Mr. Justin O'Brien:

I will complement some of what Dr. McManus has said. We are meeting the same housing need. All the people we house come from the local authority waiting lists. They give the names to us and then we interview and agree the selection with them. Therefore, we are meeting a public need for housing.

We are a dedicated housing body. There are important regulations, particularly for larger tier 3 associations. As part of regulatory compliance we have to produce a 30-year asset management plan and get it verified and approved by our boards. The purpose is to ensure we know the money we need to set aside for the replacement of component parts of housing, such as windows, roofs, etc. That is what we have to do as part of business modelling. In that sense we are probably more disciplined than local authorities. The truth is that local authority rent goes into the central coffers of local authorities. It does not always go back into housing. We use all the money we get on rent to maintain and manage the properties. The indications are that the key performance indicators we have are generally better than local authorities, but people operate in different contexts.

In that sense I take on board the issue Deputy Coppinger raised. I cannot speak for the bodies she referred to. I can only speak for my association, Circle Voluntary Housing Association. If a public representative contacts me with an issue for a constituent, I will respond to it. It is simply part of what I have to do. I respect the right of a public representative to do so and I would try to respond and give an explanation in respect of housing need or where a person is. If there is a complaint about maintenance, I would try to explain how we are trying to deal with it. That does arise. I am simply saying that this is not to delegitimise the rights of public representatives to advocate on behalf of the people we house or the people they represent. That is not the position. That is the context in which we have to operate.

Further to what Dr. McManus has said, it is not a question of either-or. We may have the capacity to get funding from one source and the local authorities have to rely entirely on public funding. We are trying to work together and broaden the funding regime to deliver the necessary social housing. If the capital advance leasing facility and the payment availability works, then for every 30% the Department puts in we will have to raise the other 70%.

That is a better value equation for the State in terms of new provision. If there are limits on the Government balance sheet for the capital spend, that is a serious factor facing the country and it affects us as approved housing bodies, AHBs, as well. That is why the capital programme was decimated between 2008 and 2015. It began to increase slightly only in 2015. It was decimated for local authorities and for us.