Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is interesting when we speak about landlords to ask who is envisaged and imagined in that. I am glad the Minister of State envisages housing authorities and affordable housing bodies being part of that landlord piece. Nonetheless, some of the narrative around what is needed in terms of security and so forth seems to be framed from the perspective of thinking of the central provider - the imaginary central provider for a long time in the State - as the private landlord who is seeking private financing in respect of a private investment.

We need to be clear when we are talking about local authorities and housing authorities, as well as housing bodies which receive funding via the State, that the State is accessing 0% financing on this. There is a huge flexibility in many cases. We have access to that financing so that does not create as stringent a constraint as framed. It is available. The core goal and the message from Europe is to provide housing and cost rental. We need to build in a little more space and flexibility on that.

My amendments give the Minister flexibility. They do not require rents to be cut at such a level. My amendment proposes to add the words "or minus" after the word "plus", in the text, "plus, an amount, calculated in such manner as the Minister may prescribe, to take account of any change in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices". The Minister of State mentioned potentially high renovation costs, which is a major input for landlords to pay, and noted that while the general consumer price index may have deflated, certain items may have continued to be highly priced. All of those factors can be accounted for under the phrase "calculated in such manner as the Minister prescribe, to take account of any change". I am not saying a plus or minus figure will automatically apply. I am saying there is scope for a reduction and ti should be an option.

We talked about the impact of Covid-19 and the sudden deflation that has happened.If it was a clearly artificial dip in the harmonised index, the caveat provided for in section 34(4)(b)(ii) would allow the Minister to say he or she is only going to take on board 10% or 15% of this dip because he or she regards it as temporary. That flexibility is already there. However, if we had a crisis of some other kind that led to a spike and an artificial inflation in prices or if there was inflation over a five or ten-year period followed by a five or ten-year period of deflation, my amendment simply gives flexibility. If we looked at it with regard to amendment No. 23, which talks about the review following a review following a review - multiple reviews along - I do not believe this will necessarily impact on the core cost piece. If the Minister of State wants to caveat this so that he specifically and explicitly says that the amount cannot go below the core cost piece, so be it. He should bring in a provision that caveats that but what I am concerned about is an amount that was added by means of a review becomes permanently embedded and cannot ever be reduced. It is not the core base. It is about how the amount that was added in a first, second, third or fourth review cannot then ever be reduced. The Minister of State can certainly protect the base if he wishes and if he wishes to have a new version, he can do so but he should give himself flexibility because 40 years is a long time and a lot can happen during that time. When we had upward-only rent in Dublin, there was a lot of logic at the time about why that was needed but when we hit the recession, upward-only rent in Dublin really caused problems. This is not a requirement; it is an opportunity and the Minister of State should look to this in the Dáil and look to build in that flexibility because he may well need it at some point in the next 30 to 40 years.