Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is important that we do not jettison standards for the short-term approach of increasing supply at any cost. I recognise that we need to increase the supply of housing and I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett on the emergency in our public housing stock and the need to fast track social housing construction. There are regular announcements of large sums of money but the delivery of housing units is limited. We have faced a crisis for the last couple of years. I presented the Minister, Deputy Kelly, with five sample cases of families in my areas who were told to find a solution for themselves. There is no emergency short-term accommodation if one happens to live in County Kildare.

In regard to the changes to Part V, I made a proposal on a sunset clause which appears unlikely to make its way into the Bill. The sunset clause would set a time limit of three years on the reduced requirement for social housing, after which point the measure would be reviewed. It should not last indefinitely if it is being used as an incentive in the context of the present environment. The mere fact of a review in three years' time may be sufficient incentive for developers to increase supply. The Bill closes off the option of a cash alternative to constructing housing under Part V. Can the Minister of State indicate whether large-scale developers will be able to negotiate rental accommodation agreements with long leases instead of permanently handing over houses that can be purchased? We need to be assured that there will be permanency in housing provision. The construction industry is very good at negotiating but local authorities are often at a huge disadvantage because they do not have the same skill-sets, which can result in poor deals. How many houses does the Minister of State expect to be delivered under these arrangements?

I welcome the vacant site levy even though it is limited to certain areas and I would like it to have wider application. However, we have had a bad experience with the Derelict Sites Act 1990. I would like more assurances that the levy will work. Perhaps an impact analysis on the impact of the levy would be helpful. I expected the Bill to include provisions on co-responsibility with voluntary housing associations to allow them to leverage funds from the European Investment Bank. This appears to fall far behind what the construction sector wants. I also proposed that a register of developers be established against whom enforcement notices were issued. We have seen bad examples of developers going from one county to another and leaving a trail of destruction behind them. If an enforcement notice issues against a persistent offender, a house purchaser should be able to find that information on a public register. This would put the purchaser into a better position. We need to start seeing this kind of openness.

I hope section 180 will be amended in the planning and development (No. 2) Bill. We are paying a significant price because the timeframe was too long and bonds expired. People are stuck with houses that are in negative equity while also finding it impossible to get their estates taken in charge because of issues with management companies. They end up incurring additional financial burdens which make it even more difficult to pay off their mortgages. I hope the planning and development (No. 2) Bill will deal with some of those issues.

See this speech in context