Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Tá rudaí maithe sa Bhille seo, ach tá an Bille an-lag ar fad i dtaca le Páirt V agus in áiteanna eile agus sin an fáth go bhfuilim ag vótáil i gcoinne an Bhille.

This Bill contains some positive steps which could be a lot stronger in some places but are none the less welcome. Unfortunately though, as in most cases when the Government gets something right in a Bill, it generally also gets something horribly wrong which is tacked on to the legislation making it unacceptable to the Opposition.

The reform or further gutting of Part V in the Bill is just such a horrible mistake. Part V as it currently operates is a weakened version of the system introduced by Fianna Fáil. It was already in effect halved by this Government when it ended the affordable housing scheme in 2011. That scheme allowed local authorities to provide homes built by private developers for purchase by low-income families at below the market rate. This was a good scheme which worked well for many people priced out of the market who could never hope to avail of social housing as currently constituted. The original intent of Part V was much stronger than the one which finally made it onto the Statute Book.

The scheme was flawed but was positive overall, despite the potential for misuse. Developers building five or more homes would have to provide 10% for social housing and 10% for affordable housing from that development. Local authorities are not just given these properties, of course, as they pay a price based on the apparent cost of the construction and land. This works out at below the market rate and represents a recoupment of expenses for the developer. When it worked, Part V provided mixed communities of council tenants, low-income families, and middle and higher-income families as well.

However, it did not work when councils abused the system of contributions which could be paid to them instead of providing the housing. Developers also liked this option as they sometimes wanted to keep council tenants or lower-income families out of particular developments. Alternatively, they sometimes offered other places for these homes to be built, thus completely undermining the scheme's intention of ensuring these would be mixed communities.

Despite these problems, thousands of homes were provided for social and affordable housing in the eight or so years during which Part V was fully operational. The ending of the affordable housing scheme caused an imbalance in the provisions of Part V. As a result, developers were only required to provide 10% social housing. This halving of the requirements on developers needed to be addressed. However, in its planned reforms the Government not only failed to do that but also gutted the entire provision, potentially making it almost meaningless.

If the Government reforms pass, they will move Part V away from being a provision to ensure developers provide for low-income families in need of a home. It will become a scheme for the recoupment of some expenses by developers while they pretend to be contributing to a solution to the housing crisis. The new system removes the 10% affordable housing requirement, which addresses its suspension, but it also undermines the 10% requirement for social housing. The Labour Party may claim that a success has been achieved in removing the potential for a get-out clause in the form of contributions, but the get-out clause has simply been redefined. Now developers will not have to sell their properties for below market rates, but simply enter into social leasing agreements and have their properties returned to them in time, potentially with renovation costs covered by councils at a later date, as can happen in social leasing agreements. This means that the 10% social housing provision is not all that it seems. It is not a provision for social housing at all but simply provides more properties for tenants receiving rent support payments while not increasing the social housing stock by a single unit.

With rental properties in such short supply, any extra homes for low-income families are welcome, but not at the expense of providing real social housing owned by local authorities and rented to tenants from waiting lists. Some 90,000 families are on those waiting lists and more than 1,000 children are in emergency accommodation. We need much stronger requirements on developers, not weaker ones.

This Bill will also mean that many developers who were previously required to contribute to Part V will no longer have to do so. In the past, any development numbering more than four homes had to provide for social and affordable housing. Now it will only apply to developments of ten or more homes. If the Government was serious about getting developers to contribute to a solution to the housing crisis, it would be strengthening Part V, not making it weaker and less far-reaching.

Under this Government the new scheme will apply to fewer developments, require half the homes, and will lead to costly leasing agreements in many cases which result in no increase in housing stock for councils. Ending contributions to get-out clauses is not good enough if one is just going to open up more get-out clauses and exemptions.

This reform also presents a major challenge to the Government. If it is serious about providing more housing from this scheme, the Government will need to ensure councils have funding to buy these homes when they become available. Councils with long waiting lists must be provided with funds to purchase available homes. A situation cannot be allowed to arise where councils are passing on homes for purchase and renting them through social leasing instead. We have already spent nearly €500 million subsidising landlords and developers through the rental accommodation scheme, rent supplement, housing assistance payment and other leasing agreements.

The main point of this Bill is one which I welcome, having called for such a measure in the past. A vacant site levy would be a positive move in encouraging the use of land which is zoned for housing, although it could be stronger. My major issue with it is the timeframe because the planned introduction of this levy is simply too far in the future. If the levy was at a very high rate I could understand the long lead-in period, as it might act as a more effective stick to move developers into action before the charge ever comes into place. The levy is very fair and reasonable, however, and I fear that too many developers will pay it for a period and delay putting their property into use. We are in the midst of a very serious housing crisis.

Simply put, we cannot tolerate any longer developers allowing property which could provide housing to lie unused.

See this speech in context