Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the valid concerns expressed by Deputies regarding the housing shortage we are currently experiencing. The question is how we respond to that shortage and utilise all available resources, not just those of the National Asset Management Agency but also those of local authorities, approved housing bodies and the private sector.

The purpose of this Bill is to initiate changes and reforms that will incentivise the provision and supply of additional housing by addressing the issue of vacant sites. The Bill is designed to stimulate supply, especially in urban areas of high demand. We must work on a number of fronts to ensure construction on urban vacant sites gets under way as soon as possible. It is perfectly logical that where sites are serviced by existing public infrastructure, they should be brought back into beneficial use as soon as possible. Deputies have expressed concerns specifically in regard to NAMA, but many owners of sites that are serviced by the public in areas of high demand are not, unfortunately, active in terms of regeneration and bringing those sites back into use for housing.

Deputy Mulherin's amendment No. 1 relates to the definition of the owner of a site, which I will deal with in more detail. Given the thrust of the debate, it is useful to consider some of the statistics in respect of NAMA's involvement in the provision of housing. The agency has already delivered more than 1,600 housing units, 5,800 are in the process of obtaining planning permission, and 2,400 are under construction across 40 sites. In addition, planning permission will be sought in respect of a further 4,300 units this year, and 13,600 units are at preplanning stage. We all know that one of the several impediments to the construction of housing in the private sector is the issue of access to credit for builders. It is interesting, therefore, to note that NAMA funded 43% of all completed units in County Dublin in recent years. Moreover, in the past 18 months, NAMA sold land that is capable of delivering 10,300 housing units.

We need to be active on a number of fronts to address the problems in the housing sector. Local authorities were not, in the past, given the funding to do what they are statutorily obliged to do, which is to provide housing. That funding is now being provided. It will never be enough to meet all existing need, but the first phase has been announced and is having an impact. In addition, the approved housing bodies' allocations will be announced in the coming weeks and there will be a further phase of local authority direct provision housing announced shortly after that.

It is interesting to note that planning applications in the first three months of this year are up 30% on the same period last year. Units are in the pipeline, in other words, but the problem we face is what to do in the meantime. I acknowledge that Deputy Boyd Barrett is genuine in the concerns he raised. However, if he was standing tomorrow where I am today and he had full powers to do whatever he wanted, he would not be able to deliver the number of houses he would like to deliver no matter what he tried to do. To cut off the private sector as he proposes would only escalate the problem significantly. Whether or not he agrees with it from an ideological perspective, we are dependent on the private sector to house many of those people who are under threat of homelessness and the people coming into the housing market. It is important, therefore, to incentivise the sector to get building again. Not only will that ensure more houses come on stream, the measures and provisions in this Bill will ensure we maximise existing sites that are already serviced. It means we will not have to look to the greenfield sites which cost far more to develop in terms of the public services that have to put in place before a single unit is built on them.

These measures are just one element of the response by the Government to the housing shortage. There are many more fronts we need to tackle. We can debate the ins and outs of this all day long but, ultimately, it is about how we can supply more houses. There is no single solution or magic bullet. This Bill is about addressing one particular issue, namely, the shortage of supply in high-demand urban areas. The objective is to get those sites moving by way of the introduction of a vacant site levy and other measures.

Returning to amendment No. 1, the relevant section of the Bill provides for the definition of the owner of a site. The amendment proposes that this definition be amended such that where land is under the de facto control of NAMA, the latter shall be deemed to be the owner of that land for the purposes of the Act. Under the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009, loans have been acquired by the agency. Except for a very small number of cases, however, NAMA is not the owner or manager of the properties in question. Its role is essentially like that of a bank or secured lender. Other than in the case of properties that have been enforced, all of which are listed on the agency's website and are managed by the appointed receivers and administrators, the properties continue to be managed by their existing owners. In enforced cases, the receiver is appointed to take the place of the property owner as an independent officer and to act in accordance with clear statutory obligations. This would apply to NAMA in the ordinary course, as to anybody else.

The definition of owner in the Bill is consistent with that set out in both the Derelict Sites Act 1990 and the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, of which, on enactment, this Bill will form part. This legislation provides that where the vacant site levy is determined to apply to a site, the owner must be clearly identifiable. This will ensure the efficiency of the measures. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

See this speech in context