Mr. Seán Moynihan:

I am trying to cover all the bases in this reply. In respect of homelessness, the Deputy is correct in that the seeds for the next homeless crisis among older people are there on the basis of the rental issue. There is no long-term security for anybody in rental. We are heading to a position in urban centres where up to 50% of people may rent in the future and the number of people who are over 65 and are renting has gone up 28% since 2011. As the age group below that has gone up by higher percentages, we will have an awful lot of people in this old age category. One of the aforementioned five big-ticket items may relate to long-term leases. In long-term leases, one always has the right to sell the property and so on. As noted earlier, we have been inviting in institutional investors - professional landlords- to meet the need and there seems to be no reason such people operating at that scale cannot give long-term leases to give people the security that is available in other countries. Otherwise, one will have an awful lot of older people looking for homes.

At present, 90% of all the older people in our housing are coming from homeless services, which traditionally was not the situation. There are approximately 35 older people for each house and 35 people over 70 years all trying to get into one house is not a good queue to be facing. When they try to obtain private rented accommodation in their 70s, they turn up, usually on their own and perhaps try to pay the rent with housing assistance payment, HAP. They are just not attractive to the private sector.

Ultimately, the only people who can ramp up to this scale are probably the local authorities. They are the only people who can build at the scale that this requires. We are an approved housing body, AHB, and have plans to deliver another 500 units in the next five years. That is only the tip of the iceberg and it is for all of the AHBs. The councils, therefore, need to do this.

In respect of the age-friendly design, my understanding is that one is looking at an additional cost of approximately 3%. Because the structures are well built, my understanding is that over the lifetime of the building, which is around 40 years, one recoups that money on the basis that adaptations or changes do not have to be made during the person's lifetime. As Mr. Bond said earlier, one then is building for everybody because getting older is the best outcome and hopefully is a journey we are all on.

It is cheaper in the long run. Consequently, the second item I would choose is that universal or age-friendly design. In that regard, we always are worried when we hear about lowering standards to invite other people in. There are high returns on rent and on property circulation but we are lowering the standards now. We are currently working on one development where we are taking an old unit built 30 years ago and are refurbishing it by turning it into one of these two-into-one dwellings. I refer to people living in an area of 280 sq. ft. We look at such developments built 25 years ago and we probably ask what people were thinking. As we lower the standards, I would be concerned that perhaps in ten or 15 years' time people will look at us and ask what we were thinking. It is a short-term thing as the lifespan is 40 years.

On what we can do, I offer the commitment that when we are talking to the other non-governmental organisations in putting our pre-budget submission together, we will all put in the same proposal for alterations to the grant scheme and give a consistent and clear message of our different experiences. If we agree on five things, we should submit five things. If there are three things we do not agree on, we should leave them out. That is the type of thing we have to try to do. An inch is better than a mile if it is in the right direction.

Regarding Rebuilding Ireland, there are two major concerns for older people of which downsizing is one. Only 13% of older people live in housing with more than seven rooms. That includes kitchens, living rooms and sitting rooms. I am slightly concerned that this is like the issue of vacant housing. We could send downsizing officers all over the country, taking resources away from public officials while looking for things that may not exist. Individuals who downsize at the moment are generally couples in good health with a very substantial asset. In most cases, they will probably manage it themselves. We want downsizing to be a choice, but the choices will probably have to be built first. It is the other way around.