Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 2017

Action Plan for Housing and Homelessness: Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government (Resumed)

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 switched to airplane-safe or flight mode, depending on the device. It is not sufficient for members just to put their phones on silent mode as this will maintain a level of interference with the broadcasting system. Apologies have been received from Deputy Fergus O'Dowd. Deputy Boyd Barrett will substitute for Deputy Ruth Coppinger.

At today's meeting we will resume consideration of item No. 1, the third quarterly progress report of the Action Plan for Housing and Homelessness and discussion of the issue of emergency accommodation, resumed from last Thursday. I welcome to our meeting Mr. John McCarthy, Secretary General, Mr. David Walsh, Ms Mary Hurley, Ms Nina Murray and Mr. Barry Quinlan from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government. Deputy Eoghan Murphy, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, will join us as soon as he can, once Cabinet business has been concluded. At the request of the members of the committee, we will continue with the questions on the quarterly progress report that we did not reach at the previous meeting and then move to the issue of emergency accommodation at the end. Each member will be given roughly five minutes to engage with the witnesses, after which we will move to the next member. I ask members to respect the time as much as possible so that each member has the opportunity to speak. I can call members again if there is time at the end, which I hope there will be. I also ask members, where possible, to cite the location in the action plan of any reference to it in their questions. Members will be called in the order they indicate to ask questions.

Before we begin, I wish to draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence given to the committee.

However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call Senator Boyhan to put his questions. He can ask questions on all pillars as he was the only member who did not get to speak at the previous meeting.

I welcome the witnesses. The Minister, who I congratulate on his appointment, made an opening statement at last week's meeting and I would like to make one or two comments on that. When the Taoiseach announced his appointment two weeks ago, he stated, "Rebuilding Ireland is working but it may not be enough and so I am tasking him to review it within three months and to consider what additional measures may be required, including consideration of a greater quantum of social housing build, a vacant home tax and measures to encourage landlords to remain in or enter the rental market." Within 24 hours a statement by the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, was published on the Department's website. I acknowledge his enormous work, energy and effort in respect of Rebuilding Ireland. It is Government policy and we are reviewing its performance in the first quarter of 2017. The policy contains 48 actions, 13 of which were complete, according to the report we have been given, 26 are on schedule and nine are incomplete. That is a reasonably good day's work benchmarked against the targets, timeframes and the people with responsibilities. We must be fair and put this in context. The period in question is the first quarter of the year, not the final quarter.

I do not wish to be parochial, as this policy is meant to be strategic, but I know best the area I live in and I would like to reference that. Page 14 of the Minister's report relates to rapid build. We have to get real. Rapid build has not delivered. It was envisaged 12 homes would be built in George's Place in Dún Laoghaire. There was great razzmatazz and a fanfare of publicity about this wonderful rapid build. Why are they not permanent houses? Why are there only 12 houses? I have examined the locations for rapid builds and the zoning. However, I will zone in on the one I know best in George's Place. This has a major town centre zoning and the Minister and the professional planners who advise him will be aware that its capacity to realise a high quantum of residential units as well as commercial units is possible and practical. Across the road, there is a private sector development, which is a five-storey apartment block, and there were Part V benefits to the local authority. The site is served by brilliant public transport as it is on the DART line and is beside the sea. I would love to live there. I would like the Minister to revisit the site because the rapid build is a waste of resources and land and it does not maximise the potential of the zoning. The Minister states in the report in respect of the 330 rapid build homes that are advancing that there are 11 projects but nothing is happening. I went to the trouble to visit the site in George's Place before I came into work. Nothing has happened. There is a lovely private mews with a roof on it that was not there three weeks ago, which has been built by someone in the private sector. Is the Minister serious about tackling the housing crisis? I checked in with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council earlier. There are 5,079 applicants on the housing list. That includes a multitude families and children and, therefore, the number of people on the list is greater than that. I would like the Minister to address that.

I will finish with one final example. It relates to a place called St. Laurence's Park in Stillorgan, near the shopping centre. It has 16 housing units, of which 14 are empty and boarded up. Despite considerable correspondence between myself and the Department and the local authority, they remain empty. How can we justify having 14 units lying empty for over five years? There are only two people in there, who say they wish to stay and want to be left alone to live there. Why can someone not come out and respond? The Department talks about its delivery unit. A parliamentary question was asked last week regarding the delivery unit. We were told in the response that there were only four people in this special delivery unit. How can we have confidence in a unit with only four people? It is clearly under-resourced. To be fair to the Minister, he did refer to that.

I have two things I ask for. The first that the Minister would visit St. Laurence's Park in Stillorgan and satisfy himself that these 14 units are there and empty and put a plan in to have them fast-tracked and opened for people on the housing lists. The second, is that the Minister should cancel any arrangement to proceed with 12 rapid houses in George's Place when it has a major town centre.

I will finish by going to the third item. This relates to Pillar 3. I am delighted that the Minister signed the order regarding fast-track planning on Friday. That is to be welcomed. Given that there is a housing crisis, it is a little disappointing that after this legislation was rushed through the House before Christmas in 2016 and we were assured that it would be up-and-running with regard to fast-track planning, that it has taken so long. Nevertheless, we are where we are and it is now in place and to be welcomed. It is a complex system to follow and because of the processes and the 16-week period. Someone in the private sector did up an infographic and I can make this available to the Department. They could look at this, do an infographic and circulate it both to the elected members around the country and to the officials. The scheme is slightly cumbersome and it would be helpful to people. I had reservations about it but I wish it well.

On this matter, could the Minister say how people might access it. When we debated the legislation there was an issue about fees. How are elected members, be they Members of the Oireachtas or the 31 local councils, supposed to interact as people with a democratic mandate? There was some suggestion that there could be a reduction in fees for them.

I thank the Minister and acknowledge that ultimately we are here to review a Government document, Rebuilding Ireland, in the first quarter. There were 48 items on it, 13 are complete, 26 on schedule and nine incomplete. That is a good day's work and I acknowledge it.

I have a couple of questions. I was the only one who did not get to ask anything last week.

What interaction is there with local authorities throughout the country and particularly in larger areas such as Dublin and Cork? What interaction is there in encouraging them and coming forward with site applications or plans for various State-owned lands that we can move on? Without being parochial, Deputy Boyd Barrett, Senator Boyhan and myself could list a number of sites that are being actively moved on. I wonder what consultation is happening on those levels?

On Pillar 4 and the rental sector, is there an update on the amount of student accommodation that is in the pipeline? If student accommodation can be provided, it frees up existing houses in the private sector that families can be housed in.

Under Pillar 5 and utilising existing housing stock, I am familiar with the site that Senator Boyhan spoke of. It is near Stillorgan bowling alley. We had complications there, where a bigger plan was envisaged for that site but it is something that needs to be moved on. The funding was made available to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to move on that so what pressure is being put on local authorities throughout the country to deliver on these sites?

We will move on to Pillars 3, 4 and 5 now.

I have a few quick questions.

My interaction the last day was about the infrastructural fund and the logic around rolling that out over a four-year period instead of advance-funding it all at one time. Do fiscal rules prevent that €200 million from being rolled out? As I pointed out the last time, if we are not rolling the last €50 million out for another four years, it could be four or five years before that will have an effect, and we could have a time lag of eight years.

The fast-track planning process was due for around 21 May and I saw newspaper articles this morning indicating that it is in place.

I have a point of clarification on rent pressure zones, and I spoke to the Chairman before I came in. We were meant to commence a review of that in June and I believe that will happen shortly. I raised a point a while ago about how rent pressure zones are calculated. My concern was that if one met the two criteria when the Minister brought it in - one was the rent was above average, and the other was that in four out of the previous six quarters, rent inflation was above 7% - that was fine, and the whole of Dublin, Cork and a number of other areas came in automatically after that Bill was passed. We do a continuing review of that, and more local areas come in, with the possibility of some falling out. I asked a question, because we are doing a continuing review, about the areas that came in initially, which will not meet the criterion for inflation in four out of the last six quarters in the next quarter when it comes to an end. Those areas should, if it is being reviewed, actually fall out, because there will be three quarters now where there has been a less than 7% increase. I am not sure who came back with the answer, but I did not fully understand it today. Is there a second criterion which is being applied to rent pressure zones to make sure that these areas continue to stay in the rent pressure zones? Otherwise, they will automatically fall out at the end of this quarter because of the three quarters in which there was a less than 7% increase.

I spoke briefly on vacant properties. I think we should be doing much more with them. I do not think the target that we have of 800 is sufficient. Maybe there is a policy document coming, but one thing I have found in my local area is that the policy of commercial properties on the ground floor in towns is preventing them from being converted to residential properties. People are putting in planning applications to convert both upstairs and the street level into residential properties, but they are all being refused because it does not meet the local area plan. Is there any way we can get around that apart from doing material alterations to the town plan or a review of the town plan? It is preventing a number of properties from coming back in that could be used. I am not talking about cities, but about towns throughout the country where there are significant vacant properties at street level that could be converted to residential properties, and if the demand is there in time, they could be converted back to commercial properties. It would revitalise the towns. Those are just a few points. I think we have an opportunity with vacant properties and I have said it over and over again.

I agree with previous speakers. I looked at the five pillars again over the weekend. I am disappointed to be sitting here. When I originally read the proposal - around Christmas - we all stayed and were all delighted to make sure that things were going to be going on track. We are 12 months on and we are talking about infrastructure investment of €226 million, and we need to address this. That was there for empty houses, for homes for people. I do not see an improvement in the number of empty houses that are still vacant.

On that particular pillar, we are talking about affordable homes. Mortgages are an issue. I have brought this up because it is linked to the 31 local authorities. The criteria for mortgages, where people do not qualify to go on the housing list - Carlow is one of the lowest - causes people to fall through the net. They do not qualify for mortgages, but there is no incentive from local authorities, because a person has to get refusal from banks and building societies. This needs to be promoted to stop homelessness, and people need to be helped to get mortgages. Local authorities have to work with them and give them incentives so that they can get mortgages. The situation where a person is refused by a bank and a building society needs to be looked at, because if a person does not qualify, he or she has nowhere to go and becomes homeless.

I have concerns about the new builds. I am aware there is a grant for the first-time buyer, if he or she buys or builds, of €20,000. I hope the Minister will not change that because it is crucial for those who are buying for the first time. We need to promote this more, but we also need to look at the bigger picture when we are told there is this funding so that those who cannot afford to buy a new house might get some incentive to buy a vacant property. I am aware of the scheme in Waterford and Carlow, and that is rental. We need to provide an incentive for those who cannot afford a new house because many have come to me who have been pricing new houses and house prices have gone up. They cannot afford to buy a new house but they are asking if there is any help with buying a second-hand house. Is there some incentive for that?

My biggest issue is the lack of supply. I am so disappointed to see there is a €70 million roll-out fund to purchase vacant properties. I just cannot understand this or the €153 million provided in 2017 to local authorities to operate. Where is all the funding going when homelessness is getting worse, when people cannot afford to buy a house and when they do not qualify to go on the local authority housing lists? I have stated previously, and will say again, that the 31 local authorities need to have their own initiatives. I read the five pillars. I am aware everything is Dublin based and I understand that much of the Minister's work is done through Dublin because homelessness is more prevalent in Dublin but this is an action plan to be rolled out for Ireland. I feel for rural areas. For example, the fast-track planning for 150 houses does not affect small rural communities because there are not too many builders who will build 150 houses in one go. I would welcome that. I would love to see that in rural areas. We would go mad for it, but it is not happening. It is rural areas that are falling down.

In regard to the HAP initiative which I brought up on the previous occasion, I am adamant there needs to be a plan put in place so that landlords accept the HAP. I take issue with that. That is another reason people are becoming homeless. The HAP is a good scheme and I have said I have no problem with it, but in many areas landlords are not taking it. Landlords have that choice. If one telephones the landlord, he or she will say it is his or her choice whether to take a tenant on the HAP. That is where we are falling again.

I was unhappy with the initiative of certain areas, such as Dublin, Kildare and Naas, being picked for extra funding with the rent allowance where one had to qualify. Only certain areas were eligible for that initiative. That should have been rolled out to help with the rent allowance. They made a plan, and seemingly certain areas were targeted, but that plan should have been rolled out across the country. It is so unfair when there is a plan, and where seemingly certain areas meet this criteria, that these will get help with the rent allowance. That should have been available in all 31 local authorities areas while we have a housing crisis. Until this housing crisis ends, every local authority, whether urban or rural, should be treated the same, and that is not happening. Even though Dublin is suffering and we have to help, rural areas are not qualifying for many of the pillars the Minister is bringing forward and it is unacceptable.

I thank the Senator. I will go back to the Department.

Mr. John McCarthy

Some of Senator Boyhan's earlier questions were to do with Pillars 1 and 2 and I might leave those for the Minister, who will be dealing with Pillars 1 and 2 in totality when he comes in. I might refer to the St. Laurence's Park example because it is a broader issue of vacant housing which came up separately.

In terms of vacant housing within the public housing stock, we have made significant progress over the past number of years in bringing vacant social housing units back into use. In overall terms, the figure is in excess of 7,000. Some local authorities report - certainly, one of the larger Dublin local authorities would have made reference to it - having fewer than 50 units vacant at any point in time as part of almost the normal churn.

However, there can be situations, and I think the Chairman was referring to this, where units can be vacant as part of a regeneration-type project. Based on what Senator Boyhan has said, there may be two or three households that are still in situ. We will continue to engage with the council because, as the Chairman has said, it has been engaging with us, and on the issues of funding, etc.

Reference was made to the broader issue of our engagement with local authorities generally as part of driving momentum with regard to the social housing programme. On a structured basis, the Department would have quarterly engagements with the housing team in the local authority and that provides an opportunity for a comprehensive run through of its programme to deal with any issues arising and to push on because our message to local authorities and indeed to approved housing bodies is that they should bring forward the projects and significant funding is available. In respect of the social housing pipeline update we published along with the quarterly progress report, in the space of the three months of quarter one, we have seen the pipeline increase from about 8,400 units to over 10,000 so in the space of one quarter, the pipeline has expanded quite significantly but that is something we want to maintain. This momentum is really what it is all about.

Apart from those structured quarterly engagements, we would have a range of engagements with local authorities, particularly but not exclusively in the areas of greatest pressure. We meet very regularly with all of the Dublin local authorities. A delivery group is in place for Cork, which involves bringing the two local authorities there together with the Department and other players. We have a lot of bilateral engagement with individual local authorities, particularly from a problem-solving point of view. There can be many issues such as those relating to cost, messy sites or planning but our overall approach is to try to engage with local authorities on a problem-solving basis. I am not saying there will not be difficulties because they exist. There are knotty issues where we find ourselves having to work hard with local authorities to work through them to get to a point where we are delivering a quality product and value for money.

In respect of the fast-track planning system, which was mentioned by a number of members, as Senator Boyhan said, the regulations have been made and that will kick off next Monday. I acknowledge that it took us a little bit longer than we would have liked. Ultimately, we ended up with 70 pages of regulations. It became quite complex and we were determined to ensure that we got it right. The Senator's point about information and infographics is well made. If the Senator has documentation, we will certainly take that on board. I know An Bord Pleanála has plans to publish its own guidance relating to the process and will be holding an information session on the new arrangements on Wednesday, 5 July. We will certainly take that piece from the Senator.

In respect of State lands referenced in the quarterly progress report, we have taken the first steps to pull together the bulk of State land potential for housing in a single mapped database that is now available online. Again, we are engaging with all of the local authorities, particularly where there are sites that have significant scale potential, to move those sites forward. Dublin City Council is already progressing a number of sites, as is South Dublin County Council with regard to one very large site. In parallel with that, the Housing Agency has a prepared a land management plan for the 70 sites in the land aggregation scheme.

On the basis of its work, it sees about half having immediate potential and the other half more medium-term potential. The process of engaging with local authorities on those sites is getting under way.

On housing delivery generally, we have put much focus on State lands because we recognise they have potential, not just for housing delivery per se, but for mixed housing projects beyond the 10% social housing requirement and for some affordable rental. They are quite important in the overall mix of housing supply coming forward.

Mr. David Walsh has up-to-date figures for student accommodation.

Mr. David Walsh

We have figures from the Higher Education Authority up to April 2017. It is calculated that since Rebuilding Ireland was published in July 2016, 1,067 additional student beds have come online. This breaks down broadly to 600 controlled and owned by the higher education institutes and 470 privately owned. A further 9,830 are in various stages of planning and are expected to be delivered by 2019. That includes 4,300 under construction, 3,500 where permission has been applied for and about 2,000 where permission has been granted.

Mr. John McCarthy

One of the commitments in the Rebuilding Ireland strategy is the preparation of an overall student accommodation strategy by the Department of Education and Skills. My understanding is that this is at a fairly advanced stage and should be finalised shortly.

Regarding the rolling out of LIHAF, the local infrastructure housing activation fund, there is a budget available to us every year. However, we have tried to ensure it will allow the actual infrastructural works that are capable of being delivered in any one year, taking account of procurement and other issues which need to be gone through. However, as is always the case with the housing budget generally, we keep it under ongoing review. Accordingly, if there are pressures in some areas and scope in others, we are always amenable to moving moneys from one programme to another if it ultimately gets us the best outcomes. We will continue to keep that under review.

The review of rent pressure zones that was signalled has commenced. There is a public consultation process under way which closes this Friday.

On the Deputy's question about areas that arose, I will follow up with him on the reply he got. From what he said, it was not entirely clear as to what happens in the circumstances in question. There is a provision in the legislation which allows the Housing Agency to review an area where a rent pressure zone applies, if it considers the housing market has changed and should no longer be designated as a zone. I am not sure that was made 100% clear to the Deputy in the reply. I will follow up separately on that.

Last week when he was at the committee, the Minister touched on the vacant housing strategy. He indicated a significant amount of work has been done on it but he just needs to take a little bit of time to look at it. Some interdepartmental engagement will also be required before it can be finalised. Bringing forward that strategy is a reflection of the seriousness with which the potential of vacant properties from a housing point of view is being taken. That said, we have some experience of several local authorities which have taken some of the census data and what it tells them about where it would seem there are significant concentrations of vacant properties. In some areas - it is not uniform by any means - they have done on-the-ground surveys.

It seems as if at least some of the property that emerged in the census as vacant has in the meantime come back into use for private housing or other purposes. As I stated, a broader issue in this regard is being examined as part of the vacant housing strategy.

On planning exemptions and the matter of ground floor and upper floor units, we intend to make exempted development regulations that would allow for the conversion from commercial use to residential use. The question, however, was more about the inclusion in the development plan or local area plan of an objective not to allow that. My first reaction is that there are probably only two ways to get around that. Mr. Walsh can certainly correct me if I am wrong. There would either be a material contravention permission or a review or variation of the development plan. In the short term, the material contravention might very well be the quicker way of dealing with it.

With regard to mortgages, which were raised by Senator Murnane O'Connor, we are certainly considering the current mortgages that are available through local authorities to determine whether they can be better promoted and so there can be a better understanding in regard to them. Ultimately, we have to ensure that to whatever extent local authorities are giving mortgages, it is on the basis of sound credit policies. We have had that conversation before. It is a matter we all know about and understand.

One of the points the Senator raised strays into a broader issue, that of affordability more generally. It also concerns limits for access to social housing and what is occurring in the private market, be it in regard to rental or purchasing. We have indicated that the income limits for eligibility for social housing will be reviewed in the second half of the year. We will be taking that forward after the summer. There is, however, a question over some of the further measures the Minister and Taoiseach have flagged that might be wise to consider. Maybe this is something the committee may wish to consider as part of the review process in which the Minister is now engaging. It concerns whether there are things we should be doing in the space between eligibility for social housing and market housing, be it rental housing or housing for purchase. We must determine whether more needs to be done regarding what might be termed as the affordable space.

The Senator referred to a few figures and budgets of different amounts. She may have been reflecting on the question of whether the money is being spent. Certainly, the money is very much being spent. The most recent figure in my head is that about €540 million from the housing budget has been spent thus far in the year. That is probably between two and a half to three times what was spent at this time of the year in 2016. This obviously reflects the fact that the budget is higher but also that the pace of expenditure and the momentum in the programme have ramped up quite significantly.

Is that from the capital budget or the capital and current budgets combined?

Mr. John McCarthy

It is from capital and current. It is the totality. We can get the Deputy a breakdown of the two if he wishes. My recollection is that the current expenditure profile for this year is broadly the same as for last year because there tend to be more ongoing payments. It is really the capital piece that is showing the significant increase.

Senator Murnane O'Connor referred to issues around rural Ireland and certainly we do not see Rebuilding Ireland as a plan for Dublin or Cork but as a plan for Ireland. Even in the social housing projects pipeline, a very significant number of projects are distributed across local authorities around the country.

In regard to the Housing Assistance Payment, HAP, in particular, we are very conscious of the pressures in the rental market and the importance of ensuring that landlords are aware of the benefits that HAP can bring from their point of view as well as from the tenants' point of view. In fact, this morning there is an information session for letting agents and others involved in property to try to promote the HAP scheme. In overall terms the target for HAP in 2017 is for an extra 15,000 HAP tenancies. At this point in the year - someone might be able to get me the figure - notwithstanding the pressures in the rental market, we are on target to achieve that figure of 15,000 tenancies this year. At this stage we have reached just over 7,000 new tenancies.

If I understood the question, Senator Murnane O'Connor asked about the flexibility of the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme. There is flexibility nationwide to go beyond the rent limits, but there is an additional level of flexibility when it comes to homeless households. Apart from that, local authorities across the country have flexibility, in the event of needing to use it.

I think I have covered most of the questions raised at this stage.

Chairman, are Mr. McCarthy's responses supposed to be the responses to our questions the last time?

No. They are the replies to questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 will not be answered until the Minister comes to the meeting, as he wants to answer Deputy Boyd Barrett directly. Obviously there will be an overlap.

Did Deputy Casey wish to clarify something, as I am aware he will have to leave the committee for ten minutes?

I am coming back for the planning Bill. If I understood correctly, I think it will come into play on Monday and there is an information session on Wednesday. Have the developers had much engagement with the board on the fast-track planning process? I have a specific point, that I raised with the Department directly. During the passage of the fast-track planning legislation in the Dáil, it was definitely my understanding in respect of the second period of extension, that any development that had commenced and where substantial works had been done would automatically qualify for the second period of extension. It came as a bit of a shock to me when we got information from the Department that this was not the case. A planning permission will only get a second period of extension if it had commenced works in the first phase and not in the first period of the extension. In fairness, the Department has been engaging with me on this and we are hoping to solve this problem through the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill that is in the Dáil, however that Bill has been kicked down the road for the past three weeks. I do not know when it will pass.

In a great many proposed developments, the planning permission is running out of time. I gave an example of a development in Kildare, where it was proposed to build more than 80 units. Some 30 units are already occupied, a further 30 or more are almost complete, but the planning permission is due to run out next week. There is nothing in the legislation to allow the developer to continue with the work. That is only one site. There are probably a number of sites in similar circumstances. We need clarity. The Department had hoped that the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill would be enacted before the summer recess. The clock is ticking fairly fast. It will have significant implications if we do not deal with this issue. There was an oversight. We did not realise the mistake until the Department came back and stated clearly that the development must have commenced during the period of the original planning permission to qualify for the second period. That was not the intention.

Does Senator Murnane O'Connor wish to clarify something?

On the question of HAP, perhaps I did not explain what I wanted to know. I know that one can make a special case, and that will be taken into account.

The midlands rent unit is gone. We always had what was called rent allowance, but it has gone back to the local Intreo social welfare office. However, trying to get the first time payment now can be an issue. Everybody is entitled to one first time payment for a local deposit if one is renting a house for the first time. It is an issue in that sense. If one is not on the local authority housing list at present, one does not qualify for rent allowance unless one has an exceptional need. Originally, when one applied for rent allowance one could get it without a problem. Now, however, the first question one will be asked is whether one is on the local authority housing list. If one is not, it is very hard to get rent allowance. In my area it has gone back to the Intreo social welfare office in Carlow and I find that I talk to that office three or four times a day, which is an issue. These issues are getting worse as they are moved from one area to another.

I have another question about pillar 3 on buying houses. What is the plan for buying houses into the future? Clúid Housing, Respond! Housing Association and Co-operative Housing Ireland play a massive part in local authorities, but they have not been mentioned once here. These are areas where I believe we are falling down. Clúid Housing and Respond! Housing Association have been building and buying houses, while Co-operative Housing Ireland has got very big again. I noticed that it was not there for a few years but it is now back on trend. What role do we play with local authorities and these associations? There is the issue that people cannot buy them out, but if they are building and buying we will happily take them.

Under Pillar 3, there is €226 million for 34 projects in 15 local authorities across the country whereby 23,000 new homes will be built by 2021. That is unacceptable. Who decides the 15 local authorities? There are 31 local authorities so there is something missing for certain local authorities. They are not getting the chance they should get.

Perhaps the Minister would clarify those matters.

I am sorry to see that Mr. McCarthy has an arm injury. I hope it has nothing to do with our new Minister giving him a hard time in the last week.

Mr. John McCarthy

Of course not.

He has not been strong-arming Mr. McCarthy or twisting his arm.

I refer to Pillar 3, first, and the local infrastructure housing activation fund, LIHAF. I am increasingly concerned that the original intention of this scheme, which was to assist in the delivery of affordable units, will no longer happen. A sum of €226 million has been awarded in principle to a range of projects. Last August, under a circular from the Department, local authorities were given guidance on what the affordability component should be. The circular says clearly that a minimum of 40% of homes delivered should be available at prices 10% below the average cost of market housing, including under €300,000 in Dublin and comparative affordability outside Dublin. Given the cohort of people for whom affordable housing is required, in real terms one is looking to €230,000 to €260,000 as opposed to €300,000. In September a new circular was issued which stated that it might not always be possible to deliver 40% of the new homes under the LIHAF bids at prices 10% below the average cost of market housing. When I questioned the previous Minister, Deputy Coveney, on this some weeks ago he essentially said that the criteria are now up to the local authority in its negotiations with the developers. I am hearing from colleagues in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, for example, that there might be no affordability in terms of the affordable units in the development that is benefitting from taxpayers' money.

What is the Department's target for affordability? What is it considering in terms of the percentage of units and the price of units? The Minister gave a clear commitment that if affordability was not delivered the funding would not be released. Can that be confirmed? If we meet again in a few weeks and we see units in Cherrywood at €350,000, €380,000 or even €400,000, many of us will wish to know why any of that LIHAF funding is being disbursed. I am very concerned about that.

I am also concerned about reports in the Sunday Business Post relating to the review of the all-in costs of construction which the Department and the Housing Agency are conducting. It is a newspaper report so it might not be accurate, which is not to cast aspersions on the Sunday Business Post, but it appeared to suggest that there might be a reassessment of apartment standards. There has been intensive lobbying by some of the large developers in terms of car parking spaces, the number of lift shafts, dual aspect and so forth. I seek an update on the review of the all-in costs and some further detail on it.

Many of us have concerns around issues of fire safety, particularly in the context of what we hope will be a very significant increase in new public and private stock coming on stream. We have all been raising the Milford Manor report from Newbridge and asking for updates through parliamentary questions, although we have not been getting much clarity. My questions are very specific. How long has that fire safety report been on the desk in the Department? What are the issues delaying its publication and when is it hoped that it will be published in some form or another? It is a key report in terms of the kinds of matters about which we are all concerned.

With regard to private rental, the fourth pillar, what is going on with the cost rental model? We have been talking about this for two or three years and we are hearing from Dublin City Council, for example, that with the Oscar Traynor road site, there may not be a cost rental element to it. Nobody knows what that model is looking like. In South Dublin County Council, the manager has already excluded cost rental from the joint venture that is being proposed for Kilcarbery-The Grange as there was not a model. Even the Minister when he was before us the last day said we were progressing cost rental. I do not see it. My understanding is there is one project and perhaps clarity can be provided on that. The Housing Agency outside of Dublin, perhaps in Greystones, may have some element of cost rental. There is no point in us talking about this now as it is two years since the ESRI report and we do not have a model. Could we have an update on that?

I do not want to open a big debate on short-term let regulations so I will not look for any detail aside from the following. Why has it taken seven months from the An Bord Pleanála decision for the first meeting of the working group in the Department? It seems to be an incredibly long period and we were all quite surprised to learn that when the departmental officials were here last week. What pressure is being directly brought to bear on Airbnb to provide the data it has so far been unwilling to share with officials or Members of the Oireachtas that would give us a real sense of whether there is a problem with commercial landlords abusing those online platforms?

Will we get a timeline on when the vacant homes report will be published? I appreciate the new Minister wants some time to examine the draft on his desk and I am quite heartened by some of the comments from him and the new Taoiseach. Clearly if it did not include a vacant home tax, for example, there would be no stick to match the carrot. Will the targets be more ambitious than the 3% of vacant stock that the Department and the action plan currently has and will more money be allocated to that?

I also have a miscellaneous question. I understand there is a departmental working group currently examining regulations of approved housing bodies. As we know, there is an issue around the potential for the redesignation of approved housing bodies as on-balance sheet State bodies, as has happened in Britain. That would have major implications for the funding of Rebuilding Ireland and conversations we will have with the credit union sector and approved housing bodies regarding potential additional lending. Could we get an update on the discussions about the regulation of approved housing bodies and when it is expected that the legislation will come to us? Do the witnesses have any fears with regard to EUROSTAT, the Central Statistics Office and the current review being done on the status of approved housing bodies as non-State entities rather than State entities?

I asked the last time about fire safety and I know it is not our primary topic.

We will speak about it at the end of the meeting, probably under Pillars 1 and 2.

I can come back to it. With regard to the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme, I asked last time how the Department would deal with the fact that approximately 75% of the original Rebuilding Ireland plans to deliver social housing between now and the end of the programme are based on the scheme. I asked if this would be reviewed, given the near-certainty that this is not possible. I contend it is certainly not possible to reach that target. Is there any recognition on the Department's side that the targets envisaged for the delivery of HAP cannot be reached? It is important. The 110,000 figure was given for social housing of various sorts, including direct builds, those from approved housing bodies, the HAP, the rental accommodation scheme and so forth. The figure approximates to the number of families or households on the housing list. I presume that is why the figure was given.

To deal with the housing and homelessness crisis we need a plan to eliminate the waiting list. Is the plan to eliminate the list and does the Department have a plan to do so? If the majority of what is proposed in Rebuilding Ireland is dependent on the housing assistance payment scheme, which I perceive to be the case, is there now a recognition within the Department that a substantial portion of that plan cannot be achieved? To demonstrate this, I would like to give a couple of examples.

A family of two adults and two children on a single income of €41,000 does not quality for HAP because of the thresholds, which I also asked about. The minimum rent for a three bedroom house in south Dublin, which this family would need, is €2,350 per month or €28,000 per annum. As I said, the family's net income is €41,000 per annum. They also receive €3,360 per annum in child benefit, giving them a total income of €44,360 per annum. As the family does not qualify for the housing assistance payment, after they have paid their rent they have €16,000 per annum remaining for all other expenses. Some 63% of this family's income is spent on rent and they do not qualify for housing support. For a family of one adult and one child in receipt of one parent family payment or jobseeker's transition payment, the income per annum is €11,585 plus child benefit of €1,680, giving a total of €13,265 per annum. The minimum rent for a two bedroom apartment in the Dún Laoghaire-south Dublin area, which they would need, is €1,800 per month or €21,000 per annum. The housing assistance payment for this area is €1,250 per month or €1,500 if a person or family is homeless, which equates to a maximum payment for a homeless person or family of €15,000 per annum, leaving a deficit of €6,650 per annum. It should not be forgotten that as part of the HAP scheme people have to pay 16% in rent to the local authority. The total rent payable by this family is €9,000 per annum or 68% of their income. These people cannot even access that accommodation. It is unavailable to them. What does the Department propose to do about this? Does the Department have a plan to address it? Is there a recognition within the Department that it does not have a solution to these issues and that the degree to which the housing plan is dependent on HAP needs to be radically re-examined and similarly the thresholds to allow for housing support for people whose income is a little above the thresholds?

In regard to the statistics around delivery under HAP, including the 12,075 delivered in 2016 and the 15,000 it is projected will be delivered this year, how many of those are recategorisations of people on rent allowance? At first glace one would think 12,000 new social housing units were delivered last year and a further 15,000 will be delivered this year but if the majority of them, as I strongly suspect, are recategorisations of people previously in receipt of rent allowance and are therefore still in the same private rented property with the same landlord and the same insecurity, critically, because we now know that HAP does not guarantee security, then that is not social housing provision. It is not new social housing. It is not social housing at all because there is no guarantee.

In regard to the 10% social mix and so on, the biggest housing developments in the Dún Laoghaire area in recent times are Honeypark and Cualanor, which are being built in two phases, one under the 20% provision and the other under the 10% provision.

There are 848 units adding up to 108,000 sq. m. Are we measuring in units or in metres? Is there a real social mix here or is it a question of land? In Honeypark the Part V requirement should have added up to either 169 units or else 21,692 sq. m. under the old 20% rule. What we got in reality were 80 social and 63 affordable units with a square meterage of very considerably less than 10%.

I am not going to cut Deputy Boyd Barrett off but I have given him seven minutes and I have two more speakers to get in. I will come back to him after the other two have had their opportunity to speak.

I will conclude on that particular point. What we got in the second phase was two units and 1,000 sq. m. short of the 10% rule. In neither phase were any of these units houses. They were all apartments. There were both houses and apartments in the overall development but the social allocation only got apartments, smaller apartments. Where is the social mix in that?

I am going to have to interject because, to be fair, they were allocated before the Rebuilding Ireland plan. What we are discussing here today is the progress report on that plan.

The second phase was under the Rebuilding Ireland plan. That is taking place now, Chairman.

I accept that but those agreements were made before the Rebuilding Ireland plan. I am not going to get into it with the Deputy. I want to let Senator O'Sullivan and Deputy Cowen in and then I will get back to Deputy Boyd Barrett.

I want to know if we will be getting 10%.

Could we have a timeline on the vacant housing re-use strategy? Mr. McCarthy also spoke about vacant commercial units. Could we also have a timeline on new planning regulations to allow change of use?

Deputy Cowen, please. We are covering Pillars 3, 4 and 5.

I would like to ask about Pillar 3, building more homes. A sum of €200 million was allocated to what used to be called a serviced land initiative, an infrastructure fund for the provision of opening sites and so forth. How much has been drawn down to date? What percentage has been used?

My second question concerns the publication of the sites in the ownership of public authorities and others and the seeking of expressions of interest. What processes have been put in place for us to analyse what progress has been made on this? What onus and responsibility is on the Department and on the local authorities for movement here? How much inactivity on these sites would be required for the State to move on them for the provision of units?

With regard to the rental sector and the HAP scheme, how many people have been moved from HAP schemes into social houses in recent years? We were very nervous during the passing of the HAP legislation last year of the fact that it was unlikely to prove the short-term solution it was presented to be. Due to the unavailability of units we felt that people would be on this scheme for much longer, despite the commitment to the contrary by the then Government. The same Government remains in place so I would like to know what progress, if any, is being made on this issue.

Does the Senator require a clarification there?

I would like to come back at some point to Pillars 4 and 5 if I could.

Certainly. The Senator did not get in the last time.

My request for clarification concerned St. Laurence's Park and George's Place in Dún Laoghaire. I think the Minister is going to answer those questions so that is fair enough and I accept that. I would also like to address point 4.23, which is on page 47. This deals with accommodation in the rental sector. There are three points I would like to make about this. Is the Department prepared to engage with a policy shift towards publicly built, publicly owned properties that are privately rented on public lands? A number of people have touched on this issue. The reality is that there is lack of ability to even secure affordable accommodation, be it rental or purchase. There is a real case to be looked at again for properties that are publicly built and owned but privately rented. There is also social rental, but what of private rental? Deputy Boyd Barrett set out some issues there. We see all of the benefits of that and it is really important.

There was also a suggestion that we might have a national differential rent scheme. That was in the context of public housing but I would have a national differential rent across the board for everybody who cannot afford it. The reality is that people have to have the ability to pay, be it public or private. Perhaps the witnesses might touch on that.

I also have a question on point 5.5 on page 56.

It states, "We will review the Tenant (Incremental) Purchase Scheme following its first year of operation." I note that it is stated in the covering note:

The review is now complete and a full report setting out the findings and recommendations has been prepared. Following consultation with relevant Departments on implementation arrangements, it is intended that definitive proposals will be brought to the Minister in June 2017.

It would be great if the Department could share the review with us at some point. It is one of the key objectives the Department undertook. It is now done and marked off in the report as "Status: Complete", so I ask the witnesses to share it or circulate it at the appropriate time. Clearly, they will brief their Minister - that makes sense - but I ask them to bear this in mind and keep us in the loop.

Finally, action No. 5.9, on page 57 of the report, states: "We will review planning legislation to allow the change of use of vacant commercial units in urban areas, [ - this might have been touched on by my colleague next to me - ] including vacant or under-utilised areas over ground floor premises, into residential units without having to go through the planning process." In layman's terms, what does this mean? It will mean that the Department will recategorise such units or designate them as exempt developments. I presume that would be the thinking. There are issues in this regard. However, for various reasons, the Department did not proceed with this objective anyway. It was not progressed for whatever reason. I ask the witnesses to elaborate on the Department's intentions in this regard. The Department did not proceed with the objective at that time, but there are implications for the planning code of the reclassification of such a case to non-compliance or an exempt development. "Exempt development" is actually the term I need. I ask the witnesses to touch base on the Department's intentions in this regard.

Mr. John McCarthy

I will try to deal with those comments. I am conscious that the Minister will come back to Pillars 1 and 2. Deputy Casey has momentarily left the room, but yes, we have said we will address the issue of the second period of extension as part of a further legislative amendment in the planning and development Bill before the Oireachtas at present. It was scheduled, I think, for the week before last and did not get in but it is now in the indicative schedule for next week. If time permits in the Seanad, our objective would be to try to get it in and out of the Seanad as quickly as possible, obviously allowing the Seanad the time to consider it. That is in hand and I hope the Bill will get into and out of Report Stage in the Dáil next week.

Regarding LIHAF projects and State lands, I think Senator Murnane O'Connor referred to the fact that not every local authority secured LIHAF funding. That is the case, but my recollection is - and I am subject to correction on this - that not every local authority actually applied for funding. I think 21 of the 31 local authorities applied.

Is that acceptable when we have a housing crisis? To me, it is not. There should be enforcement though the Department to keep pressure on the local authorities because this is the way forward and it is what we must do. I think-----

What the Senator is saying is valid but I will let Mr. McCarthy finish and then let her back in.

Mr. John McCarthy

Absolutely. As part of the Government's capital plan review, it has been signalled that we would like to see more funding over the coming years becoming available for LIHAF. As part of that process we will certainly encourage all local authorities to identify where this could make a difference in their areas. We did so previously for all local authorities

Deputy Cowen raised LIHAF and the spend on it. There is no spend under LIHAF yet. The process at present is that local authorities are engaging with developers on the lands concerned with a view to concluding agreements. That process should be completed by next month-----

How much will be allocated in the full fiscal year?

Mr. John McCarthy

There is €50 million available this year, which will move on to - I cannot remember the figure. Certainly, it is to increase next year, but there is €50 million-----

Of the €200 million that was promised, only €50 million will be spent this year.

Mr. John McCarthy

That is what is provided for in the Estimates for this year. That is right.

I might ask Mr. Walsh to comment on the affordability issue, which Deputy Ó Broin raised. Mr. Walsh has been intimately involved in this. In overall terms, we are trying to ensure through LIHAF a kind of commensurate return from an affordability point of view for the investment that is made under LIHAF.

That can mean different things in different locations. That is part of the rationale for the approach we are taking. Mr. Walsh might step in on that point and I will then come back in on the other issues.

Mr. David Walsh

The Deputy is correct that when he issued the first call for proposals, it was setting a price cap of €300,000 and a certain proportion of the units would be facilitated under the scheme. When we engaged with local authorities and looked at the scale and spread of projects, in some cases people had applied for between €15 million and €25 million for major infrastructural projects such as bridges and new roads, while others were applying for smaller amounts. On the discount and benefit that would accrue in the State taking up the cost of infrastructure as opposed to being dealt with normally through development contributions, we amended the requirements to provide two options. A local authority could in negotiations with the developer either facilitate a reduction in the price of a certain proportion of the homes or reduce by a proportionate rate the entire price list. It is a matter for local authorities and developers to work out which of the options suits. Either a proportion of the houses would be at a substantially lower price level or there would be an affordability dividend attaching to every unit provided by the private sector.

What is the Department's threshold for affordability because clearly it is not what was included in the original circular anymore?

Mr. David Walsh

Unfortunately, it depends on the amount involved. The issue is the spread and scale of expenditure in some cases. Some local authorities have projects worth €15 million or €18 million, while others are receiving sums of €600,000 or €800,000. That might still open 800 units, but if the money is spread across them, the reduction will not be significant and it will depend on the location. While we are examining more broadly how to address the issue, the difficulty is with relative affordability in respect of what the prices were versus what can be delivered.

Affordability is based on what people can pay, not-----

Mr. David Walsh

The dividend from the LIHAF depends on the output, the price of the lands opened up and what will be facilitated through the local authority. The grant agreements allow for the local authority and the developer to come back. We have made it clear that until such time as the agreements are in place, no money will be paid out. If a local authority cannot reach an agreement, we will have to explore what we can do. The greatest risk is that we will pay out scarce capital funds and will either not deliver the infrastructure or will deliver it but the housing will not come through.

On the basis of what Mr. Walsh has said, there could, for example, be in Cherrywood a potential allocation of €15 million without any house coming in under €300,000. That is possible; therefore, there will be no affordability option.

Mr. David Walsh

That is possible until such time as we see what the local authorities and the developers come up with. It is primarily an agreement between the local authority and the developers or landowners.

Are there provisions, whatever method is used to decide the level of affordability, to prevent investors, even those potentially connected with the developer, from buying up the affordable housing units and then waiting for them to gain value before flogging them at a higher price?

Mr. David Walsh

Again, that is part of the grant agreement. A local authority may well identify certain cohorts and allow for them qualifying. The approach we are taking to both State lands and affordability is that local authorities will identify potential to have realisable units that can be earmarked for use as affordable housing. In some cases, they may create a list and agree criteria with the developer to apportion units or they may set an affordable price to bring the units more broadly into the market.

That was not my question.

Mr. David Walsh

I am sorry.

What is to stop investors from buying up all of the affordable housing units at whatever level the price is set?

In our own local authority, and I presume it is the same elsewhere, one applies for affordable housing through one's own local authority. That determines how one is eligible or not. That would stop someone who would not qualify from purchasing that unit.

But that is not clear.

That is what I am looking for clarification on, to simplify it. That was the method we always used on things such as rent to buy schemes.

Mr. David Walsh

The issue is the terms that are set down in the grant agreement between the developer and the local authority. We have not set a requirement that each local authority on LIHAF lands creates an affordable scheme and has a list. If a dividend is coming through, the local authority is best placed to determine how best to meet the needs of local people. The grant agreement will address that.

The Department needs to play a role in this. I have just read a report where a former senior executive in NAMA has gone into a fund with Hibernia Reit and another gang called MKN Property Group. They bought property in Tallaght. Supposedly some of it is for social housing. This is someone who has a conflict of interest having come from NAMA and big vulture funds coming into the affordable housing business and making money from it. What is to stop these people coming in and buying up supposedly affordable housing in Cherrywood, for example? I suggest there is nothing at all.

Let Mr. Walsh answer because we need to get answers to everyone's questions.

Mr. David Walsh

That will be addressed and captured in the grant agreement between the local authority and the developer. The terms and conditions associated with the reduced prices would be the proportion or a blanket reduction across would determine -----

Unless the Department tells them they cannot sell to these people.

Mr. Walsh is saying that would be in the terms of agreement.

Mr. David Walsh

Exactly.

Can we move on and get answers to the other questions?

While Mr. Walsh is here, I want to say something relevant to this point about LIHAF in the broader sense, rather than specifically on Cherrywood which is the one that I know best and on which I want answers. All moneys going to LIHAF are public moneys. Mr. Walsh makes a very valid point about the arrangements regarding the planning authorities and the agreements but ultimately, there has to be some sort of conditionality. Each local authority made an application for LIHAF which was validated and assessed. I know how the process worked. The reality is that at some point there has to be conditionality about affordability, which means different things to different people and places. Surely the Department and Minister must overarch this. We have to have conditions. The public would be rightly outraged if they thought that the Minister and the Customs House did not take an overarching view over the conditions. It is not good enough to point to, say, Dún Laoghaire Rathdown or Limerick County Council, and their processes. Ultimately one would think that serious conditions would be attached to allowing public funds assist private developers on the basis of putting in infrastructure. It was always intended that it would deliver units which would be affordable, social and, indeed, private. The conditionality and the Minister's oversight on the spending of substantial public funds needs to be examined. Mr. Walsh might clarify that for us. Where does his Department have overall oversight in terms of conditionality or what is the release of public funds to private developers?

Mr. David Walsh

The Department has engaged extensively with local authorities prior to when we put out our call for proposals, in our assessment and engagement post the approval of principle. We have an oversight committee that includes external bodies as well as people in the Department. All the grant agreements will come back in to the Minister and the Department for review. If we feel the terms are not being met in line with the circular the Department can engage primarily with the local authorities to ensure that we get the dividend in line with the principles set down in the original call for proposals.

We will come back for a second round, Deputy Cowen. Is it a quick clarification?

It is a question.

If the Deputy could ask it quickly.

It has not been answered so I would like to put it again.

Is it for Mr. Walsh or Mr. McCarthy?

It is for whomever wishes to answer it.

Mr. John McCarthy has not yet come back in with this round of answers.

He has. It related to HAP.

He has not yet come back on that. I am sorry, Deputy Cowen.

Mr. John McCarthy

Deputy Ó Broin mentioned the construction cost study and the question of whether we were in the business of running down standards. Certainly, that is not the space that we are in. That said, some have raised a question which, I suppose, requires to be considered. They asked whether, in areas where significant development might be possible and which are very significantly served by public transport, the car parking standard being applied is over the top.

It is in the centre we are talking about.

Mr. John McCarthy

There are parts of Dublin city, in particular in the city centre area, that are well served by public transport and there are ongoing public transport improvements. That work is at an advanced stage. There is another few weeks in it but I would certainly say that there is no more than that, and we will obviously then have to bring it to the Minister and to Government.

In terms of the Millfield report, I cannot tell the Deputy off-hand how long we have had it. I just cannot remember the date. The fundamental issue has been around.

Would it not be approximately six months?

Mr. John McCarthy

It has certainly been a few months. The issues have been legal issues around what we can or cannot publish. It would be fair to say we are pretty much there or thereabouts and I would hope that in the next few weeks we should be in a position to be able to complete that piece of work.

The Deputy also mentioned the issue of the cost rental model. There is a commitment on that in the rental strategy. I suppose there are two commitments. On affordable rental, the commitment is to take that forward on a case-by-case basis on individual State land sites where that is appropriate. We are engaging, in particular, with Dublin City Council, around what role it might be able to play in a number of the projects that it has brought forward. There is a broader question around cost rental and its role in the long term, and there is a commitment in the rental strategy that we will do an initial piece of work on that and complete it by the end of the year. That is still our target.

My question was, is there an actual model as opposed to an idea? What I am hearing from councillors in Dublin city, and from a manager in South Dublin, is that there is not.

I will have to be really strict because we are running out of time. I will allow Mr. McCarthy to answer all questions without interruption because Deputy Cowen's questions have not yet been answered, and members can come back in at the end. It would be easier if we let him finish.

Mr. John McCarthy

There is no one-size-fits-all model at this stage. What we have said in the rental strategy and what we have done in engagement with Dublin City Council is to use those projects, in effect, as testers for the development of a model, and look at the issues that throws up which then becomes a hugely informative piece for the work that needs to be done in the second half of the year in terms of the approach to cost rental more generally.

On the vacant strategy, all I can say is what the Minister stated last week, that he just wants to take a little bit of time to look at it. We will complete it as quickly as we possibly can. I cannot get into what it might or might not contain at this stage but we will certainly be working to try to wrap it up as quickly as we possibly can.

Senator Murnane O'Connor said I had talked about local authorities and had not made any reference to AHBs. I did, although perhaps in my muttering style, make reference to AHBs that are hugely important. They deliver very significantly for us and are important players as part of the implementation of Rebuilding Ireland.

That comes back to Deputy Ó Broin and the issue of reclassification. We had some discussion on this previously. That, obviously, is a significant issue and we are working closely with the CSO and with the AHB sector in regard to it. The last update we had from the CSO was that it was probably taking a little more time than it might have envisaged. Whether the CSO will come to a conclusion on it before the end of the summer or whether it will stretch to the autumn is not entirely clear at this stage. It then it moves on to EUROSTAT which will ultimately make the decision. It is certainly something for at least the second half of the year.

We are certainly alive to the potential implications that might flow from this and honestly engaging with the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Finance on it in order that we will be as prepared as we can be in terms of what it might yield.

The Deputy also referred to the regulation of the approved housing body sector. Publication in the current session of a Bill dealing with the issue has been committed to and we are practically there. I cannot be sure, however, whether we will actually have it published before the Dáil rises for the summer or whether it will be published the following the week, but at this stage, it looks as if we will have it published before the end of July and be in a position to take it through both Houses in the autumn.

Some of the matters raised by the Deputy are Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 issues. I will leave it to the Minister to respond on them in line with the agreement. I gather from people moving that he must be on his way.

Senator Grace O'Sullivan mentioned the timeline for the housing strategy. As I said to Deputy Eoin Ó Broin, it will be done as soon as possible. The Minister wants to take a little time to look at it.

In effect, the new planning regulations will be exempted development regulations which in due course will be brought before this committee for consideration. We will try to finalise them over the summer in order that, come September, when the Houses are back, they will be in a position to deal with them quickly.

Deputy Barry Cowen's question was about the number of HAP tenancies and people who had transferred across into-----

Let me clarify matters because I checked the response I received to a parliamentary question. There are 22,000 people participating in the HAP scheme nationwide, while there are 1,500 eligible homeless families. Since the scheme was introduced in February 2015, only three have been moved to other social support schemes. Only 356 of the total of 22,000 have been moved to other social support schemes. We were guaranteed that people would be moved to a transfer list and considered appropriately in the provision of permanent solutions. How many of the 356 have been in involved permanent solutions? How many of the three homeless families have been involved in permanent solutions? The information is available from the inception of the scheme in February 2015 to date in the latest quarterly report, for quarter one, but it does not classify or clarify to what social support scheme they were moved. Unfortunately, it again paints a grim picture. Units are not being supplied and permanent solutions are not being provided. I have heard initial murmurings from the Minister about the issue of supply and the onus or responsibility being on the Department and local authorities to deliver social units. They need to do what we need to do, which is to build homes. I hope and expect to see new supply initiatives along the lines recommended by this committee and elsewhere. If legislation is required between now and the time the Dáil goes into recess, we are more than willing to help and accommodate the Government to allow it to be done.

The Department is answering questions on the HAP scheme. I asked a very specific question about it. How many HAP tenancies were delivered last year? Has the Department checked this year to see how re-categorisations there have been of rent allowance recipients?

Mr. John McCarthy

In respect of the figure of 356, they were all permanent solutions in either local authority or approved housing body tenancies.

What about the three homeless families?

Mr. John McCarthy

I think it is the same in the case of the three of them.

To respond to Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett's question, the mix between transfers from the rent supplement scheme and new clients coming through the door has been consistent since the start of the HAP scheme. It is one third to two thirds.

Approximately.

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes. On the one third transferring from the rent supplement scheme, one of the important benefits that accrues to the household is that they move to a differential rent payment. That means that if their circumstances and income change, they will not lose the support in its entirety, as would be the case if they were to reach a certain threshold under the rent supplement scheme when, in effect, it would fall off a cliff.

There is, however, no security. We will get the Minister to answer that question.

Mr. John McCarthy

Senator Victor Boyhan referred to the national differential rent scheme. That is the subject of a Q2 commitment this year under Rebuilding Ireland. Again, it is at an advanced stage and we will be in a position to complete it shortly.

The Senator also mentioned the review of the tenant purchase scheme. Once it is finalised and published and the Minister has had a chance to consider it, we will obviously bring it to the committee's attention at the appropriate time.

I welcome the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy. He will take up from where he left off last week.

I apologise for being late, but the Cabinet meeting did go on a bit.

Last week, Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor spoke about the homeless persons in hotels targets not being reached. Obviously, it is one of the first issues I have had to confront since being given this brief. The first target is to ensure new families who find themselves in the precarious position where they have to present as homeless will not be accommodated in hotels. That should not be the first response for them. The other target we have to meet is moving those families who are currently homeless and in commercial accommodation out of hotels. We have two competing targets which we are trying to meet.

I met the local authorities last Friday to again go through the numbers of new presentations this month. We spoke about finding a pathway for families who were still homeless and in commercial emergency accommodation. At the end of May, the figure was around 650 and I wanted to see what the solution for each of them could be. To understand it, I will continue to engage with the local authorities every day this week. I am due to meet them again tomorrow. There are a few commitments I have asked them to meet in working with me to have further clarity and provide more certainty for those families who find themselves in this difficult position. Up to 50 families will be accommodated in the Mater Dei centre. That is a first, not a last response. It is far superior to families being in hotels and emergency accommodation. Once we have them in a hub, we can provide wraparound supports and see them progress towards a more permanent solution which is more sustainable for them.

Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor said rural Ireland had been forgotten in the provision of housing in general and that the level of homelessness was just as bad outside Dublin. Unfortunately, when we look at the figures for homeless families, 85% of the problem is in Dublin, but that is not to say there are no supports available through the local authorities. If the Senator believes her local authority was falling down in a specific area, be it in the case of the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme, families or homeless persons with certain needs, she should let me know. Because of the constant interaction I have to have, if I have intelligence from Members, it would be helpful. We have schemes such as the buy and renew and the repair and leasing schemes, with which the Senator is familiar. I have looked at the figures for these two schemes and there is scope for significant improvement. In the coming months we can get the word out about them, linking with similar schemes which will come through under the vacant homes strategy which will be published later and as part of which, there will be a focus on the direct supply time measures.

The provision of hubs is being advanced in Limerick, Cork and Kildare. The housing assistance payment scheme for homeless families was rolled out recently in Cork where a place-finder was also put in place. There is no intention to have a hub in Carlow specifically. We are using other social housing mechanisms and the housing assistance payment scheme in this regard. If the local authority wants to approach me about the creation of a hub and believes it is necessary to do so, I am open to it. Again, the first target we need to meet is ensuring families who present as homeless are not accommodated in hotels.

I am very much open to that if it believes it is necessary.

The first target we need to meet is making sure families who present as homeless are not being accommodated in hotels. If there is a feeling in the Senator's local authority area that a hub is needed so families do not have to go into hotels, let us explore that.

Concerns were raised about the HAP scheme in general and about people being able to avail it. Considerable work has been done on this in recent months in regard to the new supports. I believe 350 people or households have been accommodated each week through the HAP. We launched an education initiative on the HAP for landlords so they could gain an understanding of their obligations and responsibilities, in addition to the benefits that accrue for them under the scheme, including greater resources in respect of what the market price might be and also the consistency that can be achieved in terms of the tenancy because of the payment being made through the local authority. As with everything, we keep these matters under review. If the Senator is worried about a particular issue in her local authority area, it is very easy to deal with specifics and to get working on them.

The Senator referred to a women's refuge in Carlow. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

I know. It concerns Tusla.

I have responsibility for the numbers concerning my Department but I am willing to talk to colleagues to determine whether there is another piece of work we can do on this issue. I will raise the issue with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

The Senator asked me to reconsider the various local authority social housing income thresholds. I will consider this but I do not want to give too strong a commitment on what we can do. I had a meeting yesterday on the mortgage-to-rent scheme we have had in place. I believe it was piloted in 2011 and rolled out in 2013. The uptake has not been as strong as we would like but there are reasons for this, including the difficulty of engaging with some borrowers. There have been difficulties in terms of the eligibility criteria and people understanding them. The meeting I had yesterday also covered long-term financing solutions, potentially for a further rolling out of the scheme. It is definitely needed. It is a question of discovering other financing arrangements.

I have another meeting later this week to determine whether there is a potential avenue in this regard. I will also be having discussions with the Minister for Finance on other matters that have been discussed previously. That would mean that we could see a lot more people moving more quickly to mortgage-to-rent arrangements. There was a review conducted of the scheme. A report was produced in February of this year. One of the points made concerned timelines and the fact that it takes too long for people who present with this problem to move to a solution. We need to narrow the timelines if we can. There is a proposal in this regard to be explored.

The other point about the mortgage-to-rent scheme, on which I wish to touch briefly, is that we need to find a scheme that will work not only for people who have a need for social housing but also those who need an affordable solution but who do not meet the threshold criteria in regard to social housing. That is a matter I am going to examine also.

The Senator asked about staffing in local authorities. Each chief executive is responsible for staffing in his or her area. In 2016, the previous Minister sanctioned an arrangement for each local authority chief executive to fill vacancies at grade 7, equivalent grades and below and to bring about a workforce plan without needing to seek approval from the Department to do so. They have been given greater autonomy in doing that. Since that happened, 646 additional staff have been approved by the Department to deliver on the goals in regard to our housing and rebuilding strategy.

I was asked about boarded-up houses being bought out for homeless families and whether funding is a problem. Funding is not a problem in that scenario. I mentioned the two schemes we have that can help in this regard. On vacant homes in general, there is a new plan or strategy to come out. I have reviewed that already and I have engaged with officials on it. It comes under another pillar and I will address it under that if we get a chance. There are some new ideas that I want to bring to bear on the strategy.

A sum of €32 million is available this year for the repair-and-leasing scheme. Some €25 million is available for the buy-and-renew scheme. The issue in this regard is getting people to understand that the scheme exists.

There is a lack of information.

Yes. There is some money in my Department to help if we want to do more about advertising to raise public awareness.

On the issue of voids, a new programme was commenced to try to deal with the backlog. A sum of €80 million was provided, and 7,000 social homes across the 31 local authority areas were remediated to a high standard. I acknowledge, however, that not every local authority is doing this to the same degree of efficiency.

I sat on Dublin City Council in 2009 and 2010 and I know that voids were a significant issue. Since then major progress has been made, but not every local authority has succeeded in meeting this standard. We have to continue to drive this in local authorities, because it is not acceptable that a significant number of voids continue for a long time, when families have housing needs.

On the question of de-zoned lands owned by the local authorities, again this is a function for the local authority, should it want to make a variation to its development plan and to rezone a piece of land, if it thinks that would be beneficial. I think it is important that the local authorities understand that. Of course, the Department is trying to centralise a land management initiative, so that we can get proper sight over what is available in each local authority and that we have a mapping of available land in place. This is a matter that I am reviewing at present, so that we can see how we can better deliver social land into new housing schemes. Many benefits will derive from such land use on the part of the State. I think part of what we are talking about in terms of what we need to do is rebalancing the fact that so much of this need was outsourced to the private market a number of years ago. When the market crashed, of course, a significant burden was placed on a number of people. As a principle, the State needs to make direct provision for social housing in the first instance. One can build other supports that we have seen working successfully in other countries around that.

On the question on the proposed council scheme in Carlow, which needs approval and for which the local authority needs the money, we did review the approval system for planning for construction projects and we are moving to put proper timeframes in place for each stage of the approval process. I know that certain elements, for example the delivery of the framework for procurement around rapid build is now successfully in place and that will help people move very quickly through the process. I think that since Senator Murnane O'Connor raised the issue, the Department will meet with Carlow County Council on the construction timeline. In terms of the figure of 138 units being approved, we want to see that expanded and the timeline met.

Deputy Dessie Ellis, who is not present, asked about the delivery of sufficient social housing and why the process is not working. At present, there are housing units on 607 sites in the pipeline, but in the first quarter of 2017, 1,600 units were approved. We have a very ambitious target of 47,000 units during the period of the programme but we have the funding behind it as well. We need to ensure that we are delivering on the commitments in the programme. It has been said in the course of the review that I am undertaking that if there is a need for a greater intervention in terms of the delivery of social housing units, we will make that intervention.

Deputy Ellis made the point that nobody was raising the issue of affordable housing. There is a number of sites that will come online in Dublin City Council - and I know that Deputy Ellis used to serve on the city council - where we can make an effort on supplying affordable housing that people can buy but also that people can rent. I think it is very important that we use what leverage we can in that regard to make sure that we are meeting those commitments. The former Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney had discussed with the committee ensuring that when we plan large housing schemes involving a significant number of people, we will have the right mix from private housing, affordable housing to buy, affordable housing to rent and social housing so that we can help build those new communities.

On the question of an over-reliance on the private market, where the minimum cost of a house at €300,000 is unsustainable, we are looking at initiatives to ensure new financing solutions or new schemes and initiatives for homes for first-time buyers are affordable. I had a meeting yesterday on an initiative that we may be able to introduce in that regard. I will be able to expand on that further in the coming weeks when we have a clear idea of the direction we will take on that.

Deputy Ellis also raised the issue of elderly people looking for suitable places to live.

Good work is being done with the different housing bodies and the local authorities in this regard. In the development I had the privilege to visit a couple of weeks ago 70 new homes were being delivered, and 16 of the occupants of those homes were elderly people who were moving out of larger homes that were once family homes but were no longer necessary. That is freeing up a further 16 homes in the local area for families. As part of this we must ensure that we are finding solutions for elderly people who want to move on to another stage of their lives or who no longer have a need for large housing. That is being done. It was achieved in the case I mentioned by carrying out an advertising campaign in the local area. That is how they were able to find people to move out of their larger homes. It was what those people wanted, in fact. They were seeking to move into a smaller home because it suited them in that stage of their lives, but it also worked in terms of the community and finding new homes for families.

With regard to public private partnership programmes and problems in delivery, good progress is being made on this. Some 1,500 social homes will be rolled out in three bundles and the total capital value of the programme is €300 million. The first bundle is six sites in the greater Dublin area. Deputy Ellis is probably familiar with the site in Finglas in his constituency. Some concerns have been raised there by local residents about the development, with a focus on the levels of social housing in the area. The development designs for the first bundle of six sites have been completed and the lodgement of the Part 8 planning application has commenced. We hope construction will commence next year with units becoming available in 2019, which will be very welcome.

There was also a question about a proposal for a State run entity that could deliver social and affordable housing. Deputy Ó Broin has an idea on this and for a pilot initiative to work with a local authority to deliver that. I told Deputy Ó Broin that it is something I will consider.

Deputy Ellis also spoke about the hubs and said they cannot be allowed to turn into long-term homes. I agree. To reiterate, the hub is a first response. It is a good first response and certainly is a better first response than hotels. We are moving quickly on this. Some 200 families will be supported in hubs as a result of the €10 million I approved last week. I have spoken with the local authorities, particularly in Dublin, and told them that if they can identify new locations for more hubs, if they consider them necessary, we can discuss funding for that. Again, it should be noted that it is just a first response.

Deputy Casey raised a good point - one that occurred to me as well - on the social housing projects in the quarterly reports. There are unique identifier numbers for each of the different units. To be perfectly honest, reading the quarterly report can be confusing at times. It is divided very well into the five pillars so we can talk about the different ways we must tackle this problem, but some of the initiatives cut across the pillars so it is important that we are not double counting something or getting confused about what is being delivered under which module or part of the plan. When we do the next quarterly report, and I have already spoken to the officials about this, we have to find a way to help people better track progress where it is happening so they can understand it more clearly. There were other suggestions about different columns that could be added and we will consider them as well.

Deputy Casey also asked about the rapid builds and why we are not delivering on them or delivering more. I raised this already today. There are 500 rapid build units advancing at present and by the end of the year 1,000 will be delivered or advancing. Part of the delay was due to the procurement process. That was solved by the previous Minister, Deputy Coveney, through the new framework in place. We hope this will progress more quickly as a result. Deputy Casey spoke about eight projects that appear to have gone backwards since the approvals process. Perhaps he will identify them to us so we can be clear about them and see if that is the case.

With regard to the fast-track planning, I have signed the order. It comes into effect on Monday, 3 July. On Wednesday, 5 July, An Bord Pleanála will hold an information meeting for local authorities, developers and others so they can understand what it means for them. I have also spoken to the Housing Finance Agency about it and what it means for it. I believe it is a positive development.

There was reference to a statement from the previous Minister, Deputy Coveney, that no local authority project had been refused.

To clarify, the process is the local authorities propose a project to the Department and it is not the other way around. The list contains all projects sent by local authorities to the Department and they can be approved.

It was stated that vacant properties are a win for everyone as infrastructure is already in place but the question was asked as to why we are only targeting 800 of the 198,000. I will get a better chance to speak about these figures when we publish our vacant homes plan. Very useful work has already been done around these figures relating to vacant homes. Of the 198,000, between 70,000 and 90,000 are in areas with high demand for housing, so automatically it is a lower figure. There are issues around short-term vacancies, meaning homes that are being sold or in the process of being re-let, and another amount is taken from the total. A certain number of homes are caught up in legal issues such as wills. There is still a healthy number we can target, and we must do that with a carrot and stick if we are to get those vacant homes into use. It will not amount to just 800 and the figure will be much bigger.

There is a target of 6,600 over the six years under what has already been announced. The real question is whether it will be more ambitious than that.

Yes, and it will not just be targeting homes. We will target what is not currently being used, or at least has not in recent years been used, as a home. That is an important factor to consider. I have already spoken to officials about the process and I hope I will have another chance to speak about it with regard to the review that has begun. It is a daily part of my work. As I consult with the different stakeholders in all this, it is a chance for me to hear from them about some of the initiatives they feel could be picked up. Their time has come in terms of what we have done in the past 12 months and what the Department and the previous Minister have done. There is an opportunity here as well and I welcome the submissions I have already received from members of the committee about what they feel still needs to be done in this process. I met the former Minister at the Department, Deputy Coveney, after my first meeting in the job, which was with the Secretary General, and he went through a couple of matters he felt worth picking up and which may not have been addressed in the course of the past 12 months.

It is important that we put property interests on notice that we need to move quickly with more ambitious plans where there are empty homes or other forms of property that are empty. This is a crisis to be dealt with and we must move quickly now to release assets and make them into homes for people who need them. That includes the State's direct obligation to provide social homes and look after people who cannot afford to rent near to where they work or who want to buy because they are starting families. It is about dealing with the different aspects of this problem as they present. It is key as we consider the supply measures that must be brought online. This is not just about finding new financing and sites or new ways of leveraging sites. It is not about getting people to build more quickly. This is also going to be about existing stock and making sure it is used appropriately, given the immediate challenge we have. I hope we can introduce measures for a two or three-year period until new supply is brought online with new builds. That is something I am examining now.

Deputy Boyd Barrett asked a number of questions on a topic we discussed last week, including about defective buildings and regulations, fire and building standards and the fire safety review and standards. There are a couple of things going on. The Deputy is aware that, immediately after the Grenfell tower tragedy, I convened officials in my Department to ensure we moved immediately to live safety inspections in local authority housing and using the building control management system to notify landlords of their obligations in this regard. It is a series of work that needs to be done and this is the beginning. We had the chance to debate this with the Green Party's Private Members' motion and it also came up with the issue at Lynam's Hotel.

A second phase of work will now commence. I hope to make a statement later today relating to the establishment of a new task force within the Department-----

I am still trying to figure that out. As this is a very busy week for the Dáil, there may not be an opportunity to make the announcement in the Chamber. It might be a public statement released by the Department. I want to inform people exactly what is happening in this regard. Members will have heard this morning, or yesterday, about the detection of cladding on a building in Cork. We know that an informal review has been commenced by the chief fire officer in Dublin, which is welcome. The statement will reference what we hope other local authorities will move to do in terms of the challenges posed arising out of what happened in Grenfell in regard to the quality of products that were used in the UK and may have been used here and to reassure people, where possible, that the buildings they are living in is safe and that things that happened in the UK have not happened here. There is a suite of secondary measures that we are moving to complete within set timelines. To ensure this is done, yesterday I convened the second meeting of the task force, which comprises officials from various parts of the Department brought together after Grenfell to ensure we could move not only on the life and fire safety issues with the local and fire authorities but on putting in place of regulations, building standards and building inspections. I hope to make a public statement in that regard later today. I do not want to wait to make that statement until an opportune time arises in the Dáil, which may not arise until next week.

The Minister could make it here.

Work on the statement is still being finalised. I was at a Cabinet meeting this morning and there were a number of issues arising therefrom which I have had to deal with. We are keeping the homeless families issue under review with the local authorities as well and we are reviewing Rebuilding Ireland. It is not that we are not working on this: we are. I need to ensure that if local authorities are to report to me on their inspections on fire safety issues on a date in the very near future that date will be met.

I visited a large estate last Saturday - I will not name it because to do so would cause panic - in which there are 1,000 timber framed multistorey units, which are a major fire hazard. I was accompanied by two people who have expertise in this area and were of the view that these units are a fire hazard, which was brought to the attention of the authorities some time ago. There may be many more of these Celtic tiger buildings - Kevin Hollingsworth says there is - which are not all council houses wherein there are no fire breaks. What is being done to address this problem?

There are a couple of pieces-----

The Deputy might provide the departmental officials with that information after the meeting.

We know too from the local authorities that they are way behind in their inspections, including under the HAP scheme.

There are a few pieces-----

It is a resource issue.

First, there is an obligation on all of us not to cause panic.

I am not trying to do that-----

I welcome that.

-----but I am very worried about it.

Second, my Department received a fire safety report from the Office of the Attorney General in May which I want to publish as quickly as I can but there are a couple of issues around it on which I need to consult with the Attorney General before I can do so. Third, what we want to do in terms of building control management inspections is move to a risk based regime so that as the data are input inspectors can immediately identify the building materials used in units, the number of units in a development and so on and quickly identify issues that are an immediate cause for concern. They can then make an intervention in terms of an inspection based on the highest risk. That is how to proceed in terms of resources.

We also need to do work on the resources issue.

Who would make these inspections?

Please allow the Minister to conclude, following which I will take another round of questions from members, limited to three minutes each to ensure everybody gets in. Time permitting, I will allow a further round of questions.

I will continue on the other issues raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett at the last meeting. I have already touched on the points he raised earlier in regard to homeless families and the hubs.

It was one very specific question.

Perhaps the Deputy would remind me because I do not have a record of it in my notes.

I asked if, notwithstanding the Minister's target around taking people out of hotels, in some cases hotels are better than hubs.

In some cases hotels are better than hubs, in particular if the hubs are long distances from where people's children go to school. We must not let a target trump the best interests of children and families by insisting that they go to hubs when a hotel, while far from ideal, might actually be preferable.

I cannot agree with that, Deputy Boyd Barrett.

So it is okay to send children 12 km to go to school?

Is it okay for them to be in a situation where the hotel could evict them on any morning? Is okay if that hotel does not have sufficient cooking facilities, play areas or any of the supports that we have in hubs?

The mother and children are the best-placed people to tell us that rather than us telling them what to do.

What I outlined the last day at this committee was that we are going to be dealing with certain exceptional cases where a tailored solution will have to be found. The commitment made a year ago was that homeless families would not be accommodated in hotels unless there were exceptional circumstances. There are a number of families with continuing exceptional circumstances. We will get to the point of reaching the target of new families presenting as homeless not going into hotels at all but rather going into another form of accommodation immediately. As we reach the other target of moving the families currently homeless out of hotels, there will be a number of families whose exceptional circumstances will demand that we find a tailored solution.

They are travelling 10 km or 12 km.

Deputy Boyd Barrett-----

I asked the question.

I am answering that question.

I am going to let members come back in on a full round.

Where there are difficulties around transport needs to and from school, and where the hotel might be closer to the school, Leap cards and means are provided to make sure the family can do that. I am not convinced, however, that families' overall needs would be better met in a hotel given the different supports we can give to them around all these things. Unfortunately, there are families which, because of exceptional circumstances, will need a more tailored plan for their individual needs and that will mean they will be in hotels for much longer than I would like them to be.

Questions were asked about an audit of vacant properties in each local authority area. I am currently reviewing the vacant housing strategy. We are making sure we have teams in each local authority who can drill down an appreciation of exactly where these units are and what is the state of their vacancy. This is so that we have informed data driving what we then do in terms of incentives and any other measures that might be brought to bear to make sure that we get them released. That is a part of what we are doing.

The issue of a place finder service for Dún Laoghaire was mentioned. The Dublin Regional Homeless Executive has a place finder service for the use of the new homeless HAP scheme. It is operated by the executive so that should also apply to homeless families and individuals in the Dún Laoghaire area. If the member has examples of people who have not been accommodated through this service then I would like to hear about them because they should be.

With regard to the security of HAP, many measures have been put in place to ensure a more secure situation for people accommodated through this scheme. These include the fact the local authority will make an electronic payment to the landlord, the fact the local authority has flexibility with the size of the payment that might be made and the fact that if there is unfortunately a loss of income on the part of the person living in the accommodation through the HAP scheme, this will not have an impact on the local authority's ability to deliver the payment to the landlord. A number of things are being done to make sure there is security for tenants moving into HAP. While they are no longer able to avail of the housing list, they are able to get access to the transfer list. Some families find themselves moved through the transfer list into other forms of longer term housing.

Cherrywood was mentioned and the changes in the social housing provision there. As the committee knows, when that strategic development zone was first put in place the requirement was for a 20% provision, 10% affordable and 10% social. That was amended in 2015 to 10% social housing because we wanted to kick-start construction activity and reduce the viability gap that was hindering new developments at the time. It was to try to make sure that we could get new developments built. There was also a policy change bringing the focus onto social housing alone.

We want to see if we can increase our ambition in that regard, be it through the use of local authority land or other means such as LIHAF, to bring Government leverage to bear to make sure we have a more ambition than just 10% social housing. We are continuing to consult local authorities, including Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, to see what we can do in respect of bringing new land banks online.

The Deputy asked about the difference in the obligations for providing social and private housing allocations on public and private land and if the mixed tenure policy is the same. We have much more control over State land regarding what we can deliver when we own the land and how we can deliver it. The 10% threshold was always intended to be a minimum and there are ways through new schemes to ensure a greater proportion. One scheme is being rolled at the Irish Glass Bottle site for affordable rent and affordable buy units. Well in excess of 10% social housing will be provided by that land bank. I referred to what we are doing in the context of the mortgage rent to scheme, affordable buy and affordable rent and the interaction in respect of the social housing thresholds.

Senator Boyhan asked a number of questions earlier when I was not present regarding why the George's Place rapid build is taking so long and why there are not more units in the development.

The site is in a major town centre and 12 units are being proposed. The private sector developer across the road built a five-storey private block, yet Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council with the help of the Department is proceeding with a two-storey, 12-unit, block on part of a large site it owns, which is zoned as a major town centre. Good planning tells us to maximise our zoning. This is a major town centre with mixed development. Money should not be wasted and the project should be stopped. I encourage the Minister at least to visit the site and view the plans. He should take advice from his officials. It is a total waste of public money. The report refers to rapid build projects that have commenced but nothing has happened here. I was there this morning. It should be stopped as it is a waste of public money and the project does not have regard to its major town centre zoning. That requirement would be insisted on in the private sector and the same principle needs to apply in the public sector.

Is this the site the local authority approved using a master plan relating to density and mixed use? I am trying to get a better understanding of this because I am getting complaints from colleagues where the Department has intervened in local authority area plans because it was not happy with the density. There has been a huge kick back locally regarding what is being done. Is this a case where the Senator feels the council got it wrong?

We all know what a major town centre zoning comprises. It envisages two-storey units, yet across the road there is a five-storey block which sold out and which benefited from Part V. This project was a knee-jerk response to getting some rapid build in Dún Laoghaire. That has not started and it should not start. We should maximise the full potential of the entire site, which is publicly owned.

I am examining where the Department has intervened with local authorities to change their plans and what the result of that has been, and where we might need to intervene in the future. I have to have respect for local authorities and their powers. I do not want to overrule councillors but if there is a case where a set of extreme powers that is normally invoked needs to be invoked to make sure the right decisions are being made on key sites, then that will be done.

I ask the Minister to have a look at this. We are where we are because of the mess of local authorities. I was a member of one for many years. We now have a Government policy, which is Rebuilding Ireland. The Minister is the guardian of it and he must fast-track and deliver it. This hinges on him how. I fully respect councillors having a say but the majority are politically outmanoeuvred. This is not an appropriate use for a major town centre zoning. Let us maximise the site to its potential with public money.

I thank the Senator. He also raised St. Laurence's Park. My understanding is the local authority has confirmed that it is advancing plans to redevelop the entire site. The council owns the site and it is beside a commercial site in Stillorgan.

Local authorities were invited to submit proposals earlier in the year on their voids programme, and as part of that process, there are plans now for the redevelopment of the whole site. That is my understanding.

I will clarify. The Minister was not here and I know he was attending other business at Cabinet. What he said is not correct. We have been constantly told for the past number of years there were negotiations with the people. The owners of the site changed and next door, part of the bigger site, was put up for sale. The council failed to secure it and it was outbid on it. That is business. The reality is that this is a group of maisonettes similar to those which exist in other parts of the county where people live. There were people who wished to stay. We cannot have a position where there are 14 units empty when these only need to be renovated. There is the point about the development next door. We have a housing crisis and there is a council with over 5,000 people on a housing list but units are blocked. People are walking by them every day and they must be re-opened.

Is it the case that if the site could be redeveloped, there could be a higher number of people and families located on the site?

They have not come up with a plan and it has been going on for years.

Is it the case that there is quite a low density on the site?

They argue that they want a synergy with the private developer next door but that has not come off. I wish them well but in the meantime, we cannot leave these units empty.

If the synergy is not possible with the commercial site next door and we just looked at the local authority site in this regard, is there the possibility of much higher density than just 14 units?

I take the point but if we moved to just accommodate 12 additional people in the next six months versus doing something in 18 months to accommodate three times that amount-----

We are talking about this for the past four years. To be helpful, I ask the Minister to visit this at some stage. He is just up the road from it. He would be appalled to see what is happening at these units. Another block in McIntosh Park has the same type of properties, built by the same developer, and everybody in them is very happy. They are not knocking them down.

If the Minister has answered the questions, I will allow a minute to each member. I am going to have to be strict, unfortunately.

I will follow up the questions on homelessness. I presume the May homeless figures will be out this week. The Minister's predecessor had a terrible habit of allowing the release of them late on a Friday or bank holiday Monday. If the Minister has seen them, will he tell them to us? More importantly, will he give a commitment that they will be released in a way to allow full and proper discussion here?

I asked a question the last day but the Minister did not have the figures. Perhaps he has them today. Of the more than 800 families that were in commercial hotels from the March figures, how many will be moved to another form of emergency accommodation? How many will be moved into permanent housing? It is an important matrix. On the mortgage to rent issue, the key innovation that the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, put into the review was a pilot around the use of equity investment firms. Is that pilot taking place and will the Minister give us some information on that? At our previous meeting the Minister spoke about 100 Housing First tenancies but was he referring to the 100 Housing First tenancies in place before the publication of Rebuilding Ireland or is this 100 additional tenancies that have come on-stream since? What is happening with the target of 300 tenancies?

I stated this earlier but I will do so again as the Minister is here. He stated last week that, as Minister, he would look at everything new. There is clearly a need for publicly built, publicly owned and privately rented accommodation on public lands. We should stop getting hung up on that issue. Deputy Boyd Barrett raised an alarming issue on the record of this meeting that there is a place that could potentially be an inferno and people are living there. I appeal to the Deputy to tell the officials about this and let them investigate the matter. It would be a tragedy if we had a similar incident to that which occurred in London. It is on the record and I would be concerned and disturbed if there is not an early inspection or intervention on such a matter.

I have a question on the overall document and how it might be improved. I appreciate there is an ongoing review and I expect all of us and our parties to make contributions to that in an effort to bring about new initiatives to assist in this emergency. Does the Minister support a VAT holiday for the construction sector to allow more construction to produce more homes?

Will the Minister reduce planning and certification costs and will he consider introducing a development levy scheme whereby those who build quickly after planning is granted would be rewarded? For example, there could be a particular levy of reduction for the first year, the second year, the third year and so forth which would encourage quick delivery? Will he allow credit unions to contribute to an off-balance sheet model similar to that in which NAMA engages under PARS to allow for development finance and will he, as a member of Government, seek to remove the bank veto in regard to resolutions for those in mortgage distress? Will he allow mortgage-to-rent and split mortgages to become real options, on a statutory basis, in regard to resolutions offered by an independent authority to banks and distressed mortgage holders?

I did not understand the Deputy's final question.

Will the Minister put mortgage-to-rent and split mortgage resolutions on a statutory footing to allow an independent resolution board to make recommendations to resolve disputes between banks and distressed mortgage holders?

I brought to public attention the Robin Hill apartments, which to my mind demonstrate everything that is going wrong with policy. NAMA sat on 15 empty units in this development for a number of years. The council tried to obtain those units from NAMA but it was refused them. NAMA sold the development to Cerberus, people are now being evicted and the 15 units remain vacant. Also, the purchaser is bypassing rent control legislation under the guise of refurbishment and it is exploiting other loopholes. Is the Minister aware of this situation, which has been well publicised? I previously asked the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, to look into it directly. Is anything being done to obtain these 15 units and to stop the eviction of tenants from properties that were NAMA-owned and later sold to vulture funds? Also, is the recently concluded sale of Project Gem, comprising the sale of €3 billion of assets by NAMA, in which there may be multiple Robin Hill examples, being examined? I appeal to the Minister to re-examine the Project Gem sale, and to look into the Robin Hill issue.

On the social mix housing provision, the Minister's response is not satisfactory. There is an inconsistency in the Government's stated view that it supports social mix while at the same time it provides in legislation that only 10% of a private development must be social housing while on public land the public provides 66%. The public is being shafted under the guise of so-called social mix. There is no consistency in it. I do not know how the Minister can justify that inconsistency.

The site of the former Shanganagh prison was originally earmarked for 100% social housing but now 66% of it is to be given away.

That site was never earmarked for 100% social housing.

It was not and Deputy Boyd Barrett and I know that.

That is not true. It was given by the Department of Justice and Equality for social housing.

(Interruptions).

I was disappointed to hear from the Department officials last week that they are re-examining the eligibility criteria for the local authority housing list. It is a massive issue. I felt the Minister's response today was a little negative. The current system in regard to the local authority housing lists is unfair. In some counties, there are up to 30,000 people on the housing waiting lists. In my own county, there are 27,500 people on the housing waiting list. The Minister's figures do not add up. In regard to the rent pressure zones, the Department has identified 14 pressure zones in need of additional help. All the local authorities need rent pressure zones in their areas. To give some local authorities extra help is an injustice to the other local authorities that are crying out for it.

As I stated earlier, I have major concerns about HAP. Some landlords will not accept tenants who are in HAP. Under pillar 2 €70 million is provided for the purchase of vacant properties. We were told 330 properties are under bid and that contracts in regard to 130 have been closed. There are vacant houses in many estates in which anti-social behaviour is taking place because the local authorities do not have the power to have them boarded up.

They cannot get it boarded up because they have no power. There are so many big issues in local authority estates, or in any estates, that are just not getting dealt with and that the Minister needs to address.

I have to let the Minister back in.

Okay. I have lots of issues that I feel the Minister has to address. I will come back to him again on them and I thank him for coming in today.

Deputy Ó Broin asked about the homeless figures. I discussed this with the local authorities last week. I have not seen the figures yet myself. I want to make sure that when we release the figures they are the right figures and we will release them, if not tomorrow then the day after. We will not wait until Friday evening as I think we need to know what these figures are.

As to who is going into permanent housing, I made a request for information on this from the local authorities last week. I requested a breakdown of where people are going to go and of the different streams involved. I will get this information, if not today then certainly tomorrow. The figures are changing on a daily basis because some people are not happy with what they are being offered and that needs to be worked out.

On the issues of mortgage to rent and private equity, we are looking for new streams of financing for the mortgage to rent programme that we currently have. I had a discussion yesterday as to what these new streams might be. I do not want to say too much on this, but the current mortgage to rent scheme concerns people who are also eligible for social housing. We need to find schemes if we can that would also work for people who are not eligible. That is something that we are also going to look at.

With regard to the Housing First tenancies, as I mentioned yesterday, the 100 tenancies are new. We are working to the target of an additional 200. I met the Peter McVerry Trust about this and they also talked of further initiatives that have been brought forward in Canada that might be of use here. We are talking about percentages rather than units and while I have not yet had a chance to look at this, I will.

Senator Boyhan asked about private rental on public land. I have no principled objection to that in terms of what we are trying to deliver. What we want is to ensure that people can afford to rent. If we use public land to build on then it needs to meet the mix of needs that people have. This is something that we are currently looking at.

If I were to answer the many questions asked by Deputy Cowen I would give the game away.

I thought that was my job.

A number of the issues raised by Deputy Cowen are matters for the Department of Finance and would need to be negotiated with them. Some are budgetary issues that might have to wait until the budget. I have begun informal discussions with the Minister and will formalise these in the coming week. I am afraid I cannot answer most of the Deputy's questions. He asked about credit unions, which is something that is being currently looked at. There may be a role they can play in some possible solutions. The bank veto on those in mortgage distress no longer applies.

How many times has that veto been lifted in the context of a resolution to the Minister's offer?

I do not have that figure to hand but I do know that the veto has been removed. If I can return to the issues Deputy Cowen mentions in terms of what I can announce prior to the budget then I will.

Deputy Boyd Barrett talked about the social mix being inconsistent. The provision of 10% is the minimum for social housing. As I mentioned in my earlier statement, we are using other mechanisms now to make sure that this is more than 10% and also that we see affordable buy and affordable rent. The former Minister, Deputy Coveney, did a very important piece of work on what would be delivered on the Irish Glass Bottle site, above the 10%. The residents have done a huge amount of work. I was down on the site with Deputy Coveney and the residents. They have proved an excellent lobby group and mechanism for ensuring that we use all of our resources, and not just the local authority and councillors, to make sure that we can do that. When it comes to how we use public land, we have to recognise that we are not ourselves builders and developers so we need companies to come in to do this work. There needs to be a financial return for that and there also needs to be a mix of private and public ownership and use.

We need to stop contracting companies in to build for the councils. That is what we always did in the past.

The Deputy is saying then that the solution is for councils to have their own construction companies.

I would like that, but in the absence of that what previously happened is that councils built council estates, bringing in McInerney, Collins or whoever it was to build these estates. We did not have to give away two thirds of our land to get houses built on it.

That is if we are speaking about a pure local authority site. Different sites will require different solutions.

Senator Murnane O'Connor asked about the local authority list and looking at the discrepancies in the 30 versus 27. Inconsistencies between local authorities need to be looked at. I want to make sure if there is an inconsistency that it is justifiable. Perhaps there does not need to be an inconsistency. The qualifying criteria for rent pressure zones are there in law. New measures may be introduced to rent pressure zones to increase supply that will have a more beneficial impact outside of those zones. Some local authorities are not getting their vacant houses into use. The CPO powers are there and Louth-----

Certain local authorities have been very successful in using the CPO powers.

There is a piece of work on my desk that I have looked at in this regard. Certain local authorities do this very well. The actual delivery is not just about what a CPO is actually used for, it is when a call or notice of intent is put out to the owner of the property, once his or her identity is established, that the property will be subject to a CPO. Most of the resolutions in terms of getting those homes back into use come through this process. The number of properties actually subject to a CPO is quite low with regard to the total amount. Case studies have been done on what local authorities are doing well. I will work with local authorities to ensure they work to that standard.

The CPO timescale is the issue. It is a long timescale and people can be waiting a long time. I ask the Minister to watch the timescale for us.

Absolutely, but what I would say is once the clock is set running by telling a property owner the CPO process is being embarked on, resolution comes through other channels that do not need to go through the full timeline and eventual CPO.

I thank members for being so flexible. I thank the Department officials and the Minister for attending. As always we have been flooded with data from the Department.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 June 2017.
Top
Share