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

I thank everybody for the useful presentations. There is a terrible sense of déjà vufor most. The witnesses were with us many years ago to have exactly the same conversation. A number of people on our side of the discussion made the point that we were in the middle of a deep housing crisis and that the focus was on the need to increase supply. If we did not ensure that it was the right kind of supply to meet the needs of all sections of society, the problem would remain. Little has changed in that intervening period with regard to the issues the witnesses are asking us to raise with the Minister. Senator Fitzpatrick makes a good point about a concerning issue, which is that updating housing needs assessment documentation is now an annual exercise for everybody on local authority lists. Local authorities have become very sophisticated. All the Department has to do is instruct them to include a set of questions. That would fix the problem. It is about to do so with Traveller ethnicity as part of the Traveller accommodation strategy and absolutely needs to do so in this respect. Therefore, in addition to the CCMA, the Minister needs to instruct the local authorities to include this, because it would clean up the problem.

We now have a housing need and demand assessment, HNDA. This is meant to be a valuable tool where local authorities have evidence for making decisions on all types of planning applications for all housing, whether it is social, affordable or private housing. We have to start to integrate the conversation we are having about social housing and UD into the housing need and demand assessment. Therefore, as well as strongly supporting Senator Fitzpatrick's sensible suggestions, we need to raise the HNDA with the Minister and how it can be worked in. If a local authority planning department makes a decision on a private application at the moment, it is not allowed to ask if it meets the needs of existing and projected future households, including the needs of people with disability or mobility challenges. That has to be addressed.

The data issue is frustrating because if one does not have the data, one does not have enough information for the targets. Even if we have a 10% target, as Dr. Hartney said, the difficulty is that people do not have the luxury of being able to move house often, so I ask Dr. Hartney if 10% is really enough. If people have a local authority allocation, then their life circumstances change, they have an acquired disability and are in a wheelchair, then they can apply for a transfer, but they could be waiting for up to ten years for that transfer. My other question for Dr. Hartney is about the net and gross floor space. In January, the Department published its design manual for quality housing. The section on housing for people with disabilities is short and vague. Was there much engagement with the Department in advance of the publication of that manual? If Dr. Hartney amended that, what floor space would be required? It seems quite weak on that.

The committee should hear more about what liveability means. I ask them to address human beings rather than dimensions. I also ask them to talk us through the things that people cannot do, because the so called UD in Part M is not universal at all. The witnesses gave some good examples, but explaining that further would be useful. Are any UD+ or UD++ buildings being constructed as part of our new housing stock? Did I understand correctly that there are none? Are there some? Do we have any information with respect to that?

A big challenge, which Ms Carthy made a point about, is that we have to move to good quality, mixed tenure housing developments. It is virtually impossible for a local authority housing manager to combine a mixed tenure scheme that would also have homes that are liveable for wheelchair users. When designing a scheme, one does not necessarily have specific people in mind. The requirements in the Department's design manual mean that an occupational therapist's report is needed for a designated occupant of that property. That is the opposite to what we are talking about. We are saying that we want to have varied stock. If any witnesses have concerns or experience relating to the challenge of putting together a mixed tenure scheme to address general needs, be liveable for wheelchair users, and so on, that would be useful. A strong recommendation relates to the need for a mixed tenure point of contact in the Department in order that a housing manager who wants a mixed scheme that includes the kind of housing Ms Carthy was talking about would be able to do so.