Mr. Paul Lemass:

Yes. That is the kind of money involved. Investment decisions are underpinned by a housing authority assessment of the need so if an AHB comes in with a proposal, it must be approved by the local authority in the first instance. It then comes into the Department because we have a broader housing policy remit but there must be a need. That is what drives it.

Regarding major policy changes, the bottom line is that they have called out allocations, differential rent and the configuration of properties.

We have to internalise that and determine the changes required and how those changes can be reconciled with the need to manage allocation and differential rent systems that are fair to everyone.

In parallel with reclassification, the Department is working on the social housing reform package. We were looking at this anyway, independently of that exercise. We will try to find a way that one can collaborate with the other or at least not derail the other. We are very alive to the issue.

Regarding the Housing (Regulation of Approved Housing Bodies) Bill 2019 and the question of tenancy management and allocations, I note that this is happening already. The voluntary code is working very well. It has taken us a while to go from 2013 to having a Bill published and in the Dáil in 2019. The benefit of that is that we have had six years to build awareness, raise standards and get compliance with them. The sector has worked extremely well. The oversight of performance provided for in the Bill largely exists already on a voluntary basis. Obviously we need to move to a statutory basis; that is accepted. However, much of this oversight already exists on a voluntary basis. As regards whether it is a policy, the idea is that if a certain approved housing body, AHB, is asked to allocate houses to a number of people on the list, a regulator will be able to satisfy itself that those people have been allocated houses off that list. That is the level of oversight at issue. Alternatively, there may be a communications issue concerning whether an approved housing body is communicating effectively with its tenants. That is the kind of oversight we are considering. It is entirely separate from the role of the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, which manages its area. There is a very clear division there. It is not inappropriate for a regulator to examine those areas.

Reference was made to the Minister. The Minister must have a reasonable level of oversight to understand what is happening in the sector and how it is responding to the challenges, and potentially to learn from the sector, which is racing ahead in terms of delivery. There is no one-size-fits-all model for regulation but given the level of investment in the sector and our reliance on it to deliver, the Minister would have an appropriate level of oversight.

Finally, before I yield to colleagues in the Department of Finance I wish to address stress-testing. It is really important to be clear that the Bill was initially developed in 2015, before the issue of reclassification had materialised. It is important that each of the two initiatives stands on its own merits. I would be very uncomfortable if we were reconsidering regulation to facilitate reclassification happening or not happening. We need to keep a clear separation between the two. Regulation is there to ensure that the sector is well regulated and to give confidence to the public in that regard. Reclassification is there to enable AHBs to participate and access private financing. That is a separate exercise. However, I sit on the interim regulatory committee which reviewed the legislation. It was satisfied that nothing in the Bill would hinder a reclassification exercise. In fact, its general finding was that the ability to demonstrate that the sector is well regulated would help in any reclassification initiative. That is much as I can say. Perhaps the Department of Finance can respond to some of the earlier questions.