Ms Rosalind Carroll:

Deputy Dowds asked about outlining the advantages and disadvantages. I outlined a number of advantages of regulation in my opening address.

First and foremost it is about complexity in terms of a changing world and how social housing is being delivered. If AHBs are to have an enhanced role, we need to be looking at regulating them in a different way. If they no longer receive 100% capital finance, we need to have regulatory oversight in order that people will invest in them to deliver more housing. Apart from just attracting in lenders, we need also to think about the fact they are changing how they do business and that they are taking on risks. There needs to be regulatory oversight to protect the tenant, so it is not just about the private finance. It is about ensuring there is oversight if they are taking on private finance, that it is not too much finance and that the homes which tenants are in already can be protected. It is also about ensuring tenants are well governed and well managed and it is about performance. There will be a role in terms of regulation. In my role as head of regulation, we look at governance and financial viability but also at the overall performance of an organisation. We could be looking at areas such as maintenance, management, the vacancy rates across the stock and so on to check that the housing performance is at the level we would expect. Where there are individual issues, we would look for an explanation and what is being done to address it. If we were to see very high vacancy rates, that is one of the things we would do.

One of the powers within the Bill is publishing information. In doing that, there should be transparency for lenders but also for tenants to empower them in the future to make choices about their landlords. If tenants see that a certain landlord appears to be doing well, they may want to opt for that accommodation over other accommodation.

The tenant purchase scheme was mentioned. The way the current funding schemes work, and this is obviously not a matter for regulation, is that most of the property funded by the State has a mortgage against it which means the property cannot be sold. It must be available for social rented purposes. Any such decision would have to involve the AHB having regard to the mortgage on the property in the first instance and repaying some of the debt to Government in terms of the legal entity that exists.

The incremental purchase scheme introduced in 2009 under the Housing Act at that time allows for incremental purchase arrangements where AHBs can do incremental purchase. This allows them to build housing for sale for people on the social housing waiting list. While it may not be the same as the present tenant purchase scheme, the new tenant purchase scheme is based on the incremental purchase scheme as well in that it is bought over a period, so there may be options for AHBs to do more of that. I am aware of one approved housing body that has worked in conjunction with the local authority to do that in a particular site in Drogheda. There may be further examples of that that could be looked at in the future but, as I have said, it is not specific to my role in terms of regulation.

The HFA was raised. The difference between HFA and how it impacts on approved housing bodies is that some approved housing body tenants receive a capped amount of rent supplement and in time they will receive a HFA payment rather than rent supplement when they are in accommodation financed under the capital assistance scheme.