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

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. It is good to have them back before the committee. Like Senator Fitzpatrick, I acknowledge the very significant volume of work they and all their teams do in providing much-needed social and affordable homes to their tenants. On Mr. Hannigan's point on professionalisation, it is a very good thing but it is also important that, as their organisations become increasingly professional, holding on to that voluntary sector community ethos is key, particularly in how they engage with their tenants, because they are not the same as private sector tenants. I know they agree with that but it is just to put that on the record.

I warmly welcome the shift from our previous conversation with some of the witnesses towards the call for equity finance. It is the most eminently sensible proposition, because it would fix a particular problem they have but also there is a reason the State should want to do it in terms of them continuing to have a minority interest in the asset into the future. There is a win-win both for the approved housing body sector and the Government and it is a proposition I fully support.

I would be interested in some of the witnesses' responses to whether, if we were to merge CALF and the cost rental equity loan, CREL, into a single fund, keep them at their current rate but have them equity financed rather than loan financed, that would fix the problem. If that is the answer, the witnesses need to say that very clearly because that then moves the debate on to whether the political will exists to do that. From an administrative point of view, having two funds for projects that are increasing mixed tenure makes no sense. Having a single fund in which you can mix and match the tenure mix and for it all to be equity is a good thing. I would be interested in the witnesses' thoughts on that.

On the availability agreement, I believe Mr. Dunne said they were still having trouble in terms of market valuations. I thought the review of CALF would decouple once and for all the availability agreement from market rents. That is clearly not the case. Will someone give an update on where that is at? Until we move to full cost recovery, it really is a bizarre way of doing things. I had thought the CALF review had concluded, but it seems that issue has not been resolved. If people have thoughts on that, I would be interested to hear their views.

I am getting the impression from listening to the witnesses that they will all meet their output targets for this year, particularly on the social housing side.

I am not hearing anybody say they will not. Nobody mentioned commencements. Given the private sector is in trouble in terms of commencements, if the witnesses were able to share with the committee what the target commencements were for this year and what they are actually going to commence by the end of the year, that would give us a sense of the scale of the financing challenge. I suspect all of the witness organisations are struggling with commencements, which is partly to do with the financing challenges. This would be a good place for them to put that information on the record if they have it and they are in a position to share it. It is open to anybody telling us exactly what they want in terms of equity, what is happening with the CALF review and what their output is in terms of commencements.

On the CREL review, will the witnesses tell the committee what they are asking for? I can imagine, but the more specific they are with the committee, the clearer it will be. Is it a matter of solving the equity issue? Would that get us over the hump or is something else needed? The shorter the answers, the more everyone will get to come in. Apologies, I have a cheek to say that as a politician.