Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go back to the implementation of Housing for All. As I have said, it is not the officials in Dublin City Council or in the Minister's Department who will ultimately be held to account by the public for this, but the Minister, me and many others. While I am not being adversarial with officials, that is why I want to try to get more transparency about the decisions that are made. I will talk about a site in Berryfield in Finglas. A planning application for six three-bedroom homes on that site was lodged two years ago. Planning permission for the site had been approved. I do not know who requested that it be changed but the approved housing body felt the need to submit a new application for 18 one- and two-bedroom homes. When it submitted that application, Dublin City Council, as the planning authority, rejected it. Now, more than two years later, there is a live planning application for six three-bedroom homes on a site in Berryfield. Can we just go ahead and build those six three-bedroom homes?

There is a live planning application and an AHB ready to build. We should not be putting in a third application. This is an example, though, of how things sometimes slip between the cracks. I give this as an example, and I will be happy to get a response on it.

The reason I raised this point is that it is going to be in our report. Many local authorities seemed to suggest that there was only funding of €5,000 for a void. Later in the discussion, they also admitted there was further funding. There almost seemed to be, though, a strategic withholding of some units in respect of more or less funding. I would prefer a response in writing so it does not eat into my time too much. There will be, however, a recommendation or commentary in the report that local authorities said there was only €5,000 in funding. If the Minister has a different view, I encourage him to submit that to the committee.

Turning to the tenant in situscheme, there was some discussion about the eviction ban. I am clear when people come into my clinic that I want to give them a permanent solution and not six or nine months of more worry. The tenant in situscheme is very clearly a long-term, positive and permanent solution for people. It removes the reliance on HAP. Many people on this side of the House have been asking Governments to stop being reliant on HAP. The tenant in situscheme takes people out of the HAP network, gives them a permanent social home and, regardless of their place on the housing list, secures them. This is now a national scheme that has happened during the time of the eviction ban, when many people say nothing happened.

I still think that Deputy Boyd Barrett is not wrong. I have found myself saying this twice today, and I am very worried. The Deputy, however, is not wrong in this regard. There still can be places where there is not a specific reference to or access to a scheme. Rather than having local authorities put people into emergency accommodation, which costs €70,000 annually, a way should be found to secure properties rather than not doing so. I think this is also the view of the Minister.

Regarding a tenant in situ-type scheme for people earning above the income limits, which would be like a cost-rental backstop, I would like to know where we are with this initiative. I also wonder where we are with giving people the opportunity to purchase properties as well.