Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government debate -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 2017

Review of Estimates for Public Services 2017: Vote 34 - Housing, Planning and Local Government

As we have a quorum, I call the meeting to order in public session. I have received apologies from Senator Victor Boyhan. In accordance with standard procedures agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to facilitate a paperless committee, all documentation on the meeting has been circulated to members on the document database.

At the request of the broadcasting and recording services, members are requested to ensure that for the duration of the meeting, their mobile phones are turned off completely or turned to aeroplane or flight mode, depending on their device. It is not sufficient for members to put their phones on silent mode as this will maintain a level of interference with the broadcasting system.

Before we begin, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect 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, her or it identifiable.

First on the agenda is a discussion of the mid-year review of the Estimates for Public Services 2017: Vote 34 - Housing, Planning and Local Government. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, Minister of State, Deputy Damien English, Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan and the Department officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the mid-year position in terms of expenditure performance outputs of the Department. The committee agreed prior to today to proceed by grouping programmes D, E and F together. Members will be invited to ask questions relevant only to the programme we are dealing with at the time.

The Minister may make his opening statement and we will then proceed to questions.

I very much welcome this opportunity to discuss with the committee the progress to date in 2017 on expenditure and outputs in respect of my Department’s programme and also the prospects for next year in light of budget 2018. I am accompanied by the Minister of State, Deputy Damien English, who will take questions on the programmes related to planning and Met Éireann, and Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan, who will take questions on the programme on local government. I am also accompanied by Department officials, John McCarthy, Mary Hurley, Maria Graham, Lorraine O’Donoghue, David Walsh, Maurice Coughlan, Theresa Donohue and Janet Jacobs.

Following the transfer earlier this year of community functions from my Department to the new Department of Rural and Community Development and the making of necessary financial provision for Irish Water, the budget for my Department in 2017 now stands at €1.995 billion. This represents an increase of €215 million on the Estimate published last December. In terms of our engagement this morning, it will be most useful for the committee if I summarise briefly the 2017 expenditure position as it stood at mid-year before going on to share with the committee the latest data on spending as we approach year end. In this, I do not propose to deal with community-related issues as they are now the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Michael Ring.

To the end of June 2017, the Department had spent €662 million from its allocation of €1.779 billion as set out in the original 2017 Estimates, some €20 million ahead of the published profile of expenditure for the Department of €642 million. When community spending programmes are excluded, the total at the end of June was €625 million from the revised allocation of €1.995 billion, capital and current. This was some €30 million ahead of the revised profile of expenditure. I have circulated with my statement today tables that summarise the capital and current expenditure position at the end of June and as it now stands in November 2017. The tables show that capital expenditure now amounts to some €514 million, or 74% of the allocation, and current expenditure is now €575 million or some 44% of the full-year allocation. The position on spending on the Vote is being kept under close review in my Department as we move towards year end. On the basis of the information now available, I expect we will be at full expenditure at year end. In this process, we will reallocate funds as necessary to help ensure maximum benefits are achieved from the resources made available to us. We will also continue to engage with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform as required in finalising the position on the Vote for 2017.

Turning briefly to some of the larger programmes, in 2017 the combined capital and current housing allocation is €1.2 billion. In addition, certain local authorities are funding a range of housing services from surplus local property tax, LPT, receipts to the value of over €98 million, bringing the total housing provision to some €1.3 billion. To date in 2017, some €498 million of Exchequer funding has been spent on housing capital programmes with a further €77 million being spent by local authorities from surplus LPT receipts, the bulk of which has been used to support the construction and acquisition of social housing homes. Reflecting the increased activity by local authorities and AHBs, 76% of the housing capital budget has already been spent. Some €402 million has been spent under the housing current expenditure programmes and this has been supplemented by spending totalling €22 million by local authorities from surplus LPT receipts. The high level of expenditure to date reflects the accelerated delivery of social housing across all programmes and we are well-positioned to achieve our 2017 target of 21,000 housing solutions for individuals and families. In respect of HAP, I am pleased to say we have already exceeded our target under Rebuilding Ireland, with more than 15,130 tenancies established to date, which is an average of 344 HAP tenancies established every week in 2017. In addition, almost 1,400 new homes have been delivered through the social housing current expenditure programme and we expect to reach the target of 2,250 homes before year end. In the six months to the end of June, we delivered 800 new homes under the local authority build and acquisitions programme and a further 245 homes for older people, homeless people or people with a disability through the capital assistance scheme.

The level of social housing construction activity continues to grow as can be seen in the status reports published by my Department. The most recent report to the end of the second quarter of 2017 shows there are projects which will deliver 11,000 new social homes, of which more than 1,000 homes have already been delivered in 2016 and the first half of 2017. Over 2,700 new homes are on site being constructed. The remainder are progressing through planning, design and tendering and we have not stopped. Approvals for new social housing construction schemes are being issued to local authorities on an almost daily basis and I have no doubt this will be reflected when the third quarter status report is published in the coming weeks.

A key priority for my Department is addressing the issue of vacant homes. Under the national voids programme, over 700 local authority homes have now been returned to productive use in 2017. I expect we will be in a position to deliver almost 1,400 such homes this year, a near doubling of our target of 766. In conjunction with the delivery of new social homes, my Department is focused on ensuring people are supported to stay within their own homes in line with their changing needs. To date, we have provided almost 6,200 housing adaptation grants for older people and people with a disability and expect to meet or exceed the 2017 target of 9,000 grants.

Turning to LIHAF, while there will be an underspend this year due to projects being at design stage, with the larger construction costs expected to fall due from 2018 onwards, savings are being used to support increased activity under the local authority capital programme, including through the direct delivery of new social homes via construction and acquisition.

The funding for LIHAF projects is ring-fenced within the overall housing budget and will be available for local authorities to draw down over the lifetime of the projects out to 2019 and 2020.

Turning to my Department’s water programme, as I mentioned at the select committee meeting this morning, following the Government decision on the future funding model for Irish Water and the planned refunds to domestic customers, an additional provision of some €293 million for payment to Irish Water has been made in the Revised Estimate. This includes €173 million needed to pay refunds to the 990,000 domestic customers. There are also administrative costs associated with the refund process, estimated to amount to almost €5.9 million. In addition, €114 million is being provided to cover the funding required by Irish Water arising from the extension of the suspension of domestic water charges to the end of 2017. Funding will be made available to Irish Water to allow it to commence refund payments to customers following on from the passage of the Water Services Bill 2017.

The local government fund allocation in 2017 is €365 million. Total expenditure to date is €100 million. Significant payments from the fund take place in December and it is intended that there will be full expenditure of the allocation by the end of the year.

Turning now to the year ahead, the committee will be aware that my Department’s Vote for 2018 will be €2.457 billion in total. Within that, housing is by far the biggest programme. All told, €1.9 billion will be available for housing next year, an increase of €600 million, or 46%, on 2017. This investment is directly aimed at addressing our housing shortage and homelessness crisis. It represents an increase of 62% on the capital side, to build new homes and 35% on the current side, to over €760 million, to allow further action on homelessness, as well as supporting people into new social housing tenancies through the HAP scheme. In budget 2018, the total funding provision of €1.9 billion for housing will allow us to deliver housing solutions for 25,500 households. A large element of this, €1.14 billion, is for the targeted delivery of new social homes through a range of construction, refurbishment and acquisition programmes. Next year, 3,800 new social homes will be built directly by local authorities and approved housing bodies, which is 1,800 more homes than we will build in 2017. A further 1,200 will be Part V builds or refurbished vacant homes, 900 homes will be delivered through acquisitions and a further 2,000 homes will be secured through long-term leasing arrangements, resulting in a total of 7,900 new social homes.

Looking beyond 2018, the budget provides an extra €500 million for capital investment in social housing in the years 2019 to 2021, inclusive, which has allowed us to increase the Rebuilding Ireland social housing target from 47,000 to 50,000 homes. As regards the funding of Irish Water in 2018, the Water Services Bill 2017 provides for a new funding model for domestic water services under which funding will be made through the Vote for the Department. This will involve technical adjustments to the Vote and the consequential reform of the local government fund. These changes will be made in the context of the Revised Estimates for 2018. The channelling of all funding for domestic water services to Irish Water through the Vote will improve the transparency and accountability arrangements for this expenditure. In overall terms, some €1.1 billion will be required to meet the cost of domestic water services in 2018, of which €500 million relates to capital investment. This is the major financing component of the overall planned investment of over €600 million in cash terms by Irish Water in 2018.

I hope that members have found this contribution helpful and I will be happy to deal with matters that members wish to raise, either on 2017 or 2018. My officials will be in a position to come before the committee to give a more detailed update on the Rebuilding Ireland targets at a later date. I would like to point out that next week or the week after I will be publishing targets for each local authority's social housing output programme for 2018.

Members are reminded that they have five minutes to ask questions of the Minister and he will be given five minutes to respond. We are taking programmes A, B and C separately and then programmes D, E and F together. I ask members to stick to the relevant programmes. The first on the list is Deputy Pat Casey and we will begin with programme A, housing.

My comments on programme A are based on the fact that I have done my own calculation up to the end of October, amounting to 83% of the spend in any calendar year. I can fully understand that the spend on capital projects is not evenly spread over the year because sometimes a big project will begin at the end of the year. That said, there is an overspend on local authority housing of 11% and an underspend on voluntary and co-operative housing of 28%. At the end of October, housing inclusion support was down by 60%. The biggest disappointment is the fact that there has been no drawdown on the €50 million infrastructure fund to date. In terms of current expenditure, which one would think would be run on a monthly basis, there is a 12% negative difference. I ask the Minister to comment on those figures.

In terms of our own figures on the capital side for housing, we are at 74% spend for the year, which is dramatically up on where we might have been this time last year. This is because we are ramping up our programmes in terms of delivery for build, acquisition and everything else that we are hoping to do in respect of social housing. Traditionally, capital spend drawdown can be lumpy in any year. It would not necessarily be smooth over each month or each quarter but as we ramp up and as people become more familiar with the programmes and draw down their funding, we are actually finding a more even drawdown on the capital side. We are on target to spend our money this year, according to the figures that we have up to October or November.

Regarding the subhead for housing inclusion and Traveller accommodation, we are working to increase the spends and the supports for local authorities to deliver and to support Traveller needs. That there will be an increased budget in 2018, from €9 million to €12 million, is important. It is equally important that we make sure that funding is delivered effectively and efficiently to meet those needs.

The LIHAF from central government is ring-fenced in the capital programme but it will not necessarily have been drawn down by the end of the year. Some of it will be drawn down this year but, obviously, the full €50 million will not be drawn down. However, that funding will be protected. It is important to note that 28 of the 34 programmes that have been signed off are already at design stage, so work is already progressing. The work is under way. Whether the money is actually called upon within the next month or two does not really matter, so long as work is progressing and is not delayed by the fact that money has not been drawn down yet. When it needs to be drawn down, it will be.

We are going to catch up on current expenditure. Obviously, a big part of that will be the Irish Water refunds programme which cannot commence until the Bill becomes law. We hope that refunds will commence next week and we hope to get almost all refunds paid out before the end of the year.

Deputy Casey has some time left. Does he have any further questions on programme A?

No. I have some questions on water but that is in a separate programme.

My apologies. I will revert to the Deputy on current expenditure in the housing programme in a moment.

Has there be an oversubscription to LIHAF that the Government has not been able to meet? When the Department made the call for projects to be submitted, was there an oversubscription vis-à-vis the funding that is available? The actual drawdown is a different issue.

More people would have applied or subscribed to the fund than the level of funding that was available. We would have tiered programmes based on various criteria. We allocated €224 million as a priority, even though €200 million was the allocation given. We did that to make sure that if there was a delay in one area, we could quickly move to another programme to ensure that the money would actually be used. This is exactly why I went to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to seek a second LIHAF. We knew that there were sites that could be opened up quickly - as per LIHAF I - if we could introduce a LIHAF II. That is where the additional €50 million provided in the budget has come from and that is where it will go.

I am not quite sure if questions on HAP are appropriate at this time.

Yes. HAP is included under programme A.

I find that the HAP scheme is working extremely well in circumstances where people can get properties. It is giving an opportunity to families who could not otherwise afford the huge rents that are being demanded. I note that rents are continuing to increase. While these are not official departmental figures, daft.ie shows that rents in County Louth rose by almost 17% in the last year. In that context, I particularly welcome the decision to designate Drogheda as a rent pressure zone. Is there any other funding available to help people in particularly difficult circumstances? I do not want to get into the specifics of any case but sometimes people are homeless because of issues in their past lives which could involve significant debt to another local authority, for example. Some people with young families may have a debt that they cannot discharge which means that they cannot even get onto the housing list. Perhaps funding could be made available in exceptional circumstances like those I have described. I am not suggesting that such funding would be easily available but perhaps exceptions could be made when there are very young children involved.

I am dealing with a case whereby somebody is sleeping in a car. We have approached the community welfare officer, the county council and so on. The families of a small number of people are at risk because they cannot get the housing assistance payment, HAP. Somebody sent me a message, describing how difficult her life is. I know that this is an exceptional case.

Is there funding?

In exceptional cases, is there a way we can get these people onto the housing list even if the debt owed to a local authority is still outstanding? Could they get the housing assistance payment notwithstanding their past history?

I thank the Deputy for his question. I will make a number of points, taking into account the context in which the question is framed and the daft.ie report. It is important to note that the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, has its own rent index. This is based on a much larger data set, with more aggregate. It is based on actual registered tenancies and rents paid, not rents advertised. The index is more accurate. The data it contains relates to the quarters during which the rent pressures zones, RPZs, have already been in effect. The daft.ie research includes data from 2016 when the RPZs were not in existence. We work to the data from the RTB. While it shows an increase in rents, it also shows that the RPZs are having the intended effect in terms of keeping rent inflation below 4%. Obviously, with every quarter, RPZs will take effect in new areas. Most recently, zones came into effect in Drogheda and Wicklow.

I welcome the Deputy's comments on the role HAP plays, particularly as it does not always get the support it should. It is a very significant measure that is being implemented by the State, using taxpayers' money to provide housing supports for people to access accommodation in the private rented sector. We do not have enough social housing units to accommodate the needs of all relevant citizens at present. Until we build more social housing units - and we have a programme for that - we will have to use other means. HAP is one way in which we can actually find secure sustainable tenancies for people, with which they are very happy, into the long term. This is evidenced by the number of HAP tenancies that have been achieved every week this year. The figure will increase next year. It is expected that approximately 47,000 tenancies will be supported in the course of 2018. HAP plays a very significant role. One of the important things we have done in the aftermath of the housing summit I hosted in September is that we have made arrangements to roll out the HAP place finder and the supports relating to it nationally. As a result, where people experience difficulties in getting deposits or their first month's rent together, that support can help them to obtain tenancies. The vast majority of people do not need help but there are some who do. It is important that we have the support in place to help them.

One of the things the homeless inter-agency group I set up following the housing summit is doing is ensuring that the Departments of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and Housing, Planning and Local Government, local authorities and the HSE are working together to ensure that the resources that are being invested - there is a great deal of money involved - benefit people who are in need of support and are being used in an effective way. We have other programmes, such as the Abhaile service, that can help. We have to be sensitive to people's individual needs. This sometimes means that we have to deal with issues on a case-by-case basis. Some cases are challenging because they involve complex needs. There is no reason that a person should be sleeping in a car at all on any night of the year. We have supports in place-----

I know of one such person.

-----to help people. I ask Deputy O'Dowd to make contact with-----

The problem is that until they have paid back some of the money they owe to another local authority, they will not get HAP in the place in which they are now living. I am aware that this is an exceptional case. We need a reference point to deal with exceptional cases in order that there is a way that the family can get HAP, notwithstanding any outstanding issues.

There are exceptional HAP cases that have been brought to my attention. We have been able to help in those situations because we are obliged to meet the needs of people in difficult circumstances. There should never be an occasion where a person would have to sleep in his or her car on any night of the week because we have the resources in place to deal with such situations.

I call Deputy Barry.

I wish to raise some issues regarding social housing. The headline above an article in this morning's edition of The Irish Times states, "Less than 1% of needed social housing has been built since start of 2016, says analyst". In the article, Mr. Mel Reynolds, a housing policy analyst, provides statistics that I will not go into in detail. That said, 6,005 people in Cork city are in need of social housing but only 59 houses were provided last year. That is less than 1%. Mr. Reynolds indicates that in the context of the demand for the social housing nationally, 120,598 people are in need of social housing and 1,093 units have been provided. Again, that is less than 1%. The purpose of what we are doing today is to look forward. In that context, will there be an improvement and will it be a major improvement as opposed to something more minor in nature?

Statistics indicate that 1,509 new units will become available next year, if one excludes those that will be built by the approved housing bodies, AHBs, and voids. At that rate, it would take 80 years to provide homes for 120,000 people. If we were to provide 2,000 homes on the basis of new builds - including those relating to the AHBs - for councils and excluding acquisitions, it would take 60 years to provide homes for 120,000 people. Even if we take the overall figure of 3,800, it would take more than 30 years to provide homes for 120,000 people. Will the Minister comment on the provision for social housing next year, which falls way short of what is needed in view of the crisis we are facing?

Mr. Reynolds is also quoted as saying that the figures are very poor and that "You have to wonder is this policy". In other words, he is veering in the direction of saying that not just the housing crisis but also, perhaps, that relating to homelessness are the result of Government policy. This is in the context of a raft of comments in recent days. The Taoiseach stated that the homelessness figures are low by international standards, which is not the case. The Chairman of the Housing Agency states that the situation is normal and the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy English, indicated yesterday that the comments of those who are raising points about homelessness are having a negative impact on the country's image. These are attempts to minimise and to normalise the homelessness crisis. The comments that have been made are cold and calculating. I do not believe they are off the cuff; I am of the view that they are clearly part of a co-ordinated campaign and I ask the Minister of State, in light of what he said last night, to comment on that. Does he deny that this is part of a co-ordinated campaign to minimise and normalise the homelessness crisis?

I will allow the Minister and the Minister of State to respond, if they choose to do so, but that is not what we are here to discuss. The question that was asked initially was really relevant to the mid-year review. The Ministers may answer if they choose to do so. If they choose not to respond, however, that is fine.

I think they should respond.

It is their choice.

I thank Deputy Barry. On the statistics outlined in The Irish Times this morning, I have not seen either the data or the analysis. However, they do not stand up to our data in terms of what we know is happening and what we published in the second quarter of the year regarding the social housing programme. If we are looking at the social housing programme in the context of what is happening, there are some 162 schemes and these involve the building of 2,711 homes. A further 110 schemes, involving 1,106 homes, have practically been completed. At various stages prior to completion, we have a few hundred schemes coming through with a few thousand homes, which gives us the overall figure of 11,000 under the current construction status figures. When a newspaper article refers to less than 1% of houses built since the start of 2016, I really do not understand what figures they are relying on, what they are excluding or what they are including. When we talk about meeting the needs of the tens of thousands on the social housing lists, let us look at the targets we have set in Rebuilding Ireland. There is an allocation of €6 billion until 2021 to meet all those needs.

Next year, we will build 3,800 social housing homes between local authorities and housing bodies. That will be almost double what we will build this year, which is 2,000. When we include voids and Part V units, it is another 1,200 units, which will bring us to 5,000. We are going to acquire another 900 homes into the social housing stock, which brings us 5,900 and will long-term lease a further 2,000 units. That is 7,900 secure social housing homes for people next year. Obviously, there are other needs we need to meet and we use things like the housing assistance payment, HAP, to do that. If we look over the lifetime of Rebuilding Ireland and consider what we want to build, to lease in the long term and to acquire, as well the voids we want to convert and the Part V units that will come in, we are talking about 50,000 homes thanks to the additional €500 million that was acquired in the course of the capital review I undertook with the Minister of Finance earlier this year. That is 50,000 secure sustainable social housing homes over the course of the period from 2016 to 2021, in addition to meeting the needs of others who have needs on the social housing list. They will be met through the various supports including the HAP. Next, we will be talking a bit about what the actual numbers are and whether it is 91,000 or a bit higher or a bit lower. In the programme we have, however, we do not refer to timeframes of 80 years or 60 years. We will do a significant amount of work between now and 2021 because of the priority the Government places on meeting the social housing needs of the citizens. If one considers the last two years of the Rebuilding Ireland programme and what we will be doing in respect of building, acquiring and leasing versus relying on the private rental market, we will be doing more on the build, acquisition and leasing side than on the HAP side. As for claims that we rely too heavily on the private rental sector, we will bring the balance back to the responsibility of the State in respect of social housing delivery.

When we look beyond 2021 - I am already doing this - to ascertain how we can make sure in future that we are protecting the needs of citizens by directly delivering social housing for local authorities and housing bodies and through other means, we aspire to a position in which 20% to 25% of all housing output in a given year is social housing provided directly by the State. That is what we want to do and by doing that we will make sure that the people who are most vulnerable in our society in terms of their housing needs will always be protected, regardless of whether there is another housing crisis or another property bust in the future. That is a very important goal that I wish to achieve in the Department. Next week or in the week after, in another important point on which I touched in my opening statement, we will publish the targets for next year for all local authorities in order that there can be full transparency for Deputies and councillors as to what their own local authority is meant to achieve in respect of social housing output. I will make that available to everyone in order that we can see what we need to achieve together.

On the comments and question about the Taoiseach and Conor Skehan, the outgoing chair of the Housing Agency, we have a homelessness crisis. One thing I have said since I first took up this role and was asked to do this job on behalf of the Government and the people of Ireland is that it is very important to continue to talk about this issue, that is, to talk about the actual causes of homelessness and the very difficult circumstances people are experiencing. While all members of this committee might be very familiar with it, some people are not that familiar with the problem and do not know the level of difficulty that some are experiencing. We have had a tradition and a culture in this country of hiding difficulties in society and challenges we have faced. That has been the way for far too long, that is, to turn an blind eye or to try to put something to one side. It is very important that the homelessness crisis is front and centre in public debate and that people are aware that far too many people - families and individuals - are experiencing extremely difficult circumstances with regard to both their housing needs and other problems such as mental health and addiction issues. The Government must make sure as a priority that it is putting in every resource it can to help these people.

In September, while people were going back to school, one very brave family went on the radio to tell their story of what that was like for the mother and her daughters. It really touched a chord with people throughout the country. They realised, if they had not done so previously, that in Irish society today, homelessness unfortunately is hitting and hurting people it had not previously. That is why we are investing so much to try to support families who have found themselves in these very difficult circumstances. That is why Deputies will have an opportunity later today to discuss this issue in the context of the Labour Party Bill before them. That is why every week, both before and since the Dáil returned after the summer, we have been discussing housing and homelessness issues and the difficulty people have in that situation. To be frank about what the Taoiseach said at the weekend, he was asked a question about homelessness in Ireland being high by international standards. He responded that it was low by international standards and in the same breath, he clarified that regardless of the international comparisons, we have a responsibility to people in the country who are experiencing these difficult circumstances.

It is important to know where we stand internationally because it is important that we can have an objective view of our policies and whether they are working. All of the objective evidence tells us that by international comparisons, our rates of homelessness are low. That points to policies that are working and some that are not. When Conor Skehan talks about things being normal, he is talking about people understanding that homelessness is a crisis that many Western economies and societies face at present. We are not exceptional in that case. However, there is nothing normal for a family or an individual who are homeless today and there is nothing normal about how we work with the voluntary organisations and the local authorities to help those people. We must, of course, help them with compassion and with care. That is why when I talk about helping families who are in hotels and have been in hubs and when people ask me about timelines, I talk about being sensitive to their needs and delivering a tailored response to make sure that we have the greatest care because for a family or an individual to find themselves in homelessness - we have all met people who unfortunately are in these circumstances - it is incredibly stressful and difficult and if their needs are not met with care, we could do damage inadvertently or they could find themselves suffering for a very long time into their adult lives and their future lives, which we do not want. That is what we are trying to do here. There is no attempt to minimise this as a problem. I talk about-----

I will just put it to the Minister if he will allow me-----

Deputy Barry, please allow the Minister to finish-----

I was invited in.

I would really love to know how Deputy Barry thinks I am trying to minimise this.

Deputy Barry, no one interrupted you, so we will allow the Minister to answer without interruption.

The Minister has invited me in.

I would love to hear Deputy Barry with regard to this accusation as to how he thinks I am attempting to minimise homelessness.

Sorry, the Minister of State, Deputy English, wants to clarify a point.

I think the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, has covered it quite well but Deputy Barry might take time to read the full debate yesterday rather than select one line from it. That goes back to the commentary to which I was referring last night. The commentary we hear on the homelessness and housing situation in Ireland often tries to give the impression that absolutely nothing is being done. That is an unfair commentary on the Irish people, who are spending billions every year through the Government trying to help solve homelessness, to deal with homelessness from an emergency point of view and in the long term as well. A lot of money is being spent on this with €6 billion committed and more than €2 billion will be spent in this area next year. As for the constant commentary, the Deputy might have remained to hear some of the debates we have had in recent weeks in the Dáil. In every week since September, when speaking in Dáil debates on housing, I have asked everybody to just deal with some of the facts. I have no problem with people pushing for more and I understand that. We put all the facts out there and do not try to hide any numbers but Members consistently come into the Chamber to contribute to debates and leave out the view that as a State, we are helping 21,000 people in a housing situation. The Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, and I keep saying we know it still is not enough to deal with the problem, that we are putting more money into the problem, are providing more solutions and keep trying. However, the commentary that we are doing nothing cannot continue because that is damaging to us as a nation and to all those who are working in the front-line services night in and night out to provide help and accommodation and who are trying to work on long-term and short-term solutions. That is what I discussed in my speech last night and I will defend that again because it is important that we recognise that.

In addition, as a nation we are trying to win investment from many different sectors in our society including job creation etc. If all those outside looking in think the Government is sitting idly back and doing nothing to solve the housing problem, they might consider investing elsewhere and it is important that we reflect on what we are doing. The Government consistently states that it never hides this, it knows that it is not enough to solve the problem and that it cannot stop until there is nobody in a homeless situation or on an emergency bed. Please do not keep saying nothing has been done. That is not a fair reflection and that is what I discussed in my contribution to the debate last night. I ask the Deputy to take time out and listen to the full discussion because this goes back to my problem. Even in the article published today by Mel Reynolds, he picks on one piece of the overall range of solutions and range of actions. That is not good enough as a commentary and nor is it good enough for any Deputy to pick one area. We are open to criticism on specific areas; that is not a problem and we take it quite well. However, we are entitled to deal with the facts of the situation. That is all I ever ask people to do in debates and that reflects the views expressed last night. A lot of good work is being carried out here on behalf of the State and through voluntary bodies that needs to be recognised. They are helping many people and we want to help more. While that is what we all want to do, people should not ignore that work that has been done as well. It is not fair to do that.

Deputy Barry has taken 14 minutes but I will allow him to come back in for 30 seconds to wrap up. I ask all members to be careful in respect of the names of people they are mentioning, regardless of the paper or author and even though they are out in the public domain in the newspapers today. I ask members to be aware when they are mentioning a name through the committee that this is being webcast live. Deputy Barry has 30 seconds to wrap up.

I think the Taoiseach's comments to the effect that Ireland's homelessness numbers are low by international standards have been disproven by now. Yet, the Minister has repeated them again this morning. The Minister has said the policies are working, despite the fact that in the past two years our homelessness numbers have more than doubled.

I asked the Minister of State whether his comments yesterday were co-ordinated with the comments of the Taoiseach and Mr. Skehan.

They were the same as my comments in the past two months in the Dáil. Deputy Barry would know that if he listens to my speeches in the Dáil, but he generally walks out.

The Minister of State claims there is no co-ordination whatsoever. We have had three speeches trying to normalise and minimise homelessness, and a fourth speech this morning, in the space of four days. Yet, the Minister of State claims there is no co-ordination. I do not believe it and the people do not believe it either. It is a disgusting campaign.

Thank you, Deputy Barry. Deputy Ó Broin, you are up next.

It is a disgraceful campaign that Fine Gael Ministers are waging.

Deputy Barry, I am asking you to adhere to how we work. We have a good working relationship in this committee. Normally, we adhere to the practices that we have had in place for the past year and a half. I have asked you to abide by these out of consideration for your colleagues on the committee.

We have all clearly heard what the Minister and Minister of State have said. It is up to us to interpret whatever that is in whatever shape or form we want. It is all a matter of record to enable people to look back.

I wish to clarify a point on my comments from last night. One of Deputy Barry's colleagues put in a topical issue. I was asked to explain some of the figures and reasons. I took time out to do that because I was asked to do it.

It is a co-ordinated campaign.

Deputy Barry should not tell me that I co-ordinated it when I was asked to do it.

No one could ever accuse you of being co-ordinated, Minister of State.

That is the Minister of State's job.

Exactly, I am happy to do it. The point is that I was asked to do it. It is not that I asked to do it.

Deputy Barry's comments are disgraceful. Deputy Barry Cowen has said that we should not be politicising this issue and that we need to work together, as we are doing, to try to implement the right solutions that are going to help people. If Deputy Barry believes that he is going to create some new campaign out of this for himself to try to gain political support for his causes, which are separate, then I appeal to him not to do so.

The only campaign here is a co-ordinated campaign by Ministers to minimise and normalise homelessness, and the Minister, Deputy Murphy, is part of it.

Thank you, members and thank you, Minister. Deputy Ó Broin has the floor. Deputy Ó Broin, I will be lenient with you as I have been with Deputy Barry in the interests of fairness.

You will not need to be lenient with me, Chairman.

I never have to be lenient with you, to be fair.

I agree with the Minister of State, Deputy English, in that we need to deal with the facts. I have three questions but I want to make three observations first.

The Taoiseach said over the weekend that our levels of homelessness are low when compared to our peers. That is a fact. When he was pressed by the journalist at the press event, he referenced the 2017 OECD report. The 2017 OECD report is a short and easy report to read. It makes explicitly clear in its first page that there is no standard definition of homelessness between the listed OECD states. It states that there is a wide variety of categories of homelessness. Anyone who knows how we categorise homelessness, that is, by using the section 10 emergency-funded accommodation category, knows that we have one of the narrowest definitions in the OECD. The OECD report states that we cannot compare from state to state. Let us flip on two pages in the report to the table provided by the OECD. It states clearly that the figures for Ireland are 2015 figures. We all know that the figures have doubled since then.

This is not a row about statistics. If we are going to find solutions to tackle the problem, we need to understand the depth and extent of the problem. It is extremely unwise of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government to try to use a report to make a claim publicly that the same report does not support - that is all I am saying. The Taoiseach did it again twice yesterday. He contradicted Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, because he said the report was a 2017 report, and he is right. However, the figures are from 2015 and that is written in the report. The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Murphy, should acknowledge that. Prior to the Taoiseach's comments, when we have debated the matter on two or three occasions in the House the Minister has referenced that we have a lower level of homelessness when compared to our peers. There is no evidence to support that.

The point is made. I appreciate that. Can we go back to the expenditure and inputs?

I am going to do that, and I will do it within my time. I have never said that we have a higher rate of homelessness than anywhere else. In fact, no one in the committee has ever said that. However, we have an unacceptably high level. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that it is higher than our immediate peers, as Eoin O'Sullivan has written about recently. I want to put that on the record.

What is important above all in the mid-term review is the actual target. Are the targets the Minister set out earlier in the year for the delivery of various categories of social housing being delivered? In June this year, the Minister said in answer to a parliamentary question that the targets for this year were as follows: the construction units target was 2,284, the voids target was 766, the regeneration target was 150, the acquisitions target was 1,250, the leasing target was 600, the rental accommodation scheme target 100 and the HAP target was 1,500. We know the HAP targets have been exceeded. They went over that figure in the last HAP report. Where are we now with all of these categories? The social housing construction target was 2,284. How many units have actually been constructed? It would be great to know how many have been tenanted, because that is what really matters. I have no wish to know about what is in the pipeline or in future at the moment.

The point is likewise with the void figures. The Minister has doubled the void targets. The figure has gone from 766 to 1,400. Where did these other voids come from? This is one of the things I am trying to get my head around. Does this relate to an extra 700 voids that local authorities have not declared? Are these long-term voids that have not been declared? Are these voids that should have been provided for next year and that have been brought forward to this year?

I am also confused by other figures. Page 34 of the mid-term Estimates book includes housing figures. The figure for the social housing current expenditure programme is 2,250. How does that compare with the figure of 600 for leasing, which is funded through the expenditure programme, in the targets announced earlier by the Minister? Are some approved housing bodies funded through the expenditure programme that are accounted for separately to the leasing figure? What I really want to know related to the new social houses to be delivered this year. How many have actually been delivered to date that have people living in them? That is a useful thing to know.

Reference was made to Traveller accommodation. Page 34 of the book refers to 90 units. Again, we are far behind in terms of the drawdown from local authorities. That is a problem at the local authority rather than at the Department. What is being done to ensure the maximum level of drawdown by local authorities to meet their commitments under the Traveller accommodation programmes for this year? How hopeful is the Minister that we will have a better drawdown at the end of this year than for next year?

My next question relates to next year's expenditure. Can the Minister confirm some details? I presume the €50 million from the local infrastructure housing activation fund, or LIHAF, has been rolled over and added to the €25 million extra funding announced in the budget. That would make the figure for LIHAF €75 million in total for next year. Will the Minister confirm that?

I am also confused because there was no mention in the budget announcement of €25 million for affordable schemes. However, in the Minister's press conference and press release he referenced €25 million, some €15 million of which was for next year for some kind of affordable schemes. Is that new money? Is it re-profiling something within the existing budget? When does the Minister expect to announce all of that?

The next question is on rents and the housing assistance payment. Neither the daft.ie nor the Residential Tenancies Board data indexes are thorough. For example, I am on the RTB rental index, but the relevant figures relate to the rent that I signed up to when it entered my tenancy 11 years ago. There is no obligation on my landlord to notify the RTB of the rent increases I have experienced. That means there is an underestimation in the RTB index, just as there is probably an overestimation in the daft.ie index because it refers to asking rents. I do not believe that means we can dismiss the daft.ie rent index, although that is my interpretation of what the Minister has done.

It is important to acknowledge that one of the significant changes in the housing assistance payment policy is that by the end of Rebuilding Ireland we expect approximately 100,000 households to be on a housing assistance payment that is meant to be relatively permanent. Rent supplement was always seen as an emergency payment for a short period. Therefore, there is something significantly different about HAP. We will have the largest ever number of households, according to the Government plan, on a rent subsidy by 2020 or 2021. However, the design of the policy is to be long-term. That raises further questions. Is the Government saying that the policy is now beyond 2020? Is the idea to move people off HAP and into council housing? Is it the case that, as the legislation states, their housing needs will still be deemed to be met and they will remain permanently or indefinitely subsidised in the private rental sector?

I will come back to the initial comments. I have no wish to labour the issue, but Deputy Ó Broin is absolutely right in that I have talked about international comparisons before in discussing homelessness. My responsibility as Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government is to ensure that we have an objective analysis of policy and that our policy is based on fact. For far too long in this country, policies were not evidence-based. We look to other jurisdictions to try to get a better understanding of what exactly they are experiencing and why. We want to know what they have done that has worked and not worked and what we can implement ourselves. Let us consider the number of children who are homeless in Scotland. It is double the amount that we have in this country. The number of rough sleepers in the United Kingdom is 20 times the number of rough sleepers in this country.

Deputy Ó Broin is right in a way. We should not get lost in the weeds talking about international comparisons. One family in emergency accommodation is one family too many.

Every time we see a rough sleeper on the street, our responsibility is to help him or her to find secure, sustainable accommodation. That is why we work with initiatives such as Housing First. The voluntary sector, which we work with and fund, tells us the best way to help the homeless is to get them into a home first and then give them wrap-around supports. That is why we developed the hub programme. It is a first response but a much better response than a hotel. We knew we needed to do something for the families to ensure they had the right supports in place. We are now seeing a couple of things with the hubs. First, families feel much safer and happier in them than in the hotels, which is very welcome. Also, families are moving very quickly from hubs into other forms of sustainable accommodation. We collect more accurate data than other countries, which is good, and we publish them monthly. That shows our commitment to making sure we are not trying to hide this, downplay it or minimise it. We believe we should focus on homelessness because we believe, as the Taoiseach said, it is a stain on our society.

There is evidence of policies working. I have stated the figures before. The number of families in hotels has decreased by 20% since the peak in March of this year. In August and September, we saw more families exiting emergency accommodation than entering. That is the first time that has happened in three years. There are about 2,500 people who would be homeless today if it were not for the great work done by the voluntary sector with local authorities in exiting people from homelessness and preventing people from falling into homelessness. While the rate of family homelessness is increasing nationally, as per the September figures, the rate actually halved in the three preceding months by comparison with the three months preceding those three months. It is important to recognise, not just for the taxpayer, who is concerned about how we are using our resources to help these people, but also for the volunteers and workers who are doing the work, that some of these policies are working. They are not working as quickly as I would like them to, however. For this reason, we had a housing summit to meet local authorities to determine what new initiatives we could introduce. Helping with prevention will be the Housing First national co-ordinator, whom we hope to announce and appoint next week, the exit co-ordinators, who represent an important preventive measure, some of the change management practices we will introduce in the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, and other changes.

On LIHAF, the 2018 allocation is €70 million. The overall envelope for LIHAF is ring-fenced out to 2019 and 2020. It is after that period that LIHAF 2, involving the additional €50 million, will kick in. It will not be until 2019 and 2020 so it is not a question of LIHAF 2 coming in next year. I have a detailed database on each of the projects I have signed off on under LIHAF and the ones I am waiting to approve. The vast majority are already at design phase. We have an idea as to what might be called upon when we do a second call for LIHAF 2. All of the money will be drawn down and used, and it will open up thousands upon thousands of new homes.

With regard to HAP, the RTB and their data, we always deal with a number of different data sets. One thing we are having difficulty with in looking at completions is getting the most accurate data set. I do not dismiss the daft.ie data. It recognises a trend upwards. We see that also. One of the things I want to do with the RTB, which I announced in September, is to move to a point where we could have annual registration of tenancies. That way we will get more thorough data for the RTB and even better data sets. The data we do have from the RTB for the first two quarters of the year show the rent inflation in the rent pressure zones is below 4%, which is more than half the rate in 2016. That is reliable information and it is welcome.

The additional €25 million for the affordability schemes, which will work on top of what we are doing in LIHAF, is new money. It will be allocated over 2018 and 2019. In the course of the next two or three weeks, we will finalise how the criteria for accessing the scheme will work. This will be done in conjunction with the housing bodies and local authorities. I hope to make an announcement on that but it will not delay any work in terms of getting the houses built.

I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy English, to answer the question with regard to Traveller accommodation.

When we consider our voids programme, we note voids can be an easy win because they are vacant local authority stock. What we have been trying to do is ramp up a programme of void conversions as much as possible and move to a programme of maintenance to prevent homes from becoming voids and give a quicker turnaround time. We have asked the local authorities to advise us on their numbers of outstanding voids and derelict units. We are going to fund about 1,400 of those this year, which probably means that, in later years as we look at the programme, there may be fewer voids as a result. It is cheaper to get a void back into use and we can do it more quickly, so we want to target as many of those as possible in a given year. Hence, there is a ramp-up for this year.

SHEP covers all our leasing, including mortgage to rent. That would explain the higher target in the table referenced. With regard to our build targets, 5,050 units are on track to be delivered for this year. That would include the build target we have, which is to have 2,000 built by local authorities and housing bodies this year. If there is some slack in one area, we will make up for it in another. I will be in a better position to talk about this in January. Things are looking promising in terms of the social housing targets we have for this year.

On the Traveller accommodation programme, the increased budget for last year was to try to provide 90 new units. The figure for the period to date is 67. We still expect to be able to get to 90 before the end of the year. As members know, there are ongoing problems with planning permissions, approval, consultation at local level, and even consultation with some of the relevant families. It has been a difficult area in which to achieve the spend. It is a matter we have discussed in the Dáil and elsewhere over recent years. It is an area in which we want an improvement. There is an increased budget for next year, an extra €3 million. That will put us in a position to provide more accommodation. I am not happy about our expenditure in this area and all local authorities have a responsibility in this regard. As members know, we had the review of the legislation and expenditure in this area. We asked the National Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committee to come forward with suggestions of names to work with us on an expert commission to determine how we can improve the situation and deal with the matter under the legislation to get the money spent. I am concerned it is not targeting all the right areas. Some local authorities are not pulling their weight. Some are doing a very good job.

In the past year, we have been trying to liaise with some of the key players to make sure the money is spent. It is not enough, however. We have plans to increase the budget in the years ahead so we have to make sure we are in a position to spend it in the correct way. I am looking forward to the committee working with us on that and in trying to make changes. On the expenditure, there is an expectation that all local authorities and councillors will become involved in getting this money spent and making sure, on behalf of the Department and State, that we succeed in our plans in this area.

Of the 5,050 units, how many have been delivered so far this year? I am very glad the Minister is looking to Scotland. He is right that the child homelessness rate is higher there, but the children are in emergency accommodation for only a quarter of the time. The average period is 24 weeks. Here it is about two years. It would be more than welcome if the Minister learned from Scotland to determine whether we can reduce the amount of time children are spending in emergency accommodation.

My questions are very straightforward. On the commentary on nothing being done, quoted by the Minister of State, Deputy English, I do not believe it is the case. It is the case that what is being done does not appear to be working, unfortunately. That is the commentary. The crisis is escalating and the figures bear that out. It was poor judgment on the part of the Taoiseach to say what he said. It is not just me saying that. When one heard Fr. Peter McVerry on the radio earlier saying he was furious, one could imagine the views of those he helps and whom we want to help.

My question is similar to that of Deputy Ó Broin. I will try to make it as simple as I can in the hope the respective personnel and Minister will make the response as simple as they can. With regard to capital expenditure of local authorities, by the beginning of November €243 million was spent. Was it purely on construction, or was the figure inclusive of purchases? If both, could we have a breakdown? How many houses were delivered? Could I be told that if one figure is divided by the other, the cost of a house is €150,000, for example? How many houses are being delivered by the voluntary and co-operative housing sector based on the expenditure of €75 million?

A figure of €90 million was mentioned for other services. That is quite a large figure to throw in under that heading. I would like a breakdown of the other services. I do not see the repair-and-lease scheme, for example. Unfortunately, we know it has been a great failure.

Could I be told when the former Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, announced LIHAF? We need to learn from our past, even our recent past.

It has been 18 months to two years since that was initially announced, and not a penny has been drawn down on it. I asked about that some months ago, and of course there were contracts being prepared and signed and so on. Why is that the case? What is the problem with it, that it has not borne fruit much more quickly, as was expected, so that we might make improvements as was done on the repair and lease scheme? To bring it down to brass tacks, if the Minister can tell me that €243 million was spent on the provision of social housing and a certain number of houses were delivered, that tells me how much it is costing. Ó Cualann Cohousing Alliance in Ballymun is acquiring State lands at €1,000 per site and providing housing units for between €140,000 and €200,000. That is affordable housing. That is social housing. That is delivery, and it should be replicated throughout the country, because if those figures are accurate, then that is the solution to our problem. As an example of our problem, one hears of a site in County Meath that was bought some years ago at the height of the boom. We are only getting half the potential units from it, because we are trying to recoup the costs of purchasing it some years ago. There is nothing affordable or social about that policy. I would like a breakdown of what we have delivered, and how much it costs to deliver each individual unit. I thank the Minister.

I thank the Deputy. As a brief reply to Deputy Ó Broin, we can absolutely learn lessons from other countries. That is why I think international comparisons are important. Let us leave that part of the debate there.

In response to Deputy Cowen, the local infrastructure housing activiation fund, LIHAF, is an excellent initiative whereby we can use a relatively small amount of taxpayers' money to unlock very big housing sites, from which we will derive a Part V commitment from a developer and a cost reduction per-unit or its own little affordability scheme.

However, some of the sites have a number of different owners. They might be part locally-owned. There might be different requirements in the local area. Actually putting together contracts with the private side and with the local authority is not necessarily straightforward, but a huge amount of work has been done. While money has not been drawn down yet, we are at design stage for many of these projects. They know exactly what they are going to do. Some money has been drawn down, albeit a small amount, and LIHAF is going to deliver thousands of new homes. I have a detailed table of exactly what has been signed off and at what amounts, and if the Deputy wants to examine a couple of sites we can do that. I can discuss how the money is being leveraged and what it might return.

We have spoken about the repair and leasing scheme before in regard to its effectiveness to date. The scheme has received a total of 705 applications as of 9 November. That is an increase of 32% on on the figure for the second quarter of this year. Some 18 agreements to lease have been signed. That is obviously a much smaller number than what we had hoped to achieve with the repair and leasing scheme this year. As we have already spoken about, we recognised midway through the year that there were problems with the scheme that were making it unattractive for people to access, such as the length of time for which the lease agreement would have to be entered into. We are finalising a new version of the repair and lease scheme which will be notified to all local authorities very shortly. It will address those issues of concern that have made the scheme less attractive than it might have been. The Department manages its budget in the total envelope. As such, money that was not utilised under the repair and lease scheme was moved to other areas, such as homelessness services, where there were additional demands, for more hubs for example. That is where the funding has gone. However, where private vacancies are concerned, the repair and lease scheme will be an important tool to get more vacant homes back onto the market and in use for social housing.

In regard to other services, a sum of €90 million includes €70 million for some of the Housing Agency's acquisitions and €20 million for the pyrite remediation scheme. It funds some areas of housing research and also contributes to the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB. In regard to the 5,050 units to be delivered this year I would like to comment on the Ó Cualann model. It is a fantastic model, which is why I have met with them in my Department and we are trying to do something at a greater scale. That is what I hope the €25 milllion will go towards, a model whereby the local authority can use local authority land sold at €1,000 or €2,000 euro per house, build a home and sell it via mortgage to a tenant much more cheaply than what might have been available. For example, when I visited the Ó Cualann scheme, I met a woman who had been paying something like €1500 in rent and was now paying a mortgage of €700. That made an incredible difference to her life and her family life. That is what we want to do and what we want to achieve with our affordability schemes.

Over 1,000 local authority and housing body builds are complete at present, according to Q3 data, which will be released in the coming weeks. There are more coming, obviously, because of the target numbers of direct builds, which we will hit before the end of the year. For acquisitions, the target of 1,250 has been met; for leasing the target was 600, which has been met. In regard to RAS, half the targets on HAP, have been exceeded, and the RAS target is on track.

Am I to take it, then, that 1,000 units have come from a spend of €243 million? Is the cost €243,000 per unit?

That is not necessarily true, because the spend to date would not just be for those that have been completed. It would also cover some units that are already on site, depending on how the drawdown has happened.

It is a relatively simple exercise, I would have thought. If the Department can provide me with information on what has been spent and how many houses on the ground it has delivered, I can determine the cost of putting that house on the ground, for both local authority housing and for voluntary and co-operative housing.

However, it depends on where the house has been built, under which scheme the money has been drawn down and whether-----

I appreciate that, but consider the people watching. We can talk all day about targets, what we will do, what we can do and what we want to achieve. Can we measure what we have done this year, in the midst of a crisis, when we are told that €243 million has been spent on a capital programme to deliver local authority housing? Can the Minister tell me how many houses that spending delivered, so that I can at least estimate how much the programme is costing per housing unit?

I can tell the Deputy that we have over 1,000 units built. Our target is to have 2,000 built by local authorities and housing bodies. All of this will be published at the end of the year, and I will then be able to say how we have spent our money for this year, exactly what that delivered on the ground and how it delivered. We can average that out across the 2,000 houses if the Deputy wants to, but that will not necessarily be a fair reflection of the actual cost of delivering individual units. It depends on where they were delivered.

It is unfortunate, Chair, that in the month of November, 11 months into the year, a capital allocation of €243 million has been spent and we do not know how many houses it delivered. We also do not know how much it cost per house to deliver that. If we want to communicate-----

I think what the Minister is saying is that it is site-specific. He can average out, but depending on the site, costs would be varied. The Minister will be coming back to us with those figures.

Let us average it out then. People need to know, and there are enough staff in the Department. With all due respect, it is a simple question, and I would have thought there was a simple answer. If there is not, I would like the Minister to come back to me when he has figured it out.

Will the Minister come back to us with those figures?

I will come back to the committee with a breakdown on that. I do not think it is a simple question, and I am not sure how relevant the answer will be if the Deputy is looking for the costs of delivery per unit-----

Ó Cuallan can build houses at a site cost of €1,000 and sell them for €140,000 to €200,000. There are sites all over the country which the Department put up on a website 12 or 16 months ago, and in the case of many of them, local authorities' expressions of interest periods are still going on. I need to compare and contrast the success of one scheme and determine how that could be replicated throughout the country.

That is exactly what we are doing in the Department. We will have the Q3 stats in the next couple of weeks. That will give us even more information, and we can do that piece of work. However, the way the Ó Cualann houses are being delivered is obviously very different from how we are delivering houses in other schemes.

Exactly, and that is why we need to know how vastly different they are, and how simply it appears to be done by a co-operative in comparison to a local authority and the Department, who are not doing their job, considering what has been asked of them for the last number of years.

Getting an average per unit is not going to tell us that, but we will come back to the Deputy with that information.

Rather than going through all the figures again, I would like to voice my massive concerns about the system. A failed system will not work, no matter how much money is put into it. I understand that the Minister is working and trying to sort out issues, but let us examine the RAS. If someone is on the housing list and is in receipt of RAS, he or she is taken off the housing list. If I have ten people in my clinic who are on the RAS, and I go to the local authority housing list to look for their names, they are not on it. This happens to thousands upon thousands of people. It is an absolute nightmare. It is not working. I have to say, in fairness to the Minister, he has been working with the HAP, but I have a major concern with it. If someone gets onto the local authority housing list, they are automatically entitled to the HAP.

Many landlords will not take tenants on HAP which is causing serious concern for us because we are trying to see if landlords will take tenants on HAP - certain landlords do. A person who had a mortgage whose house has been repossessed, who is no longer living there and is trying to find accommodation but whose name is still on the deeds cannot go on the housing list. Years ago people could be on two local authority lists; they could get only one house but it gave them the flexibility. A person living in Wicklow cannot be placed on the housing list in Carlow. This is why people are becoming homeless. We are coming across another type of homelessness that is not being addressed.

Carlow has one of the lowest income ceilings. A person needs to be earning less than €27,500 to go on the local authority housing list in Carlow. The figure in the neighbouring counties of Laois and Wicklow is €30,000. That is the issue. These are issues causing homelessness. People who do not qualify should be given encouragement to get a mortgage because so many people do not qualify to get a mortgage through the banks and building societies, nor do they qualify to be on the local authority housing list. This is the new homelessness. These people are in no-man's land.

I was very disappointed about the rent-pressure zone areas. Rent-pressure zone areas are crucial but because we have an emergency situation, every local authority should have qualified just until we got out of the housing crisis. I understand it is not possible to leave them there all the time. It is very hard for me to see my neighbouring county qualify for the rent-pressure zone area while we have the same issues but do not qualify. That is where all the confusion is.

I welcome the initiative on the vacant houses, but the issue is with the timescale for getting them back to the local authority when they are ready to go. We seem to be getting the same figures all the time. I ask the Minister to put something in place. There is no accountability in a local authority. The Minister needs to move on these. I welcome what is happening with these vacant houses, but they are coming back too slowly; there is too much red tape and it is not working out.

I have massive concerns about the 800 local authority new builds. We need to build. I know the Government has exceeded its targets on the HAP scheme. Taxpayers' money is going to 15,120 new tenants to cover rent for accommodation that those people will never own. These are the issues we need to consider.

I welcome the money the Minister has allocated for the housing adaptation grant. Carlow got an additional €500,000, which is marvellous. People are living longer and that is the area that needs to be addressed most urgently. Most people attending my clinic are looking for all this extra help because they actually cannot afford it. It is great that the Minister is putting money into that.

I have picked the points where I feel the system is not working. Local authorities need to be given more leniency and we need more accountability. It is creating a new homelessness crisis. The people I have highlighted are being forgotten. I know the Minister will address it. I ask the Department to consider these issues. I ask the Minister to examine the issue of mortgages for people who are in no-man's land of being in work but not qualifying to go on the local authority housing list. He should give them the chance and build houses. I was not too hard on the Minister today.

Deputy Maria Bailey resumed the Chair.

The Senator is absolutely right about the money allocated for adaptation grants. I would like to thank the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath.

It is a constant point of communication between us to ensure we are doing everything we can to help people in their homes and communities.

The Senator asked about taxpayers' money going towards rent in the private sector. If the private sector did not exist, this problem would be much worse. There is something of a Hobson's choice in having to do that. Being able to give flexibility to people to choose where they want to live but with State support and to be able to rent and not have to commit themselves to a 20, 30 or 40-year commitment works for some people but for many people it does not. That is why we are focusing so much on building acquisitions and long-term leases to get people into secure sustainable tenancies.

The Senator asked about vacancy and accountability. We need more transparency here. Through transparency we get accountability. That is why either next week or the week after I will publish targets and write to every local authority about what they will build next year so that the Senator, as a representative of her community, together with the councillors and everyone else can actually see what is meant to be delivered and can ask questions of the local authority as to what is happening week-in and week-out. It is only by doing that, together with everything being transparent, that we can drive the kinds of results we will need to see next year. I am quite confident that we will almost double our social housing build next year.

There was considerable debate about rent-pressure zones at the time and in the preceding years. Someone previously said they were going to bring in rent caps or freeze rents. It actually had an adverse effect on the market in that landlords moved to ratchet up rents before the freeze came in. In other countries that brought in blanket measures on rent, it froze the market and resulted in some people paying very little rent when they could afford to pay much more while others were locked out of the rental market. The two qualifying criteria for rent-pressure zones of looking back at four of the previous six quarters and the average rent across the country are sound. As we come through each quarter, new areas fall into the rent-pressure zones. Obviously there will be a spillover effect in where there is a rent-pressure zone and an area just outside it. That is one of those unintended consequences of a policy that is introduced. However, the RPZs are working and we will continue with that policy into next year.

Much of the Senator's contribution related to the affordability issue and she is right to highlight it. We need to be careful not to make too quick a comparison to a new type of homelessness. I recognise the difficulties people have in trying to pay high rents and save for a deposit. I know people who have had to move back to their parents' homes either because they cannot afford the rent or in order to allow them to save for the deposit. What they are experiencing is difficult for them and their lives. It is a far cry from what people who are forced out of accommodation are experiencing. We are being sensitive in how we talk about it.

For a long time people who qualified for social housing support got all this support from the State, but those who did not qualify felt almost abandoned. We cannot be that black and white with our policies anymore; life is complicated. Sometimes giving an individual a little bit of support can make a very big difference. Under LIHAF 1 and LIHAF 2, on 70% of the sites two and three-bedroom houses will come in below a certain threshold. However, on about 30% of the sites we will have affordable schemes whereby someone who does not qualify for social housing but who would not be able to afford a house on the market will be able to enter those homes on an affordable-to-buy or affordable-rent scenario. That is what I will be announcing in the coming weeks.

Of course, the additional €25 million we announced in the budget is also for affordability schemes. We look to something like the Ó Cualann model in terms of co-operative housing and what the qualifying criteria were for people to be placed in those homes through the local authority. We will consider something similar for those affordability schemes. I return to a point Deputy Cowen made. While Dublin City Council charged Ó Cualann only €1,000 a unit, the cost the council incurred was about €70,000 per unit when servicing costs and everything else are taken into account. There are not necessarily clean ways of calculating these things and we try to average them out.

We are reviewing the qualifying criteria in terms of thresholds for social housing supports. We are also reviewing the incremental tenant purchase scheme. Someone on HAP can transfer to another area, but only if transferring up. Senator Murnane O'Connor mentioned that landlords did not like HAP. We have experience of 23,000 or 24,000 landlords, some of them with multiple properties, working with the different agencies to help people into HAP tenancies. HAP has been successful. We have exceeded our HAP target this year. While I understand why there might be difficult cases with individual landlords, the overall experience is that it works and that people are happy to engage in a HAP tenancy.

It is superior to previous programmes because there is the flexibility to go above the amounts and add 20%. It is important that we have that option. If we can learn from what we do and constantly review and analyse what is and is not working - I hope that is the approach I am taking to this brief - together with full transparency and accountability, with everything being published and everyone aware of our targets and what we are doing, we can improve the system and make it work for the people who are at the receiving end of it. We have to make sure they are getting the support they should be getting.

I agree that there are very good landlords, but there are also landlords who do not want to accept the housing assistance payment. The Minister was in Carlow a few weeks ago to turn the sod on a few sites. However, not one block has since been laid on the sites. Work on one, in particular, has been held up for two years, but it was great that the Minister came down and it was a great day. However, nothing has happened since. I am asking the Minister to follow up and make sure house building will start soon. We had pictures in the newspapers and everyone was delighted, but people are now ringing every day and still there is no work under way on the sites.

We are now under time pressure, but it was important to afford extra time to discuss programme A because it is the most relevant. I cut Deputy Fergus O'Dowd off earlier and was not as lenient with him as with other members. We will now move to programme B - water services. We will then deal with programmes C, D, E and F together. Programme B is dealt with on page 14 of the members' briefing document. We are discussing the mid-year review, output and expenditure, to which members should please stick.

As I have to chair a meeting at 1.30 p.m. I may have to leave.

Can members continue until 12.30 p.m?

There is nothing normal about children being brought up in the homes of their grandparents. Twenty years ago a family would have been given a home within three years. Now children are eight or nine years old before they have an opportunity to live in their own home. This is a huge hidden problem. There is enormous pressure on those families who have to live in their parents' homes. I was in a house recently in which there were two rooms downstairs, one of which was the kitchen in which the grandparents were living. The other was the front room in which all of the children were living with their mother. It did not make sense.

I want to praise the local authorities in County Louth. I asked a question last week and will ask for the answer in a different way. I may not get it today. Despite the criticism, there is very good practice. I am the first to criticise the county councils in Dublin which were offered 2,000 houses by NAMA, of which they took less than 1,000. I have criticised Fingal County Council which was offered 270 houses by NAMA but took only 105. It dismisses our figures for the numbers of unoccupied homes. Louth County Council, however, is exceptional. It has sourced social housing in abandoned or vacant properties. I understand 50 units have been completed in this way this year. If every council in the country were to do the same, it would make a huge difference.

With the support of Mayo County Council, the Minister rightly set up a vacant or empty homes website. I read in the newspaper this morning that by September this year 10,000 queries had been made to the website. Will the Minister comment on the efforts made by Louth County Council and do what he can to ensure other councils will do what it is doing so effectively? It is one thing to turn the sod to build houses, but these are houses which are already available. They have doors into which we can fit keys.

Would the Deputy like to ask any question about water services which come under programme B?

I want to ask about why I was sacked from my job as Minister of State. As the Department is aware, my position on water services was correct all along. I know that the Taoiseach had nothing to do with it, but I would not mind being put back into the Department. I am sure the Secretary General would love to have me back. Of course, I am asking that question with tongue in cheek.

I think the Deputy needs a different floor and a different audience. Is that his only question about water services?

No, I will now ask a serious question. There has been some controversy about the former chief executive of Irish Water. The matter was the subject of commentary on Sunday. Can we be updated on it?

We will follow it up, but does the Deputy have a question about expenditure or output as part of the mid-year review?

That is my only question.

Does the change to the funding model for Irish Water in any way affect its capital investment programme as outlined in the business plan for next year and the years leading up to 2021? Last year €140 million was earmarked for the completion of phase one and the start of phase two of the metering programme. I understand it has been re-profiled in the overall capital spend, but Irish Water has not been able to give us an indication as to when that money will be spent. Will it be spread out over the period 2018 to 2021 and will it be spent on something more specific? Does the Minister have any information in that regard? I am asking because there is a particular difficulty with wastewater treatment, not just in the 38 agglomerations covered by the European Commission's legal action in the European Court of Justice. Why has the overall capital spend under the programme not changed on the back of the European Commission initiating legal proceedings in the European Court of Justice? Has there been a movement of money to try to bring forward the investment to bring the 38 agglomerations up to speed to either reduce or minimise the impact of the legal action? I am concerned because this applies to more than just the 38 agglomerations. In its latest report the Environmental Protection Agency has detailed up to 100 locations around the country, in almost every county, where raw sewage is being pumped. I know that there has been a change since last year in terms of the Minister's responsibility for this issue. Much more responsibility has devolved to Irish Water and the Commission for Energy Regulation, but given the fact that we are facing a legal action against the State rather than Irish Water, I presume that the Minister and his officials have a particular interest in ensuring the maximum level of investment to tackle the 38 sewage plants most at risk of causing pollution. How is he dealing with that issue in the Estimates for next year and following years?

At the Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services one of the issues that arose was that the European Commission was very concerned that funding from central government for Irish Water could not be guaranteed in the longer term. While the Minister and the Government have made verbal commitments, they are still subject to the budgetary cycle each year. The Minister has made a commitment and I accept his bone fides in terms of the plan to meet both the need for direct investment and borrowing commitments year on year as per the business plan, but it is subject to agreement each year. Some of us proposed that a way to get around this was for the State to enter into a legally binding ten-year service level agreement with Irish Water to ensure funding certainty which might allay some of the fears of the Commission. That idea was not supported at the committee by Fine Gael, but I presume it is still an issue in the Minister's engagement with the Commission. Is it something at which the Government is looking or considering to overcome that problem?

On Deputy Fergus O'Dowd's points-----

Does the Minister miss the Deputy?

-----we use Louth County Council as an exemplar when we look at what we are trying to do in housing provision in other parts of the country. It had an important role to play at the housing summit in September, at which it discussed the things it had done successfully such as the issuing of compulsory purchase orders. Vacanthomes.ie is a website which is managed by Mayo County Council and it has been very successful in that people have been able to publicly identify a vacancy.

That allows us to determine whether properties are actually vacant.

In July we requested every local authority to appoint empty home units. We have established one in the Department to work with them. We gave local authorities in cities and large urban areas a target of reverting to us with more detailed data for their vacancy numbers by the end of October and every other local authority a target of providing the data by the end of the year. On the back of that data we will be able to target vacant homes to try to bring them back into use.

There has been a debate on the actual number of vacant homes. Different data sets and figures have been produced. Various local authorities have begun to drill down into and examine them. For example, when we inspected units Fingal County Council and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council had been told were vacant, they turned out to be businesses. One needs to get on site. After a unit has been identified as vacant, one needs to find out why it is vacant. That work is ongoing.

We hope the new repair and lease scheme will help to bring some vacant units back onto the market. An additional incentive was included in the budget by the Minister for Finance where work was needed to bring vacant homes back into use in the private market rather than as social housing. The incentive provides for allowable expenses of €5,000, the bridging part, to take advantage of the home improvement scheme. In that way, someone could spend quite a bit of money and get it back by way of a tax return. These are the various measures we are taking to help on the vacant units side.

Will Dublin City Council's report be published shortly?

That is what we are doing. We will receive the figures and see what the council believes its targets are.

Will the Department publish them?

Yes. Transparency is important.

There is no point in keeping the figures within the Department. It is for the local authority to do the work and its councillors to see-----

I agree. It puts the pressure back on the authority to-----

Yes. Its councillors would then be able to more adequately hold it to account.

There is a contractual obligation regarding Mr. John Tierney's pension payments and requirements which Irish Water has reflected in its accounts. I do not want to discuss an individual's pension payments.

No, but they became a matter of public record on Sunday.

There was some comment, but he is now a private person. He has a contract and entitlements which will be met.

There is no issue with it in the political sense. The issue is-----

Politically, people might want to discuss or have a problem with it for various reasons. I cannot comment on whether there is an issue in that regard, but effectively he has retired and there are obligations that need to be met following on from contracts that were entered into.

I accept the Minister's point, but when will there be clarity on the issue and who will provide it? Will it be Irish Water?

There is no lack of clarity on the obligation and amounts involved. We are trying to clarify how we can make it possible from a legal point of view.

I will take up the matter with Irish Water.

I will start with Deputy Eoin Ó Broin's last question and work backwards. I take his point about service level agreements being a way of achieving certainty on funding for Irish Water. I have engaged with the commissioner on this matter. The Water Services Bill will allow us to provide for the preparation of multi-annual strategic funding plans for Irish Water as part of a framework to ensure we will invest what we need to invest. With Irish Water, we will be guided by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities. It will be up to the Oireachtas on an annual basis to approve the allocation of funding. That is an important role played by the Oireachtas. The Minister for Finance and I are working to ensure our plans for the funding of Irish Water will be aligned with and reflected in his ten-year national investment plan. This year the Cabinet noted the funding that would be required by Irish Water up to 2021. It is my responsibility, in working with the Oireachtas, to deliver it. It will be clear to everyone what is required from Irish Water on an annual basis in terms of the capital and current spend. My obligation will be to deliver it each year and it will be for the Oireachtas to vote it through.

On wastewater treatment and action by the European Union, now that the questions about the future funding of Irish Water have been clarified and resolved in the Water Services Bill, we can embark on a programme of work to ensure we can upgrade and make the necessary investments. We will do this while taking account of the EPA's reports and the requirements under the directive. Separate from Irish Water, other subheads in the budget show an increase in funding for work related to water quality since last year. Irish Water also has investments to make.

In 2016 Irish Water identified the potential for savings from the domestic metering programme to be used to fund work on priority non-domestic meter upgrades which would underpin the non-domestic revenue stream and the urgent provision of strategic water and wastewater infrastructure to enable priority development lands to be opened up. The money will move into that area in so far as Irish Water's investments are concerned.

The changes to the funding model on the back of the Water Services Bill, the debate on which I hope will conclude in the Seanad this week, will not affect our capital investment in 2018. It has been secured and will be made.

I have three questions, the first of which is about rural and group schemes. When water charges were abolished, the Government committed to reinstating the funding which the schemes previously had. Have we yet moved in that direction and what is the amount involved? During the course of our deliberations it was not possible for the all-party committee to put a value on the subvention for rural and group schemes in order to measure them against public schemes and ensure parity. What progress has been made by the Department in that regard and has it communicated directly with the representative body for group schemes?

Will the Vote for next year be net of the service level agreement between local authorities and Irish Water? Will the Minister confirm whether the agreement is being renegotiated? What savings are expected to be made and what impact, if any, will they have on the delivery of services from a local authority perspective?

My question is similar to Deputy Barry Cowen's in that I wish to ask about the rural water programme, but my question relates to the criteria to be used. Many groups have approached me recently because they have been told that they do not qualify for the grant. It is down to the amount of money they must find for a rural water scheme. In the light of the current position, that is unfair. People form a group and say they can come up with a certain amount of money, but they do not meet the criteria because they are told that the funding is not available. Will there be a scheme to help those who need to qualify? The current system is not working. Perhaps the Minister might clarify the matter.

Regarding water meters, I wish to ask about the first fix policy. Under current legislation, everyone is entitled to a first fix, but something needs to be clarified. What will be the cost of a second or third call-out? What exactly does it mean? What if someone has to keep ringing Irish Water about the same leaking pipe? Irish Water will fix it but three weeks later the same pipe will start to cause hassle again. Is it entitled to charge the person? If someone keeps complaining about the same problem, it is like a first fix. Will there be a standard charge - people are concerned about this issue - and what will it be after the first fix?

Having dealt with Irish Water a great deal recently, I must say it is good to deal with. It reverts to me straightaway, emails me and follows up constantly. It is important to recognise this. My dealings with Irish Water have been good. However, my question is important, as we do not want someone to get a bill for €100 or €150 after a first fix. People do not have that money. We all know how precious water is and that we must use it wisely and go by the guidelines.

Does Deputy Pat Casey have a question?

I have two quick ones, the first of which is about problems with water quality.

There seems to be significant underspend in capital investment and perhaps the Minister will explain this to me, in light of the number of areas where we are breaching EU regulation. I have a quick follow-up question regarding what Deputy O'Dowd said. Does the Minister have any obligation relating to the pension of the former chief executive of Irish Water?

To answer Deputy Cowen, I have been engaging with the National Federation of Group Water Schemes since I took office and I am aware of the challenges they face. I am aware of how the excellent work they have done over many years in communities up and down the country was, perhaps, lost in the whole debate we have had on Irish Water and water generally in recent years. When water charges for domestic customers of Irish Water were suspended, the group water schemes went back to their pre-2015 subsidy levels. Engagement has already begun on a semi-formal basis with the federation as to how we make up for the difference during the period of time when we suspended the provision of the money. We will formalise our engagement once the Bill comes out of the House so we can ensure we make up any money that was lost as a result of the suspension of the scheme but also that we look at the equity of treatment, to which the Deputy referred, which is also in the joint committee's report. That work will begin next week or the week after, once the Bill comes out of the Seanad. We spend approximately €20 million on the subsidies, but another €1 million to €1.5 million, or a little higher, will be the cost of bringing the subsidies up to previous levels given the changes being made as a result of the Water Services Bill.

The Vote next year will cover Irish Water's obligations under the service level agreements, SLAs, with the local authorities. Next year will look a lot different because of the changes we will make on motor tax, the local property tax and the local government fund. There will be a much clearer funding stream into Irish Water so it will be easier to navigate in so far as the accounts are concerned. As per the commitment I gave on Committee and Report Stages of the Water Services Bill, we are trying to expedite consideration with the Minister for Finance on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General to give us greater oversight of the audited accounts of Irish Water. There is obviously a role here for the Commission of Regulation of Utilities, CRU, in terms of regulating and overseeing the costs incurred, even with the SLAs entered into with local authorities. If a new agreement is reached, in so far as 2021 is concerned, the saving anticipated at present is approximately €1 billion. It is not intended to impact service delivery. It is intended to improve service delivery from the economies that can be achieved by doing this at an earlier timeframe.

Is that €1 billion over a period of years?

It is the 2014 to 2021 business plan period. There will be a €1 billion saving over that period.

So it will be a saving from 2018 or 2019 to 2021.

Some of the savings have already been achieved. It is the global figure if we were to move to 2021 and the business plan.

Is the Minister saying that if the proposals are brought forward, there will be a specific saving between 2019 and 2021? That is not the €1 billion.

That is not €1 billion, no. The total figure is €1 billion that would be realised if we were able to do this in so far as the current business plan is concerned.

What is the additional bit that Irish Water and the Department is hoping to make if the SLAs are renegotiated?

It is €70 million per annum by the end of the SLA.

So that would be €70 million for 2019, 2020 and 2021.

No, it is that by the time we get to 2021, we will be saving €70 million a year by having brought forward the SLA.

With regard to the new group schemes, and to respond to Senator Murnane O'Connor, basic funding grants of up to 85% of the costs subject to a maximum grant of €7,650 per house are available for new group water schemes, which is a cost of €9,000 per scheme. This is a supplemental grant subject to departmental approval. This is the current regime sanctioned by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform but we are looking at it as part of the review.

This needs to be addressed and I am glad the Minister is doing so. There are many hiccups in it and it is not fair on people. They are not getting the funding. The Minister might look at this. I am aware of a number of schemes and I will bring them to the Minister.

Now that we have certainty about Irish Water, we have a lot more space to look at group water schemes and to see how we can do a lot more and improve how they have been working over a number of years.

The first fix scheme is for a fix on somebody's property, and the obligation is Irish Water will come out and do the fix for free. If there is a subsequent break in the pipe, responsibility will fall on the owner of the property and it is his or her liability. It is very good that there is a first fix scheme in place because we are moving to a new regime. There is accepted in part an obligation on the State to help individual home owners to move to the new scheme, but beyond a first fix if there is a second or third break, or a piece of piping needs replacement because a fix is not holding, it falls on the home owner.

Will there be a standard charge?

There will not be a charge.

Will there be a call-out charge? When people ring for a service, they are charged for a call-out. Will there be a call-out charge?

It is important that there is no call-out charge.

That is because it will not be Irish Water. Irish Water will do the first fix but after that it is-----

It will be the person-----

Yes, whoever the person might contract to come and do the work.

To clarify, many people are ringing the local authorities because they do not know where their pipes are located. Older local authority houses built over the years-----

I am sorry, Senator. I know this is a very valid point, but we are under time pressure and I want to stick to the-----

I am happy with the reply.

Does the Minister have further answers?

I want to come back to Deputy Casey's question on the pension issue. The issues being looked at are about how the recognised entitlements can be honoured. That is what we are examining at present. These are entitlements that exist and need to be honoured. They might require an amendment to the Ervia pension scheme, which would come to me as Minister to formally sign off. When I said to Deputy O'Dowd that we are looking at a legal issue, it is to see exactly how we do this in the appropriate way because it needs to be done.

Will it need the Minister's approval?

It is looking like it will, but we are waiting for final confirmation on this.

We will now move on to programmes C, D, E and F. There will be three minutes for questioners and I ask members to reference the programme about which they are asking the Minister so he can come directly to them.

I will be as brief as possible. All my questions relate to current expenditure. With regard to local government and subhead C5 on franchises, we are meant to be spending €1,465 million and we have only spent €58 million. What are the franchises in the first place? Exactly what is this expenditure? How come we have spent only €58 million?

The next area is with regard to planning under subhead E3 and An Bord Pleanála. We see a significant increase in the operational costs of An Bord Pleanála. Will the Minister explain why we are seeing this increase? Is it because of the new fast-track planning process in place? It may be a debate for another day, but how is the fast-track planning process working? I am led to believe there is a shortage of staff.

With regard to subhead E4, the planning tribunal, there is a massive overrun of €6 million. We have put down €3.745 million and we have already spent €9.576 million. What exactly is that overspend with regard to the planning tribunal?

Will the Minister give me an update on subhead E10 and the development contribution rebate of €371 million. Nothing has been spent so far. What is the update on this?

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, on his appointment, and I acknowledge his great and important knowledge of local government, and the fact his first visit as Minister of State was to Drogheda, which is very important. When will he publish his plan for local government reform? Notwithstanding the fact the 2014 national development plan is separate in one sense, when will the Minister of State restore local government to towns such as Drogheda? When will he publish his plan for debate? I also want to know about a directly elected mayor.

Under programme C, one of the big issues, and it relates to the conversation we have just had on programme A, is funding for staff in housing departments, in terms of general housing staff and private sector inspections.

Please identify the increase, if any, for next year and whether additional money was used this year to increase the number of staff in the Department and, specifically, for inspections.

In terms of programme D, my question is more for next year. The strategic housing developments place an additional burden on An Bord Pleanála. Please tell us, in cash terms, the amount of additional funding that will be allocated to An Bord Pleanála next year to cope with that aspect. Likewise, has funding been identified in the Vote for next year for a planning regulator, assuming that the legislation gets through the Dáil or the Oireachtas at the end of this year or early next year?

I have a specific question on An Bord Pleanála that does not relate to the figures provided about its work. Suffice to say, a commitment was given in the budget to provide further resources to An Bord Pleanála in order to meet staff increases. I wish to make a general point on the work of An Bord Pleanála. Would the Government consider putting on a statutory basis the length of time that An Bord Pleanála has to make a decision? An Bord Pleanála took 11 months to make a decision about the Athenry site but it took the council concerned an awful lot less time to reach a decision. The Government should be mindful of that when addressing this issue. An Bord Pleanála did the same when making a decision about a power plant in Edenderry, County Offaly. The length of time An Bord Pleanála takes to make decisions is having a severe impact on our ability to be in a position to meet the requirements of the economy. The Government should consider imposing a statutory time period in which decisions should be made. If there is a resourcing or staffing issue in order for that to be the case then let us address the matter and ensure we do not have a repetition of what we have seen in recent years.

I wish to inform Deputy Casey that franchise is probably one of the most important sections in any Department because it is about voting, which concerns us all. The section is very small. There are only about eight people in the unit located in Customs House because the compilation of the register is the responsibility of local authorities. The franchise section effectively becomes an electoral commission once a referendum, a presidential or, indeed, a general election is called. The funding that was allocated in the figures for last year principally concerns the fact that there was a court challenge to the outcome of the children's referendum in 2012. The bill of costs was budgeted for in anticipation that it would be presented but that has not happened yet. That is the main reason for the difference between what was budgeted for in the outturn figure. There is ongoing work, mostly in the Department's offices in Wexford, on the establishment of an electoral commission that would ultimately subsume the role of the franchise section when it is established.

Deputy O'Dowd asked about local government reform. The reports on local government reform, that are part of the programme for Government, principally concern urban governance reform of electoral areas and municipal districts in county councils, and also the possibility of directly elected mayors. The reports have not been completed but I have been told that they will be completed at the end of this week or the start of next week and once I have them they will be published. I am sure they will form the basis for debate if the Business Committee allocates it for the Dáil and Seanad.

The boundaries for local elections is on the Cabinet agenda. I hope that the matter will be dealt with next week in advance of local elections in 2019.

I thank the Minister of State.

In response to the query about the Mahon tribunal costs, the matter concerns third party legal costs and claims and we rely on the State Claims Agency for same. Every year we have set aside €4 million for the past number of years and will continue to do so. The costs will vary each year. We cannot predict the sum and will have to deal with it when it is drawn down. The overall sum that has been spent up to October 2017 is €129 million. It has been estimated that the final cost will be €159 million over the next couple of years but it is hard to predict the drawdown on that figure. This year the original budget that was set aside was €3.745 million. The increase is an additional €5.855 million and those resources were found in the Department. The revised budget is €9.6 million. There are additional costs on hand that we will have to pay in the months ahead. The claims on hand from agencies is, roughly, €686,000 and the estimated claim for the settlement cost is, roughly, €1.3 million. The amounts have varied over the past couple of years and in some years up to €4 million was not spent. Over a period the sum evens out. We expect that the final cost will be €159 million.

Is the final sum €159 million?

Yes. I can outline the whole history behind the figure on another day.

In terms of the operational costs for An Bord Pleanála, additional staff have been allocated in order to cope with the additional workload and an extra 12 staff have been sanctioned. The work is ongoing so more people will be sanctioned if needed. Also, four new board members were appointed thus bringing the number back up to nine, which is where the ideal mechanism would be. We intend to appoint an additional two members to cover all of the various skills that we want to be part of the board.

In terms of ongoing improvements, Deputy Cowen asked about An Bord Pleanála reaching its targets. As members will know, an independent review of all of the operations conducted by An Bord Pleanála has been carried out and a list of recommendations has been produced that would increase efficiencies. Naturally, the recommendations mainly included calls to increase the number of staff. We are doing that because we went to be in a position, at least in 90% of the cases, to reach the agreed timelines. There has been a lot of slippage on some key projects that nobody could be happy with. We want to deal with the matter.

In terms of the Apple data centre, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government has made it clear that we will try to get the matter included in the strategic infrastructure requirements. There will be a different process to deal with the matter.

I do not doubt that. The length of time that An Bord Pleanála takes to make a decision is not as it should be.

The independent review has given a synopses of the situation. That is why we have increased the amount of resources allocated to the board and increased the 2018 budget. As things stands, €16.7 million will be allocated to An Bord Pleanála in 2018.

There was a question about a regulator. As members will know, the scheme has not been set up so the cost allocated for this year was not spent. Therefore, next year's budget allocation is €1.4 million. The legislation is planned for next week or the week after in the Dáil. I have no doubt, with everyone's co-operation, that we will get the legislation through quite quickly and we can spend that money in the area.

The development contribution rebate is demand-led. We expect some drawdown of that scheme before the end of the year or certainly early in the new year. The project had to be completed. We have notification that there is some drawdown expected. The matter mainly relates to a scheme that was set up for a rebate of contribution levies of up to 100% if the house was valued at less than €250,000 and 50% if the house was valued at less than €275,000. In general, those kinds of homes were not being provided in 2015, 2016 and early 2017. Thanks to the help-to-buy scheme starter homes are being provided in that space, which would have resulted in some drawdown of that contribution. When the scheme was first designed in 2015 and 2016 many homes were provided at a higher cost for a different market and that is why the drawdown has been low.

I think I have covered all of the questions.

On one additional question on staffing costs for local authorities, that is primarily a matter for the local authorities themselves. We have arranged for some costs to be recouped through the capital programme. In addition, I have received correspondence from some local authorities about a new approach for the sector around shared delivery, delivery teams and different arrangements that we might do in that regard, looking beyond the administrative area of a local authority. I will meet local authority managers tomorrow to explore the matter further.

Do the members have further questions on the programmes? No. Does the Minister and his Ministers of State wish to make further clarifications? No.

I thank the Minister, his two Ministers of State and the huge team from the Department for attending today. We have all found today's engagement was important and constructive.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.30 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 November 2017.
Top
Share