Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am concerned about a phrase used in the response regarding the access to the land being the value that the State has contributed at the beginning. That signals to me that this is envisaged as being the giving of access to public land. The State's relationship with the land is envisaged as being solely at the beginning of the cost calculation. I do not believe that approved housing bodies would be like that. If they are approved housing bodies whose goal is the provision of social and affordable housing in the long term, then they are questionable.

In addition, with all of the costs of the AHBs covered, including all of their management costs and other costs that were built into the model, that they would require that the ownership of an asset at the end period would incentivise them to decide to go into this area. If they go into this area to provide social and affordable housing and seek to have their costs covered, which the Bill provides, then the idea that the land moving back into public ownership at the end would be a disincentive to them would lead me to question whether their goal is to provide social and affordable housing.

If an approved housing body wishes to continue to provide social and affordable housing then it is important to mention that the minimum cost-rental period is a minimum period. My amendment No. 29 stipulates "any extension thereof under section 28". Therefore, there is nothing to stop, for example, an approved housing body to look for an extension to continue providing rent at the level set under the cost-rental model for an extended period following the expiration of the cost-rental period. They can continue to provide and, indeed, they may make an arrangement with the State in respect of continuing to provide. If we are talking about a public asset, which is land, and stating that we do this as part of lowering the costs at the beginning and then leaving State and public ownership, we will do a disservice to future generations.

I welcome what has been said about tenancies in perpetuity and I am thinking about those individuals. I do believe that tenancies in perpetuity should be imbedded into the Bill. I am concerned not simply about the tenants now, in ten years and 20 years over their lifetime but about the new 25-year-olds in 50, 60 or 70 years' time and the State's capacity to provide for them.

The Minister of State talked about the lifetime of a housing development or a development. If it is the fact that in 50 or 60 years' time a particular cost-rental housing development has seen out its life in terms of that belief then maybe that site will become the site of the next hospital, school, addresses the new childcare needs or becomes part of our State energy provision. Public lands are the greatest resource that the State has to meet the public's needs so it is reasonable that we would allow anybody engaging and partnering with us to meet all of their costs. In fact, we provide for them to meet all of their costs and make a dividend to make a profit. However, it is not reasonable that we would hamper our ability, as the State, to meet the public's future needs, be they housing or other needs, on public land by creating this kind of vulnerability. Therefore, I will press amendment No. 29.I am not assured by the phrasing with regard to access to land or with the cost of the land being deducted at the beginning. That sounds like a giveaway to me and we need to avoid that. Let us make sure to address the needs of the public both now and in the future. The Minister of State can and should secure that. Most actors in this area, including housing authorities, approved housing bodies and co-operatives, the key providers of cost-rental accommodation through this model, would be very happy to work with him on that basis and would be happy to know that the land may revert to public ownership in 40, 50, 60 or 80 years. I do not believe that would dissuade them from engaging with cost rental.