David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 19, to delete lines 33 to 35.

This amendment proposes the removal from the Bill of the change that the Minister of State is seeking to make to reduce the social and affordable housing requirement to 10%. Perhaps I will speak in more detail on this matter when we reach the next amendment, which seeks to deal in their totality with the changes that are being made to Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000. It is fair to say that after the Part V legislation was first introduced, a successful attempt was made by some developers to force the previous Government to make changes to its provisions. Part V was initially supposed to ensure that 20% of housing would fall into the social and affordable category. That was a very good policy because its aim was to secure social integration. I supported it.

As we know, some local authorities across the State were better at implementing the Part V provisions than others. In fact, many local authorities took advantage of the successful attempt by some developers to force the previous Government to change the Part V intentions to allow developers essentially to buy out their commitments by giving a cash sum to the local authority, as opposed to meeting the 20% social and affordable housing requirement as originally intended. That weakened the Part V provisions. Part V originally provided that any development of five or more houses had to make provision for 10% social housing and 10% affordable housing. The intention was that developers would offer homes to the council at cost price, which then could be rented as council houses or sold as affordable housing.

It seems that in this legislation, the Government is trying to say that social housing can also be social leasing. That presents problems for me because, as I mentioned earlier, we are seeing the slow creeping privatisation of social housing. I am sure the Minister of State gets as many representations as I do on housing. The vast majority of people's housing needs are now being met through the private rental sector. If one makes representations for people who are on the housing list and want to be housed by a local authority, one will find that the vast majority of such people are told, by and large, that they will have to participate in private rental sector schemes such as the rent supplement scheme, the rental accommodation scheme or the housing assistance payment scheme, which is possibly the best option now for many people. It is certainly the one that most people are being steered towards. The use of the private rental sector is creating all sorts of difficulties. As we know, many people are unable to find properties because landlords simply will not let to them. There can be difficulties with rent caps, etc. There is already a big difficulty here as things stand.

I would say that in the last five or six years, the social housing needs of very few people who have ended up on local authority housing lists or in housing need have been met through local authority housing. I would love to know what the percentage is. I expect that very few people have had their needs met in this way, because we are simply not building any more housing. We almost have the perfect storm because, on the one hand, the State is not building, and on the other hand, private development has dried up completely. Not many units are coming back under Part V anyway. The fact that developers can avail of opt-outs is also relevant in this context. I suggest that we are weakening Part V even further by providing for developers to avail of further opt-outs and to look at social leasing. I wonder what the logic of it is. It is certainly not something I support. I have tabled this amendment for those reasons. Maybe we need to come back to this issue. When we come back after the summer recess, we might have an opportunity to have a debate in this House on social and affordable housing, Part V, the role of voluntary housing associations and the role of the local authorities.The Minister of State spoke about the new build by local authorities over the coming years because of extra funding he has made available but it is still not enough to meet people's housing needs. It does not reverse what is seen as the privatisation of social housing. The majority of people's housing needs are being met through the private rented sector. The State is subsidising private developers and private landlords with huge amounts of money being spent there. The State does not own a brick of those properties at the end of it. This simple reality will continue unless there is a serious policy change. Today is not the day to do it. We are heading up to the recess and Members are looking to get back to their constituencies but it is something I hope we can come back to after the summer and hopefully the Minister of State will make himself available to be part of that debate. The amendment is specific and I have already spoken on that. I will press the amendment as necessary.