Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for the presentations. I have four short questions and three somewhat bigger queries. The presentation references 8,000 housing assistance payment, HAP, tenancies. What percentage of those are new tenancies and what percentage are rolling over from rent supplement? That would be people living in the same property but changing payment. The witness spoke about a target of 10,000 HAPs for next year but is that an extra 2,000 or 10,000 on top of the 8,000 that were mentioned? That is just for clarity. The witness mentioned 2,000 NAMA units. Are they tenanted units and are people living in those? Mr. Morgan is not able to tell us the outcome of the rough sleepers count because it is being processed but is he in a position to give us an indication as to whether it is up or down on the last year's figure? The last half year was down on the previous period.

I am one of the people who thinks we should stop calling the properties in Poppintree modular homes because they have timber frames, unlike the original modular properties presented at an early stage. It is an important difference. The potential cost is concerning some of us and there are all sorts of figures flying around. Is Mr. Brady in a position to clarify the issue raised by RTE approximately a week or so ago regarding the extra €500,000 or so, and whether that is related to construction costs or something else? That would help clarify the matter.

I have three substantive questions. This committee is going to try to compile a report and make recommendations on how to improve matters. We are not looking for people to come in and criticise some other agency or body. We are trying to identify weaknesses in the system so we can say to the Dáil and, I hope, the Government that certain changes could be helpful. There are three particular areas and I hope whoever is most appropriate can comment on them.

With respect to the new build programmes, what most of us do not understand is what happens between when the Part 8 scheme is agreed and the key is turned. Nobody has ever explained what are those processes. It would be really helpful if one of the witnesses would talk us through what is the process. Mr. Brady used the term "etc." and clearly the witnesses know this. We would like to know it too. It seems that it is one of the problems that a committee like this could usefully look at. We could see how we can shorten that period. It is two to three years from when a local authority makes a decision that it would be good to have houses in an area to when those houses are opened but it takes six months to build timber-framed houses. Surely procurement is of a similar nature and the requirements of spending are the same in both cases. How can we build the timber-framed houses in six months but brick houses take three years? It would be helpful for us to know that.

My second question relates to large-scale projects. Those of us who have just come from local authorities may have been passing through Part 8 schemes with ten or 15 units. I have pickled Mr. Coman's poor head about this but in the South Dublin County Council area there are 44 acres of land in the Grange in Bawnogue. It is prime land for social housing and is caught up in discussions around public-private partnerships that seem to be interminable. Is it the case that local authorities are not in a position to put larger-scale proposals to the Department that would at least circumvent some of the difficulties with the private sector investment?

Is that something that this committee should examine? If there are 44 acres of land, and one could have units in the multiples of hundreds rather than tens, is that not something we could look at?

My third question is on acquisitions. No matter how quickly one shortens the process, building the units from planning to turning the key takes time. There are, as Deputy Coppinger mentioned, lots of units available, many of which are in local authority estates and are in the private market.

In terms of funding allocations for local authorities for the first three years of the 2020 strategy, almost €300 million has been allocated to Dublin City Council and €75 million to South Dublin County Council. How much of that funding can be spent on the acquisition of properties that are turnkey ready? Has the Department set a limit? Can local authorities spend as much of that funding as they want? Is there an argument for acquiring properties that are stuck in all sorts of legal difficulties but would be valuable social housing units? Can CPOs be used in such cases? Is that a way of increasing the number of units? Clearly, it is quicker to buy a unit that is turnkey ready than it is to build a timber-framed house. I am interested in this aspect.

My final question is on refurbishments. Is the delegation aware of units - in the local authority areas of which it is aware - that could be refurbished but for central government will not provide funding because it would be above whatever is the limit? Is that an avenue we should pursue?

Mr. Cummins emphasised the involvement of the private sector. I know he will not agree with or comment on what I shall say next but I just want to put it out there. In the context of over-reliance on the private sector, part of the problem is that under the Government strategy, 80% of the units that local authorities have as targets are in the private sector. In both instances, new builds for South Dublin County Council and Dublin City Council represent 17% of the total target for local authorities. A few extra refurbishments and acquisitions would bring that figure up to just 20%. I would like Mr. Cummins to answer but I know he will not. Would it not be helpful if the target set for local authorities by central government was not just 20% direct provision by them and housing associations but, rather, 40% or 80%? The measure would mean local authorities could get on with their business. If the money is there, surely that would be a better way of delivering those units?