Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt but that social housing in Ireland has improved over the decades. It is self-evident that the quality of houses now being built by the local authorities has improved immeasurably in comparison with those constructed over 30 or 40 years ago. This step-change was needed. However, we are a long way from what all of us would like to see, namely, as in the case of access to health and education, that access to housing would be a right rather than a privilege accessible only to the wealthy or a privilege to be granted or withheld by any national or local government. It should be a fundamental right that people have access to comfortable, safe, secure homes at the point at which they need them.

We are currently faced with a housing crisis in Ireland. For a while, we were all blinded by the dejection which homeless people were experiencing and, quite rightly, we had to react to that by way of emergency measure. We cannot have people lying and dying on our streets because they are unable to access a home when they need it. Homelessness was an emergency that had to be tackled and steps were taken to tackle it. Beyond homelessness, there are tens of thousands of people who are at their wits end trying to pay for their homes or to find homes they can afford. In many cases, people are living in overcrowded conditions. Many have moved in with families, friends and neighbours while trying to find accommodation that they can afford and, in particular, accommodation that they can afford based on their rent supplement. Because of a lack of funding, housing waiting lists are ever growing and so putting one's name on the housing list does no good.

Many private landlords are reluctant to take on tenants who are recipients of rent supplement allowance. Some landlords actually refuse to take them on. Those who do so, force those tenants to tell lies. Tenants are also being forced to top-up rent supplement to meet the level of rents that landlords are demanding, information which is not being recorded on social welfare forms. Many tenants are unwillingly giving wrong information. Local authorities know this, as do community welfare officers.

Local authorities and community welfare officers also know that if these people want a home, this is what they must do. They must continue this dance of pretence in regard to the rent supplement. It is a fallacy that the cost of renting is reducing.

The problem is that we as a nation are not providing enough houses to accommodate all those who need homes. In some counties, like that in which I live, houses lie vacant because there is no demand for them. This happened because developers thought they could make a quick buck. Having brought this nation to the brink of ruin through greed, property speculators are now setting their sights on zoned land, until an opportunity for even greater profits presents itself again. In the meantime, people are being bled dry for private rental accommodation they can barely afford.

The holding of vacant land by property speculators is not just bad for the economy but, at a time when there is a dire need for housing, is immoral. I welcome that the Bill will seek to put pressure on owners of vacant land zoned for housing. However, the legislation should go further to ensure vacant plots become homes for families who need homes. The levy could be much stronger, especially in areas where there is a dire need for housing. The levy should also be increased incrementally each year if a plot remains vacant. It should be high enough that developers are encouraged to build rather than hold on to vacant sites. This measure is not recommended to punish those who build houses, but to punish those who are speculating on empty sites and hedging their bets in the hope the value of these sites will increase in the future.

Like Deputy Ellis, I disagree with the new Part V the Bill seeks to introduce. The original Part V provision provided that in any development of five homes or more, 10% of the development had to be made available for social housing and 10% for affordable housing. This well-intentioned provision was welcome. However, a significant clause within the legislation led to the abuse of that provision. Developers could buy off the council and pay it rather than providing houses. This meant that new developments lacked the number of social housing units needed to develop mixed communities, which led to the further ghettoisation of social housing. The scheme for affordable housing ended in 2012.

The new Part V proposal in this legislation provides for a 10% social housing provision, but this includes social leasing. Social leasing involves the council leasing houses from the developer, but the homes remain in the ownership of the developer. This is like the residential accommodation scheme, which I have described as the residential accommodation scam. Instead of a 10% provision, Sinn Féin would like to see a 20% commitment on social housing. Social leasing should remain a possibility, but it should not be included in Part V and should not involve a trade-off.

We need a root and branch review of all the legislation governing housing needed for homes for individuals and families. This review should incorporate private rental accommodation, local authority and voluntary organisation housing. It must incorporate minimum standards of accommodation in every sphere of the market. As I speak, I am aware of a young woman, her mother and some of her siblings who are occupying Sligo County Council offices because she has had to leave her private rented house because it is unsafe. Neither the tenant, her family, the council nor I have yet been able to locate a private rental house in the area that will accept a rent supplement tenant. I have tried hard to find accommodation for her, as have others. How and why are landlords permitted to put a house on the rental market and obtain State funding, by way of rent supplement when their houses are unfit and dangerous for occupation? Who checks these houses and the standard of the accommodation before they are rented out? Who checks this accommodation before public money goes into it? Who checks accommodation before families and individuals are put into dangerous and unsafe housing? How many more are there like this young lady?

See this speech in context