Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 10, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“(2) The purchase of such open market dwellings may constitute no more than 15 per cent of the affordable housing purchase supported by a housing authority in any given year.”.

We had lengthy discussions on open market dwellings on Committee Stage and as to the question of their inclusion, but I do not intend to rehash that. A strong case was made by Senator Casey and others that there could be situations where there is not an availability of public land, where one would need to work with private partners, and where property may need to be purchased on the open market. However, it is important that we set some form of a limit or a cap in regard to affordable housing being purchased by housing authorities on the open market. I understand, and the case was well made, that there are instances of properties that are particularly suitable for this, in situations where social need suggests that an area needs affordable housing. It may be, for example, in a development adjacent to a major employer. Notwithstanding that, the purchase of open market dwellings is intrinsically more expensive for the State, in many cases, because open market competition and prices have to be factored in. The State does not get the property at a reduced rate, which we have discussed in relation to other mechanisms such as non-profit provision, direct-build, or Part V provision.It is appropriate that a ceiling would be set in respect of how much affordable housing would be provided through open market purchase. I have suggested what I think is a reasonable threshold, in that no more than 15% of the affordable housing purchase supported in any given year by a local authority would be on the open market. If we think about that, it also means no more than 15% of that affordable housing is being purchased at open market prices, which intrinsically have an additional element required. This is a reasonable threshold and safeguard.

It is less extreme than some of the discussion on potentially banning open market purchase altogether. It represents a reasonable accommodation and space for particular circumstances and situations in relation to particular properties and, potentially, particular eligible applicants to be accommodated. It provides a safeguard so that we do not move to a point at which the majority of affordable house provision involves local authorities purchasing large amounts of open market properties. It takes us away from the idea of the housing authorities supporting developers or investors and competing in that space with them.

It is an appropriate piece. I would like if the Minister would accept it. If 15% is not an appropriate threshold, the Minister may feel there is a different amount. I do not want to see a situation in which 15% of the affordable housing budget ends up going, at market prices, into the hands of larger-scale developers who have a wide other market in terms of individuals who may wish to purchase homes. This would ensure we do something a little bit different and would ensure best value for money for the State.