Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

There is a huge difference of approach between our view of how the disastrous crisis of housing need is to be resolved. The Minister of State keeps repeating that his party and the Government are well aware of the extent of the crisis, which raises the question of why the Government has let it get to this extreme. I listened with some incredulity to the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection expressing her heartfelt urgency to construct social housing. She must have fallen off a horse on her way to see the Taoiseach to be nominated as Tánaiste and had a sudden revelation after three and a half years apparently unaware of the extent of the suffering of ordinary people. How seriously can we take the Government in this regard?

The Minister of State sits there as part of a supposedly sovereign Government and tells us that the Government will allow itself to be constrained from putting money from the National Pensions Reserve Fund into the construction of public housing as a Government and as a public authority. Why does the Government have to go scouring the highways looking for private contractors when there was, traditionally such as in the 1970s, social housing in the State? There were problems in the 1970s but in 1975 8,700 homes were built by local authorities in one year. The Government is submitting to the right-wing neoliberal agenda dictated by the European Commission and its bureaucracy. If that is not the case, what is the problem? In the 1970s, up to 8,000 houses a year were produced by local authorities. What does our amendment, which is one of a series, suggest?

First, we want to ensure that the agency may, in consultation with Ministers, develop proposals for public investment in those sectors, including social and affordable housing, in order to support economic activity and employment and provide urgently needed infrastructure at the same time - in other words, social housing. We have included all of this here - necessary infrastructure for people who are suffering and in need of a home and a kick-start for economic activity, which will rebound with more employment in communities and more resources to go around, which will help turn around some of the disasters of austerity.

Our fourth amendment in this group makes a proposal regarding the functions of the agency, providing that it can enter into an arrangement with the Minister for Education and Skills in regard to the provision of school structures. We want this to say that it can "... enter into any arrangement or contract with a Local Authority or a public housing agency to finance the construction of social and affordable accommodation projects and the provision of the necessary social infrastructure necessary for such projects." By any moral standard, does it not make eminent sense that this should be the policy? Therefore, I defy the Minister of State to explain what is wrong with the idea that the State and the National Treasury Management Agency, or whatever name the Government wants to call it when it is performing this function, should go in with local authorities and finance the construction of social and affordable housing projects for people to rent and affordable homes for people to buy, when they could in this way resolve the housing crisis?

If, for example, we accept that eight good-quality social houses could be built at a cost of approximately €1 million, then €1 billion could give us 8,000 houses. If we invested €3 billion or €4 billion over a period of years, we would have approximately 30,000 homes, which would begin to address the disaster and quickly deal with the excess numbers on housing lists by providing homes for people. This would also free up thousands of spaces in private accommodation which could be used as transitional accommodation for people in desperate need. Will the Minister of State explain in language we can all understand what is wrong with this? If local authorities could do this in the 1970s and deliver at a rate of 4,000 to 8,000 units year after year, why in 2014, when these funds become available, can the Government not undertake this major project for this huge social need?

See this speech in context