Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is because I am going to tell the House what these amendments will do. In real terms, they will do exactly what Deputies Mattie McGrath and Matthews have said. I will explain this to Deputies by reading the provisions of the Bill. It must be put in this context. Most of my colleagues in the Opposition, including Deputy Ó Broin and others, do not want our State land development agency to build any homes and they do not want it to plan to build any homes, which is remarkable. I would ask Members to look at the specific provisions of the Bill that are referred to in this grouping of amendments. Deputy Boyd Barrett and others may be well meaning and they like to say on a regular basis that this is not about excluding the small builder or anyone else. Let me tell them how it does exclude those people. Section 6(1) states:

A housing authority may make dwellings available for the purpose of sale to eligible applicants under affordable dwelling purchase arrangements and may, in accordance with the Housing Acts and regulations made under any of those Acts, [and this is important] acquire, build or cause to be built, or otherwise provide or facilitate the provision of, dwellings for that purpose.

Following that subsection, section 6(2) outlines the arrangements into which a housing authority may enter. There are only four such arrangements. It is important that Members are aware of this because it might give them an opportunity to withdraw their amendments. The four arrangement are as follows:

(a) arrangements with an approved housing body,

(b) arrangements with co-operatives, community housing trusts and other not for profit bodies,

(c) arrangements with the Land Development Agency [as was mentioned before, which is why I specifically reference it and why it is relevant to what I am saying here], and

(d) public private partnership arrangements.

I ask Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Cian O'Callaghan and those who are proposing the deletion of section 6(2)(d) where the small private builder will fit in if this is done. Does the small private builder build 8,000 homes in Clonburris? Does the small private builder build 1,000 homes in Kilcarbery? If this amendment passes, arrangements such as Ballymastone, where there are 1,200 homes and which is a joint venture with 238 social houses, 238 affordable houses and 150 cost-rental houses, will not be permitted under this affordable housing legislation. That is consistent with the approach the Social Democrats, Sinn Féin, People Before Profit and others have taken and maybe that is what the Deputies want to happen. They are effectively saying that only local authorities should build houses and that no joint venture of any description could be entered into. Not only are Opposition Deputies satisfied that their colleagues in the local authorities continue to object to and vote against the provision of social and affordable housing, but now they are saying they want to underpin that by changing the primary legislation in the Dáil. That is not something I or my colleagues in government can countenance. We do not want a situation whereby the provision of affordable homes is in any way, shape or form inhibited and Members have correctly pointed out that this is what would happen. Deputy Boyd Barrett can shake his head all he likes. If we remove section 6(2)(d), he should come back and tell me how that will impact on the provision of affordable homes.

I have been brief in all my contributions heretofore but it was important to say what I have said because it is fundamental. Some Opposition Deputies will say that they are not against building or the provision of affordable homes, but that they want us to do it ourselves and that we do not need any type of private interaction or investment, private builders or anything else. They will say we can have a land development agency that does not build any homes and that we can have an affordable housing scheme that does not access any type of private joint venture whatsoever. The effect of these amendments would be to remove the definition of "public private partnership arrangement" from the definitions in section 4. Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove a reference to "public private partnership arrangements" from section 6, which deals with the provision of dwellings by housing authorities. Amendment No. 24 seeks to remove a similar reference from section 7(1)(c), which deals with direct sales agreements. The effect of these amendments would be to prevent housing authorities from entering into public private partnerships or joint venture arrangements for the provision of affordable dwellings for sale. That is exactly what they would do.

Section 6 provides that in order to "make dwellings available for the purpose of sale to eligible applicants under affordable dwelling purchase arrangements", a housing authority may: "acquire, build or cause to be built, or otherwise provide or facilitate the provision of, dwellings for that purpose." Section 6(2), which I referred to earlier in the context of community-led housing associations and housing trusts, etc., specifically lists arrangements that a housing authority may enter into in order to make affordable dwellings available for sale with AHBs; the Land Development Agency, which some do not want to build anything; housing trusts; and PPPs. The thrust of this section is to allow housing authorities to do whatever they can to provide affordable dwellings for sale under the affordable dwelling purchase arrangements set out in this part of the Bill. That is what it seeks to do.

I have said many times that I want our housing authorities to have the maximum number of tools available to them and at their disposal for the provision of affordable dwellings, as every Member should. Of course we want to safeguard value for money. Any type of joint venture that comes forward is assessed in great detail not only by the local authorities, in which some Opposition Deputies profess to have immense confidence but apparently not sufficient confidence to allow those local authorities assess a PPP or joint venture, but also the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. There are a number of checks and balances within the system but this is about the delivery of affordable homes as speedily as we can, underpinned by comprehensive legislation.

Deputies Mattie McGrath, Fitzmaurice, Matthews, Lahart, Duffy and others are correct. The effect of the deletion of one of the four mechanisms by which we can deliver and sell affordable homes would be its complete deletion. The effect would be to effectively ban all joint ventures. If Opposition Members are happy with that, that is fine and they are entitled to their position. However, they are not entitled to say they support the delivery of affordable housing if they are going to remove one specific avenue of delivering those homes expeditiously. Many schemes, as we know, have been opposed at local authority level. Examples have been tabled of the thousands of homes that have been opposed at local authority level. What is being sought here by some Opposition Members in Sinn Féin, the Social Democrats and Solidarity Before Profit is to copper-fasten that further by removing a stream of delivery of affordable housing. That is unconscionable and I will not support it. I do not want to remove the facility for local authorities to enter into joint ventures for this purpose. I do not propose to accept the amendments and think that the Deputies who proposed them should be honest. Do they understand what the impact of this would be? Perhaps they do not. I will not accept the amendments.

See this speech in context