Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will take the temperature down and talk about the actual issue addressed by the motion. As has just been said, there is much commonality in the motion and amendments. We need to get to the nub of the issue, namely, that we have many policies, announcements and proposals but little action. The Minister needs to come clean on the money issue. We have heard time and time again that money is not an obstacle. On the one hand, we hear from our local councillors when they want to advance housing proposals that they are delayed by the Department. On the other, the Department claims there are delays with the councils. Either way, the time it takes to get from a proposal to a finished housing development is not going to deal with the issue. That is the nub of the problem. We need honesty on whether the money is there.

The Labour Party amendment is about using the resources in NAMA. Our amendment proposes to:

introduce immediate measures to transform the National Asset Management Agency into a National Housing Development and Finance Agency and repurpose its mandate into one of addressing the serious shortage in supply of housing for sale or for rent at affordable prices, so that the new agency can take a leading role on behalf of the State in the development of affordable housing, the delivery of new builds and the long-term financing of social housing through local authorities.

This was also contained in a Labour Private Members’ Bill last year. It proposed to merge NAMA with the Housing Finance Agency and then give it power to assist housing authorities and approved housing bodies in respect of the provision of management matters related to housing accommodation, as well as in respect of other housing matters, and conferring on it the power to give assistance conferred by section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 as if it were a housing authority. We wanted to use the resources, the expertise and the money of NAMA to assist local authorities and voluntary housing associations in providing housing and dealing with affordability.

6 o’clock

We had to remove it from the Bill because the Ceann Comhairle wrote to me and said that it would conflict with the current functions of NAMA under section 10(2) of the NAMA Act 2009, to obtain the best achievable financial return for the State, and would reduce or eliminate any potential surplus to the Exchequer when NAMA's work is completed. We were turned down because of the current functions, but we wanted to amend those current functions. The other reason for being turned down was that we would curtail the return of the financial surplus to the Exchequer. Surely it is an excellent use of the resources of NAMA to use the money to build houses for people who are homeless or who are on housing waiting lists, whom we have discussed here many times. I strongly argue that it is much more important to do that than simply to return, in that clinical way, the finances to the State. This is the biggest issue facing the State so it makes sense to use the money. Fianna Fáil has come on board with that idea since then. It is a sensible proposal, which is why we made it in our amendment.

We would have added another area to the motion. I accept that Sinn Féin wished to be specific on particular issues and that there are many matters that could be included, but our proposal regarding the Kenny report relates to the issue of hoarding building land. We wish to see that implemented as well. There is certainly evidence now that much-needed building land is being sat on where there is a high demand and need for houses. We would have liked to have seen that included.

Will the Minister tell the House if he intends to introduce an affordable housing scheme? There was a report recently that he is planning to announce it in two weeks' time. Perhaps he would clarify that because all Members have been calling for an affordable housing scheme for some time.

I wish to raise another issue with the Minister. He spoke about the two hubs in Limerick this morning. What Limerick City and County Council is doing is very welcome. Obviously, I am familiar with it. There has been very good interaction on homelessness with the voluntary sector. Novas Initiatives has done brilliant work in Limerick, as have the Simon Community, Focus Ireland, the Peter McVerry Trust, Clúid Housing and others. The council has also been proactive. However, I return to my original point. It has been extraordinarily slow to get local authority developments completed. The developments that are almost completed in Limerick - one beside the Southill Area Centre in O'Malley Park, one in Edward Street and one on Hyde Road through a voluntary housing association - are developments I announced when I was Minister of State with responsibility for housing, which was back in 2012 and 2013. They are only being completed now. I cannot see evidence of anything started or anywhere near completion since then. The nub of the problem is the length of time it takes to go from a concept to construction. We discussed previously with the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, the plans relating to the more than 700 sites in public ownership. Again, my fear is that the current plans in that regard will take far too much time.

I will refer again to empty houses. It is a matter I raise every time I speak. We might dispute the number and say it is not the almost 200,000 claimed by the census, but if even a fraction of the number can be brought back into use it would be positive. The voids scheme has been successful under various Ministers. However, we must have private houses coming back into use, even if that requires compulsory purchase orders. We must see the Minister's strategy. It has been delayed for a long time. We also require a vacant homes tax.

We have spoken about many of these issues repeatedly, but they are important. The final one I wish to reference is included in the motion, namely, the insecurity of tenure and high rents for people who are renting. I do not believe the rent pressure zone system has worked. It obviously has not worked for places such as Limerick which are excluded from it. I do not know as much about areas that are in the system but I am told that, for one reason or another, in many cases landlords are able to wriggle out of their obligation not to increase rent above 4% per annum. We have to go back to the drawing board on that as well, particularly during these intervening years when people will continue to be stuck in rented accommodation. They possibly could buy if there was support for them to do so in terms of affordability but they are on housing waiting lists and are paying high rents. Indeed, they might not be on the waiting lists because they are above the threshold. There must be proper control of the rents people are paying. There is also the issue of security of tenure. There must be far more protection of tenants from eviction by landlords for reasons that are sometimes not credible, such as that the house is going to be sold but it ends up not being sold.

It is important to continue having these debates. However, we must get to the nub of the problems in terms of why matters are not moving more quickly.

See this speech in context