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

I thank the delegates for all the answers to date. "Moral hazard" is probably the wrong phrase in that it means incentivising high-risk behaviour because the consequences of the risk are being taken away, which is not the case here. I accept the argument about fairness in ordinary times but we are not in ordinary times. Even if the arrangement is for a defined period, there is a case for saying, for all the reasons Deputy Cian O'Callaghan outlined, that the argument about fairness in ordinary times should be put to one side. I welcome that the period has been reduced from five years to two years. Not all local authorities are that flexible. That is the concern some of us have.

Let me reflect on my own experience. I have a very good local authority whose staff work very hard and whose management manages it well. However, when I talk to landlords they tell me they are not called within a couple of weeks and that it can in fact take months. Landlords with a long-term relationship with tenants and who are keen to sell, sometimes at a discount, can be left waiting for four or five months before the council even indicates whether it is considering the purchase. I have had two cases of families who ended up in emergency accommodation because the local authority took such a long time even to initiate the process. The landlord, for very legitimate reasons, had to sell the property, and the potential tenants in situwere lost. We do not know whether the arrangement would have gone through.

I fully accept that a three- or four-bedroom property cannot be acquired for a single person. I understand the pressure to have one-bedroom properties. Where a young family is in a three-bedroom property – although, strictly speaking, they need only two bedrooms – the local authority should have flexibility to use its discretion as the family might grow and need three bedrooms. I am interested in hearing the representatives' thoughts on that.

The same applies to the price, which concerns me a little. I fully accept that we have to stay within the price caps, within reason. Many of the tenant in situset-ups come well below the price caps, certainly out in the suburbs, where I live. However, if a landlord believes €10,000 or €20,000 extra can be got for the sale of a vacant property on the open market, this amount is a fraction of the financial cost, let alone the emotional cost, to someone spending a year or two in emergency accommodation. I am saying that because I understand that when the valuer does the evaluation, it is done with the tenant in situas opposed to asking what the property would sell for on the open market if it were vacant. I would be interested in hearing a comment on that. What is the actual valuation mechanism? The various scenarios involve different financial calculations. I want us to protect the taxpayers' interests but if valuation is based on an occupied property rather than a vacant one on the open market, there is an issue. I have a real case in this regard. The Dublin City Council valuers did their job very well and the property in question was valued at €290,000, but the estate agent is telling the landlord that if it is put on the open market, given a little buoyancy, an extra €30,000 will be got for it. The landlord has gone back to the local authority. Again, I do not want to be encouraging landlords to inflate the prices, because they have to be contained, but there has to be some level of flexibility regarding the margin. Could the delegates comment on that?

There has been no Supplementary Estimate. Therefore, I am working on the assumption that, for the moment, any tenant in situarrangement is coming from within the capital envelope that has been allocated. At what point does that change? At what point do the Department and Minister come back to the Oireachtas for a Supplementary Estimate? Could the delegates clarify that no additional resources have been provided above the capital envelopes agreed in the budget?

I am hearing from some local authorities that reasonable requests for refurbishment costs are not being agreed to. While we need to be reasonable and flexible about this, I would like some clarity. The most recent circular suggests that, in the main, refurbishment costs will not be considered, but some clarity on this would be helpful.

On the extension of the scheme to cost-rental properties, I appreciate the matter is not simple or straightforward. Mr O'Reilly is dealing with a case in this regard at the moment. Could the Department clarify what the cost-rental backstop is? Nobody seems to be able to explain it. If an approved housing body were to approach the Department today and, with regard to an individual purchase or multi-unit development, apply for the cost-rental equity loan, subject to all the various conditions, could the Department consider it, or are we awaiting a policy decision by the Government? Could Ms Stapleton respond to the questions directed at her, followed by Mr. O'Reilly on the few questions directed at him?