Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is hearing from everybody that everybody wants public houses on public land. Like Senator Moynihan, I had wanted a land development agency, or something close to it, for some time but I always believed that, for one to be successful, it would need to be a non-commercial State agency. The delivery of public housing on public land, as described by Senator Warfield, should be through supporting local authorities and through a non-commercial State entity. That combination is clear but there is still a fundamental misunderstanding at the core of the Bill, just as there was at the core of Government proposals over the previous term and the term beforehand. I refer to the fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the speculative market and supply. These are the philosophical points we probably will not have time to cover in our two-hour debate next week.

Reference has been made to addressing deficiencies in the housing market and the shortage of land where the market is experiencing a systemic housing shortage. Let us be clear: the market is not simply experiencing a housing shortage; in many cases, the market is driving a systemic housing shortage, and it has been encouraged and facilitated in this regard because market logic dictates that the narrowing of supply drives up prices. That is a known fact. We see it right now with vaccines. Artificial scarcity is being created so vaccines can be sold for more rather than addressing a human need. This is because the priority of investors is to get the best value.

Over five or six years, we have had a lot of housing legislation. It is always offering more. First, tax breaks were introduced. There were waivers on capital gains tax in the hope it would encourage supply. The easiest option was taken, and that often meant commercial property. Many commercial units are empty under the measure.We also considered the strategic housing developments and we were told they were the issue and that all that was needed in respect of them was faster planning permission. More than half of the strategic housing developments that have received planning permission are sitting on it. There are vacant properties all over this State because a property can be rented out for more if the prices go up. Those are the market dynamics. Again, the Bill is trying to place them at the centre. In fact, they are acting as perverse incentives. Even the systemic lowering of standards, to which former Minister, Eoghan Murphy, contributed to, in some cases encouraged people to sit on a development because they knew that if they waited for a year or two longer, the standards might go down and more units could be crammed into the same space. Those are perverse incentives that have been created systemically.

It was, of course, the market that led to the property crash. Then NAMA again placed the interests of investors centre stage. That is why there is a commission of investigation examining the relationship between it and investors, particularly regarding the Project Eagle portfolio. When NAMA had all the housing, it worked with investors. That is why I will ask the Minister to ensure the new agency will not commence until we have what is promised for September, the long-awaited publication of the final report of the commission of investigation into NAMA. Let us learn from the previous time we had a State agency with a large portfolio of property. Let us make sure the mistakes are not being set up to be made again. Let us wait for the report to inform the detail of how the new Land Development Agency might work.

I am going to highlight three or four key issues, including the role of local authorities. Others have spoken eloquently about this. Others, on all sides of the House, have experience of the power and importance of section 183. As was mentioned, this is not simply associated with housing because it also relates to issues such as accessibility, the needs of the community for whom access is a concern, and matters related to how a development will fit into the fabric and vision of a local area plan or local development plan. The section is important because local authorities know the balance of housing needs in their area and what is required. I hope the Minister of State will listen to his colleagues on section 183 because there is a big difference between locations of individual developments and how they fit into the fabric and meet the needs of plans. I am even thinking of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the particular demographic breakdown and needs in a local area and its local area plan, or, indeed, the connectivity requirements. There is a lot to be thought about. I am referring to the intelligence and insight to be had from the section 183 conditions attached to disposals. The provision is still in the Bill. It is still a concern.

If the LDA wants to complement the work of local authorities, it needs to relate to local development plans. There is concern that many of the new local development plans may be delayed so it is important that if local authorities are in the process of developing a new local development plan, the vision for the next five years be considered. The agency should not simply work off a previous local development plan when a new and different one may be in process. That will be important.

On the question of the 80%, there is a concern that it may be varied by the Minister. It is not a guaranteed 80% because section 77 permits the Minister to vary the percentage unilaterally. That is a concern. The 80% is not a proportion of public housing because much of it will be public only for a few moments before it is sold as affordable housing and direct provision accommodation. Crucially, if it is cost rental, it can be private cost rental. That is the concern. Again, the market would be involved and those concerned would be allowed to have cost-rental arrangements, possibly on public land, and get equity returns. They would take the property out of public ownership.It becomes a private asset at the end. We do not know what mix we might have because it is a commercial speculative asset. Private equity firm cost rental is glorified leasing and it is making those same mistakes. It is leasing which local authorities were pushed into when they should have been supported to build and buy.

I will come back to public land. I will make a final point on shares, which I think is important. It is unacceptable that there is provision in the Bill to allow the Ministers to dispose of shares in this company. They must be held publicly, in trust and in perpetuity, and there should not be any danger that Ministers could choose to effectively privatise the Land Development Agency. I urge that that be addressed.