Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate -
Tuesday, 23 Jan 2024

Business of Joint Committee

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome everybody. Today, we are meeting representatives of the Land Development Agency. Before we proceed with our meeting, members have expressed a wish to discuss the invitation extended to the Peter McVerry Trust, Department officials and the Dublin Region Homeless Executive. Members will remember that we issued an invitation to the three organisations quite some time ago because the committee wanted to explore some of the work the McVerry Trust had done, discuss the funding allocation that had been given to the trust after the recent difficulties, and discuss the impact of the current issues on their current clients and service users. Unfortunately, the McVerry Trust wrote back to the committee to decline the invitation and cited that they felt it would be inappropriate to attend pending the outcome of two ongoing investigations, one by the Charities Regulator and one by the approved housing bodies regulator. We wrote back to the McVerry Trust saying we understood its position but also to re-issue our invitation and that the committee members did wish to proceed with the meeting notwithstanding its concerns. I think this committee always conducts itself in a very reasonable way, and all the members always conduct themselves reasonably and know what is and is not okay to ask about, so I do not see any concern there at all. We also received responses from the Department and the DRHE, both outlining in very similar language to that of the McVerry Trust that they felt it was inappropriate to attend at this time.

We have subsequently written back to the three organisations outlining the purpose of the meeting and that we are still insistent on the meeting going ahead. We reminded them of the powers that exist under Standing Orders for this committee to compel witnesses to appear. It is not a straightforward procedure but it is one we are willing to invoke, if necessary. We sent the invitation again to the three organisations. We got a response from the Department today, which I have not fully read and therefore will not quote. I think members are in agreement that the meeting should proceed and I would like to hear their comments on that. First is Senator Cummins, then Deputy Higgins and then Deputy Ó Broin.

Senator John Cummins

The Chair has set out the situation pretty well. From memory, I am fairly sure, and I ask the Chair to clarify, the McVerry Trust wrote to this committee on two separate occasions over the past 12 to 18 months requesting to appear before this committee. Is that the case?

An Cathaoirleach

We have carried out a series of meetings on homelessness and published a pretty good report. We had a number of service providers, statutory providers and voluntary service providers. The Senator is correct that the Peter McVerry Trust did write to us to say it was upset it had not been invited in, and it was on two occasions.

Senator John Cummins

The reason for asking that is the McVerry Trust wanted to come in on its terms to discuss an issue of importance, but it is not willing now when it is experiencing difficulties. That is unacceptable. This is an organisation that is largely funded by the public purse. As a result of a Cabinet decision taken before Christmas, a bailout was put in place for it to allow it to continue to provide the very important services it delivers. There is an equivalence here with RTÉ. There were several investigations and reviews into in RTÉ and money from the public purse has been put into that organisation. Can you imagine the outcry if RTÉ refused to appear before the public accounts committee or the Oireachtas media committee? It just would not have been a tenable position. It is not a tenable position for the McVerry Trust not to come before this committee.

If we have to use our powers of compellability, we should. As the Cathaoirleach said, we in this committee are responsible and there are questions to answer. Representatives of the trust should appear before the committee.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I concur with Senator Cummins. It is disappointing that the meeting is not going ahead. This was an opportunity for the Peter McVerry Trust to put its perspective on the record of the Dáil. I appreciate there are two ongoing investigations and nobody at this committee would want in any way to interfere or prejudice those investigations. At the end of the day, however, this is an Oireachtas committee that has its functions. A lot of what we do is about transparency and it is disappointing that because an organisation, which is State-funded to a substantial degree, is not engaging with an Oireachtas joint committee, we cannot do our jobs. It would be regrettable if we had to oblige or compel its representatives to come before us. I hope we avoid that and instead have meaningful engagement and collaboration because at the end of the day, the vision of the organisation is the same as the vision of the Minister and the committee, which is to tackle the ongoing housing crisis. We can work together on that.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I agree with others that the decision of all three organisations to refuse to attend is deeply disappointing. In fact, it is worse than that because it is preventing us from doing our jobs. The Peter McVerry Trust provides exceptionally important services. It has a significant number of staff who make an enormous difference to people's live on a night-by-night basis and almost 1,000 people access its services. Given that the controversy surrounding the trust has been going on for months, I think this committee took a very responsible approach. We did not seek to make a party political issue of this. We sought consensus. We agreed that until the stability of the service was secured and a financial support package was in place we would not bring representatives of the trust before the committee. A package was agreed at Cabinet at the end of last year so it is now entirely appropriate for the Peter McVerry Trust, the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, DRHE, and the Department to come in and discuss those matters. Of course, we did not expect them to be able to tell us about or respond to questions in relation to two regulators' reports that have not concluded and the results of which have not been published. There is, however, so much information in the public domain that it would have been a valuable opportunity for the trust and the statutory side to set out, insofar as they can, what happened and how it happened. Given that the financial support package is in the region of €15 million across a range of tranches, this committee and the wider public have a right to know the nature of that financial support package. If it secures the continuation of the services, I have no issue with it but I would like to know the conditions that are attached.

I endorse the Cathaoirleach's decision to write back and urge them to come before the committee. We need them to come in as a matter of urgency. Speaking for many of us, we would be disappointed if the response to the Chair's most recent correspondence is the same as the last. Clearly, when the reports of the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority and the Charities Regulator are complete and published, there will be issues that this committee, and perhaps also the Committee of Public Accounts, will have to look at. On homelessness, this committee has always taken a non-partisan and collegiate approach to ensure the right thing is done by those people in most acute need of housing. In that regard, the people who have refused to come before us are preventing us from doing our jobs, which is a serious thing. I therefore hope that if they are paying attention to this session, they will reconsider and we will have them in as soon as possible.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

Like other speakers, I am deeply disappointed that the Peter McVerry Trust, the DRHE and the Department have made themselves unavailable and have declined our constructive invitation for them to appear at a public session of the Oireachtas joint committee on housing. They would not have been appearing for our entertainment or solely for our information. This is a public forum where they would have had an opportunity to explain to the public what has gone on and, most importantly, to reassure the public about the path forward. Assurances could have been given on the continuation and quality of the services that would be provided and the path being pursued to re-establish the credibility and integrity of the organisation in the public's mind. It is hugely disappointing. We all recognise and are familiar with the types of investigations being conducted by the approved housing bodies regulator and the Charities Regulator. Those two organisations have a job to do. They are mandated to do those jobs. I, and I am sure the rest of the committee, have confidence they will do that job in a way that will be helpful to the public. However, the organisation itself also has an obligation. It has a responsibility to the public and, most importantly, to its service users. I support the Cathaoirleach's suggestion. I appeal to the Peter McVerry Trust and the other invitees to reconsider and to come back to us with a constructive proposal for a public engagement.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

We should note the exceptional nature of this committee dealing with correspondence with a whole array of different stakeholders, including the Department, in public session. Through complex legislation, this committee has always managed to deal with its correspondence in private. Our decision to speak in public about this matter indicates the strength of the feeling of committee members from different political parties. All the contributions have been as one and anyone who watches this committee will know that is not always the case. The first thing is that this is exceptional.

The second thing is that the tone of the responses certainly indicated that investigations were taking place. What all three replies fail to understand is that there is an obligation on us to carry out any investigations that we see fit. There should be no limit placed on the number of investigations. In assuming there are investigations taking place, they are assuming this committee will not carry out an investigation. We are not starting on that footing. We are asking them to come forward and to discuss these issues with us.

The third issue is that, as other Deputies have raised, there was a commitment that public money would be used to help to resolve this issue. It is entirely appropriate that the Oireachtas committee that votes for the Estimates from which this money will be taken would have the opportunity to probe the issue not just with the Peter McVerry Trust but also with the DRHE, which forms part of the public infrastructure, and with the Department. It is not an option for parties that are accountable to this House in a direct way to refuse. If the Committee of Public Accounts were involved, it would not accept that and I do not think this committee should accept it either.

There is an opportunity here to build trust to prevent the same discussion happening and to prevent this tone of discussion. This committee took deliberate steps to ensure that three bodies which carry out vast amounts of incredibly important work, and that we need to support, would be given the opportunity to discuss service delivery. For all of those reasons, they need to reflect on the replies that have been given. They should come forward to discuss the use of the additional public money that has been committed. They need to provide members with reassurances that the service delivery we want will continue.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank members for their observations on this process. We have written back to the three bodies requesting again that they attend and reminding them of the powers that exist with this committee under Standing Orders to compel witnesses to appear. We will wait for the responses to come back but I would be of the mind that if the responses are similar to those we have previously received, we should invoke those powers available to us. As members have outlined, it is a public interest case because it involves public money. This committee has a job and role to do in that regard. We will conduct that role responsibly but will also be responsible in the way we engage with those agencies.

I will suspend momentarily before we bring in our witnesses from the Land Development Agency and reconvene.

Sitting suspended at 3.20 p.m. and resumed at 3.22 p.m.