Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted that the committee is doing this report collectively. I brought it to the committee but it has been endorsed as something we can do as a joint committee. It is not mine, rather it comes from everybody within this committee. It arose on the back of a weekly programme on Fridays that had a couple of irate panellists who said the Government had some cheek in asking them to give up their homes. We had to really take it on the chin because although it was not the aim, it came across that way. We cannot ask people to downsize or move unless there are options for them. We have a duty to provide solutions or options.

If I am being parochial, allow me to go back to social housing for all age groups and not just older people. There is a difference between "older" and "elderly". I am referring to older people who are absolutely not elderly but who might not need a home with three or four bedrooms. They might want to be in a village or community setting with supports that may be required now or in future. My local authority sold council houses through the tenant purchase scheme and we reinvested the money into all our social housing stock, retrofitting properties to bring them up to proper energy efficiency with the likes of insulation and new windows, doors, boilers and guttering systems. We brought them to a certain standard and in turn this meant we could turn over the properties more quickly if tenants moved to a different type of unit.

I know that is not happening in all local authorities but some local authorities such as Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown are very proactive in such matters. We must give recognition where it is due. I know Ms Sarah Neary has done much work with building standards and guidelines to bring us where we need to be now. There has been a massive deficit for nearly 20 years in this respect. All of a sudden we are trying to get these schemes up and running, having ignored them for decades. We must recognise that Ms Neary has done much work in the Department on this.

My fear about this process relates to cost. Deputy Ó Broin mentioned a figure of approximately 3% being bandied about last week. Do the architects see this as a factor? I am acutely aware that the construction industry is all the time trying to make it more affordable to build or to streamline, whether it is by eliminating lift shafts or parking, but not reducing the standards we now have. Is the 3% figure a barrier to us developing age-friendly and appropriate homes in mixed tenure developments? I know we are discussing Part M but the debate has even got down to saddle boards, handrails or handles and walk-in showers in houses or apartments. Is the 3% a prohibitive factor?

I am reluctant to use the word "incentivise" but how can we encourage applications for housing for older people? We have done it before in other sectors, whether we agree on it or not. Could there be initiatives such as tax incentives to encourage applications, especially in areas where we know there is a higher population of people over 65? There is one local authority in Dublin that would have a higher population than the other three. I do not want to be biased so I will not mention one over the other. Could we encourage applications so as to give people the choice of downsizing; this could lead to financial security or lessen the burden of cost in heating a larger dwelling while also facilitating family visits or other amenities?

Mr. O'Mahony mentioned planning requirements and possible resistance in this respect. I get excited when I hear such comments as it means there is something good in this that needs to be pushed. It might be difficult to deliver but sometimes the harder thing to do is the right thing. I will be led by the witness on whether a planning requirement is something we should push. Nothing is insurmountable and if there is a will, there is a way to deliver.

There was mention of particular sites for public private partnerships delivering schemes like this. I know of four sites with nothing on them right now but with plans somewhere in the ether. With those we could deliver public private partnerships at the level we need of mixed tenure. I would like some comments on that. Would it be a better mechanism for delivering housing for older people, whether in assisted or independent living, or merely within mixed tenure development? Would it be the best or fastest way of doing it? Is it a long-term solution or all of the above? Would the witnesses favour public private partnerships to deliver housing for older people rather than local authorities? They might not want to answer but I welcome their comments.

The witnesses might have examples of best practice in our European counterparts, although they may not have them here. Perhaps they could be sent to the committee so we can make informed policy decisions or refer to them when we put together the document. I know we have gone well over time and I am biased but I have found this really interesting for a long time. We can put together a lovely glossy document, and there are many in these Houses from all Departments, but there is no point in it sitting on a shelf. What key actions or recommendations can we put into development plans or national policy so as to encourage and deliver housing for older people across the country but in particular in population areas where it is needed? I am looking for the key actions.

Like many on this committee, I do not want a glossy document. I want a return for the time we are giving. Yes, it is 20 years away, but we have just lost 20 years in this area. I do not want to lose the next 20 years. The will is there - cross-party - to deliver housing for older people across the board. What key actions can we take and how can we implement them in order to get that return?