Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As previously discussed, we are talking about a model whereby investors are able to cash out when the minimum period has expired. A recent article in the Business Post looked at the fact that Ireland has done a lot of work to, effectively, de-risk the market for investors. There is probably no safer investment than that of an investor who knows that tenants are, effectively, guaranteed. A rent level is guaranteed, as is an additional equity return. A 40-year contract ensures the costs will be covered and at that point an investor might walk away with an asset. That is a concern and it is close to the leasing model we have seen around the country. However, where that takes place on public land, we go past a point whereby we are protecting from risk, guaranteeing returns and, indeed, that the costs will be covered, and we go to a point where we are, effectively, transferring public benefit to investors.

The Minister mentioned the expectation that the period when there is a public contribution would be longer than 40 years and would, effectively, be in perpetuity. However, I do not see that in the Bill. It needs to be in the Bill in the stronger sense of it. I am only dealing here with the issue of land. My amendments are a way of enforcing that sense of in perpetuity as it relates to public land. They suggest that where public land is made available for the purposes of the development or the provision of cost-rental dwellings, such dwellings should revert to public ownership following the termination of the cost-rental period, whatever that period would be, or any extension thereof.

I welcome that the Minister has mentioned that where there is any public contribution, there will be a guarantee of a longer period which could stretch in perpetuity. I would welcome more detail on how it will be enforced. My amendments are a means of ensuring that where cost-rental properties are built on public land, they return to public ownership. That way, the State benefits and, therefore, the people and the public benefit from the long-term period of return from the asset that emerges. We would have a social benefit in the rent paid during a 40-, 50- or 60-year period, whichever of those is legislated for, and we would also have the social and State benefit of the property being paid for and ending up in ownership of the State.It would be useful to accept this amendment. It would send a useful signal in respect of public land because that is one of the concerns. We will be discussing the Land Development Agency Bill, and there is and has been a concern that public land may effectively end up being made available for private investors to build cost-rental units and if they choose to leave after a set period, there is a question about what will happen to the properties and the public land.

Amendment No. 30 is quite similar. It is simply a different way of framing it, but it is about the property reverting to public ownership. The Minister of State signalled that he was open to and intent on the idea of ensuring the availability of cost-rental dwellings in perpetuity where there is public intervention. I am hoping that he will indicate that he is open to accepting either amendment No. 29 or amendment No. 30 or, perhaps, if he has a version of them which he might include. The core issue is that we should not find ourselves, after a set number of years, in a worse situation where there is less public land available for public housing provision. We do not want a situation whereby we bequeath future housing problems to the next generations. We must bear in mind both our responsibility in terms of the immediate housing needs and crisis we face and our responsibilities to future generations in the State. In that regard, we must have caveats that ensure the State will be in a position to provide for its housing needs after the minimum periods of cost rental have expired.