Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Ring, to the House. I congratulate Senators Barrett and Quinn for bringing the Bill forward. I noticed that Senator Barrett said, "Solving the problem is like eating an elephant; it must be done piece by piece." The problem is that the elephant in this sense is very big. The housing policy has some very good parts but is the housing problem so big that we cannot swallow it in one go? The Minister said when he spoke that many issues can be feasibly investigated. I do not want the housing programme off the table if issues remain to be solved. There are issues that can be feasibly investigated but we need innovative thinking to resolve them.

There are merits in having a housing provision, financing it and administering it in a corporate and businesslike manner. The corporate sector must play an active role in facilitating community development through corporate community investment. However, uncertainty remains on how much the sector should invest without taking over total responsibility and totally influencing policy decisions that were heretofore made by the Minister and at local level by local councillors in relation to local issues. Nobody could be against increased professionalisation and moving towards a more businesslike approach with a larger risk awareness. There was no risk awareness in the past and people just went for it. We are all too well aware where such an approach got us. That approach was to the fore when decisions were made, particularly in the banking sector, and as a result the property bubble got totally out of hand.

The credit union movement has made a submission proposing that it form a special purpose vehicle which would invest in a State-owned financial vehicle which would put the credit union members' €8.5 billion to a more productive use by lending it to approved housing bodies. I would like this option investigated in conjunction with many of the options recommended in this Bill. The credit union has proposed that its funds be lent to housing bodies to fund the development of social housing. The proposal is not as radical as the proposals contained in this Bill and it is obvious that the credit union movement has thought outside the box.

In terms of the background to the Bill, we all know and I am sure recognise that the current mortgage market is not working in a suitable fashion at the moment. The Government has proposed a capital plan that will cost €2.9 billion which is opportune in terms of this Bill. It is great that money is now being invested.We all know money was not given to social and affordable housing because the money was not there. The new 2020 plan and the €2.9 billion to be invested means the scene is changing. We are growing and we can invest. Housing agencies and local authorities had their hands tied behind their backs and, on the whole, cannot be blamed for not building.

There is the question of how the investment would be made and what the role of the national housing and mortgage corporation would be. Section 18 of the Bill states that all functions vested in any person acting on behalf of the Minister shall be vested in the corporation, and this is the elephant in the room. Would any Minister be brave enough to tell someone else he or she could have the job with the Minister having no input into it? That is what the Bill is saying. It is the big elephant, and the question is whether we can chew it piece by piece. We should be open to looking at parts of the Bill and chewing it piece by piece - taking the best and saying we will not go with most of it.

Much of the Bill was drawn from the Canadian model. The Housing Corporation in England was abolished in November 2008. I do not know whether it began as the same model as that in Canada. It was split between the Homes and Communities Agency and the Tenant Services Authority. We have the Housing Finance Agency and we could take some of Senator Barrett's good work and examine modelling some of the powers into this agency and devolving some of the Government's functions into such an agency without giving over total control.

I strongly believe that housing policy should be linked to other policies, including health, education and social assistance. To be successful, a social housing policy should be an integrated component of a broader social and economic policy. The economics of it would work very well, but would it transfer to a social housing policy? It probably would. I do not have the experience to say it would not. Housing policy must be designed not only to improve low income and special needs circumstances, but also to facilitate policy development in other areas.

All of my life I have spoken about the devolution of functions to local government. This strips another function from local government. True democracy is best served by local government. This is not to say a housing corporation could not work with local government and with the Minister from the top down. Local authorities do not have the powers at present.

With regard to keeping it off-balance-sheet, I do not think the EU would look at it as a non-explicit subsidy. It would be very explicitly subsidised and be on the books. Perhaps it would not. Senator Barrett knows much more about it.

The transfer of all of the lands vested in the Minister to the corporation at the stroke of a pen would totally change local and regional development plans, as they would also involve the housing corporation. It is a huge area.

The Bill is innovative, challenging and well presented. It is an example of thinking outside the box. I congratulate Senator Barrett on it. It opens up the discussion on housing. Perhaps it is too much in one go. I agree with what the Senator said about taking it piece by piece. The Minister of State said it is feasible to examine some of it, but perhaps not all of it.