Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Many of us are enormously frustrated, as is the Irish League of Credit Unions, with the fact that for two years the league has made a series of presentations to the relevant authorities but we are still here discussing it. Many of us in this committee, and across the House, share this frustration. Our party has advocated, in the Committee on Housing and Homelessness and previously, that we need a portion of these funds to be released for precisely the purposes outlined by the witnesses today. As Deputy Cowen has done, I have made a submission to the Central Bank as part of its consultation, which fully supports the proposition.

There is a double win if the State does this, because this is additional money. No funds can be used to provide housing within the Government's housing action plan but it can be used to provide additional units over and above those targets and this is the real value of what is being proposed. We should stress this very clearly. The submission refers to three funding frameworks outlined on page 3.

My own preference - that is what I stated in the submission on the Central Bank - is for option 2, primarily in terms of the capacity of the tier 3 approved housing bodies to deliver units, certainly in the first three to four years. The second option in terms of the annual funds that would be released is probably the most credible not from the point of view of the credit unions, but from theirs. Obviously, if their capacity increased then, the total quantum of the fund could be increased as well, but even on that basis one would be looking at an additional 17,500 units delivered over six years. That is an additional 2,900 units, which would be hugely welcome.

We have been asking repeatedly what has been the real obstacle to a decision on the release of the funds for social housing. I invite the witnesses to be as frank as they can to let us know where is the blockage. We all know off the record or we have our own assumptions but it is important, as part of our attempts to put pressure on the relevant authorities to make the funds available, that the witnesses would share with us whatever information they can about where the obstacles have been.

I would like the ILCU witnesses to talk a little bit about their preferred model for the shape of the fund. The Government's housing action plan was outlined but is that the preferred model of the credit unions and that, as outlined in their schedules, they would put a sum of money into a fund where there would be other private sector funding - the Irish Council for Social Housing would be part of that - and tier 3 approved housing bodies could access that on an ongoing basis in terms of individual projects? Would that be a rolling fund and as opportunities came up for the approved housing bodies, either sites to buy or to build, they could come and seek loan finance?

If I understood it correctly, the Irish League of Credit Unions talked about the possibility of 100% loans versus the 70% loans, with matching funding from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government and the local authorities. From within the ILCU's risk assessment, is it conceivable for such a fund to provide 100% loans, obviously with the guarantee of the availability agreement coming through? If that is the case then there would be less reliance on the public funding and that could be used elsewhere in the public housing system. Has there been discussion with the approved housing bodies in terms of their capacity to deliver units? With the best will in the world, even if one has unlimited funding but the sector can only deliver so much. To what extent are the funding schedules on page 3, as a result of any of those engagements?

Has the ILCU had any discussions with the Department on the possible redesignation of approved housing bodies as State entities and therefore on-balance sheet?. I am sure the witnesses are aware of the ongoing review between the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, the CSO and EUROSTAT. If EUROSTAT and the CSO take the decision here that has been taken across the water in Britain that would obviously change some of the rationale for what is being proposed here, although not substantially in my view. Has the Department included the ILCU in that conversation or are the witnesses aware of those issues?