Ms Kathleen Holohan:

I am pleased to be here to assist the committee in its examining of the housing waiting lists. I am here in the context of my role as member of the housing and building sub-committee of the County and City Management Association, CCMA, along with my colleagues, Ms Catherine Keenan and Ms Mary Mulholland.

This submission has been compiled having regard to the specific questions the joint committee requested be considered when making it. I will go through those specific questions. The first is, what are the exact structures and processes in place currently with regard to local authority housing waiting lists? The legislative provisions regarding the assessment of applications for social housing support, the adoption as a reserved function of an allocation scheme and the compilation of local authority housing waiting lists is set out in Part 3 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, as amended. That Part of the Act provides for the provision of social housing support, social housing assessment, summary of social housing assessments and allocation of dwellings.

In addition to the Act, there are regulations which are relevant to the compilation of a local authority’s housing waiting lists. The regulations clearly set out the procedure for housing applicants to be assessed and if successful they become approved housing applicants on the waiting lists. Local authorities assess all applications for social housing support in accordance with the foregoing Act and regulations. All local authorities have adopted, as a reserved function, an allocation scheme which is used for determining the priority accorded to approved applicants for social housing support. If applicants for social housing support have housing assistant payment, HAP, tenancies, they are deemed to have their housing need met and they are then removed from the housing needs assessment and placed on a transfer list should they wish.

The second question was whether the structures currently in place are sufficient and are operating as effectively and efficiently as possible. Yes, in the event there are any issues with the allocation scheme, it is open to a local authority to review and amend it, provided any proposed amended scheme is in accordance with the Act and regulations and is submitted to the Minister for consideration and possible direction prior to adoption.

The third question was whether there are any problems or bottlenecks or areas in need of improvement. In respect of the housing list applications process, the problems identified include that there is a standardised process that is unable to react to exceptional circumstances. Also, political representations and the role of advocates must be clarified and transparently managed. In respect of bottlenecks, improved inter-agency communications would be of benefit. There is ongoing work in this area such as the web API, applications programming interface, for HAP, which involves data sharing with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. Regarding areas for improvement, home visits could greatly inform the process and improve the customer experience but it is very resource intensive. Area-based clinics are a possible alternative. Some counties do home visits. There are further examples in our briefing document.

As for what, if any, improvements can be made, the definition of "homelessness" needs to be clarified or reviewed. Those availing of emergency accommodation should be visited regularly and receive active supports to source alternative accommodation, including rental accommodation. A place finder resource is to be rolled out nationally as soon as possible. All development proposals relating to the provision of social housing by private developers via turnkey projects or approved housing bodies via leasing or a turnkey project should be made eligible for consideration by county councils through the Part 8 planning process to speed delivery in supply. There are other examples in our briefing document.

As to whether there are any examples of best practice in the area, there are examples of best practice in the use of information technology. An initiative has been undertaken in Monaghan that has seen a reduction in the turnaround time for the reletting of houses. Since 2014 the average relet has reduced from 19.5 weeks to 8.03 weeks. The reasons for this include the abolition of town councils, which has led to a single housing authority operating in Monaghan, housing becoming a centralised function, a subsequent standardisation in processes, an increased use of the housing information and communications technology, ICT, system rather than many ad hocsolutions, and the introduction of a paperless housing department.

As to whether there are local authorities with innovative practices, choice-based letting is currently being rolled out in many local authorities. In November 2015, Cork City Council introduced a choice-based letting scheme, which advertises most properties online in order that applicants on the social housing waiting list can express interest in a property.

Properties are then allocated in accordance with the allocation scheme. A profile page on the website shows the applicant his or her household composition, his or her time on the list, and his or her application address on file. Originally, Cork City Council considered the introduction of choice-based lettings due to a high refusal rate. In practice, it has proved an informative and transparent way to allocate social housing and it has reduced letting times. The refusal rate lowered from between 25% to 60% to between 5% to 20%. Further details are in the briefing document.

As to how does Ireland compare with other countries in regard to the average time spent on waiting lists, we have not been able to identify a readily available source to give a comparison.

Question No. 8 seeks the average waiting time when placed on a housing waiting list. The waiting time varies from local authority to local authority. Figures from the Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2017 indicate that the highest percentage on the waiting list is seven years or more, and the next highest is five to seven years, then three to four years.

Question No. 9 concerns whether the operation of the housing waiting lists is transparent. At present, the prevalence of customers presenting as homeless results in a lack of transparency in the operation of the waiting lists. Those in rental accommodation will face longer waiting times for housing allocations than those presenting for emergency services or those with specific needs, such as a disability. The large number of people currently within the HAP system means the transparency of the waiting list is distorted as these candidates are deemed to be housed but remain on the transfer list. Transparency cannot be provided until length of time on the waiting list has a real influence on the allocation scheme again.

I thank the committee for inviting us today. Ms Mulholland, Ms Keenan and I will answer any questions.