Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

While I do not always agree with Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, on a certain point within this legislation, I have to agree with him. This comes from the mandate for the Strategic Investment Fund which, as the Bill states, will be to invest on a commercial basis to support economic activity and employment in Ireland. One of the key things we are lacking where I come from - we have been talking about it for many years - is housing, in particular social housing. While I disagree with Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett on from where he pulls his figures at times, I know that on the ground the people who come to my office regularly are looking to be housed.

When I discussed this issue with NAMA and the local authority a number of years ago, when it was first mooted that NAMA would make properties available to the local authorities, it was found that many of the properties in Kildare that were in NAMA were not suitable to house families, most of them being apartments. If Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett had done similar work for his own local authority area in Dún Laoghaire, he would probably have discovered the same thing, namely, only a small percentage of properties in the NAMA portfolio were suitable for families. That is the problem. What NAMA is now doing is dealing with the issue on a commercial basis, although it has also dealt with local authorities to try to transfer as many houses as possible to house those on housing lists. The Strategic Investment Fund has to look at housing as a means by which it can invest some of the billions available.

While Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett referred to one incident in which a public private partnership did not work out, many of them did. In addition, he never mentioned anything about Part V. To my mind, Part V was disgraceful legislation, brought forward by a gombeen politician, Mr. Noel Dempsey. It should never have been brought forward and has turned out to be disastrous legislation. In the past five years under it, virtually nothing has been transferred to the local authorities to house people. As a consequence, the housing lists have increased dramatically.

When I consider what has happened with the pensions fund, I have to give credit to former Minister Charlie McCreevy who set it up and had a long-term vision for where it was to be used. Unfortunately, in my naivety, when the crash occurred in 2006-07, I always believed it could be used along the lines of what had happened in the United States under the New Deal, namely, to fund social projects to get people back to work again. Instead, we threw it at the banks. I still believe we will get some money back from them. We have invested in shares in Bank of Ireland which are proving to be beneficial and also in AIB; therefore, it would be best not to sell our stake simply because it is rising but to wait a number of years. Nonetheless, I strongly believe some of the investment fund has to be used in partnership to build houses, including with the local authorities. That is why I advocate the removal of Part V of the housing Act. The money should be transferred in partnership with the local authorities to build the houses required. I have always argued that we do not just build houses, we need to build communities. I would have opted for an alternative to Part V. My view was that developers should hand over land and that councils could then decide whether it should be used for the provision of amenities, schools, recreational facilities or houses. Part V only dealt with the building of houses, whereas I would look at building communities.

I have looked at how the fund has been used heretofore and welcomed many of the investments that have taken place and how the fund has been used to leverage additional moneys. From a jobs perspective - I am a member of the relevant committee - some of the measures are innovative. I was always very much in favour of young entrepreneurs and other young people getting access and the fund has been used in that way. My view has always been to look at it in an overall, holistic way. As taxpayers, we actually provided the funding for the National Pensions Reserve Fund and we should benefit from it. There is a certain sector of society who are struggling and my point is that there should be some social inclusion provision within the legislation to cover housing.

I am concerned to ensure moneys will come back into the NTMA through the investments we have made in the banks. While people might clamour for a repayment of our debt, we should put some of the money into the Strategic Investment Fund in order that we can use it to improve the economy further. We must look at this issue on a long-term, not a short-term basis. If we only look at it on a short-term basis, we will end up paying down debt. However, over a long period, debt is written down slowly but surely. If we invest in infrastructure with the funds we will get back from the investments we have made in the banks, the long-term returns will benefit the whole community.

I strongly advocate that we put forward some amendment to this Bill that would include some kind of social provision so that it does not simply generate income back to the State. The State is made up of citizens who at this moment in time are crying out for housing, so it is important that we invest in that, because without citizens we do not have a State.

See this speech in context