Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

noting the collapse of five public private partnerships agreements in Dublin city, namely, St Michael's Estate, Inchicore, Dublin 8, O'Devaney Gardens and Infirmary Road, Dublin 7, and Dominick Street and Sean McDermott Street, Dublin 1;

noting that a single developer, Michael McNamara and Company, was selected as the preferred bidder for all five projects with Dublin City Council, which are estimated at €1 billion;

noting that the same developer abandoned plans for the regeneration of Finglas village, Dublin 11, last week;

concerned that the housing lists in Dublin have grown steadily despite the construction boom of the past 15 years;

concerned that Dublin City Council has had to close its affordable housing list which exceeded 8,000 earlier this year because of its inability to cope with the growing list;

concerned that hundreds of families awaiting new homes and community facilities now have their hopes dashed; and

concerned that the public private partnership mechanism has provided no risk or penalty to the private developer while the local authority is left to pick up the pieces;

calls on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government:

to take whatever steps are necessary to remove the developer from the five projects;

to ensure that in future developers are not allowed to walk away from commitments entered into under public private partnership arrangements without appropriate sanction;

to take direct responsibility for funding and delivering the five long-awaited social and affordable housing projects;

to meet the residents to reassure them of the Government's commitment and good faith; and

determines to review the State Authorities (Public Private Partnership Arrangements) Act 2002 with a view to ensuring that the public interest is protected in future public private partnership agreements.

I wish to share time with Deputies Upton and Ó Snodaigh.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The date, 19 May, was a very bleak day for residents in O'Devaney Gardens, Dominick Street Lower and St. Michael's Estate. On that day, Dublin City Council announced that the public private partnership agreements for the regeneration of these estates had effectively collapsed and that there was no plan B to be put in place. Unbelievably, Bernard McNamara took to the national airwaves seeking sympathy for his plight, while the residents were left to look on stunned, devastated and counting the loss not just of promised new homes, but of the community and social infrastructure that was to help build new communities in these areas.

The Labour Party motion tonight provides a formula for the Government to resolve the housing crises caused by the collapse of the public private partnership agreements between McNamara and Company and Dublin City Council. It also offers the Government a template to move the construction industry away from the saturated private residential market into the social and affordable housing market, which has been starved of resources and largely neglected during the boom years of the Celtic tiger.

It is incredible to think that while new records were set each year for the construction of private houses and apartments, culminating in more than 90,000 housing units last year, local authority housing lists were worsening and affordable housing demand was going through the roof. As the rich added to their property portfolios with city pads and holiday homes funded by 100% mortgages at low interest rates and by 100% tax breaks, those who were in dire need of housing were largely forgotten. Social and affordable housing dried up and the waiting lists lengthened.

Every three years, Dublin City Council conducts an assessment of housing needs. In 2005 the assessment showed that there were 18,582 applications for social housing accommodation in the city council's administrative area alone. Three years later the figures, yet to be released, reveal a 13% increase to over 21,000. The assessment of high or urgent housing need increased in the same period from 5,500 to approximately 6,700, representing an even sharper increase of 22%.

Moreover, the demand in the affordable housing sector has spiralled out of control. As fewer couples and families could afford the exorbitant house prices fuelled by speculation and tax breaks, the demand for affordable housing rose dramatically. In April 2008, Dublin City Council had more than 8,000 affordable housing applications, with a pitifully small number of units of accommodation coming on stream for the occasional lottery. The council could not cope with the demand and simply closed its doors to new business, leaving thousands of young couples and young families out in the cold with no hope of purchasing a home of their own.

The new rental accommodation scheme, or RAS, has also ground to a halt. To qualify for RAS a tenant has to be at least 18 months in receipt of rent supplement. Up to 26 February 2008, when I received a reply from the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, the HSE had identified to local authorities across the country more than 30,000 long-term recipients of rent supplement entitled to be transferred into the RAS scheme. However, in 2007 the rental accommodation scheme in Dublin City Council had closed its doors to new applicants. Unable to cope with the numbers of applicants, the scheme has ground to a halt. Those of us in this House who hold regular clinics and deal with housing issues know that there is an accommodation crisis in social and affordable housing provision throughout Ireland.

The Exchequer surplus of the boom years could have been used to provide shelter for all, but there was no Taoiseach, Minister for Finance or Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with the vision to act effectively. The money was squandered, massaging the already bloated private construction sector which is now stranded like a beached whale. The best opportunity in the history of the State to clear our social housing lists was missed. Local authorities became over-dependent on housing under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to provide social and affordable housing. This was never the intention of that section. Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 was intended as a means of supplementing local authority supply. It was not intented to replace new social housing.

It is against this stark background of social housing inertia that Dublin City Council considered a regeneration programme for rundown housing estates in the context of the Government's National Development Plan in 2002-06. In the same year the State Authorities (Public Private Partnership Agreements) Act 2002 was passed. The public private partnership as the vehicle for delivering community regeneration was born. The idea was to engage the private sector in a joint venture with the local authority in funding, planning and delivering a package of private, affordable and social housing and community facilities with the minimum cost and risk to the local authority and maximum benefit to the community. Unfortunately it was to prove too good to be true. However, at the time the communities involved in O'Devaney Gardens, Lower Dominick Street and St. Michael's Estate did not know that.

Regeneration boards were established and community representatives were chosen. Public meetings and workshops were held. Wide-ranging consultation was embarked upon. Men and, in particular, women sat down with the developer and the local authority to plan their new accommodation, their new playgrounds, their new crèches, their new streets and their new community centres. They were prepared to live through those years of planning, demolition and reconstruction. They were prepared to vacate their own flats so that a block of flats could become vacant and be demolished. They were prepared to be patient and to put up with the major inconvenience so the new vision of regeneration with quality homes and quality facilities would become a reality for their children. As three quarters of the tenants involved are lone parents, mainly women, there is a further issue of gender equity that needs to be addressed in finding a solution.

Six years of participation and enthusiasm in the case of the 280 families in O'Devaney Gardens and 120 families in Lower Dominick Street have now been shattered by the collapse of the public private partnership agreements. There is little value in us poring over the entrails for three hours tonight and tomorrow night and blaming the developer or the local authority. Bernard McNamara and Dublin City Council can do that in their own good time and in whatever forum they choose. However, the third party to the partnership, namely, the residents, who are totally blameless and the victims of the collapse, must be at the centre of our deliberations tonight and tomorrow night. It is their welfare and their futures alone that we should be concerned with now.

The Labour Party is of the view that the present PPP agreements for O'Devaney Gardens, Lower Dominick Street and St. Michael's Estate have no future and should be given a decent burial immediately. The people who can do that are the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is present. I am sure backbenchers in the Government ranks echo our sympathy for the plight of the residents of St. Michael's Estate, O'Devaney Gardens and Dominick Street. We have framed the motion in such a way that there is no criticism of the Government or any other political party. Rather all Deputies can rally around and support a frank and practical approach to resolving this crisis. The Government through the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should take direct responsibility for funding and delivering the long-awaited social and affordable housing projects with the agreed community facilities.

Tonight and tomorrow night the Labour Party is calling on the Government to put the people of O'Devaney Gardens, St. Michael's Estate and Lower Dominick Street first. Men, women and children who have suffered appalling conditions for many years in the promise of a brighter future must not be further disadvantaged by the present downturn in the economy. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government can take this opportunity to act and be the first to commit the Government to a new economic initiative in the interests of the people affected. Alternatively, the Government can remain paralysed and petrified like a rabbit in the glare of the headlights. We have presented the Minister with a practical way forward that bolsters the economy, creates employment, delivers on the regeneration commitments and puts the residents of O'Devaney Gardens, Lower Dominick Street and St. Michael's Estate first. He should respond positively and act now.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. I want to highlight the many difficulties that arise from a lack of coherent policy for the city of Dublin. These range from the impact of the public private partnerships to the need for integration, the need for the provision of homes, not just houses, and the effect of poor housing on the lives of those who experience it. I take this opportunity to welcome the residents of St. Michael's Estate, in particular my colleague, Councillor John Gallagher, who are in the Gallery to hear the debate. They are in the front line and the people for whom we must have most concern. I understand that people from O'Devaney Gardens and perhaps Lower Dominick Street are also here, and I welcome them.

Public private partnerships have provided for the Government a convenient vehicle for a number of projects around this city. However, when it comes to housing the outcome for the most part has been negative. The collapse of the public private partnerships across Dublin city should be considered a body blow to the regeneration of areas which have experienced the bad times, even through the heady days of the Celtic tiger. St. Michael's Estate in my constituency has faced many challenges throughout the years since it was built in 1969. I do not want to dwell on the problems that plagued the estate, but suffice it to say there is a very strong case for immediate action from the Government and the city council to redress the balance.

Although the PPP model was not everyone's ideal scenario for these development, and it must be acknowledged there was some disquiet amongst local residents at the scale of the development and the number of private dwellings, at least it was considered to be progress. However, in the case of St. Michael's Estate the frailties of the PPP process were starkly highlighted when the developer decided to pull out of the partnership, leaving the residents high and dry as happened in O'Devaney Gardens and Lower Dominick Street.

I quote from an article by Fr. Peter McVerry published recently in a periodical called Working Notes:

The value of the land donated to the developer far exceeds the value of the social housing provided, thus transferring a very valuable asset, owned by the state, into private hands. In the case of St. Michael's Estate, the value of the land handed over to the developer was estimated at over €100 million while the value of the social housing which the local authority was to receive in return was about €14 million.

Members can see why there were reservations and how the developer was going to do nicely from that arrangement. However, any progress is to be welcomed at this point. The St. Michael's Estate project was to be the regeneration that would provide 165 social and 75 affordable units. Some 165 families who were on the social housing list were to be housed in a brand new, top class development or so they thought. Many of these would have been from these estates originally and would be given the opportunity to return. Others would be from the Dublin City Council housing list. We know all too well from recent programmes such as "Prime Time Investigates" the conditions in which some people live while they await housing. As Deputy Costello said any of us who have advice clinics in the city of Dublin know exactly what the housing problems are like. Along with other Deputies in this House, I receive representations from people on the housing lists on an almost daily basis. We all hear of the desperate plight of some people seeking accommodation. However, these were the people who were to be housed in the new developments.

Some 75 people from amongst the more than 8,000 people on Dublin City Council's affordable housing list would have been given houses here. These were young families and people who were priced out of the market due to the rampant house price inflation particularly in Dublin over the past 15 years. It offered people the opportunity to own their own home close to the city centre, in many cases in the area where they grew up. These 75 affordable houses would have helped add to the mix of people in the wider community of Rialto, Kilmainham and Inchicore and helped to develop a more sustainable community not based on commuting from Westmeath or Carlow but instead living and working in the city. The addition of private housing on site would also have led to a real mix of residents. This was a move away from the previous housing strategy which grouped social housing units together and led in some cases to social stratification.

Instead of the promised development we have seen these projects collapse. The developer has pulled out of the proposed developments, leaving everyone empty handed, the local community in particular, but also the city council and the Government. The reasons given for the withdrawal by the developer are particularly frustrating. That the requirement to build apartments that are family friendly, large enough to live in long term and energy efficient is the reason for withdrawal is flabbergasting. Development laws in this country have for decades been a joke. The small box apartments so favoured by developers to maximise the number of apartments they can sell are not sustainable housing stock. In Dublin South-Central a developer wants to demolish a block of apartments he built only a decade ago under the section 23 scheme. The reason given is the poor quality of the apartments.

Dublin City Council, supported by Labour councillors, has taken a forward-thinking step to insist future apartment stock in the city is of high quality with adequate storage space and room to house a family. The increased energy efficiency requirements are another positive and necessary step. Oil is over $140 a barrel and rising. Energy costs will continue to rise long after a developer has finished a site. It is only right that developers are required to ensure houses are constructed to the highest possible standards.

Developers benefited the most out of the housing boom. I accept they brought much employment and stimulus to the economy. Nevertheless, they were happy to take super profits during the good times and, in some cases, walked away from developments half finished. Now the super profits are gone, developers are complaining because a higher standard of sustainable development is required.

Even with the loss of apartments due to the higher standards, the developer in St. Michael's Estate was given the opportunity to build and sell 449 units located beside a Luas line only a short distance from the city centre which is expanding westwards. This project must be seen as a golden opportunity for developers seeking work.

The money spent on these projects must also be accounted for. The total spend by Dublin City Council was over €6.1 million on the five public private partnership projects, with €2.6 million spent on St. Michael's Estate alone. What is there to show for this? A stalled project for which there is no concrete proposal and a community left in limbo while it waits for its area to be regenerated. Up to 165 people on the social housing list and 75 on the affordable housing list will not be offered homes for the foreseeable future.

If the Government cannot get projects right in the good times, then I fear for its record as we face into a period of economic uncertainty for the first time in two decades. Will it be the weakest, the poorest and the most marginalised who will suffer? The manner the Government deals with the St. Michael's Estate project and other stalled public private partnerships will show its determination to address the serious housing social and regeneration issues which afflict Dublin. Places to live in should be homes and not just houses. The Government has an obligation to ensure the people who have been left out of the loop through the failure of the public private partnership in St. Michael's Estate are provided with homes that are part of a community, of the highest quality and good for everyone.

Together with education, housing as part of a strong community, with the community having a real say, is one of the key ways to tackle many problems such as anti-social behaviour, drug dealing and other crimes that blight our society. It is not enough for local authorities to provide information sessions, however well designed or well intentioned. They must tell people what they need. They must be prepared to engage, consult and listen to the people who know what poor housing is about and respond to their needs.

It is up to the Government to repair the damage done in these failed public private partnership projects and give the people the assurance they will get their new homes and not be left to wait indefinitely for that to happen. Is it not ironic the developer who pulled the plug on these public private partnerships is allowed to walk away without any sanctions or penalties? Is it not time, at the very least, to review the relationships between developers, the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in all public private partnership arrangements, to ensure public money is not washed down the drain while the developer moves on to the next project?

Fatima Mansions in the Dublin South-Central constituency is an example of how good design and integration works. The project, admittedly a public private partnership, is almost at a conclusion. It is agreed the provision of new housing and the social agenda around the bricks and mortar is a successful one for the tenants. However, what is the cost to the State? The developer provided 150 units of social housing and approximately 450 private dwellings, in return for 14 acres of high-value land, near the city centre and on the LUAS line. It was valuable property by any standards. The value of the land was estimated at approximately €100 million while that of the social housing units was approximately €23 million, not a bad profit for the risk that the developer undertook.

It might sound strange but I lay little blame with the developer for the disaster of the public private partnership regeneration projects. He is after all a businessman who has been allowed the freedom to call it whatever way he wants when it comes to delivering the promised housing. Was it promised and under what conditions? What exactly was the nature of the agreement? The residents and board members believed the regeneration project was about to begin. Where was the local authority and what kind of conditions were imposed that allowed a developer simply saunter off into the sunset with no sanction or penalty?

The challenge for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is to reorganise and restructure the approach to public housing, whether social or affordable, to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money. He must examine clinically the value of public private partnerships. Most importantly he must ensure the housing list is reduced so those who have been living on false hopes for up to eight years have some realistic chance of getting a home to live in before they reach their golden years.

The residents of St. Michael's Estate, O'Devaney Gardens and Lower Dominick Street have had the rug pulled from under their feet. I call on the Minister to redress the balance and ensure the residents are put first.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this important Private Members' motion from the Labour Party. It is not only important for the residents of the affected areas but for the future of Dublin's local authorities and Ireland's social housing plans. The recent collapse of the five urban regeneration projects in Dublin has shown up a failure predicted by many when the State decided to use public private partnerships to deliver social housing. When the recent collapse was announced I, along with several other Members, raised concerns and hoped the Government would step in as a matter of urgency to give some hope to those affected. That hope has not yet come from the Government benches.

It is worth noting €6 million has already been spent by Dublin City Council in preparation for the agreed re-development projects, only one of which McNamara developers intends to proceed with. Dublin City Council did not have €6 million to waste, which is a matter of concern. If the Government had examined another method to deliver social housing, that €6 million could have been better used.

Public private partnership has absolutely failed to deliver regeneration in Dublin city. It is absolutely astonishing that the Government has not re-evaluated the future of PPPs in light of recent experiences including those of communities in St. Michael's Estate, O'Devaney Gardens, Sean McDermott Street, Dominick Street, Infirmary Road and in other areas which were sitting waiting for regeneration processes to begin. At this stage that needs to happen quickly. I gave a figure of €6 million spent by Dublin City Council. No figure has been put on the thousands, if not millions, of community and voluntary hours spent by residents in preparation, through negotiation and consultation, for the regeneration of their areas. Of course, no financial figure can be put on the loss of hope experienced by thousands of mothers and fathers in all of these communities, who simply wanted to rear their children in decent homes, with proper facilities.

Councillor Christy Burke, one of my colleagues in the north inner city, related earlier to me how one resident reflected her experiences to him today. The resident, Nadine, from O'Devaney Gardens, may be in the Public Gallery. She captured well the experience of quite a number of residents who have had similar experiences, as relayed to me. Her son was four when she began to talk to him of the hope of new facilities, a new home and a better future. Her child is now 14, indicating how much time that community has invested in the O'Devaney Gardens regeneration project. What age will he be when eventually O'Devaney Gardens is redeveloped and regenerated?

Following a proposal last week from the same colleague, Councillor Christy Burke, the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, urban renewal and development, Deputy Michael Finneran, agreed to meet with Dublin city councillors to discuss the latest crisis as regards the delivery of social and affordable housing for the city. The Minister of State has not confirmed when this meeting will take place. It is imperative that it happens within the next two weeks. If it occurs any later it is unacceptable and will suggest the Minister of State is not taking seriously his responsibility for delivering urban housing to those most in need. It is strange it has not happened by now, as it should have within days of the collapse of these PPPs.

The withdrawal of McNamara Construction from these contracts has caused a crisis within the communities that were due for regeneration. A key factor in the crisis is that the Government has allowed this to happen by attempting to privatise functions which were essentially the responsibility of the State, through local authorities such as Dublin City Council. The five communities at the centre of the McNamara fiasco — we can add Finglas village — are not the only ones affected by these actions. We have yet to see the ramifications for the communities who have long awaited delivery on the promise of regeneration programmes. The Government should now do the decent thing and give a commitment to underwrite five projects to renew confidence in the affected communities, stimulate the construction industry in the city and deliver promised social and affordable housing to areas of disadvantage that gained nothing from the Celtic tiger. It must take charge of the five projects and ensure the much needed social and affordable housing is delivered, as well as the rest of the promised regeneration. It was more than a question of redeveloping various flat complexes, it was about the regeneration of whole areas.

We in Sinn Féin have consistently called on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan and the Taoiseach to visit these areas and talk to residents to see for themselves the devastating effects these failed PPP enterprises have caused. To my knowledge none of the aforementioned has bothered to visit any of the complexes affected and that is a disgrace. The residents are still waiting and would wish to see the Ministers concerned bright and early tomorrow morning, if they are willing to bother their arse. I have visited a number of other communities as well which were promised that they were next in line — St. Teresa's Gardens, Dolphin House, Charlemont Street and others that are planning regeneration. The concern in those communities, also, is that the failure will affect their promised regeneration programmes. They are downhearted and need Government and Dublin City Council management to boost their confidence in regeneration processes.

We have consistently warned that developing social housing using PPPs was not a viable option. Private developers have no interest in catering for social need and are merely concerned with how the market will boost their profits. That is their job, but it is not ours to supply them with valuable sites where they can cream off land that should have been allocated for social housing. This charade has gone on for too long and the Government needs to recognise it. Social housing units will not be built by themselves. It is an insult to the people of those areas designated for regeneration that they should be left in unsuitable, inappropriate and inadequate accommodation for a non-specific period into the future while their promised homes await completion — or even start-up.

In Dominick Street this morning I was told some 18 bedsits were still occupied there. Bedsits are supposed to be illegal at this stage, yet Dublin City Council is still housing people in them who had hoped they would have new homes in the future. I presume many people are in bedsits in other areas as well that were earmarked for regeneration. If one lives in St. Michael's Estate, Inchicore one must wait and see whether one's home will ever be built. One looks out at the wasteland in front of the flats and prays that maybe sometime somebody will wake up and see the light. Many of those people are living in near-empty blocks at this stage, and I urge the Minister of State to take the time, even just driving by if he is too busy, to look out the car window and he will see what I am talking about.

Regeneration was flagged as the answer to all the problems within certain communities who received nothing from the Celtic tiger. We were told, to a fanfare of announcements on regeneration projects, that the Government was finally addressing the needs of socially disadvantaged areas. Now the Celtic tiger has drawn its last breath, and the most vulnerable in society are again the first to lose out. Intended was not just a regeneration of buildings or flats, but the redevelopment of whole communities, and in particular the giving of hope and proper futures to the children within them. The Government should, as a matter of urgent priority, change the policy to ensure PPPs are no longer used to provide social housing. It does not work. All the PPPs suggest there is failure by successive Governments in using the resources provided by the recent economic growth for social programmes that serve the population. Instead, they have given a large proportion of those resources back to the corporations and wealthy developers and now regeneration communities are being forced to shoulder the burden of the failure of this policy. The developer never carries any risk attached to the project, as can be seen by the fact that McNamara can walk away from this unscathed and take up other Government projects, which are nice and profitable, such as building prisons. That says it all.

PPPs are inefficient and more expensive, yet the Government is willing to pay for the building of prisons under this process, but not for social housing. This debacle shows that privatisation is at the core of the Government agenda. PPPs are always a "buy now, pay later" deal. Without fail, they are more expensive. The Government can always borrow at better rates than the private sector, so what is the purpose of PPPs, other than to ensure that the people who bankroll the policy makers in these parties ultimately get a better deal?

On a positive note, there is a solution. The Government can set up regeneration companies, underwritten by the State. It was stated that it would cost €900 million to proceed with all five projects. Those projects were to supply nearly 500 social units, more than 1,000 private units and several hundred affordable units, with ancillary services, shops, community centres and local council offices. A State company or city council company could build and sell the private and affordable homes, recouping the social housing cost from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which would have to foot that bill in any event if we were to tackle the housing crisis in this city. Such housing provision would succeed in creating employment for hundreds if not thousands of construction workers for up to five years, thus keeping vulnerable skilled workers off the dole queues, stimulating a flagging industry and providing a gain in terms of tax returns from those who pay PRSI and PAYE.

If one were to combine the net return to the State from such tax returns, the foregone dole payments and the proceeds from the sale of private apartments, that figure would add up to nearly, or more than, the original figure of €900 million. That is a business proposition for the Minister to consider to get the Government out of the hole it dug for itself when it agreed to go down the PPP route. The Minister must seriously consider that proposition because I cannot envisage any other proposal in this regard, other than the State reinvolving itself in a social housing project and giving the necessary money to Dublin City Council or some other social housing provider to deal with what it was meant to do.

Vision is needed to deliver for the communities that the Government has let down. Mr. McNamara can walk away. I am not putting any faith in him and I am not blaming him. He is a greedy developer, as are most developers. The Government and Dublin City Council supported him in this regard and, therefore, the Government must act and underwrite these projects. The people of Dublin cannot be left in limbo during the summer months. The Government must act and it must do so today.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

notes:

the comprehensive framework for the further development and modernisation of housing in Ireland as set out in the Government's housing policy statement Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities;

the record investment of almost €9 billion in housing programmes over the past five years and the continuing major investment being provided under the National Development Plan 2007-2013;

the progress made in the delivery of social housing, with completions in 2007 reaching their highest levels in over a decade;

the continued increase in the delivery of affordable housing in recent years and the efforts currently being made by Dublin City Council to enhance its affordable housing application system and establish a more reliable perspective on the level of demand for affordable housing;

the important role of public private partnership arrangements as one of the suite of approaches employed for the delivery of a range of housing programmes; and

the capacity of such approaches to deliver communities with households of mixed tenures and incomes, together with good quality social and physical infrastructure, through effective leadership by the local authority and full engagement with the communities concerned and the relevant State, private and voluntary sector organisations;

shares the disappointment arising from the announcement that a number of Dublin City Council's housing PPP projects are not to proceed as originally planned;

welcomes the actions taken by Dublin City Council, as the contracting authority, to resolve the issues involved, with a view to progressing the projects concerned as speedily as possible, in close consultation with the relevant communities and regeneration boards; and commends the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, urban renewal and developing areas for:

the very significant levels of financial resources they are providing to support housing programmes in the Dublin City Council area, including the regeneration of Ballymun, with €250 million being provided in 2008 alone;

their clearly stated commitment to continuing to engage actively with Dublin City Council in progressing the regeneration of the areas affected by the recent announcement and in ensuring that priority continues to attach to meeting the accommodation requirements of the affected communities; and

their initiation of a review of the implications which the announcement in relation to the Dublin PPP projects concerned may have for the approach to housing PPP projects more generally.

I propose to share time with the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is agreed.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This evening's debate concerns an issue that goes to the heart of how we, as a modern and caring society, deal with complex issues involving the revitalisation of communities, communities that, for a variety of reasons, may not have benefited to the same extent as others from the significant social and economic changes that have taken place in this country in the past 20 years.

I acknowledge the genuine concerns of the Deputies opposite and their long-standing commitment to the communities they represent. I hope they too will accept that they do not have a monopoly in this regard and that I and my colleagues on this side of the House are equally concerned for the communities involved.

I welcome the fact that some of the previous speakers stated that what we are discussing is too serious an issue to turn into a political football. I have no doubt that there may be differences between the approach taken by the Government and the Opposition and I am happy that this debate be used as an opportunity to explore those differences. However, I would like to think that all Deputies in this House share the fundamental aim of building strong, sustainable communities.

In regard to a remark made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, my party does not receive a single cent from any developer. There was an implication in his remark that we were somehow bank-rolling the people involved, but that is simply not the case.

A number of speakers seem to be of the opinion that a developer may walk away——

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, does the Minister have a script?

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I do.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will it be circulated?

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. I apologise for it not being circulated. We have not received copies of it yet. Some of what I am about to say is not contained in my script. I am simply responding to what has been said. The point was made by some speakers that a developer may walk away from a signed contract at any stage without incurring penalties, but I take this opportunity to assure them that that is not the case. The contract agreements for housing PPP projects are extremely comprehensive legal documents which deal with a range of circumstances around default by any party to the contract or lack of agreement between the parties. I emphasise, however, that these matters of contract breakdown must be treated with the utmost sensitivity, as I as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government am not a party to any contract. That is an important point. Inappropriate interventions could compromise the ability of the local authority to exercise the terms of the existing contract. This is the process in which the city council is now engaged.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order——

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to continue if that is possible. My colleague——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Upton wishes to raise a point of order.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, some of the contracts were not signed but they were so advanced that the residents and everybody engaged in the process were at the point where it was their understanding that a regeneration project was about to go ahead. In that case, the developer, as I understand it, was able to walk away from the project without incurring the imposition of sanctions or penalties.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, who has the delegated functions in regard to the housing area, will deal in more detail with the Dublin City Council projects. I want to use my time this evening to set out some of the very complex issues that are involved in undertaking large-scale regeneration projects and to outline clearly the Government's position on regeneration which seeks to address those complexities.

At the start I want to be clear in regard to my personal commitment and that of the Government to the broad regeneration process and to the regeneration programme being undertaken by Dublin City Council, in particular. In recent years we have seen a very significant growth in the funding committed to social housing in general and more particularly to regeneration projects. Since 2003, the Exchequer support for the main social housing investment programme, including improvements to the existing stock, has increased from just over €600 million to €1.2 billion in 2008. Some €200 million of this year's funding is earmarked to support a range of regeneration and remedial programmes. Coupled with resources provided by local authorities, I estimate that the total investment in the improvement of the local authority housing stock this year will exceed €350 million.

As we all know, the international economic climate has changed dramatically during the past 12 months and in this country we are facing difficult choices about where to direct public resources. It is certainly my intention, as Minister with responsibility for housing matters at the Cabinet table, to do everything possible to ensure that we maintain the necessary programme of public investment in housing in the years ahead. Within the parameters of whatever resources are available, I will continue to give a high priority to regeneration.

The regeneration of existing local authority estates that, for a variety of reasons, are failing the communities they are meant to serve is a major objective of Government policy, as set out in the Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities policy document published last year. Apart from the Ballymun regeneration scheme, which has been under way since 1998, there are a range of projects at different stages of progress in Limerick, Cork, Waterford and Dublin. There are also a number of smaller, if no less important, projects in planning for towns such as Sligo, Dundalk and Tralee.

I would like to think that there is broad agreement on all sides of this debate about what we are trying to achieve through the regeneration programme. Clearly, the condition of some local authority housing estates, particularly some of the larger estates, represents a significant public policy failure stretching over a period of decades. The conditions involved are a blight on the lives of those who live there and, in many areas, give rise to a range of significant social problems. Yet, within these estates are found strong and vibrant communities which, despite the difficult living conditions that they face, will prove to be the foundation on which successful regeneration can be built.

What does regeneration mean? This is a crucial question as the answer will determine whether we are successful in our ambitions. It cannot be just about rebuilding public housing with a limited range of community facilities. This point was made by previous speakers. This has been tried before and it has failed, in some areas, miserably. What is clearly required is a much more holistic approach, focused on countering the issues of social deprivation and engaging a much wider range of stakeholders.

At the heart of this new approach should be the aim of creating sustainable communities based on a mixed tenure model. Mixed tenure helps bring income to an area, gives employment and provides the critical mass that supports a broader range of commercial and social services that all the community can access. There is no shortage of research in the UK and elsewhere that clearly supports this approach. I can certainly point to plenty of examples of large mono-tenure public housing estates in Ireland and internationally, with inadequate provision of the essential social infrastructure, that have fallen victim to deprivation. In this country we also have experience of trying to fix complex social issues by carrying out remedial works to houses and flat complexes, often not to great effect.

In setting out our stall from the beginning it should be clear that we do not believe regeneration can be achieved by simply trying to improve the physical environment. This will at best buy a little time but it will not address the key social problems and it would be an opportunity lost. We must have as our aim the building of a new, mixed and, ultimately, sustainable community. This brings us to the tricky question of how best to achieve this objective. If one aims for the creation of communities with a mix of public and private housing, local employment opportunities and access to services, one must engage the private sector. Local authorities are not generally in the business of providing housing for the private market, setting up enterprises or providing purely commercial services.

A number of approaches could be taken to procuring regeneration projects. For larger areas such as Ballymun and the major local authority estates in Limerick, Sligo and Dundalk, the standard approach is for the local authority or a specialist agency to set out an overall master plan for the area. Within this area they use a variety of methods to underpin the development, namely, standard public sector construction, the sale of plots of land to the private sector for development, public private partnerships and various forms of joint venture arrangements. For smaller regeneration projects — this would apply in particular to the regeneration of single estates or flat complexes — a PPP model is often used as a means of ensuring the proper integration of the public and private housing and the provision of ancillary commercial facilities.

One must remember that just about all social housing built for local authorities and the voluntary housing sector is ultimately delivered by private companies, as is much of the design, planning and project management expertise. This is unlikely to change. The issue, therefore, is what form of contract with the private sector the State should put in place that has the best chance of getting the desired results. If the question comes down to how best to engage the private sector, the reason the PPP model is often used is that it provides a method of procurement that allocates risk to the party that is best able to manage it. In the case of private housing and commercial services, this is generally the private sector.

Regarding the particular type of PPP used to deliver regeneration, it is worth noting that this is not typical of PPPs in general. The classic public private partnership involves a long-term contract, with or without the commitment of private finance, whereby a private sector company provides services traditionally undertaken by the State, paid for through annual payments over the life of the contract. PPPs in housing are quite different and are what are more properly termed design-build-finance contracts in which the private finance component is provided through the sale of private housing units and the development of commercial opportunities. Planning, construction and demand risk resides primarily with the private contractor. It is, however, intended as a partnership so there is some sharing of risk. For the State, there is always the danger that the project will fail if the conditions underlying the partnership change. The terms of the contract will try to make this less likely but in the end the approach is built around both parties seeking to achieve a common objective in partnership.

What are the potential benefits of a partnership approach? There are three main reasons for using the PPP model. The first is that it can release synergies through the closer ties between the different elements in the project. Design can be more closely tied in with management and maintenance, non-profit activities can be sustained by those of a commercial nature, one party can be made responsible for delivery rather than having this spread across a number of different bodies and so on.

The second potential benefit comes from the introduction of fresh ideas and innovative thinking in addressing complex problems. Although the public sector has a responsibility to set the broad parameters for the regeneration, it does not always have all the answers. Project implementation, in particular, benefits from broadening the range of inputs to the process. The private sector, voluntary bodies and the community have a part to play in expanding the capacity to deliver on the objective. Public private partnerships can provide additional funding which can permit an expansion of ambition within the project or release funding for elsewhere in the housing programme. Given the more constrained state of the public finances, this benefit cannot be overlooked.

For each development, and often for individual elements within a regeneration scheme, decisions have to be taken about the appropriate form of procurement. The PPP contract is just one model that in certain circumstances is capable of delivering the private sector input that is needed if the project is to succeed. The Fatima Mansions regeneration is one good example of how this can work very well. Even where the PPP model is chosen this does not mean that the process cannot be improved. I have set up a working group with representatives of Dublin City Council, the Department of Finance, the National Development Finance Agency, the Affordable Homes Partnership and my Department. This group is to look again at the way PPP projects are carried out within the housing sector and report back to me with recommendations for improvements as soon as possible.

Regarding the lessons to be learned from the Dublin City Council projects, issues have been raised regarding the dominance of one developer in all the projects involved. This matter can be examined within the overall constraints of the rules governing public procurement. Another area that will be examined is the responsibility for planning risk, which in this case would seem to have resulted in serious delays in the projects. I have also asked the working group to consider what actions can be taken to simplify the PPP process, which has been subject to charges of being overly complex and legalistic, a point the Deputies opposite made. As I indicated at the outset, I will leave it to my ministerial colleague to deal with the specifics of the Dublin regeneration projects. I reiterate my personal commitment to the central role of regeneration within housing policy and to continuing my Department's active engagement with Dublin City Council in support of its efforts to get the projects involved moving forward as quickly as possible.

Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I echo the comments of my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, in acknowledging the importance of the issues at the core of this evening's debate and reiterate the clearly articulated commitment of Dublin City Council on the priority which attaches to the tenants living in the affected estates.

In my role as Minister of State with responsibility for housing, urban renewal and developing areas, I am constantly reminded of the need for a holistic approach to the challenges arising in addressing issues of disadvantage. History tells us very clearly that it is wholly inadequate to focus purely on physical regeneration in the form of new social housing. We have to address the wider social issues that affect the communities concerned and do so in a co-ordinated manner, engaging all the relevant stakeholders and service providers.

It is important that I place the matter of housing-related public private partnerships in their wider social housing policy context. The use of the housing-related PPP model is just one of a range of mechanisms available to housing authorities to facilitate the delivery of social housing to households that have an identified housing need. In the first instance, my Department supports an extensive capital investment programme through which Exchequer funding is made available to local authorities. In addition to the normal construction programmes of local authorities and voluntary bodies, the Part V mechanism is becoming an increasingly important element in the social housing investment programme and one which, it must be emphasised, also meets our national housing policy objective of mixed-tenure housing. Through the rental accommodation scheme, we have seen a substantial increase in the level of long-term leasing arrangements being used to meet the housing needs of individuals and families.

Significant progress has been made in recent times in scaling up the social housing investment programme. Last year alone, the main local authority house-building programme saw the construction of 5,000 new dwellings, the acquisition of 2,000 units, including through Part V arrangements, and almost 800 new dwellings leased under the rental accommodation scheme. This year, my Department is providing a record investment of over €1.2 billion in the construction and acquisition programme, as well as for the regeneration of existing local authority stock. This year, my Department is providing a record investment of over €1.2 billion in the construction and acquisition programme, as well as for the regeneration of existing local authority stock.

Given that this evening's debate is focused on issues relating to housing in Dublin city, it is important to note that the issues surrounding the PPP projects do not affect the delivery by the council of its wider, and very ambitious, social housing programme for 2008. This programme of housing construction and regeneration, for which my Department has allocated €250 million, will see the delivery of 350 new starts and approximately 630 completions, as well as the continuation of support for the regeneration of Ballymun and the refurbishment of a number of other inner city flat complexes.

The current PPP regeneration programme nationally consists of 18 live projects at various stages of procurement and delivery in various locations, primarily in the Dublin region. These are considered to have the capacity to yield an additional 2,500 social houses as well as 2,000 affordable and 4,000 private units over a period of years.

The PPP housing model used in this type of project is, at its simplest, based on the local authority optimising the use of its existing land holdings to leverage private finance to deliver integrated developments and to distribute project risk across all the parties involved. In many cases it also involves the contractor providing office, retail and recreational facilities. These projects, from a social perspective, represent an effective way of supporting the development of sustainable communities as they automatically make provision for social, income and tenure mix through the inclusion of private housing, community facilities and commercial development.

We need only look as far as the Fatima Mansions project which has seen the complete regeneration of previously run-down blocks of 364 inner city flats with a socially disadvantaged community into a vibrant new development in the centre of the city. The completed regeneration of Fatima Mansions will see 615 new dwellings, with a mix of social, private and affordable housing. A substantial community centre with a swimming pool, a fitness centre and a crèche alongside some state-of-the-art all-weather pitches have been completed as part of the first phase. The second and final phase is due for completion by the end of 2009 and as well as the completion of the social, affordable and private units, will provide for retail and other commercial outlets. It is also envisaged that space will be allocated within the development for local enterprise initiatives to support the social and economic regeneration of the area.

I mentioned that there are 18 live housing-related PPP projects at various stages of progress nationally. These projects are not taken on lightly and must go through a rigorous assessment to determine whether they are suitable for the PPP process. The capital appraisal guidelines produced by the Department of Finance require Departments, local authorities and other public bodies to undertake an appraisal of all capital projects prior to any decision to go ahead with the procurement process. In addition, the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, which has specific expertise in the evaluation of PPP projects, provides financial advice and PPP projects are benchmarked against traditional forms of procurement.

Once the decision to procure a project through the PPP mechanism has been made and agreed with the NDFA and the sanctioning body, it could be said that the real work begins. This process is replete with checks and balances, not just in terms of Department of Finance guidelines but also EU procurement legislation. In addition, each PPP project is overseen by a project board charged with providing strategic oversight and consisting of representatives of the local authority, the NDFA and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. An independent process auditor is appointed for larger projects and the procurement of independent legal advice is also a prerequisite under the current guidelines.

Before I leave the issue of process, I wish to respond to one of the points raised in the Labour Party motion regarding the involvement of a single contractor in all five projects. In a fair public procurement process each individual tender is considered on its own merits. To mitigate against exposure to increased risk, the public sector seeks assurances as to the financial capabilities of the prospective bidders and their ability to fulfil the terms of the contract. This is done at an early stage in the tender process, with advice from the NDFA. Notwithstanding the various checks and balances that exist, my Department will consider what further measures may be required, within the constraints of the rules governing public procurement.

It may be useful to the House if I provide some clarification on the five projects and their status within the Dublin City Council PPP regeneration programme. Since the announcement in May by Dublin City Council that these projects would not now go ahead as planned, my Department has been working closely with the council as it examines options for ensuring the regeneration of these areas. At present, the council is engaged in a full examination of all the implications of the evolving situation, following the initial indications by the developer that, in his view, increased apartment sizes and energy requirements had rendered the projects unviable in the current market.

Of the five projects, only three involve signed contracts with the developer, namely, O'Devaney Gardens, Infirmary Road and Convent Lands. While the last two projects are brownfield sites, O'Devaney Gardens is a full-scale regeneration scheme, with 186 families remaining on the estate. I understand that Dublin City Council is prioritising these families under its allocations policy to provide them with suitable accommodation pending the completion of the regeneration project.

The remaining two projects at St. Michael's Estate and Dominick Street are in a different position as no contracts have been signed. The council has entered into correspondence with the developer to try to agree an acceptable way through which the local authority can move forward and examine other avenues for progressing the projects. Arising from recent indications by the council, I am hopeful that the outstanding matters will be resolved shortly, thus enabling the council to move forward.

I am advised by the council that a number of households in St. Michael's Estate have agreed to move to alternative accommodation since May, with just 18 households remaining. The council has also indicated that sufficient alternative accommodation has been identified for these families and offers are being made on an ongoing basis. The council has also met the regeneration boards for these areas to apprise them of the current situation.

At this stage, it is difficult to comment on the possible outcomes of the council's efforts and I certainly do not wish to prejudice the process in any way. The council is still engaged with the developer on the three schemes for which there are signed contracts, with the indications now being that a mediation process will be initiated in relation to two of the projects to bring matters to a conclusion.

Again, I express my support for the communities living in these complexes and emphasise that the residents of these areas continue to be at the centre of all our considerations. As a demonstration of this and of my support for the council's efforts to bring matters to a conclusion, I have met representatives of the Dominick Street community and will visit O'Devaney Gardens and St. Michael's Estate later this month.

Dublin City Council, for its part, has undertaken to examine all the housing-related PPP projects currently on its books to determine whether they will be affected by the current market situation. I am hopeful that an examination of these will show that they will not be affected and that they can proceed as planned.

As Minister of State with responsibility for housing, I am conscious of my responsibilities in determining any potential negative impact on the wider PPP housing model. Accordingly, the factors cited as influencing the decision of the developers must be carefully considered. As the Minister outlined, a multi-agency group has been established to examine the model and the impact of the current market on the ongoing viability of this mechanism for delivering sustainable communities. To date, the group has met twice and I expect to be presented with its report on the matter this autumn.

Despite this, it is clear that we will still need private enterprise in whatever form it takes if we are to achieve our objective of building sustainable, mixed communities. It is not acceptable for us to return to the age of large, single tenure social housing estates with poor social support services, which we now know contribute to economic and social deprivation of the areas concerned. Whatever we do in the future, we simply cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Terence Flanagan.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Labour Party motion relating to the five regeneration projects that have been the subject of considerable difficulty, particularly for the residents and the people who look forward to getting their new homes in time arising from these proposals which were brought forward by Dublin City Council through the PPP process.

Dublin City Council identified the PPP process as the best method of delivering the regeneration project. I do not think any of the residents would care how it was delivered as long as it was delivered. Nobody cares at the end of the day whether it is public or private expenditure as long as the job is done. The council selected the property developer, Bernard McNamara, to redevelop all the various proposals. It is somewhat surprising that one would put all one's eggs in one basket. Perhaps the first lesson that can be learned from this process is that, regardless of the climate, it is rather difficult to expect one developer to deliver on time and on budget on all such major developments to the tune of €900 million.

Under the original plan, the developer was to build approximately 1,800 new homes between the five sites. It was an attractive deal to the council as the property developer had proven expertise in planning, design and construction. In return for undertaking the design and construction, the developer was to retain approximately 800 units and sell them on the open market. That was when the jam was supposed to arrive. Unfortunately, however, for the purposes of the regeneration projects, all the consultation that had taken place, the goodwill the residents had given this project and the fair wind it was getting in respect of approvals, it did not turn out that way. As Deputies Costello and Upton rightly pointed out, when the breeze arrived on the open market climate, the people depending on the social and affordable aspect of the housing were the first to suffer.

There is no doubt that the developer decided to pull out because he could not sell the private end of the site as quickly as possible for the amount of money he anticipated he would get. It is very disconcerting that this would happen, particularly for the people whose hopes of having a new community and new homes, a win-win situation for all concerned, were built up.

There is no doubt that the major contraction of the housing market in the past 18 months is the reason for the derailing of the PPP project, but I would not throw out the PPP project completely because of that. Even though the motion states that its proposers have difficulty with the PPP project, I understand that it is for this particular project and these five regeneration areas rather than anything else. I have been in contact with Dublin City Council about this. Seven-day letters have been issued in respect of two sites involving Mr. McNamara and mediation is taking place in respect of two others. Mr. McNamara is proposing to go ahead with one site, but we do not know whether that will happen. He has received sufficient time from Dublin City Council to come up with alternative proposals but it does not seem that he will do so.

It will be interesting to see whether Dublin City Council pursues the contractual obligation laid down through that process to see whether it can get some of the money back. I suspect that there will be some quid pro quo in the context of mediation to get the job up and running as quickly as possible. If one was to again go through all the various processes through which this particular deal has gone, it would be another year before we would get anything up and running with a new developer.

What Dublin City Council is trying to do is the right way to go. It should get the developer in, see what can be salvaged at this stage, seek mediation and other projects and go to the underbidder to see what can be done in respect of pricing. That is the best way we can salvage things. I hope that the Minister will be proactive in ensuring that the quickest possible deals are turned around in respect of the regeneration of these areas. At the end of the day, people want a result rather than commitments, promises and new processes that will take an indeterminate amount of time. They certainly do not want to end up in the High Court which, as we know, is an expensive and very time-consuming process. Waiting two or three years down the line for some site to be regenerated is not exactly what anybody here wants. I hope that goodwill will be evident in how the process will pan out at the end of the day.

The council hopes to salvage parts of the deal and is still working with the property developer to that end. The clauses in the Labour Party motion reflect the frustrated comments of the local groups. These relate to what were the reasoning and wisdom behind giving the contract for five large projects, which would affect thousands of residents if things went wrong, as they have, to a single property developer. In addition, why did the contracts not contain stronger penalty clauses which would concentrate the mind of any developer?

It is interesting that the developer did not decide to sell the Burlington Hotel. Did nothing go wrong with this? A similar situation pertained to the Allianz building at the rear of the Burlington Hotel, probably because of its preferential location. He would have had to concentrate his mind on some of those assets if more punitive clauses had been included to ensure that he could not walk away in the manner in which he has done.

The local residents have a point in respect of all these matters, which have brought about the motion before the House tonight. The motion calls for whatever steps that are necessary to be taken to ensure that Mr. McNamara is removed from the process. I think we would be better off getting something out of it if we can, salvaging something even with Mr. McNamara at this stage, going to the underbidders as quickly as possible and getting a deal as quickly as possible

I would say to the Minister of State that social and affordable housing is not working as satisfactorily as it was. The Part V process is not working because Dublin City Council and other local authorities do not have the money to buy out their contractual obligations from the developers on many of these sites. In respect of the 20% allocation, one might as well have 5% or 50% at this stage because there is no money. The Department has capped the amount of money a local authority can spend on any contractual obligations. All local authorities are telling public representatives that they do not have enough money to fulfil existing contracts on the basis of the money they have been allocated in 2008. Many contracts on water, sewerage and housing will not go ahead this year. Contracts are fine, it works both ways and there must be goodwill on all sides, but, equally, the money must be there to achieve the objective.

What we want to see as a result of this Labour Party motion is that truth is established about where we can go from here. We want to see an opportunity for people to be certain that a route to a successful conclusion exists and that the five regeneration projects will go ahead rather than have just another opportunity to say "if this" and "if that" in a conditional sense about the potential of the future. People want to know if these projects are dead or alive and where they go from here. I hope that the Minister and his Department will be very proactive in ensuring that the people who have been painstakingly involved in the five regeneration projects are given that truth and certainty regardless of how unpalatable that might be in some cases in order to map out the route ahead to bring these to a successful conclusion as quickly as possible.

Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to discuss tonight's Private Members' motion. I thank the Labour Party for bringing this motion, which needs to be taken seriously by the Government, before the House.

Public private partnerships were identified by Dublin City Council as the best method of delivering regeneration projects. The property developer, Bernard McNamara was selected by the council to redevelop all five projects at St. Michael's Estate, O'Devaney Gardens, Infirmary Road, Dominick Street and Seán McDermott Street. The total value of all five PPP projects was €900 million.

However, the dreams of all residents concerned were shattered in May 2008, when it was widely reported in the media that these five PPPs in Dublin had collapsed. Under the original plan the developer was to build 1,800 new homes between the five sites. It was an attractive deal to the council and to the property developer, who had the expertise in the planning and design of major property development projects. In return for undertaking the design and construction the developers were to retain about 800 units and sell them, while the remainder would be used by Dublin City Council for social and affordable housing, replacing some old flat complexes. The PPP model delivered other projects such as the Fatima Mansions project. It is a grand model when times are good but when times are tightening the weaknesses in the PPP model must be examined.

The collapse of the PPP agreements between Dublin City Council and a property developer was a blow to the most vulnerable who were trying to buy a new home for the first time. These people currently live in substandard accommodation and have been waiting between five and eight years to be re-housed. It is unacceptable to be in this situation. The rehousing of these people must be urgently examined.

We must ask ourselves why the developer pulled out of these partnerships. The slowdown in the housing market in the past 18 months is the main reason for the derailing of the regeneration PPPs. Changes to the planning guidelines, making apartment sizes much larger, are to be welcomed. The size of apartments was far too small, particularly with young families living in apartments. Obviously the increase in apartments sizes would hit the profit margin of the developer and was another reason why he pulled out.

In May, when it was revealed that these public private partnerships had collapsed, the Government stated it would conduct a review of the rules concerning public private partnerships. Today we are still awaiting this review. When will the House be furnished with the results of this review?

While I agree with the majority of points in the Labour Party motion, I disagree with the call on the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the developer from the five projects. As of today, 8 July, Dublin City Council has formally terminated its contracts with Bernard McNamara for two out of the five regeneration projects, St. Michael's Estate and Dominick Street. The developer is to proceed with at least one project and could potentially proceed with another two.

It was recently confirmed that the property developer will proceed with the redevelopment of the convent garden lands on Sean McDermott Street. The council and the property developer are also to enter into mediation on the two other housing projects on Infirmary Road and O'Devaney Gardens. However, the Council is threatening to take Mr. McNamara to the High Court if mediation is not successful. It would be ludicrous to remove Mr. McNamara from all PPP contracts, particularly in view of the long delay. The council must examine the originally unsuccessful bidders to get them involved in the other projects.

I find it extremely careless on the Government's part not to have in place strict penalties if developers renege on PPP arrangements. I echo the Labour Party's call on the Government to implement sufficient sanctions. What was the reasoning and wisdom behind giving a single property developer the contract for five regeneration projects, when there was a chance the contract would not be fulfilled? Stronger penalties should be written into the contract to ensure a developer could not walk away as easily as did Mr. McNamara. On these grounds the local residents have every right to be disillusioned because these projects are in doubt. We must restrict the amount of PPPs that a single developer can be granted at any given time.

As Deputy Hogan stated, the waiting lists for social and affordable housing in Dublin are the highest in the country and with this PPP collapse, those on the housing list face an uncertain future. We now see the first large bloc of victims of the economic downturn, those who are always the first to suffer in these situations. We must look out for these people and ensure the PPPs continue.

I am concerned at the huge waiting lists for social and affordable housing. This Government has failed to deliver on affordable housing. In May, Dublin City Council closed its affordable housing scheme for eight months, a decision which was a major setback for all those who are eager to make a start on the property ladder. At that time, I appealed to Dublin City Council to revisit its plans and hire more staff to deal with the backlog of applications rather than penalising the genuine homeowners looking to make it to the first rung of the property ladder. I was shocked that Dublin City Council closed its affordable housing scheme. Some 8,000 people remain on this waiting list and it is not good enough that this was allowed to happen.

Dublin City Council's decision was terrible news and a drawback for all those who are eager to make a start on the property ladder. While I recognise that there has been a huge increase in applications over the past couple of years, the application system must be thoroughly re-assessed, with more background checks necessary to prevent abuses of the system. I appeal to Dublin City Council to hire more staff to deal with the backlog of applications, particularly for young people. The affordable housing initiative has failed. There are currently 750 people on the affordable housing list in Fingal County Council. There are 3,000 people on the affordable housing list in South Dublin County Council and 4,500 on the affordable housing list in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council.

This Fianna Fáil-led Government established the affordable housing partnership in 2005 with the sole aim of increasing the supply of affordable housing through the release of a series of State and local authority lands. The 2007 NDP target for affordable housing was 5,700 units while, shamefully, only 1,800 units were delivered. The affordable housing partnership has failed to deliver for those on waiting lists. It is only a talking shop and another waste of taxpayers' money.

It is beyond belief that there is no centralised affordable housing waiting list in operation at present. As a result, it is not possible to ascertain a true figure of those currently on affordable housing lists. In addition, the way in which local authorities manage applications results in differences in terms of who is counted on their waiting lists. For instance, in some local authority areas, all applications are added to the list. When housing becomes available, eligibility is assessed and housing offered accordingly. The result is an imprecise list. At the same time, other local authorities assess eligibility in order to add applicants to the waiting list, with the resulting lists being shorter but a more accurate reflection of the number of eligible households waiting. Of course, just because households are not eligible does not mean they do not have housing needs and this must be considered. I call on the Minister to instruct local authorities to create one centralised affordable housing list. I also ask that the Government deliver on its affordable housing targets.

The announcement of the collapse of five public private partnerships in May sent shockwaves throughout the country, particularly in the communities directly affected by the decision of McNamara Construction. The residents concerned were devastated as negotiations for the projects had taken years and those affected had their hopes shattered.

The council and Government must ensure strict penalties are written into future public private partnerships to ensure the developers involved in the 18 other public private partnerships do not walk away and follow suit. We must ensure the PPPs are watertight and that they continue. The council must enter into immediate negotiations with the other unsuccessful initial bidders in an attempt to save these public private partnerships.

Dublin City Council must be forced to re-open its affordable housing list. It is nothing short of a disgrace that it was allowed to close it in the first place. I also seek a review of the State Authorities (Public Private Partnerships Arrangements) Act 2002. The Minister must work directly with Dublin City Council to ensure that these public private partnerships go ahead without further delay and every opportunity must be taken with McNamara Construction to salvage those which have a chance of being saved. I know the Minister is committed to ensuring they go ahead. We must take action on affordable housing and waiting lists and ensure the PPPs go ahead.