Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak, even briefly, on this very important Bill. I welcome some belated action from the Government to address some of the issues that have led to our dire housing and homelessness crisis. At the outset, I would like to state that this Bill will not go very far towards solving our growing homelessness problem any time soon and will not reverse the undue hardship that has been caused to the mental health and well-being of thousands of families, particularly children, over the past number of years during this Government's tenure. This time tomorrow evening when the Dáil will not be sitting, up to 70 families will be urgently seeking emergency accommodation in this city and will not get it. The Minister of State; the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Fine Gael and the Labour Party are responsible for this. This tinkering with Part V and so on will not do what is necessary to resolve this problem tomorrow when five hotels will be packed with homeless people and people will be sleeping in cars and trying to survive in the airport and shopping centres. This is the legacy of the Government and Fianna Fáil.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil together dismantled our social housing programme in the 1980s. I believe in direct action on the part of the State in trying to resolve this crisis and that local authorities must become the key developers of social housing rather these mollycoddled developers who failed us desperately all the way through the 1990s and the noughties and then walked away. We employed them through NAMA and looked after them and now here we are trying to set them up again for the 2020s. This was the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael agenda down through the decades. Let us face it. One of our predecessors, former Minister Jimmy Tully, was able to mount a huge social housing programme when this country was far poorer in the 1970s. I disagree with Deputy Catherine Byrne, whom I respect, when she talks about building large social housing estates. We have historic and beautiful estates in this city like Marino, Donnycarney or Kilmore along with hundreds I could mention that were built primarily as social housing in this city. The reason we have the crisis in this city in places like Parkgate Street is because the Progressive Democrats influenced, Thatcherite Governments led by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael destroyed our social housing programme.

I know this Bill is intended to tinker with some minor aspects of the organisation of site levies and that Part 2 brings in the vacant site levy. I welcome this as far it goes. It has been proposed that local authorities will charge this levy annually from 1 January 2019, which is a long time into the next Dáil, until lands are brought into use. However, it is not clear when they will be brought into use. Is it the case that, as the distinguished journalist Paul Melia recently put it, developers will be able to avoid the vacant site tax for up to three years by seeking planning permission but never building homes? When one looks through the detail of sections 6 to 13, it seems like an incredibly long drawn-out process between compiling the vacant sites register under section 6 of Part 2, appeals against entry on the register under section 9, determining market value under section 12 and appealing the market value under section 13. The land will be vacant for years while this legislation is working its way through An Bord Pleanála and the courts. I welcome subsections 2 to 7 of section 17 which cover instances where the waiver will not apply regarding significant connections with the new owner. I also welcome section 23 which stipulates that the proceeds of the vacant site are hypothecated for positive purposes. A former colleague of mine, Councillor Andrew Montague, argued very strongly that public lands should be subject to the levy as well.

Section 29 amends section 48 of the 2000 Act.

Why is it necessary for the reduced development contributions to be retrospective? Why is this provision included in the legislation?

While I welcome the Part V provisions, why will only 10% of housing developments with nine units or more be allocated for social housing, given that we know an additional 18,000 units are needed on an annual basis?

The Bill is a tiny step forward and represents a tinkering with legislation which failed in the past. It is not a solution for the people waiting on Parkgate Street this minute, or who will be waiting this time tomorrow and over the weekend. We need emergency legislation. The Government must declare a housing emergency and take the necessary action, to be led by the local authorities, to build social housing in this city and throughout the State.

See this speech in context