Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the Deputies for their contributions. A few weeks ago the Government launched Housing For All, the most extensive and ambitious action plan for the delivery of social and affordable housing in the history of the State. Housing For All brings a coherent and consistent whole-of-government approach to housing policy to ensure the delivery of housing supply sufficient to meet demand at a price level that is affordable, accessible and sustainable. There is, however, no quick fix to the current challenges. Creating a sustainable housing system is complex but we have a radical plan in Housing For All, which is a fully financed plan to levels we have never seen before. Backed up by an unprecedented State commitment in excess of €4 billion per annum, more than 300,000 new homes will be built by the end of 2030, including a projected 90,000 social homes, 36,000 affordable purchase homes, and 18,000 cost rental homes. It is the largest State-led building programme in our history.

The recent amendments made to Part V of the Planning and Development Act, via the Affordable Housing Act 2021, will contribute to the achievement of these ambitious targets. Not alone do the Part V amendments reintroduce an affordable homes requirement to each new development, they also introduce for the first time the use of some of the increased Part V contribution for the provision of cost rental housing.

The urgent and immediate delivery of homes for our people is critical. Never before has the housing crisis in Ireland been so acute. The crisis has, of course, been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic that has impacted on all of our lives with the cessation of construction activity for an extended period. With this activity now resumed and rapidly ramping up, we need to maintain its momentum and translate that into the delivery of actual housing units.

I welcome the support given by Sinn Féin and other parties to the Affordable Housing Act that introduced these measures in July. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss these provisions and to consider any potential improvements that will help to deliver homes. The Government is allowing this Bill to proceed to pre-legislative scrutiny to facilitate further detailed analysis with relevant stakeholders. There are serious concerns with the Bill, as have been addressed, that I will now outline before the House.

The contribution required under Part V is now 20% for permissions granted in respect of land purchased before September 2015 and since 1 August 2021. For that intervening period, developers would have had an expectation of a Part V contribution that would be no more than 10% when deciding the price to pay for the land. It is only for the cohort who purchased their land in that period and only if they have obtained planning permission before 31 July 2026 that the Part V obligation will be at 10% currently.

Because the transitional arrangement is time limited, as mentioned earlier, this aims to encourage developers who purchased land in the September 2015 to July 2021 period to proceed with their developments in the near term. As a result, we hope and expect to see an increase in the level of applications to local authorities for planning permission to build residential developments on land that was purchased in the past six years.

The Part V amendments made, including the transitional arrangements in question, are in line with the recommendations made by the Housing Agency to deliver on the Government's commitment to expand Part V to encompass affordable purchase and cost rental units and to increase its use for social housing provision where the need exists in an area.

It is important to clarify that this is not the outcome of some sweetheart deal between the Government and construction industry, as some would have us believe. Nothing could be further from the truth. A newspaper article last Sunday alleged that the decision to provide transitional provisions was made on foot of lobbying from developers. This is absolutely incorrect. The submissions on the Housing For All plan were in fact received after the Government had already agreed the content of the Part V changes, including the transitional provisions, and therefore could not have had any impact on the decision of the Minister. It was the clear and unambiguous advice of the Housing Agency and of the officials within the Department that if an increased Part V requirement was to be introduced, transitional provisions should be provided in respect of land purchased when the obligation was 10% before the increase was announced. The agency advised that to apply the increased percentage to land already in the ownership of developers would potentially be of serious concern to the housing construction sector. Land purchased factoring in Part V at 10% would see a reduced development value that could impact on the ability to access development finance. This would mean potentially fewer houses being built at a time when greater output is so badly needed. For those developments on land that was purchased in the expectation of a 10% Part V contribution that could still proceed, the increased percentage could have a knock-on effect on the prices for the buyers of these homes. In the face of the price of homes rising rapidly, the Government was rightly careful to weigh all of the potential ramifications of increasing the contribution percentage. The advice of the agency and the various options put forward by it in respect of potential transitional provisions was submitted to the Minister and the Department officials. They also supported the need for transitional provisions and, having regard to the advice of the agency, the need to stimulate supply and the need to avoid any passing on of costs to the consumer by way of rising house prices.

The five-year transitional period that the Bill seeks to abolish has the advantage of being a carrot-and-stick approach that will encourage development and it sits well with the added disincentive of a new tax on vacant residential land, as outlined in Housing For All, which seeks to prevent land hoarding.

The Government understands, however, that the Bill is very well intentioned. As we want to see more affordable housing delivered, we will not oppose this legislation. We will keep the Part V provisions under review for further economic analysis and scrutiny. Any changes to Part V have to deliver more units. The critical question is whether the change proposed by this Bill is likely to result in greater or less housing supply generally and more or fewer social and affordable houses. Pre-legislative scrutiny will offer the chance to investigate this further.

I will now refer to one or two of the contributions in this debate. I understand Deputy Nash stated that Part 6 of the Affordable Homes Act had not been commenced but it was commenced on 3 September. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, in framing this narrative that so many try to frame about a sweetheart deal, suggested that documents were released by the Department under freedom of information provisions. This also is incorrect. All of the submissions for Housing For All were published on the Department website last Friday. In the context of adding substance to this debate, using one-line rhetoric suggesting a "sweetheart deal" is not borne out by fact, which I touched on in my speech about the decision on Part V already having been made before the submissions closed, which in effect was two weeks prior to that. We can again see that the narrative of using that terminology will not solve the housing crisis. I meet highly vulnerable people queueing up at my clinic week on week looking for affordable housing and social housing. Substantive comments add to that debate but comments like "sweetheart deal" undermine it. I believe that every Deputy in this House is coming with the best of intentions in trying to resolve this issue, which is the biggest challenge of our time and for the Government. Housing For All seeks to do that. With that in mind, we are absolutely clear on reviewing this Part V arrangement, going to the committee to seek pre-legislative scrutiny, and stress-testing the proposals to show that they will deliver more affordable and social homes. That is why we were all elected to this House.

See this speech in context