Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am genuinely tempted by the idea that 10% of something is better than 20% of nothing, given the dire situation we are in. I put this amendment forward out of genuine concern and desire to have a serious debate on the issue. I remain open to hearing the arguments but I wanted to put it down because this is a central component of the Bill and I will consider it as we go along. Essentially, I want to reserve the right to re-enter it on Report Stage, depending on what I hear in the discussions that I might have with people who are concerned about this issue between now and then.

On the question of how much can we directly deliver, which, as the Minister of State indicated, is my favourite approach, I accept that some has to come from the private sector as well but we are not exploring fully the potential for direct build. I was at a briefing by TASC recently and it was pointed out that apparently - I cannot give the exact title, but I can get it - there is some provision for about €1 billion which one can get off balance sheet in the European Union for infrastructural projects where one can show it is infrastructural expenditure. Such expenditure will not be put on the balance sheet. I also believe from discussions we had on this subject with the Fiscal Advisory Council a week or two ago that a serious debate is opening up about structural deficits, what should be included in them and the degree to which capital expenditure should be included in them. There is much debate on what should be considered a structural deficit and there are different interpretations of it. However, there is a debate opening up in the European Union that endorses the view that capital expenditure of this sort should not be included in the structural deficit. We need to wade in big time behind that argument. It follows what Deputy Wallace has just said. This is a no-brainer. It is guaranteed saving of money that is currently being wasted on rent allowance and so on.

One needs upfront capital but in the long term, there is a guaranteed saving and benefit to the State. We need to strongly make that case and to proceed in that direction and be much more ambitious in doing so.

I will now deal with the provisions under Part V for social and affordable housing. There is a large site in my area, namely, the Dún Laoghaire golf club. As Deputy Murphy said, prior to the boom, some developers were burned by the Part V provisions because they had done the deal and paid extortionate prices to meet their 20% obligation. However, should this Bill be enacted, the developer who was bailed out by NAMA, and is probably still in NAMA, will be required to deliver 10% of the land for social and affordable housing in the second phase of this development. I consider that completely unacceptable, particularly when the developer was bailed out by NAMA.

At this point, things are on the floor in terms of the number of houses being constructed but let us remember that we will head upwards, although never to the mad levels of building 80,000 to 90,000 houses a year. When the market normalises, with the construction of between 30,000 to 50,000 houses per annum, and the hope is that the sector will head in that direction, I would hate to think that when more houses are being built, we will not get the necessary social and affordable housing to ensure we have a social mix.