Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the change in the 2000 Act to remove the ability of developers to make payments to local authorities in lieu of providing units for social housing. However, I do not understand why it is necessary to reduce the requirement for social housing from 20% to 10%. We have an urgent need for social housing, so what is the logic in reducing the obligation on developers to provide social housing by cutting the requirement for them to provide social housing by 50%?

I do not understand why the threshold allowing developers avoid this requirement is to be increased from the development of four units to the development of nine units. Does this give rise to the prospect of numerous developments of under ten units and no developments of 11, 12 or 13 units? Perhaps the Bill should have required those developments with under ten units to provide 10% social housing and those with over ten units to provide 20% in order to deal with the issue.

I understand the amendments proposed in section 34 of the Bill will allow developers avoid the obligation to provide social housing units to a local authority if the developer agrees to rent out the units. I would like clarification on this. The Bill's digest informs us that in section 33 provision is made for the Part V obligation to be fulfilled through long-term leasing, where provision is made for the Part V obligation to be fulfilled through rental accommodation availability agreements. I would like clarification because this has serious implications.

For a long time, I have supported the concept of a vacant site levy, but I question why it is to be set at such a low level of 3%. Also, why wait until 2019 to introduce it? While I give a cautious welcome to some aspects of the Bill, these measures will have little or no effect on the overall housing crisis. I would like to cite the foreword of the Government's 2020 strategy for the construction industry. It states:

Many factors contributed to the economic catastrophe that hit this country. Many, if not most, of them – lax political management, reckless lending and borrowing, speculative greed, short-term thinking, poor planning and low standards – were features of our boom-time approach to property development and construction.

The legacy – lost jobs, unmanageable mortgages, debt overhang, negative equity, houses on flood plains, shoddy and sub-standard apartments, ghost estates – remains all too human and real.

We would all agree with those comments, but the problems were not confined to the recent property bubble. What is not mentioned is the reality of decades of large-scale corruption of the planning process by vested interests and the property development and construction industry. What is not mentioned is the influence of developers and builders, epitomised by the culture of the infamous tent at the Galway races. I have little confidence that a housing crisis affecting up to 200,000 people, if we include families living in overcrowded homes who are on the housing list or who are threatened with repossession, will be resolved by the promise of a new relationship between Government and the construction industry. A concern I have in regard to this Bill is that it may be taking from developers on the one hand, but giving it back with the other.

The housing crisis presents in a number of ways, through a significant rise in homelessness. Increasingly, more families find themselves in this situation. I will not mention names, but I would like to refer to a particular family. Currently, the family cannot find hotel accommodation, although this has been sanctioned by the council, because of the tourist season. Dublin City Council has provided a new mobile number for people to call for hotel bookings for self accommodation. According to many customers, calls to this mobile number are not answered. The experience of one customer is that she was booked into a hotel in Ashbourne, but discovered the council had not extended her booking and the hotel is now booked out until the end of July. She was not advised the system was changing. On 10 June, she rang DCC looking for the booking manager, but got no reply, so texted her details. On 11 June, she rang DCC facilities booking manager but got no reply and texted her details. On 12 June she had to leave the hotel and rang DCC and still got no answer. She then rang a different number and was advised of a new number and arrangement. She called the new number but got no answer. The mailbox was full and she texted details. On 13 June she got no answer and the mailbox was full. On 14 June she rang the Freephone number and was advised the number could only be called after 5.30 p.m. The customer called the new number but got no answer and left a voicemail.

On 15 June, a voicemail was also left but on 16 June there was still no reply. The lady in question with her two children, one of whom was very sick, had to stay with her friend and has still not received a phone call in response. We should hang our heads in shame if that is the type of service we give to people who are out on the street. It is a disgraceful response to a family in crisis.

The private rented sector needs to be regulated properly. Increasingly, I have had to intervene in my constituency to stop landlords carrying out illegal evictions. They do not seem to understand that tenants have some limited rights. The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 only secures tenancies for four years. That should be increased to a minimum of ten years to give long-term security of tenure. The right of landlords to demand vacant possession if they wish to sell a property should be changed to a right to sell with the tenant in situ. It is important that we would consider that aspect of the legislation. We need a rent cap in the short term and new regulations to control rent in the longer term.

I accept many landlords are under pressure but there are also developers who are landlords who are not under pressure. I was very surprised to see the e-mail from the Irish Property Owners Association, IPOA. At a meeting in Wynn's Hotel in Dublin last night, 300 Irish property owners vented their fury at the proposed introduction of rent control or certainty by the Government. The organisation outlined that if such a bombshell is foisted on the sector, there would be a mass exodus of property owners providing private rented accommodation to people availing of State-supported schemes, including registration with the PRTB, rent supplement schemes and housing assistance programmes. The view of members was that the Government could have rent control but it would not have their properties. If that is the attitude of the IPOA, we could face a very dangerous situation. I am sure many other Members received the e-mail as well.

We need a moratorium on repossessions of distressed mortgages until the new measures on the removal of the banks’ veto in insolvency arrangements and the new measures on the mortgage-to-rent scheme are introduced and a period of time allowed to see what effect the new measure have. It is important we would have such a moratorium.

The major challenge is to kick-start a programme of building social housing. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Pringle, who referred to the International Covenant on Social, Cultural and Economic rights. There should be a right to housing in the Constitution. That would have a considerable impact in terms of how we plan our future housing strategy. There needs to be an effective and realistic plan, not the bits and pieces announced and re-announced by the Government to build or renovate 10,000 social housing units per year for the next ten years. Anything less than that falls short of what is required. SIPTU has estimated the cost of building 25,000 social housing units in the next four years at €3.7 billion, when one takes into account rental income and savings in rent supplement. SIPTU also said 65,000 jobs would be created.

The problem of local authorities being able to borrow the necessary funding due to EU fiscal rules can be overcome by the establishment of a new public agency outside the Government sector to focus on planning, financing and delivery of social housing. The agency could co-ordinate the work of local authorities, housing associations and NAMA, but, crucially, it could borrow off-balance sheet to develop the substantial amount of State-owned land suitable for development, especially around Dublin. Borrowings could be made provided the agency has a sufficient asset base and income from rents. Such an option could be examined.

In the time remaining to me I wish to make a point on regeneration. I am a public representative for the Dublin South-Central area. We have had the regeneration of St. Teresa’s Gardens, Dolphin House and St. Michael’s estate among other areas. A number of my colleagues referred previously to St. Michael’s estate. In the late 1990s, St. Michael’s estate was earmarked for regeneration. A board was set up to examine the proposed regeneration which would involve hundreds of families being moved. It was a very positive development. During the process public private partnerships, PPPs, were introduced and that changed everything in the early 2000s. The regeneration projects were reconfigured as a result. A site was bought by Bernard McNamara with the intention of building 450 apartments, including in excess of 70 social housing units as part of the PPP. The project was not much supported by the community at the time. I do not think there was a major campaign on it in the area. Bernard McNamara got the development but then Dublin City Council changed its rules on apartment size to accommodate families because the apartments were too small. There are terrible developments built by Zoe Developments along the quays that are just dog boxes. When Dublin City Council changed the regulations, that put pressure on Bernard McNamara and his profits. He dragged his heels for a long time and then we had the housing crash.

That is what happened to the regeneration of St. Michael’s estate. Luckily enough, Dublin City Council linked in with a voluntary housing association and got the 70 houses plus built at Thornton Heights. Currently, the rest of the land is privately owned and is subject to the rules governing procurement for the regeneration scheme. The regeneration board has sought the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to release the 1B site, which is privately owned, to the council to allow it to build housing units for the elderly. That would potentially free up family homes in the area that could be used to rehouse families. That is a very practical suggestion. The regeneration board will commence a public consultation on the matter in approximately two weeks time. It will table a motion at the Dublin City Council strategic policy committee, SPC, which is supported by the council. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, to meet the regeneration board and the Dáil representatives for the area to consider the proposal and see how we can provide badly needed housing in the area. A use-it-or-lose-it proviso should be included in the legislation. If one does not use a site, one should lose the land and the planning permission.

See this speech in context