Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this debate. It is a short debate and it is hard to get all the points across in the limited time we have. A significant change in Government policy is proposed here, which I support. I have been campaigning for a number of years for the compulsory purchase of vacant homes by local authorities and for a tax on empty homes. I welcome the commitment to introduce a new programme for the compulsory purchase of vacant properties for resale on the open market. The shining example of this work has been done by Louth County Council. I understand from a meeting I had on Monday that over a period of two years up to 120 homes that were derelict, empty, burned out in some cases, abandoned or centres of antisocial behaviour have been completely refurbished and taken over. Families are living full and decent lives now in accommodation that is up to standard.

This programme must be driven by the Department. Somebody in the Department needs to be making sure that those so-called vacant homes officers are doing their jobs because the fact is that up to now they have not been doing so. Few of the county councils, which were given €50,000 each for vacant home officers about two years ago, are doing that job. It is time for the local authorities to step up to the mark. They are not saints when it comes to housing and many of them are sinners. They have been reluctant to get involved, unlike Louth County Council, which has done a fantastic job. It is also important that there is accountability and that we have a quarterly report on that through the Minister's office in the Oireachtas to see what has happened, who is doing what and who is not doing what. The Minister must put the boot in if the local authorities are not doing their jobs.

Some years ago the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, offered over 4,500 houses free of charge to local authorities up and down the country. City and county councils in Dublin refused to accept over 1,500 homes that would have accommodated people because they did not want to have social housing or because there was too much social housing in their areas. That went back to the councils on the ground. It was not Members of this House who made that decision but the county councillors and council officials who were complicit in that. It was appalling and wrong.

I have also been strong on the taxing of empty homes. This is a tax which I welcome the commitment to introduce but I would prefer if it were in this budget rather than next year's budget. If one looks at what has happened in other jurisdictions such as Vancouver, for instance, this is a tax the Government does not want an income from because it wants the empty home to be occupied. There must be strategies to ensure that if somebody has an empty home a big tax will be placed on them if they do not occupy it or put somebody into it. There are significant exclusions for that, one of which would be if somebody was in a nursing home or if it was a principal private residence and so on. There is nobody here who does not walk streets or drive around country lanes where houses have been vacant for 15 or 20 years with nobody in them. We have to put manners on these people and force them to fill their properties or sell them because they cannot hold onto a resource that the people need. We must tax them and hit them hard in the pocket if they do not do that but we must have exceptions such as the six exceptions there are in Vancouver. In that way we will make sure those empty homes are occupied and full. That is the way forward.

I understand the amendment to the nursing homes support scheme and I do not have an issue in principle with saying that if somebody is in a nursing home they should be exempt from the vacant homes tax. They should be exempt anyway, whether their home is occupied or not. The consent of the person involved is needed prior to him or her entering that home because many people have dementia and other serious medical issues and they may not be in an appropriate position to make a proper judgment on this. It is important that the Government would liaise with those groups that advocate for older people such as Sage Advocacy and so on. There should be a process by which there would be accountability for every action that is taken. While the vast majority of people honour and respect their older family members, there is abuse, including financial abuse. We have to make sure that does not happen and that the appropriate decision-making is in place, whether it is a living will or whatever, for those older people who are going into a home they may never come out of.

I welcome this debate. I would love to have a further and longer debate with the Minister but I congratulate the determination of the Government. From my perspective as a Government backbencher, I will make sure the Minister is listening to me this time. I welcome that and I hope the Cabinet will continue to listen to backbenchers because we all share in the same demand that our people are housed and that young people in particular can get their first step on the housing ladder, which is being denied them under present circumstances.

See this speech in context