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

I thank the representatives of the CSO for their presentation. We often give officials from Government agencies a hard time when they come before this committee, but on this occasion I join Senator Boyhan in commending the work of the CSO and its staff. I think most of us in here are big fans of the work it does. It certainly assists us in our deliberations. I know from my experience of the last census that the small-area figures are absolutely invaluable to our work as local politicians, policy people and legislators. Many of us are looking forward to getting that information from last year's census.

I commend my local enumerator, who called to me three times. He was very persistent. It is important to mention that I was struck by the degree of professionalism in what he did. It was not a case of somebody filling out a form because he was getting a few euro. He treated the job of the census really seriously as an important piece of public information. That is not only to his credit but also to the credit of the supervisors and the CSO as a whole.

The use of infographics as part of the release of the census information has been brilliant. It is very hard to try to digest the statistics. I also commend the CSO's response to public commentary, including in circumstances when we were not even asking for responses online. As the debate was flowing, some of us were asking rhetorical questions on Twitter and other forms of social media. The manager of the CSO's Twitter account sent out private messages and helpful responses online. I commend the CSO on that.

I would like to ask a couple of questions on the thorny issue of new builds, which has been a hotly debated topic. There is a discrepancy between the figures for the housing stock provided in the CSO returns and those provided by the Department. The CSO's figures suggest that there has been an overall increase of approximately 50,000, whereas the Department's figure is approximately 30,000. I was trying to get my head around that difference in order to understand it. I appreciate that because the census involves self-reporting, people have to say whether they think they are living in a new house. The data from the Department are different. I would be interested to hear the witnesses comment further on that. There is probably a bigger discrepancy between the net increase in stock calculated by the CSO and the flow of new housing that is calculated annually by the Department. I think the CSO calculated a net increase of approximately 8,000 units, whereas the Department calculated that last year's flow of new units was 15,000. I know they are not the same thing, but I think the gap between the flow and the net increase seems to be too big. I wonder whether that is a concern for the CSO. I know its staff are working with the Department and the Housing Agency to try to find a better methodology to get a sense of how many new units are coming on stream. I would be interested to hear the witnesses' thoughts on all of that.

There seems to be a discrepancy between the Department's figures for social housing and the CSO's figures for the same category. I wonder whether that can also be attributed to self-reporting. It is possible that a significant number of people who are living in social housing-supported accommodation, such as that provided under the rental accommodation and housing assistance payment schemes, are reporting it as social housing. I think there is a difference of 10,000 or 20,000 units between the Department's figures and those of the CSO. I am not suggesting that either set of figures is wrong. I think the two bodies are counting differently. I would be interested to know more about that.

One of the most startling revelations in the census figures relates to overcrowding. Almost 10% of the population live in homes with more people than rooms. The legal definition of overcrowding that is set out in section 63 of the Housing Act 1966 has significant legal consequences from an enforcement point of view. I would like to compare the CSO's definition of overcrowding with the definition in the 1966 Act. Do the witnesses consider them to be the same or to be similar?

The only reason I ask is that if they are similar - I am not clear on that from reading the two documents - it would mean 10% of occupied homes out there are potentially in breach of section 63 of the Act and, therefore, the owners are committing an offence. If they are not, I am wondering if there is a value, with future censuses, in having a measure that is similar. The more compatibility between different data sources or definitions, the better. I am interested in that.

I have two questions on vacant dwellings. I have always been interested to know whether the same properties are vacant over long periods or if there is a dynamic element between each census period. Are dwellings falling out and coming into that vacancy area? It is quite an important policy point for us to understand. The other figure that struck me is that 30% of converted flats are vacant, which is a remarkable number. We would clearly expect over-the-shop units in town centres or slightly older houses that might be stuck in probate or the fair deal process to be vacant but I would have thought a large number of converted flats might be newer or newer conversions. Is there any more data on that? The overall vacancy rate is above what it should be but the vacancy rate for converted flats is more than double the standard rate. That is something about which we would like to know more.