David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

23. In page 20, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“33. Section 96 (inserted by section 3 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act

2002) of the Act of 2000 is deleted.”.

I wish to respond now to the Minister of State's previous contribution rather than responding to a section that was relevant only to the 10% social and affordable housing. This amendment seeks to restore the original 2000 version Part V when it was brought in during 2000, of 20% social and affordable housing with no buyout clauses. The Minister of State indicated that there was no silver bullet solution to the housing crisis, but there is a simple solution. This is one of the few areas where we can point to easy solutions. We have debates on child care, health care and public services where it is much more complicated. Housing is actually very simple - we need to build more housing. The Government's commitment to start building 1,700 units by 2018 is not enough. There are over 2,000 people on local authority lists just in Waterford city and county. That is only one of 26 counties.

The Minister of State's commitment does not go far enough. He accepts that there has been no local authority house building for seven or eight years. There has been some building and some money made available for house purchases in emergency situations or for people who are disabled or where there is serious overcrowding and where a bid could be made to the Department. Serious building has not happened in the public or private sector and that is why we now have a crisis and a Bill which is at least trying to do something in relation to vacant sites, but it also changes the Part V requirement.

I do support some of the Part V changes. I agree that the policy of cash in lieu was a disaster. It was a strong-arm tactic used by some developers to lobby the previous Government to get out of their commitments. To be fair, and we may as well admit it, when Part V was first floated there was an element of social snobbery coming from some circles, from some in the political system and from some developers who did not want social and affordable housing in private housing estates. I do not share that view. I believe social integration is a good thing and social and affordable housing in private housing estates can benefit everybody. However, the reason for that former opt-out clause being put in place were obvious.

We will get back again, at some point, to building in the private sector. I hope it will not be as unsustainable as it was in the past and that we will have a Government in place which is mindful and watchful of the housing and property market so we will not reach the crazy levels of the past.However, there has to be some development. We need to increase the amount of development but it will be a mistake when that does happen to have reverted to a 10% requirement and to have reduced the potential for social and affordable housing under Part V. I am not at all convinced that what the Minister of State is planning to build will go any way towards making up for the absolute lack of new builds over the past six or seven years from a social or affordable housing perspective or that it will meet current demand.

The Minister of State also spoke about the rent supplement. When that was first introduced, it was meant to be a temporary measure. We have moved, with the introduction of the rental accommodation scheme and the housing assistance payment, from it being a temporary measure to a permanent solution. Rather than resolving the issue, the Minister of State is cementing these schemes as the cornerstone of this Government's social housing policy. The housing assistance payment is tacit acceptance that only a small number of local authority houses will be built and that not much will be done in terms of Part V any more. Less social housing is going to be produced and the vast majority of those who need it will be told to get their accommodation in the private rental sector. The big winners will be private landlords who will get huge amounts of taxpayers' money. They will be subsidised by the taxpayer but at the end of all the lease, we will not own a single brick.

Many people find it difficult to get accommodation under the housing assistance payment scheme or the rental accommodation scheme because landlords will not sign up to them for whatever reason. In the future, we will have huge social mobility, which will be a difficulty. People will be moved because they will have five or ten year leases. What happens when these leases are up if the properties are to be sold? People who will have built a home for themselves close to schools and their families will be told to move elsewhere. People will be constantly on the move rather than building homes for themselves in communities. We are storing up huge problems for the future. The changes to Part V in this Bill are a mistake. Nothing even close to what is required in relation to social housing is being done. I accept this Government is doing more than the previous one. We are being told we are coming out of recession, there is a recovery and there is extra money about the place. If there is extra money about the place, we need to prioritise key areas of public service provision, and housing is one of those key areas.

I appreciate the Government has taken some positive steps. The Minister of State will want to defend his and his Government's record. Having said that, we have an obligation and a responsibility to hold the Government to account. The Minister of State made the political charge earlier that things would not be any different under another government but I contend it could be radically different. Sinn Féin would not be making the changes being made today. We would make the additional funding available to build the social housing units necessary to meet the housing needs of citizens.