Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 23. We cannot meet the housing demand by direct build only, as put forward by Deputy Boyd Barrett. I can guarantee that should he be appointed Minister in the morning, and with the best of intentions which I know he has, he would not deliver the number of houses we need to meet the current demand with direct build on local authority lands. We are already greenlighting and approving shovel ready projects that local authorities are proposing but there is a time lag in delivering on them. We must take a multifaceted approach to delivering housing. In the first instance, we have turned around many vacant houses, by providing extra funding to local authorities. We were rightly criticised for allowing these houses to remain vacant. In the past year, we have brought back into beneficial use more than 2,300 houses that were lying vacant and boarded up. Families are now in those houses. We have also provided additional funding this year for an additional 1,000 vacant houses in our existing stock to be brought into use. This has been our priority. We have also, as Deputies know, allocated funds for the first phase of direct build of local authority houses and there will be a second phase announced in the coming month or so. We will also be announcing additional funds for the approved housing bodies. These are for new capital build projects that are in the pipeline.

I do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. By saying there is an over-reliance on the private sector providing houses, we are doing a disservice to the people on the housing list because we need the private sector to provide houses to meet the demand. That is not an ideological position but the reality of the position we find ourselves in. We are using all resources and all abilities to deliver houses. Part V is an important element of that delivery in the private sector.

I can understand the reasons Deputies oppose reducing the obligation from 20% to 10%. As was stated, 20% of zero is zero. There has been very little construction and we need to ask why that is the case. There is a question mark on the economic viability of building again because, to be quite candid, it is cheaper to buy houses than to build them in some areas. Deputy Wallace knows that as do I and Deputy Boyd Barrett. Until the market normalises to some degree and until we address viability, we will not get the type of housing construction that we want.

We must try to incentivise construction by assisting the economic viability of building. We have agreed to reduce the 20% obligation to 10% but it is not all one way traffic for the developer. We have removed, as some Deputies have said, the flexibility that existed in the past to pay cash in lieu of houses. We want housing units and that has been clearly stated in this Bill. We have gone a step further. We are strengthening the process because we are front-loading the agreement and the negotiation on Part V. As Deputy Wallace has said, there now can be no commencement notice unless that agreement is in place as part of the planning conditions. We are strengthening the Part V process to ensure that we deliver more units for the people who need them. This is a critical element of the social housing strategy. It is a multifaceted approach and this is just one element of it. We need to see housing units being developed and construction projects starting. We believe the Government's approach is reasonable and will assist in that area. We will oppose the amendment on that basis.