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

I thank the witnesses for the presentations. I acknowledge the work the Housing Agency has been doing in highlighting this, both from the report last year and ongoing work.

I also wish to make a point on local authorities because there are occasions when some people, in particular when they get into the Oireachtas, forget where they have come from and have a tendency to treat local authorities as a whipping boy in terms of the difficulties that exist. I know, not only from the local authority with which I am most connected, namely, South Dublin County Council, but also in other local authorities that have large housing needs that their housing departments are under enormous stress. They are dealing with higher levels of demand with lower levels of staff. I accept that budgets are beginning to improve but it is very important for the committee when we are considering those issues not to conveniently point the finger of blame at local authorities. That does not mean we should not question or criticise when it is appropriate but some people seem to think, simplistically, that it is a problem for local authorities when very often it is not.

I have some questions for the Housing Agency and then for the County and City Management Association, CCMA. Could Mr. O'Connor give an update on when he hopes the strategy will be ready and some other information beyond what is in the report? What I am really interested in is the acquisitions programme. On 1 December, Deputy Noonan replied in response to a parliamentary question that 922 vacant properties were being considered by the Government. I presume he meant the Housing Agency. A total of 500 properties were from Bank of Ireland and 422 were from Permanent TSB. He said funding approval had been granted for 200 of those and contracts had been signed on 20. That was the content of the reply to the parliamentary question but my understanding is that the figures are very different from that. I am interested in three figures. What is the total number of vacant properties, whether from banks or other sources, that the Housing Agency has been considering since the €70 million fund was announced? The Housing Agency has told the committee how many properties it is in the process of acquiring. I want to know how many the agency has rejected as being unsuitable, in particular on the grounds of leading to an over-concentration of social housing. I wish to come back in on that question because this is quite important.

I am also interested in those properties that have not been deemed unsuitable and where bids have not been made. How many more are in that category and what is the reason they have not been actively pursued? Is it because the €70 million fund does not allow the agency to pursue more properties than it is currently doing and that it must sell them on and wait for the money to come back in or is there some other reason?

I will now turn to the CCMA. When the strategy comes out a whole new set of demands will be put on local authorities in terms of the register and pursuing properties. Mr. Walsh has already given us an outline of the level of work that involves. The Minister keeps telling us there is no problem with money or staff. Is Mr. Walsh confident that with the existing staff complement, in particular for those local authorities like Waterford County Council where there is a high level of vacancy and housing need, there are sufficient resources to do the work that will come down the line? If, for example, the repair and lease scheme or the repair and buy scheme are rolled out, that is another layer of activity that is required. Could Mr. Walsh give some sense of the resourcing requirements?

On the derelict and vacant property tax, I do not think anybody in the previous part of the meeting, or those of us who have called for this before, think it is something that can just be applied very quickly and will resolve the problem. However, to go back to what the Peter McVerry Trust said, it suggested a 12-month window would allow the owners to engage and try to work out solutions. Is Mr. Walsh's point that something like that is required or is he just against the idea because of the experience he had? I would be interested in hearing more from him about that.

I accept that compulsory purchase orders, CPOs, have additional costs but it is important that we offset potential additional costs with the cost of, for example, keeping a family in emergency accommodation for two years, which is the case currently in Dublin city. The cost is €35,000 a year per family and in the Dublin City Council area that amounts to the State spending approximately €70,000 for the average family in emergency accommodation. Are CPOs a more efficient way when one knows the property is derelict and the owner cannot be traced, as opposed to where it is a probate case or a case of financial distress? Is Mr. Walsh making the case for legislative change or that CPOs are the wrong instrument and we need to look more at providing a carrot in the form of engagement through the Housing Agency, voluntary bodies and local authorities to incentivise that percentage of the stock that we can get back into active use?