Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

They have correctly said that we need more, and I have no problem with such a statement. There will be more allocations as resources allow. That is the type of realism the Government has to deal with. There is no magic bullet or pot of gold from which we can access funds. Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned on Committee Stage some €1 billion fund that exists in the ether. I am not using this as a point of attack but if such a fund exists, will the Deputy please emphasise where it is? I certainly cannot see it.

We are accessing all types of funding to try to address the housing crisis in the country, including direct provision of funding from the Exchequer, leveraging funding from the approved housing bodies off balance sheet and the public-private partnership system. We have a very open mind on all ways of delivering housing. To say that the direct building of social housing is the one solution for the problem we face is not realistic. The local authorities do not have the capacity to build to the extent being mentioned, although we are gradually ramping up planning and housing staff. We have allocated more than 300 staff to local authorities so they can increase the capacity to respond as we start allocating funds to them.

I will repeat what I said about the void issue. There was a totally unacceptable level of vacant and void existing housing stock. We have prioritised those because we feel they can be turned around more quickly. We are seeing progress in the area, as we have returned over 2,000 vacant houses to beneficial use, with another 1,000 to be delivered by providing additional funds to local authorities in those areas. There is no conspiracy on this side of the House and we are using all available avenues to address the housing issues. Saying that the private sector cannot, and will not, be part of the solution is not realistic either. As I have said in previous debates, if in the morning we had all the money being mentioned to put into the direct building of social housing, there would still be a time lag of a number of months, if not years, in delivering those houses. What would be done in the mean time? We have to utilise the private sector; we have no other option. That is what we are doing, and to write off such a process would certainly do an injustice to the people on the housing lists.

It is recognised, not by Deputies on this side of the House but by independent agencies like Housing Agency, that the construction sector is not working to its full potential. We do not have a viable and normalised construction sector, as we are operating at half the rate of possible production of houses. This is because existing planning permissions have very high development levies attached, which makes those construction projects unviable. This Bill addresses the issue by giving flexibility to local authorities to revise those levies to more realistic levels. That will unlock construction sites and deliver more housing units.

The Part V element has been examined closely by the Housing Agency and an independent review has been carried out. A recommendation was made that because of overhead costs and viability concerns, a reduction in the Part V contribution would assist in the delivery of more housing units. That is why we are proposing in the Bill to reduce the proportion from 20% to 10%. Over the past five years, the number of private sector housing construction projects has been close to zero. As Deputy Boyd Barrett noted on Committee Stage, 20% of zero is zero. We need to see activity on these sites, so a 10% Part V element is a reasonable level in order to achieve viability in construction. On top of that, we are removing the cash in lieu element that existed heretofore. I welcome the fact Deputy Cowen welcomed the removal of that mechanism as, in the past, it allowed many developers to get out of their obligations. Aside from Deputy Cowen, I do not hear too many others welcoming that fact. We are not on the side of the developers; we want to see units delivered. We are making interventions in many different ways to try to achieve it and the removal of the Part V cash in lieu element is one of those.

We are strengthening the hand of local authorities in getting agreement on Part V prior to the commencement of construction on a site. Although it is a provision of the Bill, I do not hear people talking about it. We all know of cases in the past where developers managed to get out of that commitment through negotiation. In this legislation, it will be part of the planning condition that negotiated Part V output will have to be agreed before work commences on a site. That is a positive element that should be welcomed as it ties down a commitment on the delivery of units under Part V.

For the reasons I have outlined, we will oppose the amendments. The Government feels that what it proposes is reasonable and addresses viability issues as well as issues that must be considered in order to see more construction of housing units in the country. We need to get back to a normalised and sustainable level that will meet the needs of society.

See this speech in context