Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

On the amendment, an attempt is being made to put a levy on a body that is to be wound up. I am not too sure what the benefit of that would be. While there are many questions surrounding NAMA, it is a public body. Based on what we are being told, it will be out of business soon. The real issue is not that NAMA will be sitting on vacant land but that it has not delivered social housing. At a time when there are thousands of vacant NAMA-owned houses across this State, hundreds of which are in locations where housing is needed, there are thousands of people on housing waiting lists. NAMA is not releasing houses. Any of the houses that have come on stream through NAMA are being made available on a medium-term to long-term lease basis. I am not too sure about the sustainability of that in the long term.

The key issue is that assets, which are under the control of a public body, are not being used to the benefit of local authorities and people on local authority waiting lists and in need of affordable housing. It is frustrating that many loans have been sold off at a proportion of their original value. People in areas where there are NAMA properties, who would like to purchase one or two of them, cannot do so. It is an all or nothing situation, which does not assist in addressing the housing supply issue across the State, in particular at the lower end of the private market. We should be trying to assist people at that level.

The Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, will be aware that people whose income is above €25,000 do not qualify for social housing. If they have children or a number of dependants this increases to €26,000 or €27,000. There is a huge group of people who are not eligible to purchase affordable housing and cannot afford housing on the open market. As announced yesterday, house prices across the State outside of the cities, including in the midlands and Laois and Offaly, increased by 15% in the last year. As house prices continue to increase so too does the issue of affordability.

On the proposed levying of local authorities in respect of vacant sites, I believe this is counterproductive. As far as I am aware there are not that many local authority vacant sites which are causing problems. If there are any such sites they are, in the main, greenfield sites that are awaiting housing development. In my time as a public representative, I have not received too many complaints about them. Local authorities are anxious to develop sites. In levying a local authority, we would be levying not somebody on another planet but Joe public by way of increased property and PAYE taxes. A levy on local authorities would impact Joe public and not an anonymous body from outer space. The local authority is the public. The public will have to pay for any levy imposed.

There is no issue in regard to local authorities and to levy them would be to miss the target. The target is the cohort of developers and speculators who bought land and are sitting on it while it increases in value. That is the group we need to go after. We need to focus on the people who are buying sites and sitting on them for long periods. There are many such sites across different counties which are causing a problem.

Another point worth mentioning in regard to local authority vacant sites is that the public will pressurise local authorities to develop them. Local councillors, in conjunction with local communities, will pressurise local authorities to address problems around vacant sites. This morning I had to deal with a matter involving a vacant property which a local authority sought to purchase recently and on which there was a fire last week. Had the local authority been able to purchase it that might not have happened. The financial institution which owns the site does not have it registered in its name. It is almost impossible to have this matter addressed under the derelict sites legislation. The sites in respect of which problems are arising are those sites are owned by financial institutions. They are playing a cute game. Where issues arise in relation to sites owned by local authorities, one need only telephone the CEO of the council or the director of services and one will get a result. That has been my experience. If one does not get a result, councillors can hold the CEO and so on to account at the next council meeting and, under the new Act, they can hold the executive to account in regard to why an issue is not being resolved.

The imposition of a levy on local authorities is a circular action in that it will be the taxpayer and ratepayer who will have to pay thereby taking from councils resources that are badly needed for other purposes. What the local authorities need is resources to build social housing on sites that are suitable for same. I know there is no silver bullet that can solve this issue straight away but, hopefully, address of this issue can be accelerated, which Sinn Féin would like to see. While every new house is welcome the pace at which social housing provision is happening is not quick enough. We would like to see greater development of sites and thus greater social housing provision. That is what is needed. In areas where there are problems with local authority sites, the public, with the help of local councillors, will apply pressure to have those problems addressed. I do not see any major issue arising in that regard. In terms of what is proposed, we are missing the target. We need to target the speculators who bought vast amounts of land during the collapse of the property market.

We have to face the reality that it will shortly be wound up. Many NAMA loans have been sold on and, as a result, there is a huge pot of money in NAMA. The Minister and the Government should give serious consideration to the use of a portion of that money for the provision of social housing, thereby releasing the pressure on local authorities in terms of the 90,000 households currently awaiting housing. I do not recall housing waiting list numbers ever being as high.

The action I have proposed would also discourage people from getting involved in leasing, which only benefits developers and landlords. That approach will not provide social housing on a long-term basis, will not add to the social capital of local authorities and will not ultimately be to the public good. I ask the Minister of State to examine those two issues.

See this speech in context