Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 8, to delete line 14.

This amendment relates to public private partnerships as a mechanism for the delivery of affordable housing. The concern here is that history whereby there has been a very strong preference for public private partnerships in the provision of affordable dwellings. That is amendment No. 6. I have an opposition to public private partnerships but I actually have, which I prefer, a number of amendments where I add things, since we were talking about adding things. In these amendments I am saying that it might be public private or - and this is my amendment No. 8, which is part of this grouping - "public-public" partnership arrangements. My concern is that the preference is often given to public private arrangements. There has often been a narrative that we must be doing this in a way whereby there is a private partner or an investor and that they are profiting and it effectively is building into the cost of housing a requirement for a dividend, a requirement for profit.We talk about ideology and it is clear there has been an ideological preference for that. When one asks why, the only argument with any merit has usually been that it is about financing but that argument no longer stands up. There is no reason to have public private partnerships for the development of public lands. We can get 0% loans and financing. We know the returns for the State are there and we can cut out the requirement for dividends and returns for shareholders. We can partner with the many other groups that are listed here, including approved housing bodies. I applaud the Government for accepting the proposals of community housing trusts and co-operatives. The primary goal of all these groups is, effectively, the provision of housing. The alternative is a partnership with groups whose primary goal must intrinsically be the maximisation of return. That is their fiduciary duty. If you are on the board of a private company or an investment trust, your job is to maximise returns and profit. Those are your goals. Anybody who has been on a company board knows that. The key thing is with whom we partner, what they want and what we want. A balance is required. I believe it would be better for the State and local authorities, in choosing with whom it partners and how we deliver affordable housing, to try, so far as possible, to partner with those who share the delivery of housing and homes as the priority. It is a concern if we straightforwardly put down public private partnership as a preference, as we do at the moment.

I have proposed amendments which, if the Government is willing to accept them, would give a little more scope and address the imbalance. I talk about public-public partnership arrangements, for example where a local authority partners with a State body. We love underwriting loans. I do not know how many such pieces of legislation have come through these Houses. Some of the party spokespersons for finance have spoken on those pieces of legislation. The outcome has been that we are underwriting all kinds of loans. Let us underwrite the financing for local authorities. That is the kind of public-public partnership that could deliver in this area. That is why I have included amendment No. 8. I have joined with others to propose the deletion of the model as it stands because there are no caveats to it and I am concerned that an imbalance of intention in that partnership is not addressed. It may be that we will partner with private actors but the balance of power in that partnership needs to sit clearly with the State because we cannot rely on private actors to have the same goals as the State. They may well partner with us but we need to be clear about where responsibility and power ultimately sit in this situation. Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are rooted in that.

Amendment No. 7 addresses what I have already said about the Land Development Agency and public private partnerships. It is fine if local authorities wish to partner with the Land Development Agency or private actors as long as the conditionalities are clear. The conditions I have set out state there could or should be such partnerships for the provision of affordable dwellings where the provision of affordable dwellings or publicly owned, social or cost-rental housing constitutes not less than 80% of such an arrangement. If a partnership is to provide affordable housing, let it be that affordable housing and publicly owned social and cost-rental housing constitute the greater part of that partnership. There is still a margin of 20% there. I am concerned about a scenario we have seen arise from public private partnerships where a hypothetical estate of 100 houses contains ten social homes, 20 homes that are affordable and a vast majority of homes that are, by definition, unaffordable, outside the range of affordability and entirely there to maximise profit.We have talked about mixed tenure, where investment funds own half an estate. That is not a mix. That is why I am trying to bring in caveats. I do not want to discuss specific developments. In the context of one recent development, however, it was stated that there may be 100 social units in it but that there may also be 1,000 absolutely unaffordable housing units in it. We do not need to do that. We do not need to pay that cost for the return we need. We do not need to have such unbalanced partnerships. We can get more out of these deals. We can be the stronger party in these deals. We need to assert our power as a State.

Amendment No. 7 has been accepted. I would be quite happy for the LDA and, indeed, private actors to be involved. Amendment No. 7 - and I appreciate that the Government may have a slightly different worded version of it, which I would be very happy to look at - makes it clear that the return has to be really strong. We must go into that partnership, not grateful that one, two or 50 houses might result from it but, in fact, seeking to get the best out of it.

I have spoken to amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 9 seeks to insert the following: "(d)arrangements under paragraph (b) or (c)shall be subject to the condition that affordable housing or publicly owned social or cost rental housing constitutes at least 80 per cent of such an arrangement." The point I am making is that the Government can absolutely work with other actors, but it must make sure that it is getting a good deal.