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

I thank the Chairman. As we have drifted into pillars 2 and 3, I have some questions on them. To facilitate other members, I am more than happy for the answers to be given to the committee at a later stage, be they in writing or whatever. I will stick to the questions. In pillar 2, the 47,000 units is broken down into 26,000, 11,000 and 10,000. I had asked previously if it was possible for the committee to have a breakdown of projected targets for those. For example, how many of the 26,000 units does the Department expect to be Part V, approved housing bodies, council new build and acquisitions? If it is possible to have that breakdown today or at a later stage, that would be great.

With regard to the mixed tenure and the land initiatives, I believe what is being proposed on the land initiative is a really significant, big policy departure. There is a need for this committee, and maybe the exchange earlier demonstrates that need, to have a dedicated discussion on the detail of this proposal. I strongly favour, and have long argued for, a council-led mixed tenure estates. However, if it is the intention of the Department to mobilise the land as an asset to get a private developer to build, there are big questions to be asked around this. The first is whether the local authority sells the land at market value and retains the sale price to purchase another plot of land to develop another mixed tenure estate. The second is whether the local authority is obliged to use the sale price of the land to purchase the social housing units. They are two very different models. The first option obviously has the advantage that a second site could be bought and more units could be produced, including more social units. The first one is an end of the asset with regard to the social value of it. There are a lot of issues in the mixed tenure model which need to be teased out. With regard to the housing delivery unit and the housing procurement unit, I would really like much more detail about those. At the last meeting, it was said that there had been additional staff. I would like to know how many, what they are doing and how they are doing it. This information does not have to be provided today.

I had previously asked about the Irish Council for Social Housing fund which is mentioned in the plan and the blockage that is within the Registrar of Credit Unions, the Central Bank and the Department of Finance with regard to mobilising some of the Irish League of Credit Unions' money into that fund. The officials were not in a position to give us any update on that. Will the Minister indicate if he has spoken with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, and if is there any update? Clearly, there is some money that can be mobilised, which does not go on to State borrowing, from the credit unions for approved housing bodies. Where are we with that?

At the last meeting, I discussed the 400 households who are stuck in direct provision and who have the stamp 4 visas. They cannot get out of direct provision partly because of language and cultural barriers and partly because they are still stuck on €19.50 per week, even with jobseekers' allowance, because the remainder is subsidising their direct provision. They cannot save for a deposit for HAP, etc. Is there any plan to provide some direct intervention to assist these 400 families to get out of direct provision in which they should not be in the first place? This is nothing to do with the direct provision separately but it is a big concern and it was not addressed at the last meeting.