Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 2 July 2019

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government

Approved Housing Bodies: Discussion

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

I have two quick supplementary questions, but, first, it would be worthwhile comparing the number of meetings the delegates have had with relevant Departments with the number the inter-departmental Clearing House Group have had. That is a group that was established by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government to examine ways by which private sector real estate trust investment in social housing provision could be facilitated. In an equivalent period it had over 25 meetings. I know this because I submitted a request under freedom of information legislation. I received over 32 records or documents in response to that request. It was a stack that was inches thick. The delegates have had three meetings with the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, while the Housing Alliance has had one meeting with the Department of Finance. It has submitted documentation but received no response. That says a lot. The Department of Finance had no difficulty in being part of the inter-departmental group, contrary to what it has stated in its submission today that the AHB issue is not one for it. When it was an issue of private finance coming through a different mechanism, the Department had no difficulty. That highlights the problem.

Deputy Boyd Barrett made an important point. The CSO set out concerns in its initial determination with which EUROSTAT agreed, namely, issues related to financing, contracts, regulations and risk exposure. However, EUROSTAT went one step further. It was concerned not only with governance issues but also the relationship between rents - social rents and the level and movement of market rents and how they affected the AHB sector's investment decisions. That is a much bigger issue than that raised by the CSO.

There are ways of tackling that first group of issues that the CSO highlighted without undermining the body's ethos. I worry about the mistake that British AHBs made, which was to tackle the issue of rents, market fluctuations and investment decisions, they went further and they have gone down a trajectory of undermining their ethos. The jury is out and, depending on what the Minister comes back with, we can make some judgments.

Has the Housing Alliance of Ireland has made proposals to the Department or does it have a view on the second to last paragraph in the conclusions of the EUROSTAT document, regarding the additional criteria? That is a worry. Even if the AHBs do not want to, they may become sub-market operators as they are in Britain rather than not-for-profit and voluntary social housing providers. I have not heard anybody coming up with a way of responding to that.

I acknowledge the witnesses said there has been no impact on delivery. One of the main worries many of us had when the AHBs were put on balance sheet was that they would have to jump through the same hoops and four stages in the development pipeline as local authorities. I take from the comments that, so far, the Departments dealing with housing and finance have been pretty hands-off in how they do their business once they get approval. Has there been any change with respect to departmental scrutiny?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.