Skip to main content
Normal View

Committee on Housing and Homelessness debate -
Thursday, 28 Apr 2016

Housing Agency

We will resume in public session. Apologies have been received from Deputy Seán Canney who will not be attending this session. I remind all present to switch off their mobile phones or to put them in flight mode as they interfere with the recording and broadcasting of proceedings.

I wish to draw attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statement submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website following this meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I am very pleased to welcome representatives of the Housing Agency, Mr. John O'Connor, chief executive, Mr. Conor Skehan, chairman, and Mr. David Silke, director. I believe Mr. Skehan will deliver the opening statement. Is that correct?

Mr. Conor Skehan

Yes. I thank the Chairman and members for inviting us to attend. We have prepared an opening statement and have also submitted a body of material which we thought might be of assistance to the committee. I do not propose to read out the latter but it will be available to members for consideration during their deliberations.

We are very pleased to be here this afternoon to assist the committee in its examination of the issues facing us with regard to housing and homelessness. I am joined by Mr. John O'Connor, chief executive officer, and Mr. David Silke, our director, who will assist in answering any questions members may wish to pose.

The Housing Agency was founded in 2010 and our vision is to enable everyone to live in good-quality, affordable homes in sustainable communities. The agency provides a wide level of expert advice, support, research and training activities for local authorities, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, approved housing bodies, the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, and many other public and private sector organisations. Together with its research, the many activities in which it is involved provide the agency with a unique vantage point from which to be able to offer this committee advice and observations on current housing issues in Ireland and how to make progress towards improving the situation. We have taken what the committee has asked us to do very seriously. In the material submitted, we have specifically identified a series of issues and what we see as potential solutions for members to consider.

Housing in Ireland consists of many parts and successful policies and actions must be co-ordinated across all of those parts. If we have one message for this committee today, it is that there is no single solution that will work in isolation. All of the parts must be understood by all of the actors and all actions must take account of their effect on other parts. We urge the committee to ensure that decisions on priorities in terms of spending, sequence and action take account of the whole sector and to be aware of the potential for one to affect the other.

We must remind ourselves that a house is many things, ranging from deeply personal and emotional issues that surround the word "home", to practical considerations of a house as a financial asset that involves, for example, complex building and planning regulations.

We adhere to and promote the reality that shelter is a human right while at the same time one's address is often a social signal of one's status. We draw attention to the fact that the cost of housing is the single biggest factor that determines the consumer price index and, therefore, is the single biggest driver of wage inflation in Ireland. The house is also the biggest financial deal that most people ever make and our mortgage or rent repayment is probably our single biggest household payment every month. That means that nobody is neutral about housing.

We have a sector that is full of contradictions. For example, the couple who enjoy the increasing value of their home in a rising market will, at the same time, rue the fact that their children cannot afford their own new home. The Department of Finance is likely to gain revenue from increases in house prices and house building while the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation will view the same increase as lost international competitiveness. All these factors need to be part of the committee's considerations in trying to make plans for the future of our housing in Ireland.

To provide a background and to remind ourselves of the context, we need to bear in mind that we are looking at a wide and rapidly changing range of households and their needs in Ireland. The biggest single thing the agency says at every opportunity it gets is that we have to be very careful about not carrying over habits of thinking from the past out into the future. The future is going to be dramatically different. For example, many people are very surprised to learn that Irish national home ownership peaked 25 years ago at 80% and it has fallen every year since then. Now 70% of housing is owner-occupied and 30% is in rental. In Dublin, tenure is divided equally between ownership and rental. These trends are consistent with international trends. Ireland is becoming a normal European economy.

The rental housing consists of both private rental, one third of which receives State support, and social rental housing. These changes can be explained in part because we have gone through significant demographic changes in the past 40 years with a rapid reduction in household size. There is an average of only 2.7 people per household. The reality is that 75% - three quarters - of the housing requirement for the country is for households of three persons or fewer. All the recent publications of the agency ask people to draw attention to the dramatically different types of houses that will be needed into the future, not just the numbers.

It is critical that the work of the committee is based on the need of these new and emerging types of tenure and the types of house. We must avoid the bitter recent experience of other countries such as Spain and Germany where attempts to recover from housing crises were stymied by the realisation, which came too late, that they had built houses for sale when the new markets mainly wanted homes built to rent. We must not make that mistake.

Actions to increase supply must maintain a focus on providing the right types of accommodation while also making housing affordable to buy or to rent. We say to the committee and anybody who will listen that affordability is the real challenge. There is no point in us building houses for people concentrating on supply if house supplies cannot be afforded. That would be a tragedy.

The committee needs to be mindful that a third of the population will need to get some level of State support. To clarify, that does not mean a third of all housing in the future will be local authority housing. It is that a third of our housing will need some level of support and there are sliding scales of that requirement. It is a very nuanced field. We need to ensure the majority of households can afford housing from their own resources while also ensuring the State can provide the necessary supports for that third of the population that require them.

The committee invited the agency to identify how the obstacles that are impeding progress on housing can be surmounted as well as the specific actions that need to be taken to achieve urgent implementation of those measures. On that matter, the Housing Agency wishes to remind the committee of the need to ensure the right issues are addressed in the right priority; specifically, that the biggest priority is that because Ireland has no overall plan, priorities or focus for housing, there is a very real danger that attention will focus excessively on short-term issues at the expense of long-term progress.

More important, we advise that all sections of housing are deeply interconnected. For example, a crisis in market housing, even in Aylesbury Road, is quickly transferred into pressure on the private rental sector which, as we have heard this morning, increases pressure on social housing. Therefore, solutions to homelessness will only emerge when the workings of all housing is stabilised and improved. The big message for us all is that homelessness and rough sleeping are the symptoms. We need to address the deep causes that drive people into those circumstances.

Addressing the wrong priorities, in the wrong sequence, will condemn Ireland to an unending process of catch-up and, worse, to sowing the seeds of the next housing crisis. For instance, table one in my presentation shows the overall numbers of types of households in Ireland indicating that homelessness, which comprises people who are living in emergency accommodation or sleeping rough, accounts for some 3,400 households - a figure which is the subject of vigorous debate – while more than 200,000 households are in mortgage arrears. On top of that there are more than 200,000 homes lying vacant. These are big figures. We want to ensure the committee's priorities recognise that. These examples illustrate that while homelessness is indeed an acute problem, our priorities also need to be directed towards issues that affect nearly 500,000 households and 500,000 properties.

We have supplied the committee with material that sets out the agency’s opinions on a wide range of issues and how the problems might be overcome. We are here to answer questions about that. I ask that members look at the further table which illustrates what the Housing Agency does. The agency has only been in existence since 2010. In some ways we are a standing symptom of what is going on in Ireland in housing - that there is a huge amount of work taking place across a very wide range of issues of which many people are unaware. We have a wonderful chief executive in Mr. David Silke. The agency is involved in wide ranging issues such as repairs to homes affected by pyrite, dealing with agencies that have tranches of property being transferred, unfinished housing estates, supporting the introduction of the housing assistance payment, HAP, and keeping statistics and carrying out research. It is a huge field and covers a wide range of activities, which is the reason we are able to share with the committee the type of advice and opinions that may be of assistance to it. We have summarised in simple form our very high level description of what we see as being the obstacles, the solutions and the actions. We are not suggesting that the obstacles are not the ones that people are talking about but that it is the lack of an overall plan, the lack of priorities and the lack of focus that are the real issues. That is what we would like to discuss with the committee this afternoon.

I thank Mr. Skehan. Perhaps he could expand on one figure. Reference was made to 200,000 homes lying vacant, a figure which is obviously divided between holiday homes and homes that may be in parts of the country for which there is little demand. Does Mr. Skehan have any idea of how many of those 200,000 houses would be in high demand areas and what it would take to bring them back into what could be called ordinary, everyday use?

Mr. Conor Skehan

We have done a few things on that. We have provided a very detailed pie chart in our submission showing a breakdown of the vacancies. There is also a note on vacant housing, which is a stand-alone sheet, showing the categories. There is an overall vacancy rate of 14% and we have given the breakdown within that. There are also figures available, which we will supply to the committee subsequently, showing locations of the vacancies throughout the State. They are the single biggest example of the fact that the committee in its work must stop itself being sucked into the debate fuelled by people who have skin in the game and who tell the committee the only solution is to put one brick on top of another. What sets the Housing Agency apart from everybody else is that we are saying the construction and management of our existing and new resources are where the solution will lie. We need a holistic plan and we have supplied tables showing how the targets can be met in the future by a blended mix of building and bringing into better use under-utilised houses in towns and villages and vacant houses which we have throughout the State.

The chairman of the Housing Agency might submit those figures to the committee, as he has suggested. Do members have questions for the witness?

The witness would be disappointed if I did not ask him something. What does Mr. Skehan think should be done to address the fact that private housing is too expensive in Ireland?

Mr. Conor Skehan

First, we all have to acknowledge that. It must be put on the table that affordability is key to all our efforts and we all must accept that it is too expensive. Second, the cost of housing is made up of a number of elements, all of which need to be separately examined. We hope to bring to the attention of the committee and others the work the agency is doing to examine how to value engineer down the various components. We take our inspiration from the electronics sector and people like Michael Dell who brought the cost of computers down from €5,000 to €4,000 to €1,000 to €500 a unit.

We think the same potential exists for the housing sector by examining the position in respect of things such as land. In the rest of Europe, land makes up 10% to 15% of the cost of a house. The figure is many times that in Ireland. We can examine elements to do with expectations of profit and the financing of the sector. As I heard Deputy Wallace say this morning, the financing costs of our deals are exorbitant and not affordable by many traditional developers.

One of the big issues, and this is a new thing for people to think about in Ireland, is scale. I also heard Deputy Wallace outline the fact there are many fine builders of a small scale all over Ireland but the reality is that the smaller the scale, the less easy it is to achieve economies of off-site construction and large scale purchasing. One of the main things we are saying is that for public and many other types of housing, with a transition to building at scale - I am talking about building in units of 500 at a go - one starts to get dramatic decreases in costs of things such as labour and mobilisation of skills and skilled labour. Those are the two big things, namely, land and scale, if I wanted to give the committee a simple one.

I cannot see it in front of me but in terms of detail, we have prepared a table of measures. Again, we have been listening to the questions the committee has been asking people during the week and we have identified 12 short and medium-term actions - really quick ones - that would increase and accelerate housing provision. We will leave those with the committee also today. However, on cost, there is no one thing. It is engineering down all of them, but scale is the big one.

On the issue of scale, I realise it costs a great deal more to build ten houses per unit than to build 100, but we must also take on board the fact that the guy who builds 100 wants a higher profit per unit than the guy who is building ten. Does Mr. Skehan agree?

Mr. Conor Skehan

No, I do not. The basic message is that the Marks & Spencers and Tescos of this world can make huge amounts of money based on a very small percentage of profit on each individual one whereas our small, traditional high street grocer is the person who has to charge the high prices, I am afraid. Scale drives price down like nothing else.

Mr. Skehan is comparing it to other businesses such as Marks & Spencer and how that whole industry which it is involved in works. However, my experience has been that we have a particular problem in Ireland with the profit margin sought by the larger developer. We obviously have a particular problem with the profit sought by the land banker. Mr. Skehan may have heard me say this morning that it is something we have not addressed here. Mr. Skehan's points are very good but, despite the fact that things can be done so much cheaper on scale, we need to look at having some sort of control over the type of profits the large developer is able to commandeer.

Mr. Conor Skehan

Nothing we are saying puts us in opposition. The expectations of profit are wildly unrealistic among many of the former players in this sector. That has got to be questioned and those people will slowly lose their position on the pitch as they realise other people can make money with lower profit margins on larger developments. The other part of that though are the people Deputy Wallace just mentioned such as the land bankers. The land bankers themselves are seeking to recover land costs which were incurred at a period when people were excessively optimistic, to put it charitably. Many people in the sector must understand that that particular component of the price - the land price paid in 2004 - will never be repaid. They will never get that money back, in particular. We have to find a way of taking that out of the equation as well.

I would argue that most of the land bank and land - I would say over 90% of it - was purchased many years before that and the sites being bought in 2003 and 2004 were actually being turned over. They were not being bought to be banked at that time. They were being bought to be developed. I still think the land banking area is a huge potential for the State to move in on, but we need the will to make that happen.

Mr. Conor Skehan

We will not disagree. We will submit papers to Deputy Wallace to build up on that and not to take the time of the committee. Everything Deputy Wallace is saying is correct but we are trying to put it in a bigger context.

On the issue of scale, I have a concern. To a degree, everyone has stated that we can never again build big estates. I do not believe that should be the case.

We should be looking at developing as many houses as we possibly can. Obviously, there should be a social mix and proper community services and facilities as well.

Let us suppose we got around to doing that and the councils in Waterford, Cork or Limerick city wanted to provide 300 or 400 houses. The Housing Agency offers advice to the local authorities and the Department and so on. Does the agency have any ready-made plans that would involve building 200 houses here or 500 houses there? I do not mean plans with details of the exact type of house but rather what is needed to get the necessary social mix and facilities in place. We could deliver big projects. In Limerick, for example, we have delivered major projects that did not work. Obviously, the Moyross and Southill areas did not work. However, we have delivered other big projects that have worked, including Janesboro, Kennedy Park and Ballyanty Beg in the city. They worked because the facilities, schools and services were put into those areas. It is a dangerous thing to suggest we could never build large schemes or estates again.

Mr. Conor Skehan

There are two parts to that. I will answer the first part and I will ask our chief executive to answer the second part. We have heard other members say what Deputy Quinlivan has said. We are all in agreement that terrible mistakes have been made in the past by building monocultures, for example, in cases where there are 500 units that are all the same type of house. I hope we never go back to that again. The reality is that in future it will be even more complex because we need a mixture of socials and types, including big and small units, as well as mixtures of tenure, whereby 40% of units will be built to rent and 60% built to own, etc. Building in future is going to be a complex endeavour. Local authorities may well be the conductor of the orchestra by bringing all these people together, but may only build a portion for themselves.

John O'Connor will speak in detail about the practicalities, but we are not in any disagreement about what Deputy Quinlivan is saying. It is a question of how we do it - the details are important.

Mr. John O'Connor

Building and development is about ensuring there is a mix with different forms of housing and different tenure. I was involved previously in the Fatima Mansions redevelopment. We can build on scale where we get the right mix of different types of housing. It is appropriate for local authorities and other public sector bodies to build on scale with a mix of housing, including people on social housing, private renting, people who purchase housing and affordable housing. We can do it and it has been done before.

Deputy Quinlivan raised a particular point. This seems to have become a theme in recent days. If we continue to look at small-scale social housing projects we are never going to deal with the housing crisis. That must be grasped and accepted by everyone. The idea that we can build ten houses here, 20 houses there and 30 elsewhere makes no sense. We are not going to house 100,000 families that way. We can argue about the scale of the waiting lists, as the Minister has done today, but there are large numbers of people who are not on the waiting list and who would like to get on it. There are bus workers in my constituency whose income is too high for the list. Let us suppose 100,000 is a representative figure for now.

I wish to take up this demonisation of social housing. I am not saying it is on the part of the Housing Agency but it is a general theme that has come up. Who says we cannot have decent communities made up of a few hundred houses? It seems to be a demonisation of people. We need to deal with poverty. People have been made poor in recent years by austerity and many other things. I was brought up in a housing estate of 500 houses, but almost everyone had a job and that was different. The way around this is either to increase eligibility for social housing and have a greater mix of people, some of whom would be working. That would give higher rents to the local authorities or housing agencies. I know many people who would go for that. Another thing we need to look at is affordable housing. The private sector is not going to build affordable houses. Many workers are paying €1,400, €1,500 or €2,000 rent per month and they would gladly take an affordable house. I do not agree with the constant view proffered that we must only have small-scale. We cannot deal with the problem that way.

Mr. Conor Skehan

I wish to take that question first, because it is an interesting question. Our chief executive would like to comment on it.

I agree with Deputy Coppinger that there are large sites in the hands of the public sector, local authorities or others. The Housing Agency has mapped all the local authority housing lands and lands under land aggregation. The local authorities have assessed that. The striking aspect of much of that land is that some sites are very large and in order to use them, we have to build on scale. The Deputy is right, we need a mix of housing for people of different income levels and affordable housing across the board. We also need to build on the small sites. The land mapping shows several large sites and if we want to meet the targets, we have to build on those and provide housing for a range of income groups.

The committee needs answers about the cost of houses. The Housing Agency seems to be doing a lot of research. Perhaps it could send us some details. What percentage of the cost of a social home - which averages €180,000 depending on where it is located - does Mr. Skehan believe is made up of elements of finance or profit, labour and materials, land, risk and development contributions? We need a breakdown of the position in this regard and in respect of the cost of an average private home. Instead of building temporary houses - modular or rapid build, whatever they are called - which cost €150,000 on average but much more in Dublin, would it not make more sense to reduce the cost of building? That would be better than building houses which last for 60 years, which are not permanent.

Mr. Conor Skehan

We will be a very boring set of witnesses because we will end up agreeing with everything the Deputies say. Exactly as Deputy Coppinger stated, we are targeting costs. We hope that by the time the committee’s work is finished, we will be able to give it elemental ranges for where the different parts come from and perhaps talk about targets for where we need to move with each of those components. It will only work if we have an integrated solution across several branches of government. As the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government said this morning, not all the levers are in that Department's hand. On our "12 to do" list, we have given the committee a set of recommendations that the Dáil could legislate or regulate for, encourage, budget for or fund in order to get there but they are spread across a wide range of Departments, just as the consequences of getting it wrong are spread across the whole economy.

Mr. Skehan mentioned supplying figures when the committee finishes its work but if he could supply them sooner, they would be of much more assistance as we deliberate.

One reason why there is no disagreement is that the Housing Agency stole the show at the meeting in the Custom House. The idea of setting out the parameters, as it does, validates the Housing Agency in the first instance. It is really strategically important and we will not grapple with the issue unless we do as it does. Now I am agreeing with the witnesses.

The points about changing family size and the stock come up a lot. The demographics of the population and how we use empty stock and stock occupied by ageing citizens, and the interconnection between these elements, comes up. There are many older citizens who would happily downsize. Any of us would aspire to the development of more communal older citizen accommodation, which is independent but with a bit of support, as is the case with group housing. However, it is not in the Irish culture to deliver that. If we were to do so, it would free up a great deal of other stock that growing families could occupy. Does the Housing Agency have any specific ideas or initiatives to encourage people out of accommodation where they are over-accommodated? Examining the position in the context of big or small developments is to engage in a false debate. Many of the big developments have been riddled with the greatest social problems and these have had knock-on effects. It is a question of lack of social mix and scale.

There is a difference between cities and areas outside of cities in terms of what is possible. For example, and I do not know if the Housing Agency has done any work on it, small scale works very well in rural areas. My constituency is in Dublin but has huge rural parts. We would have small pockets of land where traditionally people came together collectively - we could call it a sort of a mini-co-operative. In some instances the council provided a site on a cheap basis and five or ten families got together and built collectively. They got the economies of scale more than they would have for one-off houses. Small is better. Has the agency done much on that and is there anything to be explored? The local authorities would find it easier to deal with big projects; it is in some ways the lazy approach. I know there is an economy of scale but it can bring a lot of problems if it is not done properly. They are just some aspects.

Mr. Conor Skehan

I thank Deputy Daly for her kind words about the role of the agency. We have only been here since 2010 and are trying to put ourselves in a central position so there is one source of objective data and ideas that does not have skin in the game. With great gratitude to the Department, we have been told to go off and be more independent, more like the EPA and An Bord Pleanála, and to tell the Department things it needs to hear even if it does not want to hear them. We are going to continue to do that.

The Deputy's question allows me to answer another which I neglected to follow through on with Deputy Wallace. When we talk about scale, it is not necessarily about building 500 units all in the same place. For instance, going back to Deputy Coppinger's figure of 100,000 units in the next ten years, we as Ireland Inc. might go to the market for ten years' worth of roofing tiles, windows, doors and radiators, and buy a range of them so that the architects who are designing 50 units here and five there have a variety available to them. Ireland Inc. would then have bought at scale, using procurement as a weapon in our favour instead of a scourge on our backs. That is one of the ways in which scale could operate. It is certainly relevant to Deputy Wallace's point that our needs can often be met by developments of three, five and 35 units, especially outside Dublin. We have to remember that we have a whole country to deal with here.

To go back to Deputy Daly's point, we not only have vacant houses but under-utilised houses. There are 1,500 small towns and villages in Ireland. If we challenged each of those to bring forward four new houses every year that would be 6,000 a year which, as Mr. O'Connor said, would both bring villages back to life and allow us to reach those very onerous targets very quickly. We would also be spreading the benefit out and using the installed houses and the streets, sewers, pubs and shops that surround them. We would achieve many goals at the same time. All that comes from regarding housing not as a building exercise but in terms of managing our housing stock, part of which is building, part of which is renewing and part of which is bringing back into use.

The last point was about ageing. Mr. O'Connor will talk about this. The Deputy is absolutely right about trying to free up existing stock. We have to learn from our neighbours in Britain and see the disaster that was the poll tax, the disaster that was trying to get older people to leave their homes. Sticks do not work; we have to use honey and carrots to get people out. Exactly as the Deputy said, we have to give them something that is so attractive that they would want to leave their houses for something better in the same area with the same parish priest and pharmacy that they have been used to. That is the way forward to increase the yield out of what we have. It is about managing as much as building.

On Deputy Daly's point about the age profile and so forth, we had the Minister, Deputy Kelly, in this morning and he referred to housing construction as a pipeline that was being ramped up over a number of years. I want to park the question of whether one agrees with the programme; it is to grow. In terms of the mix of housing, has the Housing Agency fed into that? In other words, are the model and the proportion of houses that would be one, two and three bed based on the agency's figures?

Mr. Conor Skehan

There are two answers to that. In addition to being one of our directors, David Silke is our director of research. We have two publications out so far and a third on the way. Would Mr. Silke like to describe what they are?

Mr. David Silke

Last year we produced a statement of housing supply and demand which looked at what we produced and needed to produce last year and looked forward into 2017 in terms of what kind of accommodation will be required and the general trends. I can provide that statement to the committee; we are updating it for this year now.

Is that feeding specifically into the Department and the Minister's housing construction programme?

Mr. John O'Connor

Yes, it is. Reference was made to different household size. The appropriate accommodation for a one-person household may be a two-bedroom house or apartment because he or she may want flexibility for visitors and so on. We are feeding such information into the supply process.

Mr. Conor Skehan

We work very closely with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. We are its go-to people for the data and we will sometimes commission that outwards beyond ourselves. We are trying to grow into that position. As I said, it is early days for the agency. It has only been in place since 2010. We are trying to become a reliable source for the committee and policy-makers, as much as for the Department, in terms of facts that can be trusted. We do not want facts given to the committee and others by an auctioneer or builder who, with no disrespect to them, have their own agenda to pursue.

I am sorry that I was absent. I am concerned about using large-scale developments comprising 300 or 400 houses to solve the problem. In various local authority areas throughout the country there is an over-concentration on what could be called socially deprived areas. Large developments might make for good economics but they do not make for good social cohesion. We all deal regularly with the issues arising from such an approach.

One of the contributing factors has been that since the local authorities slowed down or stopped direct building, there seems to be a concentration of people who fit into a particular category with the local authorities, while others are catered for by voluntary housing agencies. The suggestion has been made by local authority members that cherry-picking takes place. An over-concentration of social deprivation in one area is lethal. It does not work and I would strongly advise against it. The evidence seems to suggest that in the region of 40 houses would have an impact.

Economies of scale can be achieved in the same way, as the Chairman said. Housing can be bought or ordered in bulk over a period. A number of builders in the country specialised in building housing in several locations at the same time and using the same model and dimensions, such as roof trusses and so on. They engaged in such work for many years, were very successful and built very good houses. The same can be done today.

I refer to the quality of housing. For example, the design of duplex houses needs to be done very carefully, such as in the case of external stairways. Older people or children may be blown off such stairways in a gale. We have all seen examples during wintertime where ice caused people to slip. The worst element of design is having an entrance to somebody else's house under a stairs. It is a classic example of maximisation in terms of economics, but it is not a good approach to living conditions or a good place to put people. We should never try to do that because we are penalising people in a way that makes it impossible for them to live, exist and have a reasonable quality of life. I strongly urge that we do not go down that road.

We have to build houses. Economies of scale can be achieved in the way that Mr. Skehan has mentioned, but I strongly advise that we avoid the creation of ghettos. There is a tendency to respond to a situation using multiples of numbers, but we may make the situation worse.

Is there any proof that every location where there is social housing is a ghetto? That is what Deputy Durkan is suggesting.

No, I have not. That is a rubbish suggestion. I said nothing of the sort.

Deputy Durkan said 40-----

I said nothing of the sort, and Deputy Coppinger knows that. I want to emphasise that over-concentration on the kind of development about which I spoke is not a good way to resolve the problem and will result in ghettoisation. We do not want that and we have seen it happen before. Trying to twist, for publicity purposes-----

I fully realise what Deputy Coppinger is trying to do.

Deputy Durkan is not the only one who-----

I fully realise what Deputy Coppinger is trying to say.

Deputy Durkan does not have to shout. I can hear him.

I am not shouting, but I did not interrupt Deputy Coppinger - she interrupted me.

I spoke after the Deputy.

Deputy Durkan.

I am sorry, Chairman.

The purpose of having the witnesses here is not to make statements. We will have our own debate afterwards on the evidence that has been produced. We have witnesses here and the purpose of the session is to question them, interrogate them and extract the information we want. At subsequent meetings we will try to decide on policy responses, recommendations and so forth, but the purpose of today's session is to have witnesses make a presentation and to question them. Deputy Durkan made a number of statements. I will now afford the witnesses the opportunity to respond. After that it is Deputy Funchion.

Mr. Conor Skehan

The issues that are being raised by Deputy Durkan, which refer back to the issues raised by Deputy Coppinger, get to the heart of it, so it is worthwhile debating these in exactly the manner the committee is doing. There is not necessarily a contradiction between the two positions. Deputy Coppinger is absolutely correct that our vision of social housing as being something that is solely for poor people - if I am not misquoting her - is something that we have to move away from. We have to start to understand that, exactly as we and our publication have said, one third of our population will need some form of support and the support will be graduated. The wonderful thing about something like the housing assistance payment is that it now allows people, like the bus driver mentioned by Deputy Coppinger or a trainee garda or young nurse, to live in a place. There are a whole range of people who are in full employment who need to have some form of support. That is the first issue.

The second issue is the type of mixture we are talking about. Deputy Durkan is dead right to haul me up on it. If I gave a mistaken impression that I am talking about building slabs of 500 semi-detached houses for local authority consumption, the Deputy is absolutely right - there is no future in that. What there is a future for is developments, perhaps 500 at a time, of which 50 are for a local authority, another 50 are for housing for the aged, and another 50 for very expensive housing, and that they are all going ahead at the same time. That is the idea. The points the Deputy has made are absolutely correct and we have to learn from them. We will have to have standards that leave things such as duplexes in the past. There should be completely new types of mix because, as we are saying to the committee, there will be mixtures of type - small, medium and large - and of tenure - owned by the State, owned by AHBs and owned privately - all mixed up together. It is a completely different type of project. We have not even really started doing it.

The last thing is that we have them among us. We can go down to places like Cherrywood, which is already under way, where we have exactly those types of mix. The advantage of going ahead on a big unit is that we get fantastic social facilities and parks, wonderful roads and very good public transportation systems which are made possible by having that overview and doing them all at the same time. When it is done right - and thanks be to God we are finally doing it right in Ireland - it works and everybody benefits. It really is a win-win situation.

Could it be built into what we call strategic development zones? Is that an ideal opportunity for it?

Mr. Conor Skehan

It is certainly becoming a vehicle for delivering it, but our local authorities have local area plans and master plans which are a stepped down version of that and can be very good when skilfully used, and not as time-consuming as the SDZs.

I thank the Housing Agency for its presentation. Its document is very good and very concise. I have a few questions on the mortgage-to-rent scheme, which I raised on Tuesday. From a lot of my dealings with people trying to qualify for the scheme, I am aware that there are huge difficulties around red tape, paperwork and people being told that their houses are too big. It could be a couple whose family have grown up and moved on, who live in a three-bed house and have been told they cannot qualify for the scheme because of that, which makes absolutely no sense. What is Mr. Skehan's opinion on that? A lot of people who could qualify are falling through the cracks because of really stupid things like that. It is not as if they are living in a mansion.

The recommendation in the document for State support to households that do not qualify for social housing support is a good idea, but what we really need to do is to challenge the banks when people have mortgage difficulties and ensure they are negotiating with them and sitting down with them, because a lot of the problem is that sometimes the banks will not talk to people. I deal with people on a regular basis who are willing to pay, in many cases, a considerable amount of the mortgage. It is a good suggestion but we need to be careful that we do not let the banks off the hook in that regard. Mortgage-to-rent needs to be looked at because an awful lot of people who are going onto the housing list now are going on it because of repossession, and it is increasing homelessness.

Mr. Conor Skehan

I thank the Deputy for raising that issue about which we feel passionately. The agency believes that above all else - before we clear vacancies, before we do things to do with building - we need to stop anybody else ending up in these circumstances. Preventing people ending up in these circumstances must be everybody's priority. Again, this goes back to the need for us to regard housing as something that needs management as well as building. We could speak for half an hour on the importance of this issue, but we only have a couple of moments. It is critical and I thank the Deputy for raising it.

Mr. John O'Connor

At the bigger picture level, the Deputies who are on the ground know better than we do how serious the number of households in mortgage arrears is as an issue. There is a financial issue, but it has been going on for so long that the psychological effect on families is incredibly serious. We absolutely must address it. I need to be careful about what I say, but the Central Bank and the Department of Finance would be focusing on it from the banks' point of view. I urge the committee to look at it from the people's point of view - the families and households. There are very serious levels of arrears. There are arrears and then there is restructuring. Much of the restructuring is not sustainable.

The mortgage-to-rent scheme has not been effective to date. Between private and local authority mortgage-to-rent properties, there are only 357 households. While it is important that those households have been helped, there may be another 100 coming through that will avail of it. We have to make that mortgage-to-rent scheme work more effectively. We need to overcome the issues the Deputy raised over the number of bedrooms and location of house. At the moment, the process requires an approved housing body to purchase the property. The whole process may take too long. We have ideas for how it could be improved, but it must be improved because many families should be able to avail of the mortgage-to-rent scheme.

Are the agency's ideas on how to improve it contained in this document?

Mr. John O'Connor

They are outlined but we can provide more.

That would be great.

Mr. John O'Connor

While it is an endeavour that has problems, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us turn the things that worked badly into lessons and see if we can make it work better.

Those are two specifics: vacancies and the mortgage-to-rent scheme.

Mr. Conor Skehan

Specific new ideas.

Mr. John O'Connor

There are two other issues. On the State support, the committee should look at one issue. At the moment people either get full support through social housing or other forms of housing support or they get nothing. Many families cannot get the support but cannot afford to rent or buy on the market. We need to provide considerable support for new families, but we also need to find ways to support families in their homes at the moment.

Mr. Conor Skehan

This is nettle that must be grasped by the incoming Government. The arrears will peak, so to speak. The numbers are enormous and they will dwarf all the other matters we are discussing, such as emergency accommodation and other things. It is uncomfortable; the bullet will have to be bitten - whatever clichés one wants to use. We urge the committee to get the Government to give its highest priority to addressing this issue. It will not go away. As we get closer to negative equity going away, we will see banks tempted to realise their assets. We must act urgently and the committee must use its voice to make this urgent issue known to Government.

My main question was on the mortgage-to-rent scheme.

I have another issue with land ownership. Some lands, previously in the ownership of local authorities, have been transferred to the Housing Agency as a means of, perhaps, getting them off the local authorities' books.

What is the process of getting those lands back into play, or are all such Housing Agency lands currently in play? We could ask the local authorities what lands they own and they probably would not include the lands they have transferred to the Housing Agency. Will Mr. O'Connor explain that?

Mr. John O'Connor

Any of the land that was transferred into this land aggregation scheme is owned by the Housing Agency but, if a local authority wants to utilise that land, it will be transferred back to it - there is no question about that.

It is simple process.

Mr. John O'Connor

Yes, it is a simple process. From our point of view, the main thing is that the local authority is actually going to utilise the land to provide housing. We are working on this. A number of sites are, in different ways, in the process of going back to local authorities to be utilised for housing and we are working in partnership with some local authorities to develop sites. For example, there is one site in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown which we want to get built as quickly as possible, and there are other sites around the country. If the local authorities want to build housing, the land will be transferred back.

I thank the agency for a very informative presentation. My question concerns the 200,000 homes that lie vacant throughout the country. Has the Housing Agency taken into account, for example, the overhead accommodation above shops that is under-utilised or perhaps derelict and without proper lighting and heating? Were such areas included in the figure of 200,000? Does the Housing Agency see merit in putting forward a scheme for the rejuvenation of this overhead accommodation?

Mr. David Silke

Those figures were taken from the last census. The census enumerators would have identified the properties as vacant and, in doing so, they would have called to all the properties to ask if there was somebody living upstairs over a shop, for example. To clarify the Deputy's earlier question, the figure excludes the 60,000 holiday homes, which are in addition to the 200,000 vacant properties.

When will the current census feed into this?

Mr. David Silke

I understand that looking at vacant properties is one of the issues the CSO has prioritised.

In rural areas in particular, but in the cities as well, there are many two- and three-storey buildings where only the bottom section is being used and the upper sections are not. Would this not be a partial solution to the current problem?

Mr. David Silke

Yes. The agency always emphasises the efficient use of the housing stock as a key point in order to prioritise what is already available.

Mr. John O'Connor

One point we are extremely keen on is to get houses in towns and villages back into use. The Housing Agency would be very supportive of and would assist any local authority that wanted to do that. The committee should look at how we incentivise not only the housing that is needed but also the revitalisation of villages. With falling household size, it is probably more important that people move back into villages, and we think it is a very manageable thing to do.

In addition to the figures coming from the CSO, we note that what other countries have done in regard to vacant properties, with local authorities and agencies like ours, is to identify all the vacant properties and the reasons they are vacant. Of the vacant properties, there are some that might not be available because people own them and they do not want to sell. However, there are many properties that are vacant for various reasons, and one would be surprised how many can be put back into use. England has been addressing this issue for years because, perhaps, it does not build enough housing.

The number of houses throughout England that are vacant for more than six months is 200,000. They have a national housing stock of 23.5 million homes and 200,000 of those have been vacant for more than six months. They have been actively surveying them and identifying all the different issues as to why they are vacant. We have ideas about how what they have done can be used here.

Before I conclude, I want to be specific with the witnesses because they have engaged with us in that they will forward us information on the breakdown of those 200,000 houses that have been vacant. The committee would also be interested to hear about what they have found to be the best practice internationally, how the UK has managed to have only 200,000 houses vacant for more than six months and any practical suggestions that might accompany those figures. Obviously, some of those houses might be semi-derelict. In other words, what can this committee recommend that would fast-track the reintroduction of some of the vacant houses into family homes? Mr. Skehan might include that in his concluding remarks. He has the floor.

Mr. Conor Skehan

We are leaving the committee with a very simple thought that we have repeatedly mentioned. The big picture is managing all our housing, of which building is a part. I have said that five times now but we must stop ourselves from being sucked into the builders' agenda that the only solution to everything is building; it is not. It is managing our stock in a smarter way. That is the first point. Managing does not only mean providing houses but also controlling their price. We as a nation must set targets for ourselves as to what constitutes an affordable house which is a reasonable multiplier of the disposable income of households. We must bring about a situation where our development sector builds to price and not one where it has all of us scrabbling around trying to bring whatever money we have up to whatever prices it sets for us. We must drive that down. It needs a concerted effort across all the instruments of Government to bring that about. That is the challenge for the committee and for it to see what we can do working with it. We are its servants from now until the end of July to help it to do that. That is the big picture and it is to see if we can do that.

I thank Mr. Silke, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Skehan for their attendance. Their direct and frank answers and the supporting documentation and statistics they provided are very useful.

Sitting suspended at 3.03 p.m. and resumed at 3.08 p.m.
Top
Share