Mr. Michael Walsh:

We are legally obliged to meet minimum rental standards for social housing. We are seeking to achieve them and looking to move to a planned maintenance and inspection regime. That is a dialogue that is happening with a separate section of the Department to that of Mr. Dunne and Mr. Maher. There is certainly distinct movement in that space. However, sometimes the political system is a little ambiguous in it. The simple reality is that there is tolerance of any increase in any context in the resource base, through rent increases or otherwise. There is as a consequence a risk of a diminution of overall standards. In other words, everything will meet the minimum standards, as distinct from the other way around. That is a challenge for us because, as local authorities, we want to push up our level of service, but in some respects that comes at a cost. Generally, there is no reflection of this in the income base.

Equally, on investing in our houses generally at a policy level, there is a matter for the Oireachtas and the Minister to consider. In reality, our current policy is that we build houses and within a relatively short period we give them away on a subsidised basis by way of tenant purchase schemes and otherwise. From a policy perspective, investment in an asset that a tenant is entitled to purchase and that will, therefore, be taken from the local authority in the future is not terribly rational. That is all I will say in that context.

I consider the social housing function as being slightly separate. I take the speaker's point to some degree in the context of the local authority housing properties that were mentioned. However, there are different functions. Housing inspections are generally all made within one Department, but the scheme of letting priorities prescribes the circumstances in which a house is to be let in any individual local authority area. As such, it may be that somebody is housed because of the scale of the property required relative to family size or because of any number of other circumstances, as distinct from meeting minimum standards. I do not think one can align the two directly, although I am not denying the essence of the point. However, first, we have to adhere to the scheme of letting priorities. On the other hand, I take the point that perhaps there should be clearer communication that a property needs to be inspected if issues are identified. I can only speak for my local authority, but I know this to be the case - any arm of our organisation that becomes aware of an issue in a rental property brings it to the attention of the inspectors and vice versa. If there is a serious fire standards contravention, for example, we bring it to the attention of the fire officers who, if necessary, can act under the Fire Services Acts. I am not saying that is absolutely uniform, but it is the space to which we are getting. I do not know if Mr. Smyth wishes to comment on the issue.