John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This is the first opportunity I have had to address the Minister on this issue as I am not a member of the housing committee. I geneuinely wish him well in the task that lies in front of him which affects all of us and those in our communities. It is a serious responsibility. I express a little disappointment that the previous Minister who had developed the programme is no longer presiding over its implementation.

However, that is as it is.

When Rebuilding Ireland was published, I told the Minister that while it was not exactly what we would have done and there were things we would have done differently, it had the potential to impact very positively on those it was intended to help if it was implemented in a timely fashion. I reiterate that. I pointed out a number of differences our all-party committee had on our housing proposals. I acknowledge that Rebuilding Ireland adopted many of the proposals from the all-party Committee on Housing and Homelessness, but the real challenge is implementation. I reiterate that. The Minister said today that there will be a review within three months. While I am all for a review, it must run in parallel with the implementation of what is there. It is not a matter of "either, or". The plan must be driven forward forcefully. One of my initial concerns was the capacity of the Department. I still have that concern. Our committee felt an independent entity should be established to drive housing policy but a decision was made that it would remain within the Department. I have concerns about implementation which I will set out as I go through my contribution.

The Minister and others have spoken today about people becoming homeless and that is the first challenge. How do we address those issues? One group still presenting in my office is people who are tenants of private landlords who are placing their properties for sale. I am sure it is the same for many Members. The Minister must revisit that issue to strengthen tenants' rights. If someone has a tenancy with a single landlord with only one property which is a commercial buy-to-let property, the tenant should have the right to remain for the duration of the tenancy even where the property is sold. The property should be sold with the tenant in situ. That is what happens with commercial properties. If a shop or office is being sold and the tenant has a lease for five or ten years, the transaction takes place but the tenant remains. One sees the signs up all around Dublin which state "Tenant not affected". We must look at considering strengthening protections for tenants because they are presenting.

I have told the Minister that I have concerns about capacity within the Department. I am not here to knock the Minister, give him a kicking or play political games. My real interest is in seeing delivery. For us to be effective and meaningful, the Minister must play ball with us. I sometimes feel there is a cloak and dagger approach. One asks a question but the transparency and in-depth reply which is necessary for us to be able to offer meaningful solutions is not always forthcoming. I say that with my hand on my heart. I am not here to get a reply which I will throw back, stating it is rubbish and that the Minister is doing nothing. I know the Minister is trying. However, when delivery is not being met within the specified time limits, we want to know why. Where are the blockages? Is it at local government level or in the Department? Is it funding? We honestly do not know.

The first issue to which I will refer specifically is the rapid build programme. When Rebuilding Ireland was published last summer, the target was that there would be 200 units provided in the fourth quarter of 2016 and 800 during 2017. Those are to be in place by the end of the year. It is something I have been keeping an eye on. While I am not on the housing committee, I was on the original all-party committee and, like previous speakers, have a very keen interest in and, like Deputy Durkan, a very good knowledge of the area. As such, I have pursued this matter. However, the answers I receive refer me first of all to what is in the pipeline and what is being planned. They are regurgitated and provided to us time and again. Eventually, having rephrased my questions, I start to get specific answers as to the various projects that will be delivered and when. This is an issue that predates the Minister's time in office. No matter what way one looks at it, instead of the 1,000 units anticipated in Rebuilding Ireland, somewhere under 200 units will have been provided by the end of 2017. These are the figures from the Minister's own Department. However, that does not help us because we really do not know what the underlying issue is. We do not know where the blockages are in delivering those units. The Minister has identified sites and what is on the input side, but we cannot fully understand where the blockages are. In the absence of that information, it is very hard for us to provide meaningful solutions to aid the process. That is what everyone in the House wants to do. There are issues there but we cannot see them from the answers the Minister is providing.

The same is true of social housing building albeit I acknowledge that a progress report is published on a regular basis. As Deputy Casey stated earlier, there are some 500 schemes with 8,500 houses, two of which schemes have over 100 units, many of which are small. The information the Minister provides shows the different stages houses are at, but what we really want to see is another column which states when they are due to be completed. It is not great to tell us a house has moved from stage two to stage three or that workers are on site when we want to know is the anticipated completion date. That transparency would help the Minister as well as us because there is nothing more important for people than to meet the deadlines they have set for themselves and to deliver programmes, including local authorities. That information is sadly missing, however. The Minister has an opportunity as he refines the programme to put that information into the quarterly reports on the construction side. The Minister has shown the 8,500 houses, the inputs and the early stages, but we want indicative dates as to when the units will be ready for occupation or at least completed on site. That would be a useful step which the Minister might consider taking as part of his review.

I acknowledge that the repair and leasing initiative has taken a quantum leap from where it was on budget day when some 150 units were anticipated to be delivered in 2017. We are now up to 800. In replies, the Minister indicates where the 800 are to be, local authority by local authority. We are halfway through 2017 but we do not have a measurement of what has been secured to date, what is being negotiated and what we are likely to hit on a local authority by local authority basis. In some of his replies, the Minister indicated that if local authorities can go further, he is open to that as well. It is an important first step. The Minister has heard the figures on vacant properties before. We have seen a figure of 40,000, not all of which, I realise, are in the greater Dublin area. We know they are not all suitable, but a few thousand would eradicate the use of hotels overnight. We are ten months into Rebuilding Ireland and I am disappointed there has not been greater progress to address the issue of vacant properties.

A great deal has been made of the supply side issue, which we all acknowledge. I spoke to the Minister previously about the local authority needing to spell out its delivery programme and timelines. The private sector is not engaging actively in the market and there is an ideal opportunity for local authorities to build while there is some capacity there. In two or three years' time, it may not be as easy to get contractors. We are missing an opportunity by not being on site at the moment. That said, I acknowledge that €225 million is being invested in local infrastructure. The concern I have with the fund is that it has been divided over four years. I would have liked to see infrastructure front-loaded. That should be revisited in the sense that it is €225 million over four years. If it were front-loaded, one would then be pushing sooner for the delivery of houses. The consequence of that is that the landowners whose land will benefit from the infrastructure may not play ball and develop the land for housing quickly. If that happens, penalties must attach.

Speaking of penalties, many people have spoken about vacant sites. Replies to parliamentary questions indicate that we will have a vacant site tax from next year to be collected in 2019. There has always been concern about a balancing act from the point of view of the constitutional right to private property and the rate to be applied. It is really important to ensure the vacant site tax is meaningful and acts as a real deterrent to the hoarding of land. We need for the foreseeable future a vibrant housing construction industry and new housing schemes coming online year after year. Land hoarding has been and certainly continues to be an issue and I am concerned the rate of the vacant site tax will not be enough to get the results we are striving for.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd stated that when NAMA appeared before the committee, it indicated that it had offered local authorities 6,700 units but only approximately 2,500 were accepted.

The local authorities had a variety of reasons such as they were in the wrong location or the wrong size, yet people ended up living in all of those units. I cannot understand why the State, either through NAMA, a housing agency or a variety of local authorities, did not take ownership and dispose of them in a variety of ways. I believe in having mix of tenures. They could have been sold to ordinary first-time buyers or there could have been an affordable or social housing scheme. We could have had a mix of tenures, but we adopted a hands-off approach, which was a mistake. On the future of NAMA and the State, we need to be proactive. In the future, when assets are being disposed of, the State cannot say it only wants this or that bit. We need to control the process. The properties sold by NAMA which the State did not take up through the local authorities were very definitely a missed opportunity because all of them have people living in them today. The State could have managed the issue in a far better way.

As a committee, we spent a lot of time on the issue of developing an off-balance sheet special purpose vehicle to allow the likes of the Irish League of Credit Unions to invest substantial funds in social housing. I note that representatives of credit unions were here recently. For God's sake, the Minister should deal with it or bury the idea. If it is a non-runner, he should say so. It goes around and around. If it is not meaningful, cannot be done, the cost of funding is too expensive, there are technical reasons and it is not allowed as an off-balance sheet transaction, the Minister should say so, but he should not allow the process to go on and on. I urge him to deal with some of these issues and, for God's sake, be honest and direct with us. We will try to help in the delivery of meaningful solutions and not play political football with it.

See this speech in context