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

I welcome the speakers. I missed some of the presentation but if I picked it up correctly, it seems the witnesses were critical of HAP and the 30-year timeline. As I understand it, HAP is initially intended to allow those who were on a severely restricted rent allowance and could not work to compete in the market for any accommodation in their city, town or village. It empowers people in my area significantly. I live in Drogheda and am delighted that the Minister introduced rent controls there yesterday. It allows families who could never otherwise compete for a house to do so. I disagree with the witness who said it was not value for money, albeit I may have misinterpreted what was said. Of course it is value for money. It puts power in the pockets of people to get a home which they otherwise could not, albeit to rent it. Second, it allows people to work while continuing to receive HAP. That is a significant change, which I very much welcome. Under the old rent allowance system, one could not do that, which made it a real poverty trap.

I accept and acknowledge the points about the housing list problems and so on. I do not know if the witnesses are aware of the Government's housing plans. I am not aware that they referred to them, but there is significant funding for 47,000 social housing units in the Government policy to be constructed by 2021 with a budget of €5.3 billion. I do not know if that was mentioned but my impression is that it was not. Perhaps I missed it being said. From listening to the witnesses, I agree on all of the issues around family pressures and other difficulties. If one does not have a home and a place to lay one's head, if one's children are not in secure accommodation and one does not have a park or a normal life as most of us who are older would define it, one has serious disadvantages. I welcome very much the initiatives which have been taken and I would like the witnesses to comment on them if they can.

My next point goes back to a core issue for me. More than 6,000 homes were offered by the Housing Agency to local authorities up and down the country, including Dublin. More than 1,000 homes in Dublin were refused by local authorities under the process in which the Housing Agency was acting as an agent for NAMA. When we talk about local authorities, I am not convinced. I do not know if the witnesses have a view. They did not want these houses and they did not take them. I am not taking any blame from the Government as to what is and is not happening. The fact is that local authorities did not perform. When people talk about local authorities building homes, I am not convinced they have the capacity to do that. I welcome the comment about a not-for-profit organisation that would do that or indeed a State body such as NAMA which might build homes. That makes sense. Such a body would have the scale and capacity to do it. The National Building Agency built thousands of homes in the past. I do not know if there are other people here who were on local authorities at the time. The agency designed, built and managed houses on behalf of local authorities and made a very significant difference, certainly in the 1970s and 1980s when I was a local authority member. The witnesses' comments are very welcome. As Senator Boyhan said, they are putting the spotlight on issues. However, they were not particularly balanced. That is the truth of it.

While we are in this very difficult situation, for Sinn Féin to compare the amount of money spent in 2007 on housing, which was at the height of the boom, with the position now, which is at the end of the bust, is unreasonable. The fact is that 100,000 houses a year were being produced then and the manner in which that was being done was unsustainable. The Government is ramping up, albeit houses take a long time to build, a proper and adequate response, notwithstanding the huge issues that are there. The Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, has the capacity to deliver and he is making the changes.

Do the witnesses have any comment, good, bad or indifferent, on Government spending policy? I would be happy if they, as academics, would refer to those in their reply.