Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 19, to delete lines 33 to 35.

This amendment seeks to delete lines 33 to 35 on page 19. In effect, that retains the existing Part V percentage of 20% rather than the reduction as proposed by the Government to 10%. Despite the criticism that has been levelled at the Part 5 provision by the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and others, it delivered 15,000 units between 2002 and 2011. The Minister proposes to halve it from 20%, which would appear to be a capitulation to the building sector on the part of Fine Gael and a capitulation by the Labour Party to Fine Gael with the retention of the site levy, despite the fact that the site levy has the support of all parties in the House as an effort to address dilapidation and encourage the development of many derelict and hoarded sites throughout the country.

I agree with the provision in the legislation to abolish the cash in lieuelement and recognise that it did not work in a way that would assist local authorities. That might be due to the fact - this touches on a point raised in the previous amendment proposed by my colleagues - that the funds collected by local authorities from that source were not properly ring-fenced in such a way that they could be redistributed for the purpose of providing social housing. As an add-on to that, and further to a question put down by Deputy Troy in recent weeks, could the Department provide the Members with a breakdown of what was collected by each local authority during the lifetime of that legislation in terms of where it was spent, how it was spent and whether any funds retained by any local authority were collected in that fashion?

My reasons for seeking to retain the 20% provision are much the same as those outlined by many speakers since the beginning of this debate and long before that, while we awaited confirmation of proposed legislation on the part of the Government to tackle this crisis rather than allowing it to develop into the crisis it is now. An effective house building programme needs to be twin-tracked. The public and private elements should run parallel and every effort should be made to accommodate the private sector, which in turn can provide 20%, in addition to proper elements of policy on the part of the Government for local authorities to do what they do best and to tackle this issue in the manner in which it should be tackled. The only way in which it has been resolved in the past, as others have said, was when local authorities were building houses in the 1930s and 1970s. If there is a supply issue, the only way to address it is to build units, but it seems the Government is proposing to go to new lengths to appease the landlords, and it relies far too much on private rental accommodation.

The abolition of the affordable element is being done by ministerial order rather than through any specific part of the legislation. I appreciate that this is because it was at the discretion of the local authorities to apportion percentages within the 20% provision between social and affordable housing, cash in lieu, and affordable units, but I disagree with that element of it. Banks have intimated that they may deal with people in mortgage distress and allow them a break on their negative equity if they surrender their property and qualify for social housing from a local authority. Unfortunately, many of those who find themselves in that position would not qualify for social housing, but it may be that local authorities could furnish loans and allow an affordable price within the current legislation. I put that to the Minister of State. I do not expect him to respond positively to it now, but I take at face value what he said earlier about other measures being brought before the House in the coming months to address the difficulties and deficiencies in the current programmes.

As I said, we were a long time waiting for movement on the part of Government to address this issue. Now that there appears to be some semblance of movement, although it is not manifesting itself on the ground, I ask the Minister of State to consider that seriously.

On the 20% provision, I was approached in recent months by people who wish to provide private sector housing for the elderly and in this regard wanted the 20% provision done away with. As the Minister of State will be aware, there are many elderly people who, because their existing homes cannot be adapted to meet their needs, are on the housing waiting lists for senior citizens' dwellings and so on. They have as much entitlement to a unit as does any young person or other person on those lists. For this reason, I do not support the proposed reduction in the 20% provision. I also believe people living in houses that are larger than they need should be incentivised to trade down, which in itself would create a gap for those wishing to trade up. If the people who approached me in recent months are serious about providing those facilities, I would encourage them and others to do so. Measures such as breaks in relation to stamp duty and the property tax could be introduced to encourage this. That is just an example of the different suite of measures that is required by way of a more wholesome housing Bill to seriously tackle this issue. As stated by many speakers, this issue needs to be tackled seriously.

Suffice it to say, I do not agree that the 20% provision should be reduced to 10%. I believe it should be retained at 20% and that more efforts should be made not only in public housing provision but in private house building and development. To this end, the Strategic Investment Fund could lend itself towards a home development bank that could lend to developers and those who have land and sites throughout the country at a rate that would be competitive and would encourage them to undertake house building. This, in parallel with the Government's programmes, would address this issue in the short term. This is the type of out-of-the-box thinking that is necessary to address the housing crisis.

I do not expect that the Minister of State will take on board my proposals in this instance, but I ask that he give serious consideration to them in the preparation of other legislation that might be introduced, such that the public will see a real and meaningful effort being made by the Government which is cognisant of the obligations of the private sector as well as the obligations of local authorities. This might address the imbalance in the legislation to which I referred earlier, whereby the Government is seeking to penalise those councils that cannot provide housing on sites they hold despite the fact that they are not being provided with the funding to do so, which is a huge contradiction, one of the greatest contained within this Bill and on which members of the Government voted accordingly. I am surprised and shocked that this proposal has not yet reached the public domain. However, we will do our best to ensure that it does.

I disagree with the proposed reduction of the 20% provision to 10% and ask others to support my proposal in this regard.

See this speech in context