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

My question is for Mr. McCarthy and it relates to completions. The answer he gave was the same as the answer the last time I asked the question. My problem is twofold. On the one hand, the Government plan is setting up the figure of 25,000 units annually as one of its major delivery targets. At the same time, the Department website, which I have before me, tells us that the figures Mr. McCarthy has given us are not accurate. The problem is that we do not know how inaccurate they are. I imagine the Department officials do not know how inaccurate they are. They might be marginally inaccurate and, if so, there is no problem.

Let us consider the different sources of data. Mr. McCarthy went through the ESB connections and the building control management system data. However, we can also look at stamp duty transactions, for example. A range of other measures is relevant. The difficulty is that when we sent the various sets of data alongside each other, the discrepancies can be substantial. It cannot be impossible for the Department to find a mechanism. However, it cannot currently give data on the number of completions and explain how it is going to operate in future with local authorities, whether it is through a revision of the BCMS or whatever, in respect of registered completions.

I welcome strongly the comment by Mr. McCarthy on how the Department is keen to hear suggestions from other parties about how the statistics can be improved. However, some commentators are publically expressing real frustration because they do not believe they are being listened to. Some have said they have to submit freedom of information requests to try to get the data. Then, when the freedom of information requests come back, the data is in a form that is virtually unreadable or unmanageable. It has to be possible for us to have certain figures. For example, leaving aside one-off housing and ESB connections, it should be possible to find out the number of properties that are vacant for two years and, given a high level of vacancy rates, the number of such properties becoming re-connected after a given period. Even if the Department is 10%, 20% or 30% out, rather than out by 50% as suggested by Lorcan Sirr or Mel Reynolds, that is still a major gap. I believe this issue deserves more attention than it is getting on the basis of what Mr. McCarthy has said to me today, which is the same as what he said to me a month ago.

Reference was made to affordability and the housing activation fund. I was not aware that the Department could consider the social housing element of a joint venture land as part of the affordability segment. That means we get no additional benefit because we would get getting that part of it anyway. Again, I am not opposed to the idea of the housing activation fund if it assets in delivering more affordable homes for people. However, if the Department is simply rolling it in and sees it as an added benefit to an eventual joint venture, then we have a real problem.

Nothing that Mr. McCarthy has said has reassured me about cases involving private land where there is a private housing development with solely 10% social housing. Such projects get significant infrastructural investment from the taxpayer. From what Mr. McCarthy has said, I do not see how that approach will deliver properties, or a section of those properties, that would be even close to affordable. Perhaps I do not understand how the criteria work.

I know of two sites in particular. One is the private section of Clonburris. The other, if I understand the location correctly, is the Grange or Kilkarberry, which is on public land. My concern is that the infrastructure might go ahead and the houses might be built, but those houses will cost €350,000 or €400,000 each. That means the developer benefits and the person who has a high income benefits, but there is no affordability return. I am concerned about the answer Mr. McCarthy has given. If there is anything he can say to reassure me or convince me otherwise, I would welcome it.