Mr. Ned Brennan:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. Many of the issues raised by my colleagues will be reflected in my presentation. Respond! Housing Association is a not-for-profit organisation founded 32 years ago in 1982. We employ 300 staff across the country. We provide a development programme in the delivery of new houses and a support programme for our tenants. We have an extensive community development programme for our tenants and their children. We manage approximately 40 preschools, 40 after schools and a number of homework clubs and youth programmes for the children living on our estates and those living on nearby estates. We see ourselves as a community development organisation with housing as a part of our remit in the delivery of services to people in need of housing and in the delivery of services to low-income families living on our estates. I will address the issues of a national housing plan, spending on social housing, corporate partnerships with Government and measures that will support the voluntary sector in increasing the housing output.

I reflect what my colleague, Mr. Justin O'Brien, said earlier about the need for a national housing development plan. Fewer than 9,000 houses were delivered in 2013 and the recent housing agency report last week indicates that the economy needs approximately 80,000 houses over the coming five years, amounting to 16,000 per year. The figures from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government are somewhat at variance with Mr. Brian O'Gorman's figures. The sector produced 211 units last year, compared to 2009, when the sector delivered over 2,000 units. Last year we delivered less than 10% of what we delivered some seven years ago. At this point, there are nearly 90,000 families or 200,000 individuals on local authority waiting lists across the country. We need a national housing plan that is properly researched, properly planned and fully resourced. In the absence of a national development plan, we will not learn from the mistakes of the past and we are bound to repeat them.

The second area concerns the spend on social housing, which has decreased by 63% between 2008 and 2014. That is a massive shrinking of the amount of State funding available to support the delivery of social housing from the voluntary sector and the local authority sector. Another area that Mr. Justin O'Brien alluded to is that of corporate partnerships with the Government. The committee will consider the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill in the coming weeks. While we fully support the Bill in respect of tenants, we do not favour the idea that the voluntary sector should be shoehorned in under legislation that was primarily instigated ten years ago for the private sector. As I outlined in my paper, we share the same characteristics as the local authority housing sector and we feel it is more appropriate that tenants' rights should be vindicated through a housing ombudsman or through a social housing ombudsman, as is the case in respect of local authority tenants. Local authority tenants with complaints can have their rights vindicated through the ombudsman. It is a great waste of resources to set up a new structure in the Private Residential Tenancies Board when there is an existing structure under the ombudsman, which could service an additional 24,000 tenancies on top of the 130,000 tenancies it is supporting in the local authority sector. The ombudsman service has the expertise in the area of social housing whereas it is a whole new learning curve for the Private Residential Tenancies Board.

The third area concerns measures to support the voluntary sector in increasing housing output. With regard to the CALF scheme and the payment and availability agreement, the CALF is a capital subsidy of a percentage, varying from 15% to 25%, that must be paid back at the end of the period. An availability agreement is a revenue subsidy on the moneys borrowed by the housing association from a commercial financial institution to build or acquire houses. Two elements are contained in that, one of which is the funding and capital costs, and the other of which is the interest repayments on the loan over a 25-year period. A State guarantee or a Government underwriting of these loans, as is common in Holland, Denmark and parts of the UK, would greatly support the ability of the sector to deliver social housing over the coming years. Mr. Justin O'Brien has alluded to the fact that we were 100% capital funded until 2007. This has now been reduced by between 15% and 30%, and the transition in the UK from a high level of capital subsidy to a low level took 20 to 25 years. The only way the sector can continue to deliver the 2009 level of output, at 2,000 units per year, is through a Government guarantee on our borrowings.

The second aspect that will assist us in delivering is the subordination of local authority loan charges on the mortgages. At the moment, we sign a mortgage under the capital loan and subsidy scheme and under the capital assistance scheme with the local authority. It is a non-chargeable and non-repayable mortgage as long as we maintain the houses for the period of the mortgage, 25 years, and make them available to people in need of social housing. Some mortgages - we suggest 40% - could be written off without any cost to the State. It is a way of trying to leverage additional private finance into the sector. The capital loan and subsidy scheme must be more flexible in terms of geographical areas. Dublin, where rents are good, does not need the same level of subsidy as rural areas, where rents are low and where it is more challenging to deliver.

Regarding the payment and availability agreement and the CALF, some of the restrictions need to be revised to provide more flexible mechanisms so that we can borrow and deliver additional social housing. As Mr. Justin O'Brien alluded to, only 39 units have been delivered under the mortgage to rent scheme while 1,337 applicants have been approved. If all applicants were to be approved, it would amount to €133 million. Based on the €10 million set aside by the Government this year, there is no way we can cover the gap of almost €130 million. Other sources of funding could be successfully tapped, such as the European Investment Bank and other European sources of funding. We feel the Government should put together a model to deliver finance for the delivery of social housing and support services to those most in need. Programmes are available, under the JESSICA fund, of €150 million for the delivery of retrofitting or housing in disadvantaged areas or those in need of urban regeneration. This is useful and is of great assistance to the sector in the delivery of housing to those most in need of housing in our society.