Colette Kelleher (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I echo Senator Coffey's acknowledgement of Simon Brooke's work regarding approved housing bodies and the housing sector in general. Simon was a friend and I send condolences to his family on his untimely passing.

I broadly welcome this Bill, which introduces the regulation of approved housing bodies. I speak as a current member of the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government and former chief executive of Cork Simon Community, which was itself an approved housing body. I was for many years a member of the Irish Council for Social Housing, which I am aware was very constructive in the drafting of this legislation.

I welcome the Bill because we need activist, well-run approved housing bodies if we are to tackle the housing crisis and, in doing so, meet the needs of the 3,800 children living in emergency accommodation. Approved housing bodies have an important role to play in turning this around so no child will be without a roof.

I acknowledge that a significant number of issues identified in respect of the Bill have been dealt with on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil and through the examination by the Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government. These issues included my own concerns about proportionate regulation for very small approved housing bodies with voluntary boards, which often provide small-scale, though much-needed, special needs housing in rural areas and communities, including, for example, the senior citizens' housing in my town, Macroom.We do not want to squeeze out such small-scale providers and small-scale AHBs with overly bureaucratic or duplicate regulation.

I was glad to hear there will be a memorandum of understanding among other bodies such as HIQA, the Charities Regulator and the Residential Tenancies Board. A voluntary housing board with eight or ten houses will not want to be drowned in unnecessary bureaucracy, although some is necessary. Small-scale AHBs are very much part of the effort to address the lack of housing and have made a great contribution, not least to special needs housing. Issues relating to finance and reporting as well as functions including control, overshadowing directors and governance have been addressed to a large extent.

Members of the regulatory authority will come through the Public Appointments Service and such transparency is important and welcome. It is also welcome that a compromise approach has been taken to the categorisation of special needs housing in that section 37, on standards, refers to "different accommodation needs of different categories of tenants". Nevertheless, the definition of special accommodation needs in housing should be revisited, perhaps through future legislation on housing needs assessment and support.

I have proposed a few minor amendments, which I hope the Minister will accept. They will provide that in the preparation of strategy statements, there will be sector agreement with AHBs and it should be part of the strategy preparation to ensure full consultation with the most important parties. We would not want the regulator to develop a strategy without consulting the groups it will regulate. Given that publication of an interim report may be damaging to individuals without recourse to the full due process of a finalised investigation, I have proposed the publication of one report without having a possibly unfairly damaging interim report.

Although the Minister has answered the following question to an extent, I will need his explicit reassurance. What protections will tenants have if the regulator refuses to register, or cancels the registration of, the AHBs? Who in law will be the tenant's landlord in that event?

I broadly support the Bill and hope the Minister will take on board my feedback and accept my minor amendments. I ask that he will offer some clarity as to tenants' status in the event of a refusal of registration.