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

I thank the witnesses for their answers. I have two follow-up questions, the first of which relates to the possibility of 70% loans, as opposed to 100% loans. The approved housing bodies have an availability agreement that is guaranteed by the State. They also have the step-in clause that has been mentioned, which means that the local authority can step in if something happens to an approved housing body. I presume the existence of these two arrangements means there would not be a huge amount of additional risk if a 100% loan as opposed to a 70% loan, were provided. The only reason I am asking is that the 30% CALF complicates the lending procedures. Given that the two safety nets to which I have referred - the availability agreement and the step-in clause - are in place, what is the view of the credit union movement from a financial risk management point of view about the possibility of having the 100% loan option?

I want to go back to the first question. I think it is really important for us to press Mr. Farrell on it. Two years ago, capital investment in social housing by the State was at rock bottom. It was approximately €400 million per annum. Many of us challenged the Government to increase capital investment. It said it did not have the money. We challenged that and identified other sources. At the same time that the Government was saying it did not have the money, the Irish League of Credit Unions and others were putting on the table amounts of money that were equivalent to what the State was spending at that point. I am working on the basis of the figures provided by the league.

The credit unions are proposing an annual fund from their own resources, let alone from other funds that may be available, equivalent to what the State was funding at that point, somewhere between €347 million and €520 million. Everybody wanted to know about funds and we asked the Departments of Finance and Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government about this. The Government said it had no funds but the credit unions said, "Yes, we have funds, here they are and here is the sustainable model for funding". From the sector's direct experience with the Central Bank and the Departments of Finance and Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, can the witnesses tell the committee who was blocking the access to those funds? I believe the public has the right to know.

The credit union sector was saying that it could double the amount of investment in social housing in a way that is good for the credit union members and for the people who need the housing. Somebody was stopping the sector from doing that. Was it the Central Bank's Registrar of Credit Unions, the Department of Finance, the Minister or was it the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government? Without putting the representatives too much on the spot, could they give their experience of those engagements over the past two years? We are talking about 10,000 to 15,000 homes. This is the kind of quantum of units that could have been commenced two years ago and built over a six year period, if this had been taken up when the sector first proposed it. These are not trivial amounts of homes and families that would have benefited if the Government had taken up the offer two years ago when it was first made.