Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

That is not necessarily true because, through the NARPS model, NAMA is already making houses available for approved housing bodies. The latter has nothing to do with its 10%. Let us not assume the worst all the time. I expect and hope that more than 10% of the NAMA-built properties will be available for social housing through various different mechanisms. Let us work out, development by development, how we can maximise the appropriate level of social housing as part of mixed developments.

In terms of the questions around rent controls, linking rent to the CPI, which Sinn Féin had a motion on this week, and security of tenure issues, if we had a more normalised balance between demand and supply we would need to look actively at how we can create a more European style rental market whereby an increased percentage of people would choose to rent for their lifetime, as is the norm in most European capitals. Many people who do not want to take the risk of taking out a mortgage choose to rent for their lifetime and they have security of tenure around that choice. Traditionally, people who are renting in this country are those who are in transition, who cannot afford a mortgage, who are choosing to rent for a temporary period or who are students. The ambition and aspiration in Ireland to own one's own home drives much of the activity in the housing and property market. We need to change that narrative. I am very conscious that, at a time when we need to dramatically increase supply, we need to be very careful with what we do or say around security of tenure, particularly having making decisions as recently as last November around two-year rent reviews and a series of other things that are designed to try to improve security of tenure for tenants. If we are going to come back and review that on a regular basis there is the potential to undermine the confidence and appetite for significant investment in the property market to increase supply. Trying to get that balance right is quite a delicate matter, particularly when we had such an imbalance in the position relating to supply versus demand in the property sector. We will look at it but I do not have a straight answer to that question yet. I am interested to see what the committee recommends in terms of trying to get that balance right and we will comment on it when its recommendation is made.

I will comment on some of the points raised by Deputy Butler. We will follow up on the Waterford project. It sounds as if there is a lack of urgency and that they are going through procedures when they are ready.

That is not good enough. Everybody needs to play their part now in responding with a sense of urgency. We should get on quickly with the straightforward projects that have no reason to be slowed down and no impediments or barriers.

I presume the committee will look at the issue of students in some detail. There is a significant opportunity for student accommodation to have quite a dramatic and positive impact on the private rental sector. Statistics from the recent HEA study indicate a deficit of about 25,000 in formal student accommodation. There is private and public student accommodation provision. Approximately 25,000 students are accommodated in the private rental sector. They are living in homes that could house families. We should consider creating a dramatic increase in the on-campus and near-to-campus student accommodation. The solutions to student accommodation lie in rapid-build technologies, modular units and so on. Student accommodation is quite different from a family home. Some of the solutions could be put in place much more quickly than conventional housing and could free up a significant number of places over a short space of time.

I have met representatives of the universities on the matter. It is not as straightforward as we thought it might be. Again it comes down to financing, procurement and, in some cases, planning. However, it is an area in which we can do a considerable amount.

The rate of VAT is ultimately a decision for the Minister for Finance. Obviously, we will be talking to him and he is an active participant in the Cabinet sub-committee on housing. It is really about balancing how we use the tax system and whether we get a bigger bang for our buck than spending on the capital side. There are also accounting rules that complicate this. Increasing capital spend can be accounted for over a four-year period. When reducing taxes or giving tax exemptions, it needs to be accounted for in full in the year it applies. There are some restrictions on tax reductions that do not provide the same flexibility as increased capital spend. We need to try to get a balanced understanding of how we can spend available resources as effectively as possible to get more houses built, more houses acquired, more vacant properties into use and so on.

Deputy Cowen made a point about smaller towns and villages playing a part in the broader housing strategy. That is important. The programme for Government places a big emphasis on what I believe is described as rural revival. If we are to build more than 100,000 houses over the next five years, we should use that opportunity to revive and revitalise many towns' and villages' main streets to promote communities and attractive living. However, the big pressure at the moment for numbers is in the big urban centres.