Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)

It would be hard to oppose the Housing Finance Agency (Amendment) Bill. It is increasing the finance available, which is needed. The key issue is that it is at low interest rates. I do not know if a portion of it is coming from the European Investment Bank, the private markets or a mixture of both.

The Minister of State might outline that in his reply.

We are in the middle of a housing crisis like we have never seen before. We really need to try to deal with it. The cost and speed of delivery are key issues, along with the need for infrastructure. Water, electricity and wastewater capacity are very important. They are some of the things we need to do.

There are a few areas where we can do something. I have raised a point previously with the Minister of State, which I will raise again here today. It is unfortunate that the Minister for housing, Deputy Browne, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, have left the Chamber. I have spoken to both of them before about it, along with the other Minister of State from Waterford. The way local authority housing was built quickly in the past is that we used universal designs, plans and standards. Departmental officials told me previously that we are moving towards having universal design and standards for interiors, but I am talking about the exact same plan being used for various family sizes and settings. In other words, there would be one plan for a two-bedroom, two-storey urban unit so it would be the same in Westmeath where the Minister of State, Deputy Moran, lives, where I live in County Laois or in Donegal or Wexford. The plan for a one-bed or two-bed maisonette for a pensioner or disabled person, again, could be the same throughout the country, and likewise with a three-bed or four-bed house. We must do that.

I am not suggesting that we drop the standard of accommodation. It must be A-rated. This is not about cutting corners. This is about simply cutting out the nonsense and the cost. At the moment, it costs local authorities between 11% and 15% to design plans for each housing estate or housing development that is built. They start with a blank canvas. Pieces of paper then get shuffled between the local authority and the Custom House. That must stop. I acknowledge that it has speeded up a bit in recent years, but it must be cut out altogether.

When we look at the houses that are built in this city, we see the same houses in Sligo, for example. There are also similar houses in Portlaoise. I pass houses every day coming in here that are similar to one I lived in in Portlaoise. That is not a problem. I am not talking about going back to housing from the 1930s. We can have modern housing but we must use the same plans. We do not need to hire architects. We should not start with a blank canvas for every house or every small or large housing scheme. We must have universal drawings, plans and design for the needs of various family sizes in various settings. We must do that to speed up delivery and, crucially, to reduce costs. We talk about it in here every day.

We cannot reduce costs unless we mass produce. Do people around the country really care if the house they are living in might look like one that someone else in Donegal is living in? They do not. Private developers are doing it. They simply change a little bit of fabric on the outside of the front, change the porch a little bit, or slightly change some other feature to make the houses look slightly different. They are all doing it. I see houses that are being built by some of the big building contractors in County Laois that are the very same as houses being built in Dublin. They do not mind doing it but the local authorities are sent off to get new plans each time. We must cut out that nonsense. It must stop. I have raised it with the housing Minister and the two Ministers of State. I would like to see that happen. Somebody might come back and tell me what is happening in that regard. I do not want to hear that they are using the same standards internally and this, that and the other. What we need are the same plans. That is crucial to speeding up delivery.

If we move to the budget for a moment, I have a copy of the document the Minister read out where he outlined that more than €9 billion has been allocated to housing. I welcome that. I wish there was more in it, but it is good to have that much in it. Again, the point is the value that we are getting from it. I will highlight one point to the Minister of State. According to the Minister, some €2 billion is for RAS, housing assistance and leasing. That is a huge sum of money. I understand why there is a need for it. We brought in rent supplements 20 years ago as a short-term measure but now it has become the mainstay of providing housing for 100,000 households. It is dead money that is going down the drain every year. We get short-term housing for it but after paying out money for 50 years the State will not have any tangible asset at the end of it.

I also want to highlight to the Minister of State that out of the €9 billion plus for housing, less than one third is going to local authorities to either build or buy. That is according to the Minister's speech. That shows the shift. More than two thirds of the money we are putting into social and affordable housing is going somewhere else instead of it being the main focus of where it should go. I want to highlight that point. I say that because I am concerned about the cost, the speed of delivery and time wasted on jumping through hoops that do not need to be jumped.

The cost of RAS and HAP is €2 billion, which is a substantial amount. The Committee of Public Accounts did a report on it some years ago. An in-depth investigation found that it was bad value for money. We must change the dial and get the emphasis on getting houses in place. This year, for example, Laois County Council has a spend of €491,000 for HAP alone. If we take leasing and other measures, we are looking at €14 million out of a budget of around €30 million for housing. Half the budget is going on temporary payments to landlords and various other outfits for temporary rental and leasing. That is the effect that it is having. It is money spent whereby we do not finish up with a tangible asset. That is not a good way of doing business. We have become overly dependent on it. The grant schemes are excellent – housing adaptation, the mobility aid scheme, and the housing aid for older persons. There needs to be a little bit of flexibility with the housing aid for older persons and once a person reaches 60 years of age, in certain circumstances they should be able to reduce it downwards a bit, instead of it being 66. It is a very good grant and I hope there will be a second tranche of money for it next year.

I want to mention cost rental. There has only been a trickle of such units outside the Pale. They are needed every bit as badly there because many people in their fifties and sixties who are in private rented accommodation are facing rent increases. Some of them are facing homelessness now because of the changes in the rental accommodation rules. They are being served with notices for vacant possession. This is causing a real problem. The overall issue I am highlighting here is that there is a cohort of people who will not get a loan anywhere because of their age profile and limited income. We need cost-rental homes for those people. In some cases there are single people and in other cases there are families involved.

We need cost rental in towns like Rathdowney, Mountrath, Abbeyleix, Graiguecullen, Portarlington, Stradbally and Mountmellick, not just in Portlaoise. A small few cost-rental units are planned for Portlaoise. They are welcome, but we need more cost-rental units and more affordable-purchase units. We must get back to the idea of allowing people to buy their own home.

The costs can be brought down. One of the things that we can do straight away is shave off the 11% or 15% that is spent on the nonsense of having a new design for every new scheme. I say all this in a constructive way. They are suggestions.

On the issue of finance for building houses, there is a record amount of money on deposit in this country. While we have record debts, there is a record amount of money in savings. A State savings scheme was set up previously. Perhaps we should look at a citizens' bond for housing. It would be a great way of utilising some of that money if people were getting a couple of percent on their investment.

The backstop is the State. I am not talking about offering risky loans and firing money around like we did during the Celtic tiger, not that I did that. Some banks certainly fired money around. I am talking about sound investment of money in sustainable housing schemes and in cost rentals. Citizens' bonds are an untapped source of wealth. There is money there that could be used for that.

I will conclude by asking a question about the unencumbered AHBs. I am in favour of AHBs but there is a problem. Many of them have grown up and come of age. They are out of the encumbered period where they have a finance liability to the State. They have been in existence for 25 years. Some of them are now being managed by private companies. As I have highlighted to the Department previously, I do not know what is happening with the three issues that arise in this context. First, who will own them? Second, how will they be managed? Third, will they be available to the local authorities to rent? In other words, if No. 6 on a certain street becomes available out of the encumbered AHB period, what happens? Does the local authority nominate the tenant to the housing body? Is the housing body free to do what it likes and charge whatever rent it likes? That is happening. The phenomenon of "hello money" is also happening. Will some of the officials come back to me on that?

See this speech in context