Mr. Ronnie Downes:

I would respond with two points. Most obviously, my colleagues in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and their interaction with local authorities who are on the front line in developing and implementing policy, weighing up the evidence and putting it into practice.

A separate point, which goes some way towards answering the Deputy's question, is that when it comes to assessing those particular policy choices there are different ways of approaching the analysis. In spending reviews we look at it from the point of view of the value for money for the public purse or the Exchequer of the different interventions. Part of the value for money consideration is not only the money being spent but what interventions will deliver in improved outcomes or housing outcomes for people. Some relevant considerations are whether the State is holding on to or developing an asset over time or is the asset more of an ongoing recurring expenditure. From the point of view of capital investment in housing, there are value for money advantages in the public sector developing its own asset base rather than purely having recourse to other models which involve ongoing payments. The analytical approach is to look at the value for money aspect. That is the overall amount of money going out and the efficiency and positive impacts of that for our citizens in delivering housing outcomes. We are aware our colleagues in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and local authorities often do not have the luxury of waiting for years for a particular policy to bear fruit, as intended. They may have to adopt some short-term and immediate-term interventions to get people the housing they need. In parallel with that, we understand colleagues are developing those medium and longer term policies which would put things on a more sustainable beneficial basis in the longer term.

The Deputy raised other important questions regarding working from home, including that it is not necessarily completely advantageous to work from home. The Deputy mentioned some mental health related issues arising from the tedium of working in the same place all day and the blurring there can be between work and life that can impact on having a work-life balance. Those are issues my colleagues in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform are reflecting on as we take account of and collate the different learnings from the experience to date. Part of the solution or the space we may be evolving towards is hubs, to pick up on the Deputy’s point, and the potential that may have to strike a better balance for some people. Some of the negatives in working from home that people report are the lack of social and direct interaction with their peers and colleagues and the learning by osmosis and interaction that takes place. There is scope in hubs for some of those benefits to be captured. There are regional development benefits with respect to regional hubs. All of that is currently in the mix. If we are moving towards a blended approach, whether it be the traditional workplace, working from home or a blend that will incorporate some of those regional hubs, that is all being currently considered.

I recall being at a meeting prior to the pandemic with some senior officials at which remote working was mentioned and someone around the table expressed the view that remote working or people working from home would never work and that we focus exclusively on people working in hubs, which was the way to go. There was much nodding of heads at the time. My experience of working from home for the past year has changed my thinking on that for what it is worth. I have seen civil servants work extremely well and effectively from home. I am working from home today but I have been in the office a few days this week.