Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate -
Tuesday, 17 May 2022

National Oversight Audit Commission’s 2021 Annual Report: Discussion

Chairman

I welcome everyone. The committee is meeting today with the National Oversight Audit Commission, NOAC, to discuss its 2021 annual report on local authorities. We are joined today by Mr. Michael McCarthy, chairperson; Mr. Ciarán Hayes, board member; and Ms Claire Gavin, head of secretariat. I thank the witnesses for their attendance today. Our meeting will be split into two sessions. The first session will run from 3 p.m. until 4.30 p.m. In the second session, between 4.30 p.m. and 6 p.m., we will deal with the Local Government Audit Service, LGAS, report. The opening statements and briefing on the 2021 report have been circulated to members.

Before we begin, I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. Those attending in the committee room are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their contributions to today's meeting. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamatory action arising from their remarks at the meeting. Members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy. It is my duty as Chairman to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with such direction. Members and witnesses 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 House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. McCarthy to make the opening statement on behalf of NOAC.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it today to speak about the commission's 2021 annual report. I am joined by Mr. Ciarán Hayes and Ms Claire Gavin.

The annual report provides a report into the functions of NOAC in the preceding year and provides details on NOAC’s membership, engagements, expenditure and a summary of work conducted throughout the year. The report itself is freely available to the public, along with all its other reports and minutes of NOAC meetings on the commission's website, www.noac.ie. Additionally, the report is presented to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and this committee.

By way of background, the Local Government Reform Act 2014 introduced significant changes to a wide range of aspects of the local government system, including in matters of accountability and oversight. In that regard, the Act provided for the establishment of NOAC in July 2014 as an independent statutory body to provide oversight of the local government sector in Ireland. Its functions are wide-ranging, involving the scrutiny of performance generally, and financial performance specifically. NOAC also has a role in supporting best practice, overseeing implementation of national local government policy and monitoring and evaluating implementation of corporate plans, adherence to service level agreements and public service reform by local government bodies. A Minister may also request that NOAC prepare a report relevant to its functions on any specified aspect of local government. NOAC’s role in local government policy is to oversee how the national policy is implemented by local government bodies. NOAC does not have a function in providing input to the development of policy for the sector. NOAC’s membership is statutorily prescribed as a minimum of six and a maximum of nine members. There is provision for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage increasing, by order, the number of members to a maximum of 12 for a period of up to two years. Currently, NOAC has nine members, including the chairperson. Vacancies that arise are advertised by the Public Appointment Service and appointments are made by the Minster for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. NOAC is funded from the Local Government Fund and its allocation for 2021 was €350,000.

As outlined in the report, most of the work of NOAC is carried out through its four working groups on local government governance, efficiency and reform; performance indicators; communications and customer survey; and financial management and performance. The commission produced numerous and varied reports throughout 2021. Of particular note are the scrutiny reports. In 2017, NOAC, in accordance with its statutory functions, began to review the performance of individual local authorities using primarily information from its reports to draw up a profile of the relevant local authority. This is a two-stage formal process. To date, NOAC has completed 18 of these meetings and the reports on these meetings are published on the commission's website. This process is ongoing.

NOAC also produced the seventh annual report on performance indicators, which allows local authorities to view where they are performing well and to review any areas where performance could be improved upon. NOAC examines 42 separate indicators covering 11 areas, including roads, planning and housing. In 2021, the commission hosted two virtual workshops with local authorities to provide guidance on the collection and submission of data for the 2020 report. As a follow-up to this work, six validations meetings were also hosted with selected local authorities. The commission held its annual good practice seminar in conjunction with the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, and the County and City Management Association, CCMA, in November 2021. This in-person and an online event allowed it to be brought to an even wider audience. The seminar has become a focal point for NOAC, bringing together the local government sector and showcasing where good practice can be demonstrated, shared and be reproduced, where appropriate, across local government.

NOAC published a review of local authority and regional assembly corporate plans for 2019 to 2024 that examined the adequacy of these plans and provided recommendations to support the development of best practice in corporate planning in local authorities. NOAC also published the annual Public Spending Code Report 2020, which provided a composite report based on the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's public spending code quality assurance requirements.

I look forward to the discussion with the committee members on the work outlined. I assure the committee that we are happy to be here to have this interaction, especially after the experience of Covid-19 in the last two years. The work of the members of the committee as legislators was especially frustrated, but we all managed to find a new way of operating. We are more than happy to engage with the members of the committee on any questions they may have. I flag that while I may not have all the answers here now, I will strive earnestly to get the information to the members as soon as possible.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McCarthy. I call Deputy McAuliffe.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I thank the witnesses for being with us. If I pop out after these questions, it is because I must be in the Dáil for other questions and not because the witnesses gave me an answer that was offensive in some way. I am pleased that the witnesses and those from the LGAS are with us today in the context of points that have arisen in two discussions, one of which took place at this committee and the other at the Committee of Public Accounts. I refer to accountability regarding public spending by local authorities. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I am familiar with the processes of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and its published opinions. I refer as well to the resources devoted by the Committee of Public Accounts to scrutinising spending by bodies responsible to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

What concerns members of that committee, and what has also emerged from media coverage of the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, is that it is not as clear whether the systems for auditing spending by local authorities are as robust. Scrutinising the audits might be a better way to put it. I was a member of Dublin City Council, DCC, local authority for more than ten years. I was not a member of the auditing committee of that local authority. I was going to preface that last sentence with "fortunately", because the auditing committee does fantastic work, including its internal and external members. Having seen what happens in the context of those bodies responsible to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the level of scrutiny and resources available to undertake such scrutiny of audits in that regard, I refer to what happens at a local authority level. There is a great deal of concern that perhaps those audit committees at council level do not provide the same opportunity to scrutinise an audit. Especially for shared services, where a local authority might take the lead, it is more difficult for members of one local authority to be responsible for the auditing, or certainly for scrutinising the auditing, of something that has a much wider area of operation. Those members would not necessarily have the feedback from those communities. I think of examples such as the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, DRHE, or Dublin Fire Brigade, DFB. Someone in Kildare, for example, has little ability to scrutinise the areas covered by DFB. A better example might be Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council or South Dublin County Council. From a broad policy perspective, is this an aspect the witnesses have examined? Is it something they would be willing to look at? I ask that because both the committees I mentioned are extremely concerned about this area. Equally, however, we are not quite sure where we fit at a national level in this context and we do not wish to interfere with the remit of local government, because we do far too much of that in these Houses.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Deputy McAuliffe made some good points. Regarding NOAC itself, the organisation is sufficiently resourced to deal with our statutory function. I acknowledge the support we have received from this Administration and the previous Administration. We sought resources on occasion and we got them, and we really appreciate that. We work in conjunction with the Local Government Audit Service, which does a great deal of work in this area. It is an important role. Many of our interactions at that level colour our work programme. That can be seen, for example, in our interactions with the local authorities. All these good reports are produced, and this could involve scrutiny or validation visits. To pull that information for our reports, we interact with the LGAS, in the first instance, and then also with the data co-ordinators in the 31 local authorities.

On that point, all 31 local authorities have an audit committee. We also have the Local Government Audit Service, the National Oversight Audit Commission, the Committee of Public Accounts and the Minister. Therefore, in respect of a public element of scrutiny, there is a lot there. The question then is whether there has or might be an occasion where we might have a direct request from a particular relevant Minister. In this context, it must be borne in mind that traditionally, if we were to think back to the 1970s and 1980s, we had the county, city and town councils and the parent Department of local government. Now, however, the local authorities do a much more varied amount of work. I am aware I am speaking to two members of this committee who have served on local authorities. They know the full ambit of the services provided to people by local authorities. Therefore, several senior Departments now have an element of the policies under their aegis being dealt with by the local authorities. Equally, in the Act, there is a specific provision that allows a Minister to refer a piece of work to us that he or she wishes us to undertake.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

My question was concerned more with the current structure, and Mr. McCarthy is right that the structure exists, in the context of the time and resources that the members of audit committees have and whether that structure enables them to scrutinise the audit reports in the same way as we do at the Committee of Public Accounts, for example. My knowledge of local audit committees is that they meet much less frequently than the Committee of Public Accounts and they do not have the same back-up services or the independent liaison with the audit service. It is not the same interaction as the way in which I deal with the liaison officer of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and not with the line Department. In a council, it is often the representatives of the line department who are providing the explanation, while the councillors asking the questions are also depending on that line department to deliver the services desired. Therefore, it is difficult for a member of a local authority to take a strong line against an official within one's council.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The short answer is this is such a specialised topic. Most of the elected members of any local authority have day jobs alongside their extremely busy roles as elected representatives. If I were to put myself in that situation, would I feel sufficiently knowledgeable? I do not think I would if I was an elected member of a local authority. Can I then fall back on the same level of specialised expertise as is provided by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Committee of Public Accounts? I think the answer can only be "No".

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

If that is the case, and many people would agree with that position and it is welcome that Mr. McCarthy voiced it, what structural changes can we make to improve the ability of local authority members to audit or scrutinise an audit?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I will make two points before I hand over to my colleague, Mr. Hayes. Looking at the external bodies that support councils, I mention the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, in particular. It is a great organisation and has been very good for many years. Even when I was an elected member back in 1999, the AILG was a great fallback. We did not then have Google or desktop research facilities. It was a great body that was very supportive of elected representatives in explaining the role and providing training. An element of such assistance is needed. Additionally, in the same context, regarding there being a policy, the role of NOAC is to evaluate the performance of that policy. Ultimately, however, it would be a matter for the Government to decide to put those resources into that kind of initiative.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

NOAC has not yet carried out any work in this area. Perhaps Mr. Hayes might wish to contribute.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

I am a former chief executive of Sligo County Council. I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. I can perhaps advise the members of the position from the perspective of both sides of the table. The situation is that the audit committees in the local authorities are independent and chaired by an independent body. They have representatives from the council on them. Generally, the audit committees are supported by the internal auditor in the local authority and the internal audit staff. At the start of the year, the audit committee would have its programme of work set out and agreed by its members. Particular areas can be specified for examination throughout the year. It is then a matter for the chief executive to go in and deal with the issues directly with the independent audit committee.

Interestingly, Deputy McAuliffe mentioned the issue of service level agreements, SLAs. This is an area that NOAC is starting to examine. We must be specific concerning these service level agreements, given the range of such existing agreements. The Deputy mentioned examples such as the provision of services in the areas of firefighting, homelessness, waste, climate, public procurement and dangerous substances. There is a whole array of public private partnerships, PPPs, as well, and, in some respects, those can also be treated as service level agreements because contracts must be entered into.

Within the working group structure in NOAC, we are currently trying to be specific to be able to deal with those-----

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I may discuss that further with Mr. Hayes in my later round. I know I have gone over time. I appreciate Mr. Hayes and Mr. McCarthy clarifying that point.

Deputy Thomas Gould

One of the biggest issues or concerns I have relates to housing maintenance. Obviously, it accounts for a significant part of the budget of most local authorities. According to the reports produced by NOAC, there was a decrease of 12% in funding spent from 2014 to 2020 but an increase of 17.4% in registered tenancies. When one calculates the decrease in funding and the increase in the number of properties, for every €1 spent, there was a decrease of 25% from 2014 to 2020. The housing stock of most local authorities, including my local Cork City Council and Cork County Council, is getting older and requires more maintenance. The costs of construction, housing and materials are going up, yet there is a 25% decrease. It should be a 25% increase.

For me, housing maintenance is a significant issue for tenants. Local authorities have a duty of care to their tenants and, as landlords, I do not believe they are providing the housing maintenance that is required. When I was first a member of Cork City Council, I was told there would be a preventative maintenance programme every three years. That was during the height of the Celtic tiger crash. It then went to every five years. Now Cork City Council has no rolling preventative maintenance programme. It has almost 11,000 social houses, apart from HAP and RAS. I think it has one tenth of social housing in the State but there is not adequate funding for the local authority.

Why is this issue not being flagged and raised under the NOAC scrutiny of the performance of local authorities? I believe local authorities are failing social housing tenants.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. Once upon a time, I chaired the select committee on housing. I remember that every time the Minister came before the committee, particularly when we were dealing with legislation, I struggled to understand the whole issue of voids. The Deputy has significant experience of this on the ground in Cork city. There may be two or three houses boarded up in an estate but public representatives are dealing with representations from families on the housing list who want to get into a house. It is one of the issues to which NOAC pays a lot of attention in terms of our scrutiny visits. Some local authorities were better than others at keeping the period for which a property was void to a minimum. The national average now is approximately 14 or 15 weeks. That is a significant improvement in the past four or five years. There are extreme cases where it is far longer than that. There may be particular reasons behind that, so what we do-----

Deputy Thomas Gould

I apologise for interrupting Mr. McCarthy. That was going to be my next question. I ask him to hold off on addressing voids for the moment. I am keen to discuss them with him.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

No problem.

Deputy Thomas Gould

My issue is the decrease in expenditure on housing maintenance for social housing that is currently occupied by tenants. The housing stock is ageing and people are living in houses that have single-glazed aluminium windows and no insulation. There is no retrofitting of those houses going on. Actually, retrofitting is not in the report. I do not believe local authorities are performing to the level they ought to be. NOAC is scrutinising the performance of local authorities. Do our guests believe local authorities are meeting their requirements?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I will hold off on discussing voids. I thank the Deputy for flagging that.

As regards our validation process visits this year, we are looking at planned maintenance as one of the features of those validation visits. When we go to a local authority, we build a profile. Members should bear in mind that during Covid it was online, though some in-person visits have started back. We go to the local authorities under particular headings or topics and find out exactly what they are doing in terms of the budget available to them and the project of work. Ultimately, one will find variations between local authorities. We glean that information and publish reports to our website. What we do in respect of a practice that one local authority is doing extremely well while another clearly is not is to showcase that project at our annual good practice seminar. It is about trying to infuse that better practice at a wider level, if that makes sense.

Deputy Thomas Gould

What are the consequences? If NOAC audits the 31 local authorities and some are best in class, some are in the middle and others are at the bottom, what are the implications? From what Mr. McCarthy has told me, a person living in Cork may not be getting the same housing maintenance as a person living in Tipperary or Dublin. I believe all social housing tenants should be treated equally and should be at the same standard. Mr. McCarthy is stating that the 31 local authorities are operating at 31 different levels. To me, there should be one level and that should be the bar every local authority should be able to meet.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We publish our reports and provide copies to the Minister, the local authorities and the Oireachtas joint committees but, ultimately, it is a matter for the Minister to devise that policy or the policy response to the information we present to him or her.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Great. My next point relates to voids. I was surprised at the figures referred to by Mr. McCarthy. He stated it takes 14 to 15 weeks to turn around a void. To clarify, the performance indicator report with which we are now dealing is the 2020 report. The report for 2021 has not yet been published. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Correct.

Deputy Thomas Gould

The figures from which I am operating state that from 2017 to 2019 the periods were 29 weeks, 28 weeks and 28 weeks, respectively. The figure increased by 65% from 2014 to 2020. The figures I have are much higher than those referred to by Mr. McCarthy. My figures come from the indicator report. The most recent figures I got from Cork City Council indicate a period of 64 weeks. When I raised this matter with the council, it told me that new guidelines or procedures brought in by the Department of housing have slowed down the allocation time to get voids back out. One of the examples I was given is that those being offered a tenancy in a house must supply 52 weeks proof of income, which was not a requirement previously. A P60 from the previous year was sufficient but now they are looking for weekly payslips. That has had a negative effect in terms of slowing down the reallocation. I will have the figures before me. There is no way that the average is 15 weeks, which is less than four months. I estimate the average for a house in Cork is at least a year. I will check that out from these figures. I do not know from where Mr. McCarthy is getting the figure in respect of 14 weeks or 15 weeks. If he could outline that to help me understand, that would be great.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Before I bring in my colleague Mr. Hayes, I will do a deeper dive on those figures. It is an average. A particular local authority may be very good, while another may be not so good. That may explain differences in the context of that figure. I will specifically seek out that detail for the Deputy.

Chairman

That would be helpful. We got some good news on voids in the past two years, so it may have improved.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I thank our guests for their attendance. NOAC is probably the first organisation to appear before any of the six Oireachtas committees on which I serve to state that it is sufficiently resourced. That is definitely a first and a positive. I sat on the audit committee of my local authority, South Dublin County Council, for several years. I served there for almost a decade. I am currently a member of the Oireachtas audit committee.

I am speaking from experience when I say that all of those involved in audit committees have an extremely tough job to do without, as Mr. McCarthy said, necessarily having the specific expertise that is often required for such a complex role. My question is similar to that asked by other members today. How can we support those members to arrive at the best possible outcomes? Mr. McCarthy spoke about AILG, which I agree provides a huge support structure for county councillors. However, I am not sure that its members have the expertise, technical knowledge or, indeed, the remit to support auditors. I would have thought that perhaps that is the function of the internal audit committee for each local authority rather than AILG. I would certainly like to hear more about that.

I note, from Mr. McCarthy's opening statement, that NOAC is reviewing the performance of individual local authorities through profiling, and the process is ongoing. I would like to learn more about it. When is the process due to be completed? Have all local authorities been engaged with at this stage? Are there any initial findings or trends that NOAC can discuss? Are there local authorities which have shown themselves as best in class? Mr. McCarthy spoke about best practice and how best practice learnings are shared at NOAC's annual CCMA seminar. I would be interested to hear if there is more ongoing collaboration and sharing of best practice happening more organically or in real time. Before I was a politician, I worked in the corporate world. I strongly believe in not reinventing the wheel and in lifting and shifting best practices from one region to another. I would like to hear more about what NOAC is doing outside of the annual seminar to showcase and share best practice.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

On the supports for the audit committees where NOAC's involvement is with the audit committees, members of our working group on financial performance and management are physically going out to meet the chairs of the 31 audit committees at an in-person event later in the summer. We can get a first-hand account from the chairs of what they think the issues are, for example, in respect of training or resources. That is very important. One should bear in mind that NOAC has only been around for a few years. The last time we appeared before the committee in 2019, there were many areas that we had just not gotten to at that point in time. We have since. We would have probably been further on with that particular journey, but the pandemic struck. The in-person meeting with the chairs of the audit committees entails a significant volume of work for us. It enables them to thrash out, in-person, what they think the issues are and where the deficits might be in terms of human resources or specialist training. On a previous occasion, we visited Sligo County Council as part of a scrutiny visit. At that stage, Mr. Hayes, who is now my colleague on the board of NOAC, was CEO of the council. I am aware that Mr. Hayes would like to make a point about some of the very good practices that we have seen in Sligo County Council. Ultimately, it is about co-ordinating that good work and showcasing it at the seminar. The reports are published continuously. They are available online for everyone to see. We also issue the reports to the local authorities, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is a case of having to keep saying it, keep highlighting the issues and keep shining a torch on it. There are a few specific very good initiatives in Sligo County Council, particularly in the area of climate change, that Mr. Hayes wants to elaborate on.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

First, I wish to confirm that we are looking at a tentative date at the end of August to meet with all the chairs of the audit committees. We are looking forward to that engagement.

On good practice and what is happening in Sligo County Council, the council took a very high-density social housing area and did a deep retrofit of it. The council has also been able to measure and calculate the energy savings for each of the tenants. It is intended to use those energy savings not just as best practice for other local authorities or social housing tenants, but also as best practice for councils to enable them to go out to the private sector to give an indication of the potential energy savings in private households. In addition to that, Sligo County Council is measuring the increased air quality, and is hoping to correlate that with data on admissions to local hospitals for respiratory illnesses. Over time, the council will be able to get a measure on the improving air quality, and will be able to calculate the additional health benefits for County Sligo. That, in turn, will be a measure of best practice that will be rolled out to the rest of the country.

Deputy Emer Higgins

That sounds really progressive.

Chairman

Is Deputy Higgins satisfied with those answers?

Deputy Emer Higgins

Yes.

Chairman

I call Senator Boyhan.

Senator Victor Boyhan

First, I wish to welcome the witnesses to the meeting. I am great advocate of NOAC. It does amazing work. If there is any shortcoming, it is that there is a deficit in how we highlight the work of NOAC. I am glad the witnesses are here today. Representatives from LGAS, including Ms Niamh Larkin, will be attending the second session. I think the two organisations are inextricably linked. I note with interest that NOAC is going to have a meeting with the chairs of the audit committees. One thing that people listening to this meeting may not know is that no audit committee is chaired by a councillor. Indeed, councillors are excluded, under the legislation, from chairing an audit committee. I think that is disappointing. The way in which the audit committees are structured is not a matter for us to discuss now. It will be an issue for discussion in the next session. That presents its own problems. Of course, members of audit committees are appointed by the corporate policy group, CPG, of each local authority. Ultimately, we can see that the balance of the make-up of the council shapes the appointment of the external members. I think that is a shortcoming. However, that is not an issue for NOAC.

At the outset, I wish to welcome the fact that former Deputy, Declan Breathnach, and Ms Philomena Poole, former CEO of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, are members of NOAC. That is progressive. I know that, ultimately, the Minister appoints members to NOAC. I suggest that we should always aim to have a former CEO of a local authority on the commission. I hold CEOs in high esteem. They have vast experience within local government. To me, they are the kernel of local government. I wish to put on the record that I see a really critical role, going forward, for them in the discussion of the issue of mayors. I believe that CEOs play a professional and critical role in local government. That is worth saying. I will certainly be advocating for their retention, at partnership level, in future governance. I think it is important that we have the experience of CEOs and sitting county councillors at NOAC board level.

I wish to acknowledge that NOAC published more than 20 reports in 2021. That is significant. I do not think that any of us sitting on the committee have had the opportunity to study the reports. That demonstrates the need to highlight the work of NOAC. There are some local authorities that spend ten or 15 minutes looking at their local authority audit report. I have printed each of the 31 local authority audit reports for our second session. There are some local authorities that have not even looked at their local authority audit report for 2020. That is the reality of it. That tells us something about the priority that this given to this area of governance. There are key indicators in the NOAC reports. How do we tap into that rich source of information? I acknowledge that NOAC does it well. How are we learning, and how can we demonstrate that we have taken on board that learning - the facts, figures and granular detail that NOAC seeks to quantify in its reports, which is good? I am not too sure how that is happening. I am not convinced that it is happening well. I think the reports are very high-quality. However, there is not, for instance, a provision in statute for a meeting to be held to consider NOAC's reports. Perhaps there should be such a meeting, or some mechanism for engagement whereby we can demonstrate that the Department, NOAC or the councillors have considered the reports in detail. What do we learn? It is about the follow-up. I know that NOAC has been established for a good few years, but it is a relatively new organisation. It is improving its practices all the time and honing its skills. Do the witnesses have any suggestions or ideas as to how we could in some way make the reports more meaningful in terms of practical follow-through so that the citizen, ultimately, is getting good value for money and a good service, and local authorities are meeting the targets and aspirations that the policymakers set for them?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank the Senator. I wish to put on the record my appreciation of his strong support for NOAC, and the number of interactions that we have had about how we do our business and how we can be supported in what we aim to do. Our initial conversation a few years ago was about the profile - or lack of it - of the commission. I took those comments on board. They were very important, particularly as they came from the Senator, who has such extensive experience in local government, going back as far as 1991 in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Through the vocational panels in the Seanad, the Senator has his finger on the pulse of local government.

That is important because there is a link between the vocational panel Senators and local government that is really valuable and vital in being a channel back to the national Parliament. They can raise the issues or challenges local government is facing and how it feels they might be addressed. We recognise the deficit in communications at that point and we have a communications and customer service working group. In recent times we have set about a detailed process of mapping out our stakeholders, be they across the local government network, the AILG, the various Departments and State agencies and that wider array of services that are provided by our local authorities. We subsequently engaged in a process of rebranding and we also got a new website. Unfortunately, the pandemic hit and everything was back online. We are now getting out there in person again.

One of the last NOAC functions I had before the restrictions came in was speaking on behalf of the organisation at the AILG event in Longford, which was really important because you are in a room with elected members from all of the local authorities and you are able to directly speak to them. One of the disadvantages at that stage that we identified was the kind of disconnect between the elected member and the commission, because we have strong links with the CCMA, the LGAS and the Department, with which we have a lot of interaction. We are addressing that particular disconnect. We have already pointed out that the validation visits will return in-person in August with the 31 chairs of the audit committees. Getting behind that, however, and peeling away the layers in the context of the elected members is important because it gives us the unique insights into the elected members' perspectives. It is a journey that has not concluded, and it is definitely a work that is still in progress. Much of what I have just said is borne out of our initial discussions a number of years back and by our subsequent appearance before the joint committee.

I assure the committee again that there is provision in the Act for a relevant Minister to refer work to us. We publish the reports, we issue them to the local authorities and we put them on our website. We have the good practice seminar and we provide reports to the Minister and the committee. It is ultimately a matter for those bodies to do what they want with them but a lot of work goes into it and it would be a pity if we did not take advantage of the opportunity to get the right recognition and focus on that. Given that provision in the Act, I assure the members of the committee that our door is always open. I am more than happy to engage, particularly on the detailed and granular work we are doing at the four working group levels. There is a lot going on there. I am more than happy to have follow-up meetings with the committee or with individual members to outline the depth of the detail we are making strides on in the working groups.

Chairman

That was especially helpful. I will take the next slot because it is a Green Party slot. Mr. McCarthy acknowledged the difficulties of trying to work through Covid. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the local authorities for stepping up, including management and councillors, during what was a difficult, disruptive and scary period for many people. Just as that was coming to an end, the Ukrainian situation happened and a new housing need arose.

It has been a difficult time for our local authorities and we should acknowledge the massive amount of work done across the local authority network. I have a number of quick questions for Mr. McCarthy on that. I refer to the Moorhead report. Does NOAC have any role in monitoring how the recommendations in the Moorhead report have impacted on local government? Will an audit be carried out on that or will an interim report be produced on it?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

In short, the Moorhead report was commissioned by Government. Our role would be to provide the statutory oversight of the various workings of local government. In this case, if we were to offer a view on the recommendations of the Moorhead report we would have to be invited by the Minister to do so.

Chairman

That is fine. I am just keen to see some review of the Moorhead report to see how it is impacting on the functioning of the local authorities and councillors.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

That would be an interesting stream of work. I would be more than happy to engage on that.

Chairman

We will engage the Department on it. NOAC covers rates collection in its report. There seem to be varying levels of success across local authorities when it comes to collecting rates. Does a stricter target need to be set by the Government to say that local authorities must achieve 80% or 90% collection, for example? Similarly, does Mr. McCarthy have any opinion on why the collection rate for the derelict sites levy is so low? It is far below than 10%.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Again, I am not trying to deflect but there is an issue with rates. It is clear from the reports that some local authorities are better than others at collecting rates. There might be a reason why that level might not be as high in other local authorities. It would be a matter for the Minister or the Government to decide that there will be one centralised target which all 31 local authorities will strive towards. In our scrutiny visits, we examine how a local authority is achieving an extraordinarily high collection rate. We examine if there is a particular methodology being deployed in that local authority and if so we try to take that idea and showcase it at our good practice seminar.

Chairman

Is that something that NOAC does?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

It is. We do so across a number of different areas. The derelict sites levy is a matter of policy that is set down by the Government of the day. Our role is to go in and scrutinise the performance of a local authority under the various headings and performance indicators. We cannot decide a policy so if a Minister, be it the relevant Minister or another Minister, feels there is a particular area of work, such as the Moorhead report or the derelict sites levy, that needs to be carried out, he or she can place that request upon us, which we will respond to. On the rates issue, Mr. Hayes has good experience from Sligo that is worth sharing with the committee.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

From 2014 to 2017 and in 2018 there was a consistent increase in rates collection across the country. There was a consistent and deep effort on behalf of the entire sector to increase the percentage collection. If my memory serves me correctly it increased to 83% or 84% collection from a low of somewhere in the seventies. Perhaps Ms Gavin can clarify that figure. Covid hit in 2020 and had a serious impact, on vacant properties as well. From a maintenance point of view we could not go into houses and equally, from a rates point of view-----

Chairman

Of course and there was the rates waiver as well.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

The rates waiver was put in and that impacted every aspect, which will skew the figures. We are conscious that will have an impact on the performance indicators for 2020.

Chairman

I refer to local authorities that can waive rates on vacant commercial properties. Is that still prevalent or is it being phased out?

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

That is still prevalent. It is provided for in the legislation. That would be a legislative matter. NOAC would engage on that if the legislation was to be changed in the future.

Chairman

We are looking at the incomes of local authorities. Those incomes come from many and varied sources. Rates are a substantial part of a local authority's income and it sends out the wrong message to waive the rates. If you waive the rates, you leave in place a vacant and possibly derelict building that might be an eyesore. There is no incentive for the owner to do anything because he or she is not being charged rates. Not alone is income being forgone, the building is also being allowed to fall into dereliction. That can have an impact on other businesses that are trying to make a good fist of it in a town centre.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

NOAC is very conscious of this. It differs throughout the country. In areas where there is high demand, particularly in the major urban areas, it can be a disincentive, but in smaller rural towns and villages, for a local authority to insist on the payment of rates could be a further disincentive and could create additional dereliction. We have had closures of retail shops, pubs, post offices and so on in those areas. Where there are continued closures, if you are to insist on the payment of rates where there is no additional demand for the occupation and take-up of those commercial properties, it is a very fine balance. NOAC has to be cognisant of that.

Chairman

I appreciate that. Local authority members will appreciate it too because they have good knowledge of these smaller towns and villages Mr. Hayes refers to. However, an incentive to pay rates could be the necessary nudge to somebody who owns a commercial property that we know will probably never be operating commercially again. It might make him or her think about a change of use like bringing it back into use for residential purposes. This should be done with balance in order that we retain some commercial and retail properties in those town centres. It seems properties can be allowed to sit there forever because there is no incentive, no carrot and no stick. These properties can have a big impact on a town centre. Many of our rural towns and villages are undergoing a rejuvenation process because of people working from home, digitisation and improvements to rural public transport services.

That is something that needs to be addressed, and a study needs to be carried out.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

That is a very valid point. The recent developments, namely the urban regeneration and development fund, URDF, and the rural regeneration and development fund, RFDF, are aimed specifically at trying to address those issues. Over time, they will come back into NOAC in terms of performance indicators for the redevelopment of those areas, but they are specifically tailored by the Government to be able to try to regenerate those areas that have fallen into dereliction over the years.

Chairman

I did not start the clock for myself. I think I am out of time. I ended up penalising myself. Deputy Gould times me regularly.

Senator John Cummins

I thank the witnesses and I compliment them on the work they do, which is exceptionally valuable. As a former local authority member for 11 or 12 years, the introduction of NOAC reports have been invaluable in being able to pitch the performance of a local authority against others across various headings. There are legitimate questions for management and the executive as to how a certain local authority is able to, for example, reduce the turnaround time in local authority lettings between properties becoming vacant and re-let and implementing best practice in local authorities in order to reduce that time.

Speaking from my experience, the NOAC report prompted Waterford City and County Council to move in that particular space. We had a longer period in terms of turnaround times. I noted in the NOAC report that we were out of kilter with some areas and on the longer side of letting. I understand we are now in the top three in the country because we implemented best practice from some of the other local authorities. That came from the report and questioning from a local authority member as to why the figures were so high.

I have previously raised the issue of the time lag between the end of the year and the issuing of reports. Perhaps 2019 and 2020 were somewhat outliers. The report for 2019 was issued in December 2020. Most of the other reports are issued in September for the previous year. There is still a time delay and it is not necessarily fresh information. By the time the reports are published and get onto an agenda, we could be into the next calendar year. We could be discussing the performance for 2020 in January 2022.

I know from previous questions I asked that the witnesses are reliant on local authorities furnishing them with information so that they can compile reports. Is there any way that we can streamline that body of work and get a report released earlier in the year so that we can have more of a fresh look at the previous year's performance?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I thank Senator Cummins. I am delighted to hear the experience Waterford has had following on from the report. That is where the crux of the issue may lie on occasion. One can see this as effectively a mirror on not just the executive but also the reserve function. People may say they will take a report on board. It is not as easy as that in the majority of cases. Nonetheless, the idea is to make what works in a particular area more widespread.

I understand the point on reports being timely because things move so quickly that we could be dealing with something today and be up against the clock. We need to bear in mind that a lot of the data we collect comes from data co-ordinators across 31 local authorities. We depend on financial statements and various State agencies. Some of the information, for example, is not statutorily required.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

We are required to send the annual financial statement, AFS, to the Department by the end of March each year. That does not make its way to NOAC until the second quarter, at the earliest. There is an immediate timelag at that point.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

That explains the time deficit. However, it is important for us to hear that . We do not have direct input into policy. As the committee members know as well as we do, when we are dealing with multi-State agencies and different local authorities, such work can be quite voluminous. However, we are mindful of the timing. Prior to our appearance here in 2019, we were probably further behind. Some of the reasons are within control, but many others are not.

Senator John Cummins

To follow on, for a council to be debating a NOAC report in September for the previous year is a good barometer. It follows the break in August. Obviously, for that to happen, information would have to be published in August in order for it to get onto the agenda in September. In terms of feedback, if the witnesses could get to that point it would be of benefit.

I apologise for being late, but I read the submissions prior to the meeting. The witnesses noted that there was an increase in terms of yields for rents and loans and there had been improvements in the areas of capital balances, fixed asset management, procurement and governance. They also said that there were continual issues in the areas of asset management, unfunded balance sheets and development contributions, and also cited procurement as one of the ongoing issues. Is there a conflict in terms of what was said regarding improvement in procurement? Is procurement an ongoing issue? It is in the opening statement on the audit.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Is that from the-----

Senator John Cummins

I am referring to the opening statement to the committee from the audit service.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

That particular work is from the local government audit service, the next group of witnesses.

Senator John Cummins

Apologies. That is my fault. Do the witnesses have a comment on that in general? Do they see procurement as a challenge for local authorities in terms of the indicators they examined?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

It is not within the remit of NOAC, even if there was a topicality about the issue or the Minister decides it is a function or task he or she wants to give the commission. In short, we do not have a statutory role on that.

Deputy Thomas Gould

We discussed voids earlier and I checked the figures. I would like to be associated with the appreciation for the work done by the witnesses in the report they put forward. It is very valuable, especially the indicators which show 31 local authorities getting all of the information together. That provides Deputies, Senators and councillors with the ability to apply pressure on or congratulate local authorities which are doing great work, or to identify local authorities which are falling behind.

One of the issues I have is with Cork City Council. Its 2020 report stated that the average time to turn around a void or vacant house owned by the council was 64 weeks. In 2017, 2018 and 2019, the average time was 28 weeks nationally. One local authority is way behind the others. To me, that is not acceptable. The witnesses are scrutinising local authorities and look at governance. The figure for Cork shows the local authority is failing in its duty because the timelag is so long. I know the witnesses produce the reports and hold workshops, but from a governance point of view is there anything else that can be done to tackle local authorities that are failing like this?

Senator John Cummins took the Chair.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I share the Deputy's frustration, particularly when there is such a pressing need, and I made the point when I was chair of the Oireachtas committee once upon a time. There are varying reasons from some local authorities; some may use in-house expertise or outside contractors, and that may very well impact negatively or positively on the turnaround time. We show the results of particular profiles and this is reflected in our reports.

Ultimately, this is a serious policy issue. The Minister might look at something in particular and say we need a universal and standard timeframe around here. I cannot give the Minister or the Government policy advice, and I would not, but if we check the records of this debate going back to 2012 and 2013 in particular, I raised it every chance I got.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Unfortunately, from a governance perspective and with the exception of producing the report and highlighting what each local authority is doing, there is no sanction to be brought on a local authority.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We cannot do it.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Following from that and going to something that Mr. Hayes mentioned, there is the question of the derelict sites levy, which is a major issue for me. The commission carries out scrutiny and oversight of local authorities. The 2020 figures indicate only 7% of the overall levies were applied and 13 local authorities applied no levy. There is €12.5 million outstanding nationally from levies and in my constituency in Cork city, the authority has only collected €163,000, with a possible €3.4 million outstanding.

The commission has oversight and is looking at governance but how can local authorities be allowed to do this? This amounts to a failure to implement legislation, and authorities should be compelled to do it. As the overseeing body, NOAC produces reports, but this is a scandal. It is a time when we have the worst housing crisis we have ever had. Since Christmas I have never seen it so bad. People are ringing me frustrated and angry because they are looking at derelict buildings and landlords are getting away scot-free. I am not talking about good landlords but rather the people who let buildings go derelict. The NOAC oversees the governance of local authorities, 13 of which applied no levy and all of which combined applied only a 7% collection rate.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Where did the Deputy get the figure on collection?

Deputy Thomas Gould

They are 2020 figures from NOAC's report.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

They are 2020 figures.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Yes. They indicate only 6.95% of the overall levy was applied, with 13 local authorities applying no levy. There is €12.47 million outstanding cumulatively. Cork city collected only €163,000 of a possible €3.4 million.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

It is a prominent debate and I know that with some sites there is an issue in identifying ownership for various reasons. Ultimately, we collect data, present and showcase it. We put it on the website. We are not involved with the policy or reaction around that. I get entirely what the Deputy is saying about the oversight or governance around it but, ultimately, we cannot set policy and we cannot dictate that policy to the Minister. There may be a particular field that the Minister will feel is so important that he or she will delegate it, and we would be more than happy to go through it.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I should correct myself. I got the data from the Minister.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I did not want to say it but I was almost certain it was not in our report.

Deputy Thomas Gould

The question then is why such data is not in the report.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We do not gather than information on derelict sites.

Deputy Thomas Gould

That is the point and I hoped that the commission might do it. NOAC has oversight and scrutiny over a potential for millions of euro that could be collected by local authorities. This should be part of the commission's oversight.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I did not want to intervene because I was not entirely certain but I thought Deputy Gould was reading from a parliamentary question reply.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Yes.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

I was not sure whether it was from our report. We do not currently collect that information but it is a matter we will broach with the audit committees when our working group meets them in August.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Okay.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Allied to that, if there is a particular focus the Minister wants us to apply and he or she delegates it to NOAC, we would be more than happy to take it up.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I thank Mr. McCarthy. With the work done by NOAC, it is something it could tackle. It is getting the information and pulling it from all the different bodies. This week we have heard about applying a vacant site tax. The Minister has made promises about this. Dereliction and vacancy is work for which NOAC would be suitable. It would be able to put comprehensive reports together.

Acting Chairman (Senator John Cummins)

I am conscious of time.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I am just making the point that NOAC could do great work there.

Acting Chairman (Senator John Cummins)

It is a split session and I want to be fair to all members. Perhaps Mr. McCarthy would comment on the point in replying to the next speaker, if that is okay.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

Of course.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank the witnesses for the work done by NOAC, which is very valuable. To be clear, the indicators and data collected by NOAC are set by the Minister.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

No.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The commission decides them.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

There are traditional ones and we add to them. They are developed on an ongoing basis.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

For example, if we as a committee felt enforcement in the dereliction area was really important in terms of data collection, we could write to the commission and request that it be collected. That would be appropriate.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

This ties in with Deputy Gould's very important point. We are always tweaking the indicators and it is not a closed piece. There are always matters that might not be relevant now but could be relevant in six or 12 months. We are always tweaking and adding to them. Deputy's Gould's point about the derelict sites levy is important and it is on the agenda for our in-person meeting with the audit committees in August. If the committee feels there is another area of relevant work, our door is open to take on board those ideas. As I said, we cannot dictate policy to the Minister so we evaluate the application of national and local government policy at this level. We are always open to adding to it.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

We are very conscious in NOAC of the trends within local government and we are constantly looking at performance indicators. When it comes to trends we are also conscious of what is coming down the tracks, particularly from a climate perspective, that we would not have been measuring before. Over the coming months and the next year or so, we will be looking at performance indicators in those new areas that would not traditionally have been associated with local government.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank the witnesses. With regard to climate change, tackling derelictions and vacancy is very important with regard to embodied carbon. I am certainly of the strong view that if NOAC did more in the area, it would be useful. I cannot speak for the whole committee but it is an area we have looked at a lot. Anything that can be done there would be very valuable.

Across some of the indicators there is quite some variance in how some local authorities provide answers or data. I know the workshops and training has been done with them. Is the commission confident we are reaching a stage where the results will be more uniform? It affects the data from some. The workshops and training helps some but we get the sense from some local authorities that the data responses can be a little evasive as well. If a local authority is a little evasive in how it answers, is there a mechanism for dealing with that? I am not saying this applies to most local authorities but I get the sense that a few can be slightly evasive from time to time.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

There have been changes over the years. The sessions we have done with the local authorities and the data they have collected have borne fruit. We are seeing far greater consistency in data coming back from each of the local authorities. This is something being examined on an ongoing basis.

On the question of consistency, we can spot information that is out of kilter and take that up with the local authorities when we do the individual site visits or meetings with each of the local authorities.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

On verification, if someone is leading local authorities, say, on turnaround times, NOAC engages with them more to make sure that it is not simply that they are counting them differently or shorter but that they are counting them in the same way and that the data stand. It, therefore, just does that with the outliers to verify if something is going on with how they are counting.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

But also when we see cases with best practice we tend to bring that out as an example for the rest of the sector itself.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Can Mr. McCarthy elaborate on how NOAC does that?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We have had a couple of in-person visits, and we would have had more had it not been for the pandemic. When we go to local authorities we do the validation visit or the scrutiny visit we build a profile of the local authority before we go out. There will always be a few items that stand out as being really impressive. For example, one local authority had a rate of motor tax collection online of approximately 90% where most others would be at approximately 70%. I thought there was something really important going on there. It turned out that in that local authority, when people came to the county hall to pay their motor tax, there was a designated booth where there was electronic equipment. It was generally older people who might be more security conscious about online payments. The staff would sit them down, start the account, run them through the process and that reduced the number of people who physically came in. We would take that as an example and showcase it at the annual good practice seminar. It is less about carrot-and-stick but very much carrot. It is about encouraging good practice across the other local authorities. We run that in conjunction with the local government management agencies.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

That is very positive. Was there consideration of publishing case studies similar to the Ombudsman case book, which is really valuable for good practice or problems that need to be fixed? Let us take County Mayo where social housing void turnarounds is ahead of other counties. It would be useful to hear exactly what they are doing and highlight that. Waterford, as the committee knows, has very good practice in several areas. Senator Cummins always highlights that. A written case study with exactly what they are doing would be very useful for us and for councillors to embed that learning on top of the work that it is doing.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We are going to do that with customer service. It goes back to Senator Boyhan's point. A lot of good work can be done but there is no point in keeping it a secret. It is good to showcase that, particularly from a public service point of view. With regard to the response by local authorities around community call during Covid, my experience around home was their staff were the only people to be seen out and about, apart from gardaí, when I went out to do the shopping within the 2 km area. The local authorities led on the ground from the front. Recognising the other aspects of local government and the very good services we get, it is very important from our perspective to push that and to highlight and showcase it. It is ongoing work and we will do more on that.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

It is very important. We know local authority staff and management teams benefit very well from positive feedback so that is good.

Acting Chairman (Senator John Cummins)

I would like to think that it was good scrutiny by the councillors in Waterford that had resulted in changes in practice.

As there are no Fianna Fáil or Green members present the next slot is for the Independent members.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Will the witnesses comment on their work on regional assemblies, which falls within their remit? There are major inconsistencies in the local authority corporate plans. By the very nature of local authorities, there are different demographics and areas, and there are reasons for that, but will they touch on that?

Some of these issues over-layer with auditing systems but alarm bells must be ringing about information technology. There are varying skills among elected members. Of course, there is a greater skill base among the staff. It is an area of vulnerability in local authorities. Have the witnesses done any work on this or do they plan to do work on that?

We tend to look back on reports but what are the three top issues that the commission will focus on for the rest of the year?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We fell behind on scrutiny visits because of Covid restrictions. We did some online but clearly we could not get enough done as we would normally so that is our priority. Another significant priority in the short term is meeting the audit committees and widening and expanding on the points made earlier about coalescing with the elected members and involving them in the process and deliberations on the commission.

On the review of the regional assembly corporate plans, our working group on local government governance and efficiency produced report No. 43 in November 2021. It was the first time that we went out and looked at the three regional assemblies and their corporate plans. It is in our work programme. It was an issue we had not got to before that but it is on our agenda and is published on the website. That will evolve but it is something we were not in a position to give sufficient time to before. It will always be an evolving process. I want to point to the provision in the Act again.

Returning to Deputy Gould's point on the derelict sites levy, which is a significant issue for the members of this committee and for members of local authorities, if the relevant Minister feels there is a role for us in that and delegates that function to us, we will be more than happy to take that on board and devote some time to it.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

IT has not specifically come onto our agenda to date but it is a trend that is falling onto our agenda a little such as climate issues. It is our intention to look at that. We are aware of some local authorities going down the smart city, smart county agenda and in that context it certainly will come on our agenda but it has not reached us just yet.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Who decides what is on the commission's agenda? Who prioritises that?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We had an internal strategy session more than two years ago, just before the pandemic. We as members contributed to that process. We identified the areas we felt were priorities for us. For example, one was the interaction with the regional assemblies on their corporate plans. We had a similar exercise approximately two weeks ago. It is an evolving space and we are a very different country now from where we were two and a half years ago. Let us take the local authority response during Covid and the role it is playing in identifying the housing needs as a consequence of the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We had a strategy session again two weeks ago to identify more issues. We constantly crystalise that and deal with that as the situation evolves. It is not a closed door. The exercise does not stop and start and finish but it is evolving. I assure the committee that if it sees an issue of significance where it sees a role for NOAC, our door is always open. I am always happy to liaise. The Senator has been exceptional on that and I appreciate the linkages and interconnections that we have had on the issues around NOAC and particularly around the elected members and highlighting the very good work that we do as a result of our statutory functions.

Acting Chairman (Senator John Cummins)

The next slot is Fianna Fáil. I am not sure if Deputy Flaherty is present.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe took the Chair.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Returning to the point about the role of NOAC and where we might see that into the future, a priority for myself and other members of the committee, if not all of us, is vacancy and dereliction. We need to get a handle on it. We need to get all the data together. That was supposed to happen with the local property tax but from what we can see, that has failed. We also know that the information on the derelict sites levy is not being kept up to date by any of the local authorities. The collection and collation of all data on derelict sites and vacant properties is something that NOAC would be very well placed to look at but I would not just do one of them.

I would not just include dereliction or vacancy. A comprehensive report would need to include both. We will probably discuss that here again.

I see in the report that from 2014 to 2019, there was a 32% increase in the number of adults in emergency accommodation who would be considered to be long-term homeless. Homeless deaths are an issue. We need to look at why people become homeless. We know that the mortality rate gets higher as people are homeless for longer. Are we looking at family homelessness?

I believe we need a Munster regional homeless authority to look at homelessness. Dublin has a body to do so, but we do not have anyone to collate the data for Cork city and Munster. Have the witnesses looked at that? Will they comment on it?

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

It has not been looked at specifically. NOAC looks at performance indicators across the 42 areas. We do not drill down into the specific areas of homeless statistics or parse and analyse them across the country. As the chair, Mr. McCarthy, said, if the Government requested us to carry out any of those specific functions, we would be happy to do so and to collect those data, but at this point the data are not available in that format. We have not sought the data in that format and we have not been requested to. I am conscious that the homeless area is difficult and complex. At times, the mere collection of performance indicators does not tell the true story behind each case that presents as homeless. It is a sensitive area for us to delve into. While we collect some data on it, we are not collecting the data that allow us to parse and analyse it in the format the Deputy suggests.

Deputy Thomas Gould

We had an expert in here a couple of months ago. Part of his studies involved the collection of data on homelessness so that we have a better understanding of how the Government, local authorities and the Oireachtas can work to solve the issues. It is not in the witnesses' remit to drill down into the data in that way. However, no one is collating information on deaths. There is nobody to ask about how many homeless people have passed away in Cork over the last 12 months, whether through natural causes or due to people dying on the street. How will we tackle the problem of long-term homelessness? If it is not under NOAC's remit, maybe that should be considered. Homelessness is increasing and homeless families are a significant issue. We need to have reports done so that we can target areas and prevent people from becoming homeless.

I had a clinic in my constituency yesterday. Six families presented with notices to quit. I sent people to Cork City Council to advise it that they will become homeless between now and September, since different people have different dates. I have never seen that many families facing homelessness. Anecdotally, I would say it is due to landlords selling houses. We saw that in 2020, homelessness reduced because there was an embargo on evictions because of Covid-19. When that was removed, the homelessness figures increased again. That is on my radar. Have the witnesses any other comment to make on it?

Mr. Michael McCarthy

The regional homeless forums were created in 2010. They have done good work in Waterford, as has the Dublin Regional Homeless Executive. Different bodies are involved, including the HSE and local authorities. The Deputy knows better than I do that it is an extremely complex area. We all know that there are, sadly, cases of homelessness, but I presume that gathering data on the causes would be difficult. Nonetheless, I accept the point that the Deputy cannot access the data as an elected Member of Dáil Éireann. The points on dereliction and vacancy were well-made and understood. It is an area on which NOAC could shine a light, by taking those areas together and identifying certain data points. I am happy to take that issue up with the committee collectively or with an individual subsequent to this afternoon.

Deputy Thomas Gould

In the whole State, there is only the Dublin Regional Homeless Executive. We need this information. We may not have time to go into my last point now. Mr. Hayes made a point about the work NOAC did on retrofitting in Sligo. We know there are 172,000 social houses. Some 36,000 have been retrofitted and another 36,000 have been earmarked, but that will leave 100,000 social houses that will not have been retrofitted between now and 2030. From an oversight point of view, local authority tenants will be at a distinct disadvantage compared with others.

Vice Chairman

I thank Deputy Gould. He is over time.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I am looking for standards across all local authorities.

Vice Chairman

I thank Deputy Gould. Three minutes are left, so I propose to give Senator Boyhan a minute and to give myself a minute, and hopefully the witnesses will be able to answer in one minute, because we have another group of witnesses coming at 4.30 p.m.

Senator Victor Boyhan

What is the relationship of NOAC with the local government audit service? I think it is a good organisation. Having looked through every one of the 31 local government audit reports, it strikes me that there are huge shortcomings on the property asset register and that many serious concerns have been raised which we will tease out later. The usual chief executives' response is that they are looking at a new system or Agresso compatibility. There is excuse after excuse. I looked at one local authority where it has gone on for eight years. It is the same old story with the same old one line from the chief executive. People ask why people get frustrated with chief executives. When you see this sort of answer about work being in progress, it is an insult. It is not NOAC's fault. Does NOAC look at these local government audit reports? I hope it does and there is much to be learned from them.

Vice Chairman

Many of Senator Boyhan's points echo my opening questions about the local government audit. I ask the witnesses to revisit that, as Senator Boyhan asked. The second area I hope the witnesses would consider having NOAC look at, though I appreciate it has a considerable amount on its agenda, is transparency about applications for housing, between the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and local authorities. I cannot tell the witnesses the number of times councillors or I have been told by local government officials that it is with the Department and by the Department that it is with local government. There is work to do on that because of the onus on us to deliver supply. All of the policy tools are on the table. There is no excuse for local authorities not to build. The money and instruments are there. We cannot have any lack of transparency in that process. It is an area that the witnesses might look at to provide transparency for local authority members and an audit of transactions in the area of housing applications. I do not expect the witnesses to have an answer here. It is a suggestion that they might consider.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We have a good relationship with the local government audit service. I know the committee is meeting it after us. There is ongoing engagement. Much of the information that we use for our profile visits is supplied to us by the local government audit service. The Vice Chair's points about the developments relating to resources and the budget are well made. If there is interaction between local government and a State agency, whether a Government Department, a semi-State agency or a State body, and members of this committee or local authorities feel there is a deficit to transparency about the issue, we are happy to take it up.

Vice Chairman

We will be doing a report out of this piece of work. I welcome the suggestion that the officials are open to recommendations from the committee.

Mr. Ciarán Hayes

To make a final comment as a former chief executive, we are very conscious of the relationship in terms of the application process for housing. A lot of engagement has taken place with the Department. Improvements have taken place in terms of the process. Perhaps more improvements are required but certainly they have taken place.

Vice Chairman

All significant changes since the new Government, but of course I would say that.

Mr. Michael McCarthy

We cannot comment.

Vice Chairman

I am very pleased that the witnesses are with us today and thank them for their time. The committee very much appreciates their being here today. We will suspend for five minutes to allow the new witnesses to take their seats.

Meeting suspended at 4.31 p.m. and resumed at 4.36 p.m.