Ms Kathleen Holohan:

If it was rolled out, it would make sense. Transparency is part of the issue and that has come up a few times in the questions. When dealing with competing balances and people with difficult circumstances, including medical conditions, homelessness and domestic violence, it is difficult to keep everything entirely transparent. As such, a person who thinks he or she is in the top ten and sees that 20 houses are coming on stream might be under the impression that he or she will definitely get one and that creates a challenge.

In respect of the annual review, local authorities would make contact on a number of occasions. A number of local authorities would use social media to advertise that a review is being carried out and publicise it in local newspapers. I know from my own experience that the three-year assessment used to give rise to people being taken off the list but the main criterion is there - that they come back on. The door is not closed to them if they come back on. They can be dealt with.

In our submission, we made a comment regarding the concept of home visits. If one was aware of people on the list who were vulnerable and had that resource available and they were not responding, it might be possible to follow up in that sort of scenario. Likewise, the placefinder process enables us to look at people who may not yet be evicted or have their home repossessed so both of those could be looked at.

I think the Deputy asked about further details on the breakdown of the length of time. I am sure we can look to see if we can get to that. Just because somebody is ten years on the list does not necessarily mean they did not get offers of accommodation. In some cases, people have declined many offers of accommodation.