Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for spending time with us in the House again. This is good and constructive legislation that has been well drafted by Ms Sinead Mercer with the support of Mr. Ed Davitt and others. It offers concrete and real proposals. Some speakers have focused on the abstract, pulling back again to the housing crisis and raising other issues, but we are here to debate the proposals made in the Bill, many of which have strong and clear merit such that it will be difficult to stand over any opposition to them. We recognise that there is a need to work across the House, something everyone in our group has done and something Senator Grace O'Sullivan has sought to do in this regard. We are willing to work with everyone and all parties to ensure that, when the Bill reaches Committee Stage, we can build on these valuable proposals which place important issues on the agenda and are facilitative of the Minister in driving forward the fifth pillar of the Rebuilding Ireland strategy in making the best use of existing stock.

I will not go through the details. All Senators have heard the litany of empty properties at local and national level. In one of the greatest homelessness and housing crises the nation has seen the Government has estimated that there are 198,358 vacant properties. We have heard that in the Dublin area 61 hectares are vacant or derelict.We have heard that in small towns, even in Macroom, there are up to 200 vacant properties, but the provisions in the legislation have been framed to target areas in which there is high demand and it is imperative that action be taken urgently.

I will now address a number of key proposals made in the Bill, on which I would like to hear the views of the Minister, as well as Members across the House. Should they not wish to support the Bill, I want to hear what their proposals are to address the real issues we have identified.

We know that the law on derelict houses is not working. Derelict houses and sites are an eyesore and visible in towns and villages throughout the country. While they are acknowledged by the man on the street as being derelict, in many cases, they are not registered as such because of the flaws in the system. We know that, in many cases, the windows are boarded up and painted black and that we are expected to regard the site as no longer being derelict. While I am aware that local authorities have some powers to contest the question, they do not have the resources to battle on each derelict site on each street. What is proposed in the Bill would facilitate the process by which derelict sites are entered on the register. We are allowing for the setting of clear criteria. If our proposals were to be taken up, it would become easier for local authorities to simply mark sites as being derelict if they met the criteria. The process would be transparent and we would be able to ensure the derelict sites that are holes in the fabric of communities would be marked appropriately.

Having a register publicly available online would ensure people who wanted to take action in their communities to have productive use made of space would be able to do so. Senator Colette Kelleher has given us some examples in this regard and other Members may give us others. The Bill would encourage communities to come up with proposals for derelict sites. It would support citizens in engaging in local innovation and devising a constructive collective response to how we should repair the fabric of cities and build the homes and social amenities we need so badly.

The proposals made are nuanced because we are trying to address in the Bill a gap when somebody is place in residential care. A key concern is ensuring that when vulnerable older persons are taken into care, they are not penalised unduly. We are open to looking at other such subtleties to ensure they would be taken on board on Committee Stage.

I will now address the proposals made to deal with vacant sites. We have heard that 0.05 hectares, or the size of a basketball court, is considered to be too small. This proposal was brought forward by Dr. Lorcan Sirr and others and I think it is very constructive. One could build a home on a site of that size. More importantly, we could argue the detail of what the exact size should be. The current provision which refers to a figure of 0.5 hectares, or over one acre, is far too wide.