able to do so. Essentially, it is a landlords' market. It is because of the lack of supply of rental accommodation relative to the demand that landlords are able to extract high levels of top-ups. It is more that there is insufficient supply relative to demand that is causing the distortion and the ability of landlords to demand top-ups. They would not demand them if they were not able to get higher rents or equivalent rents elsewhere. If a landlord was not able to get as good a tenant from his or her perspective in terms of the amount of rent paid, then he or she would not demand a top-up. I would see the distortion of top-ups, if one wants to call it that, as being more due to an underlying lack of supply rather than the top-ups themselves being the cause of the supply problem.