Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Senators for their valued contributions to the debate on Second Stage. Many of them were very interesting. While I may not agree with all of the comments, I listened to them and I know they were made in a genuine and constructive spirit. I acknowledge the experience of many Senators through the work they have done over many years on local authorities, to which Senator Walsh referred. I also acknowledge Senator Hayden's experience in tenancy and housing issues.

As I outlined in my opening remarks, and as has been acknowledged by virtually all Senators in their contributions, the acute housing supply shortage is one of the most pressing challenges faced by the Government. The primary background to the Bill is to address this shortage through regenerating sites in central urban areas which have high potential and which have already had substantial funds expended on them through the provision of public infrastructure. They are lying vacant and are a blight on streetscapes. It is logical that we bring forward legislation to unlock the potential of these sites. Strict criteria and due process give the owners of these sites adequate time to address them. The criteria do not just catch a site because it is sitting vacant. It must be in an area of high demand where there is a strong housing need. I also reassure the Senators that other stringent criteria must be met.

I note the general welcome for the vacant site ley provisions and Senators on all sides agree it is a relatively positive measure to incentivise the development of vacant sites. I reject the accusations of some Senators that this is a Bill for developers. The Part V provisions will be far more onerous than they are at present for a site which has a ley on it. As Senators admitted, developers had many loopholes and we are tying these down and underpinning this in legislation and planning regulations. The Part V negotiations will have to be front loaded and construction on sites will not be able to commence unless the Part V agreements are in place. I cannot see how this favours developers. It is true the provision has been reduced from 20% to 10%, but it has been quite obvious to me over recent years that with little or no development of residential units 20% was delivering zero units.

We must take account of the overall viability of construction. As we all know the overheads, including the price of land, the cost from concept to design, planning permission and construction, must be paid for by the owners or those taking out mortgages. We must address the overheads involved if we are to deliver affordable housing in this country.

We have learned from the mistakes of the past because we now have in place a more stringent planning system. Many Senators will be aware of many local authority areas throughout the country where vast tracts of land have been dezoned because it was inappropriate and there was simply too much zoned land. This all contributed to the boom and bust cycle we saw.

We now have in place access to the Housing Agency, which is independent and has experience and technical know-how on demographics and where the rising needs are with regard to housing provision.There is a perfect storm. We have come through what was probably one of the worst economic crises this country has ever seen, access to credit is a problem, and builders, whom we need, are broke. As to skill sets, many of our young and not-so-young tradespeople have had to leave the country. We need them back if we are to build housing at an affordable price.

The Bill targets a specific aspect. The Government is addressing other aspects. Under the social housing strategy, the Government has returned to direct provision and building local authority housing for the first time in many years. The first phase has been announced. In the coming weeks, further phases will be announced, with local authorities given approval to build and, where value for money can be achieved, buy houses so that we can start to meet housing need. The Government has also provided substantial additional funds for the turnaround of voids in local authority areas. There has been relative success in this regard in the past year, with more than 2,000 vacant houses in local authority stock returned to beneficial use. We expect a further 1,000 units to be returned to use in the coming year.

There is no single solution to the housing shortage. It must be a multifaceted approach. The Bill addresses one aspect and has identified that there is potential in our urban streetscapes and town and city centres. We must unlock the potential of those sites. We are introducing a carrot-and-stick approach, as some Senators described it, by which we are incentivising building through reduced development contributions and Part V obligations while applying levies to sites that must be returned to beneficial use for the greater good. Senator Quinn raised a question about property rights. We have had this examined closely. In terms of the provision of housing, which is probably the country's largest priority, the greater good is being met and we are confident that this legislation will address it.

I look forward to debating the Bill in greater detail on Committee Stage. I will have responses for the various concerns raised by Senators. It is not an answer to say that we should just throw money at the problem. We must consider those assets and resources of the State that often go unnoticed. I am referring to public services that are under the ground in our towns and cities. We need to maximise that infrastructure to ensure that we bring life back to towns, cities and villages around the country. The Bill is a step along the way. It empowers local authorities and gives them the autonomy to designate sites and identify housing priorities. This should be welcomed. As we all know, local authorities are the closest level of democracy to the citizen. The Bill will give them a power to respond in a proactive way to our housing shortage. I look forward to working with all Senators of all parties and none on addressing this societal problem, which has been created over many years. Senator Walsh was right about Governments abdicating their responsibility for the provision of social housing, but I will correct him on one point, in that our Government did not. Rather, the previous Government handed social housing to Part V-----