Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 9, line 41, after “person” to insert the following: “except where such an amount would bring the total amount paid for the dwelling to greater than market price”.

I have some questions for the Minister of State in respect of amendment No. 27. On amendment No. 26, I am trying to address the issue of the affordable dwelling purchase arrangement. This section deals with a situation an arrangement is made and the differences between the amount being paid in a direct sales agreement to a person providing housing under one of the arrangements provided for in the Bill and the arrangement that has been made in respect of setting up the situation for those direct sales agreements with a local authority or a housing authority. What I am trying to deal with via this amendment is a situation where there is a difference between the amount being paid directly for the dwelling and the amount that has been made in terms of the arrangement. Under the Bill, where a housing authority has made an arrangement with a provider, the difference between the amount of the arrangement that has been made and the amount the individual making the affordable purchase is paying will be paid out by the local authority or housing authority. My concern is that we may have a situation whereby housing authorities are making arrangements with private providers or other providers under some of the arrangements in the Bill to purchase houses at what might seem to be a reasonable price but where, in the two or three years - sometimes it is four or five - it takes to actually get these houses to the market, the market may have gone down. I say this in the context of my belief that our housing market needs to deflate, which I make no apologies for. Our market is priced too high.

Amendment No. 26 would apply in a situation where, for example, a local authority has made an arrangement that a certain number of houses would be available for €300,000 but where they are then made available for purchase at €250,000 and the local authority would be paying the difference. If there is a situation where, on the open market, those properties are available for €260,000, there should be a ceiling. Even if the local authority has made a previous arrangement, if the market has deflated, we should not have a situation where local authorities end up paying more than market price for houses that are meant to be contributing to our affordable housing provision. Regarding property rights and all of these balances and contracts, we are not taking from a developer if we will be paying them in that context up to the market price. We should not be contributing to an amount that is above market price because of a previous agreement because the market price is literally what a developer is getting for all the other properties he or she might have. Again, if one imagines a housing estate with 100 properties or whatever and we have 50 of them available on the open market, we should not have a situation where the houses being made available for affordable purchase are effectively costing more. That can happen in a situation of market deflation or where the gap in time between a local authority making an agreement and the houses actually being built is substantial. Unfortunately, we have seen that this can be the case and that is my concern in the context of the amendment.

I also have those concerns, perhaps more robustly, regarding amendment No. 27, explicitly in the context of Part 5. I am going to come back because I am examining this area. I particularly have a concern where the awarding of planning permission in the first place was conditional on a certain number of houses being available at an affordable price. We certainly should not be in a situation whereby the houses that are available as part of the condition of fulfilling the planning permission are effectively ending up costing more. The cost to the individual purchasing them will not necessarily be higher but the cost to that individual combined with the State, via the housing authority, may well be, so again perhaps the Minister of State might address those concerns. This really kicks in where time is concerned. We know that with O'Devaney Gardens and other sites there are concerns regarding some of the housing that has been priced as affordable.Members are hearing examples of some of the concerns around some of what is being priced as affordable and we want to ensure we do not end up paying over the odds for what should be provided, particularly with Part 5, at a price which should be under the odds.