Mr. Paul Lemass:

On the question of examinership, the Bill provides that the regulator must be notified when an AHB is brought into the examinership process. Once an AHB is in this process, my sense is that it should be given time to run its course. This would inform any further action on the part of the regulator regarding the financial, governance and performance standards. Frankly, I would be surprised if the regulator was not aware of the financial challenges facing an AHB before it reached the stage of examinership. There is a quite strong level of engagement with AHBs.

Regarding dwellings whose registration is cancelled, the ideal scenario would be a voluntary transition. The goal of the regulation is to protect the tenants and the assets. Ideally, there will be a voluntary transition in which an AHB recognises that for whatever reason its board is unable to comply and wants to move on, for example, if it is aged. There have been voluntary transitions from AHBs, transfers of assets and mergers of AHBs. It has happened, although perhaps not at the pace we would like. Obviously, this would not happen overnight and would be planned in advance. Given its understanding of the sector, part of the regulator's role would be to identify alternative AHBs, or possibly a local authority, which would take on the units. That would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, as would the consideration of the condition of the units.

We will undertake to check what protocol is in place or is being developed for engagement between housing authorities and AHBs. This is a broader policy matter and is distinct from the regulation of AHBs, which is the specific focus of this legislation. However, we will undertake to check it out.