Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Members for their contributions and, equally, I am grateful for the contribution made by the committee members, which was very collaborative. There was a lot of support for the measures we have recommended. We have heard so much talk about dereliction and vacancy but without the figures, we do not know how much of it exists. The figure ranges from 180,000 down to 90,000 units. We have many people out there gathering data for the census, the CSO and the local authorities. The Heritage Council has brilliantly interacted with the committee and described the collaborative town centre health check proposals that it is going through. It is critical that we pull all of that information together now that we have it.

The old saying is that if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. That exists with vacancy and derelict homes. We strongly recommend improved data collection. We strongly recommend a dedicated unit within the Department to pull all of this together and to manage it. There are people working on it in the Department but I do not believe there is a dedicated unit working on it. That would be one of the strong recommendations that we make and that I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, to bring back to discuss with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and the other Minister of State, Deputy Burke. Local authorities should also ensure they have vacant homes officers. I know the funding has been put in place so it is important we ensure the chief executives staff the local authorities with those vacant homes officers.

The assessments carried out by Dublin City Council are striking. We think there is a figure of, say, 137,000 units. The council did an assessment and it came back with a figure of 213 units. When it went through them, it then whittled it down to just 16 long-term vacant units. When we compare that to the CSO figure of 30,000 vacant units, it shows there is massive disparity and there is a lot of confusion. Another report was carried out by University College Cork that suggested that if we addressed all of the upper-floor vacancies in towns and villages, we could increase the population by 280% within our town centres. While that is probably too much to increase the population by, it demonstrates the potential. Moreover, Dublin City Council planners estimated there is enough space between the canals in Dublin to accommodate 4,000 apartments. It is critical that we pull all of this together so we know what we are going to do with it. It is important that we copy the repair and lease scheme that is working in the good councils.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin referred to why it worked in Waterford, which was because the building costs are slightly lower there and Dublin is more expensive, but that is always going to be the case in a capital city where there is always that demand. That is not the reason in other local authorities. Some local authorities are just not paying any attention to it. We need to generate public interest in it as well. We need to advertise it, incentivise it and go out there and look for the properties, as other Deputies have mentioned. I believe that would work.

On the Croí Cónaithe fund and the CPO of the 2,600 units that are in Housing for All, I believe that will have a snowball effect. I believe that as more and more come on stream, businesses will open successfully, footfall increases and other businesses open. When we add all of the supports that are out there and the Housing for All incentives, and people start to see it as a vibrant possibility to live in the town centre, it will have a snowball effect. I believe this will become apparent.

I agree with Deputy Ó Broin that we need to target social and affordable units for vacancies and to set those targets. On the vacant homes tax, I have never heard every party agree that we should implement a tax.

It is important we do it. There need to be reasonable exemptions to it. A vacant holiday home is a reasonable exemption. A home where somebody is in long-term care or a vacant primary residence of a person working abroad are reasonable exemptions. A building going through substantial renovation work that is vacant for a period of time is reasonable. In the Vancouver model, 26% of vacant houses were brought back into stock. Even if we took the lowest figure of vacancy we have and brought 26% of that back into stock, that would be a substantial contribution to our housing stock.

Deputy Gould mentioned heritage buildings. This is a fantastic opportunity. Heritage buildings of architectural beauty are falling into disrepair. This is an opportunity not just to have people living in those buildings but to bring life back to the buildings. There is nothing worse than seeing an architectural gem just rotting away, damp and falling apart. By bringing life into it you bring life back into that building.

Deputy Bacik mentioned the regulatory process. I recently introduced a Private Members' Bill that suggests we streamline that process to make it simpler to refurbish and reuse buildings. It is a deterrent at the moment. We need to bring in a regulatory process that encourages people to develop, refurbish and reuse and does not stymie development by being so cumbersome and onerous that someone attempting to do it is so unsure they are going to get through the process, it is not worth it. Deputy Bacik also mentioned the post offices. I am delighted that this week the Government announced a long-term multi-annual support package for our post offices to ensure they remain vibrant and offer that central focal point for our town centres. These are places that people revolve around. We cannot afford to lose them from our streets. We cannot afford to lose our local shops. Bringing life and living back in supports the post office and the local shops.

Deputy McAuliffe is quite right. This is not a simple process. If it was that simple we would have done it years ago. There are many reasons houses and buildings are vacant. There is no single, simple solution that fits all. We need to apply a bit of stick as well. The dereliction tax and the vacancy tax are how we should do that. We introduce it, we announce that we are going to do it, and we give people time to move, sell, restore, refurbish or whatever they need to do. That is the way we will approach it.

Deputy Leddin is quite correct. We lost the focus on our towns. Our planning policy got into a car about 30 or 40 years ago, drove to the suburbs and just kept driving. We need to turn that policy around and bring it back into the town centres. County architects have always been on my wish list for employees we would have at local authority level. Our local authorities have come in for a bit of a hammering during this debate, with criticism that they are not doing enough. Our local authorities do a huge amount of work. We need to make sure they are resourced to do the work we want them to do, including this extra work, and acknowledge the good work they are doing in terms of planning and the pressure they are under.

Deputy Duffy is an experienced architect. He knows it is not a simple process to refurbish a second and third floor. We need to do it and provide that housing. There is a collective and collaborative will in the House to do it. Many of these recommendations will fit very closely with Government policies such as town centres first, Our Rural Future and Housing for All. As others have said, it is time to implement and take action on it.

See this speech in context