I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:
"1.—(1) Section 5 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 is deleted and replaced by the following section:
‘5.—In this Part —
"cost-price house" means a house made available for sale in accordance with this Part by a housing authority at a price equal to the cost price of the construction of that house and "cost-price housing" shall be read accordingly;
"shared ownership lease" means a shared ownership lease granted by a housing authority under section 3 of the Act of 1992.'.
(2) The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 is amended by the deletion in each place where it occurs of the term ‘affordable house' and the insertion on each occasion of the term ‘cost-price house'.
(3) The Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2002 are amended by the deletion in each place where it occurs of the term ‘affordable house' and the insertion on each occasion of the term ‘cost-price house'.".
This Bill was published late last week but Deputies did not have an opportunity to see it until Monday of this week. In my case, it was 7.30 p.m. on Monday, when I got home, that I first saw a copy of the Bill. Given that I had to rush to a meeting at 8.30 p.m., the time available to study it was restricted.
On a number of occasions, in the course of being corrected by the Ceann Comhairle, I have been reminded by him of the long-standing traditions of the House. Sometimes one might think one was on the Garvaghy Road with these long-standing traditions. However, I understand there is a general rule of thumb that ten days should intervene between when legislation is published and its introduction in the House. This affords Members of the Opposition an opportunity to research the Bill, prepare amendments and examine the implications of the legislation. That did not occur on this occasion, which is most unfortunate. The amendments were required to be submitted by 11 a.m. yesterday so preparing them and examining the Bill in such a short time meant burning the midnight oil for myself and Caoilfhionn Ní Dhonnabháin.
The second issue is the rushing of this legislation through the Houses. A number of speakers mentioned this. Rushing legislation through the House is one thing but doing so at the behest of a bank is something else, particularly when there is a substantial number of Bills awaiting scrutiny in the House. The ground rent Bill is one meritorious example.
The implications of this legislation are enormous. The Bill will encourage people to borrow beyond their means. That is fine in the current low interest rate environment. However, what will happen if that environment changes quickly and substantially? There is the prospect of homes being repossessed. The banks, as we know, are merciless in this regard. We have recently seen how they behave. At least where people borrow for their home from local authorities, some humanity and consideration for the family needs are shown in that situation. Unfortunately, however, the banks will move mercilessly.
Let us consider the consequences of that. Consider the number of court cases that will arise. The courts will be clogged with banks taking proceedings to repossess homes. Where will the occupants of those homes go? It will not be to social housing given that there are 48,000 on the waiting lists at present and 6,500 people are homeless. It will create an enormous difficulty. At present, people in that situation are housed by local authorities in bed and breakfast accommodation. The Minister will have to start a programme of rapidly building bed and breakfast accommodation if that is the means of dealing with this problem. There is already insufficient bed and breakfast accommodation to cope with the current situation.
I tabled this amendment because of the ambiguity surrounding the term "affordable". What does "affordable" mean? The use of the term is extremely misleading. It can mean different things to different people. The Minister suggested that a house is affordable if it costs less than the house next door. That is some description. The Minister is shaking his head but that is what he said. It is the Minister's thoughtful reflection on what "affordable" means. Perhaps he will accept this amendment and deal constructively with the issue.
Let us consider how local authorities deal with affordable housing. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council recently made a scheme of so-called affordable houses available for qualifying people. The price range for the houses started at €200,000 and rose to €345,000. That is what is described as "affordable". The question the Minister must answer in responding to this amendment is to whom those properties would be affordable. It is certainly not working people in this State.
The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 defines affordable housing as follows:
"affordable house" means a house made available for sale in accordance with this Part by a housing authority at a price less than the market value and "affordable housing" shall be read accordingly.
Anything short of market value, according to the statute, is what defines affordable housing. Imagine the case, therefore, where a house has a market value of €600,000. If the builder offers it to the local authority at a price of €580,000 or €590,000, it qualifies as an affordable house. When one sees the nonsense of such a situation, one sees why the definition of "affordable" must be examined. I hope Deputies will reflect on the nonsense that currently prevails with regard to the concept of affordability. The inadequacy of the definition is at the root of the problem we face. I propose, therefore, to insert the term "cost-price" in place of the word "affordable". My amendment seeks to provide that "cost-price house" means a house made available for sale in accordance with this Part by a housing authority at a price equal to the cost price of the construction of that house and "cost-price housing" shall be read accordingly;". I invite the Minister of State to reflect on which is the more realistic option for dealing with the issue of affordable housing. Is it the bland, daft provision which currently obtains or is it the specific, tight wording of my amendment?