Mr. Paul Lemass:

To be clear, that is the number that got registered status. Many of those would not be active. A de-listing exercise has been undertaken and we need to do more. The numbers participating in the voluntary code, which is set up through the interim regulatory committee, is more like 260. However, those 260 AHBs represent the lion's share of the activity and the housing stock. We are comfortable that we have captured most of the housing stock and most of the growth with those 260. Growth is linked to working with the voluntary committee and getting a satisfactory assessment through it. We recognise it is a busy sector and we have supported the ICSH and others to look at ways of rationalising the sector and facilitating the transfer of assets. That work is ongoing and it will become more pressing as time goes on because 560 AHBs is too many for a country of 4 million or 5 million people.

A critical aspect of reform will be the introduction of statutory regulation, which we hope will be in this committee soon. That will be a significant support to the development of the sector.

On the use of AHBs, the plan in Rebuilding Ireland is that they would deliver one third of the units. In reality they are over-delivering and they are closer to 40%. We are happy with that. The policy in Rebuilding Ireland has always been that it will be flexible. If it is apparent there is an AHB that is ready to take the lead and develop, and there is a need in that area that is signed off by the housing authority, we will be flexible. The committee has seen that because AHBs have gone from 33% to close to 40% of the deliveries so far.

To be crystal clear on the differential rent, the Housing Alliance has proposed that as part of the reclassification exercise, we would move from the current SHEP proposed operation of the payment and availability scheme to a new scheme, which would involve a differential HAP being paid in addition to the differential rent a tenant would already pay. That is a Housing Alliance proposal. It is not our proposal. We will refer to it in that context and that is something we need to work through with it to understand how it would practically be different from a payment and availability arrangement.

On the reclassification of AHBs, I reiterate that we supported their retention off-balance sheet. We made a case to the CSO and EUROSTAT at the time that they should remain off balance sheet and we pointed to their independent appointment of officers and to the fact they have their own boards and set their own strategies as justification for them remaining off balance sheet. The ultimate decision was they became on balance sheet but it was not our preferred outcome and we are happy to work with the sector to examine ways to reverse that. Earlier on I emphasised that notwithstanding the reclassification, the delivery of social housing continues apace and there is nothing in the reclassification that will impact negatively on our plans to deliver. Those plans include moving up to 12,000 build acquisition and leases per year, while will be mainly build and lease, by 2021, and continuing at that rate until 2027. That is already factored into the national development plan so we have a high degree of confidence those numbers will be delivered. To put that in context, that means that by the end of 2027, we will have put out 112,000 new units. That compares with the social housing list which was completed a month or two ago, which indicates we have 68,000 people on waiting lists. We feel that is an acceptable proposal in terms of the scale of ambition and a response to the challenges presented in the context of a housing list with 68,000 people on it.