Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Jul 2015

Vol. 886 No. 2

Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill 2015: Report Stage

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, line 14, after “let” to insert the following:

", and in the case of land under the de facto care and control of the National Asset Management Agency the latter shall be deemed to be the owner for the purposes of this Act".

I thank the Minister of State for accepting a suggestion I made on Second Stage that an amendment be made to ensure local authorities are also subject to the rigours of the legislation and, where necessary, required to endure the pain, so to speak, of paying a vacant site levy. I propose this amendment in the same spirit. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the definition of the term "owner" to include property which is in the de facto care and control of the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA.

One of the main objectives of the Bill is to assist in addressing the housing shortage by tackling the hoarding of property. The National Asset Management Agency is the largest property company in the world and controls massive land banks in this country by virtue of its dealings with property developers. When NAMA was established in 2009, the Department of Finance projected that 30,000 new houses would be required annually in the medium term. Considering the reach of the agency and given its control of a large number of development sites as a result of acquiring the assets of developers, it is reasonable to expect it to play a key role in delivering this housing. Regrettably, however, NAMA has failed in this regard.

The National Asset Management Agency blows its own trumpet because it has a target of completing 4,500 new housing units in Dublin by 2016 and 20,000 housing units in the greater Dublin area in the next five years. These figures will be only a drop in the ocean given the extent of the housing shortage and house building requirements. Given its control of many development sites, NAMA should have played a significant role in addressing the housing shortage by funding and working with developers to this end. Its failure to do so is a key reason for the housing shortage. If the agency had done what it should have been doing, we would have more houses.

A large of amount of land is being hoarded and remains undeveloped. NAMA is not working with developers, many of whom will tell stories about the difficulties they have experienced in dealing with the agency. Many matters of concern have been aired in public without any answers being provided by NAMA. Mr. Justice Cregan, for example, seriously chastised NAMA in the High Court on the basis of its dealings with the developer, Mr. John Flynn, while the portfolio of another developer, Mr. Michael O'Flynn, was not sold to the highest bidder.

The objective of the amendment is to bring some accountability in respect to the National Asset Management Agency by ensuring it is not above the law that applies to ordinary private property owners who may find themselves obliged to pay a vacant site levy.

In view of that, I ask the Minister of State to give the matter serious consideration. I understand that the definition of "owner" is the ordinary one, but the position for these developers and property owners is that NAMA has all the say in relation to what happens to their properties. As such, NAMA should be brought in as part of the solution to address our housing shortage.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I do not see the point of the amendment because NAMA will not be in existence for much longer. This would create extra cost. We are adding an extra cost on in terms of NAMA and the properties that are there, in particular when it comes to the levies. As such, I do not see the purpose of the amendment and will oppose it.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Deputy Mulherin is absolutely right when she says NAMA has failed spectacularly to deal with the enormous housing crisis we now face. While she does not say so explicitly, it is an implicit and severe indictment of the Government because it has allowed NAMA to behave in the way it has. Many of us on this side of the House have been saying since we arrived here and the Government took office that NAMA should have been transferring much more land and property directly to local authorities to provide social housing. The Government simply did not listen. We have got a derisory social dividend from NAMA and that failure is one of the major contributory factors to the catastrophic social housing crisis we face.

The problem is that the horse has, to a very large extent, bolted and a levy does not really deal with it. What should happen is a simple change of NAMA's entire mandate or to have all available housing and land that could be used for social housing immediately transferred to local authorities. Any cash that NAMA generates should provide the capital for a major social housing construction programme instead of being used to pay off bonds. While a lot of the money has been used to redeem its bonds, at one stage when NAMA appeared before a committee, it had €4 billion in cash reserves. That money could have financed a serious social housing programme. Recently, its cash reserves have been reduced considerably because NAMA has used the money to redeem bonds. We could have put billions of euro into a social housing programme but did not. I do not know the latest position but maybe the Minister of State can enlighten the House. Do we have an estimate of how much more cash NAMA will generate from the off-loading of land and properties before it is due to dissolve itself? What are we doing with that money? Why do we not say now that the money will be used as the capital for a serious emergency programme of direct social housing provision?

A levy will just not cut it at this stage. It will not make any difference. The big question is the mandate the Government gives NAMA. That mandate should change so that NAMA is not there simply to unload big lots of land or property to whoever it can sell to just for money. The whole mandate should be geared around the provision of social housing and resolving the housing crisis. If its mandate is not changed in those terms, NAMA should be dissolved and everything it has simply given to local authorities. As we will discuss in more detail later, even if we did that, the Government would still have to provide the money for a serious social housing programme. Despite all of the spin and propaganda of the Government about the billions of euro to be applied before 2017 and 2020, one finds when one looks at the detail of the Government's social housing strategy 2020 that there will be no big social housing building programme. Approximately 85% to 90% of what the Government is doing is outsourcing to the private sector. Given the scale of the crisis, that means the stealth privatisation of social housing will be the long-term effect of the Government's policy, including in the legislation before the House. It is to Deputy Mulherin's credit that she points to the issue of NAMA and what it has not been doing and should be doing, but this particular amendment will simply not deal with the problem. The problem is one of Government policy.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I also commend Deputy Mulherin, which is not something that happens too often, for raising the serious underperformance of NAMA. Aside from what seem to be a lot of spurious deals where it appears the taxpayer could have fared a great deal better, NAMA is actually boasting that it will make approximately €1 billion in profit over the six to eight-year period. That still leaves the taxpayer about €40 billion short. Given that the market has been rising for a while, it is outrageous that more was not realised.

The point the Deputy made about the social dividend and NAMA's failure to provide it is a frightening one. What is really uncomfortable is the fact that we have a serious level of inconsistency in how NAMA has done its business. Sometimes it applies its rules rigidly and sometimes it does not. A simple example is that of the Dublin GAA trying to get hold of the Spawell but failing to do so. It beggars belief that a sporting organisation in Ireland would not have been facilitated and given a little bit of an extra chance. It is not like the GAA was going to make money on it. It intended to provide a social outlet for young people and should have been helped by NAMA. NAMA will argue that it is under an obligation to maximise the potential of the asset for the taxpayer. When it makes that argument, I would like NAMA to explain its approach when a bidder went to buy not the loans but the debt of the Chicago Spire, which was at $78 million plus costs which brought it to approximately $93 million. An investor sought to buy the debt, and this was every penny that was owed to the bank. This was not the reduced value, but the par value.

In other words, this investor was prepared to pay the debt in full but NAMA gave it to Jones Lang LaSalle in New York to sell. This was a site in Chicago. Even if NAMA thought it could get more for it, it was not in New York that it would have got it. It would have been interesting if it had marketed it in Chicago. Why could NAMA not accept the debt being bought out? It is estimated that it was sold for $35 million. NAMA refused $78 million, plus the cost, and it accepted a figure in the region of €35 million. That was claimed to be in the interests of the taxpayer in the same way as NAMA not accepting the bid from Dublin GAA for the Spawell because it claimed it was maximising the potential of the asset.

It is horrendous that NAMA could not deliver housing units for Dublin, in particular where there is such a serious housing crisis. It beggars belief. The argument was spun that certain property was not really suitable. The funny thing about that is that NAMA did not want to give much of the property that was suitable to the State because it was attractive to investors. What has happened is that vulture funds, mostly from the US, were allowed to cherry pick the best of it because NAMA sought to sell the best of it to them. It then considered some of the other property, which was not quite as attractive to the vulture funds, for social or affordable housing.

NAMA is a State body over which governments - this one and the previous one - do not seem to have much control. Issues are raised about it. The idea that the Comptroller and Auditor General has it all in hand beggars belief. I have seen too many things which I do not believe the Comptroller and Auditor General has seen, and I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is honest. It would be an incredible challenge for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the few people working with him to keep tabs on everything that is happening within NAMA. It would be a massive challenge, and it is not only about auditing. Does the Comptroller and Auditor General have expertise in the area of markets, construction and the future potential of assets? Does he have all those people working for him in order to be able to test the waters and ensure NAMA is doing what is best for the taxpayer at every turn? It is asking way to much of the Comptroller and Auditor General to think that he could come up with all those answers. He would be an amazing man, irrespective of how many people he had working with him.

Sadly, there is now the idea that the Committee of Public Accounts can examine this, behind which the Government can hide, as if it is an Oireachtas investigation and the committee will see if everything is all right. That is not what will happen. If those in government want to know the truth and if they really want to know if the taxpayer was best served in these deals, they will eventually have to initiate an independent inquiry into the workings of NAMA. It is extremely important because not only are we dealing with things that have happened - people must be held responsible for what they have done - but there are so many assets still to be sold. Will that be done right? At present, we do not know and given that NAMA remains a secret society, we do not have a real opportunity to see how it operates. An independent investigation might bring us that. There is a great deal of money at stake. The figures are astronomical so it is extremely important the State addresses this.

The Government should not put this off and kick the can down the road. We need an independent inquiry established right now. How it would be structured is an argument for another day. The Government will probably have to bring in some people from outside the country. I refer to many of the more senior players in the services the Government might use. There is such an incestuous nature to much of what goes on this country that the Government will probably have to bring in some external expertise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before I call Deputy Clare Daly, I remind Members that we are dealing with the definitions.

Deputy Clare Daly

I also believe it is appropriate and welcome that Deputy Wallace mentioned the issue of NAMA. It is as if we are in the middle of a production of "Hamlet" when the boys are outside talking about there being something very rotten in the state of Denmark. We all know what happened at the end play - there was no more Hamlet and the dynasty he stood over dissolved as well. I honestly believe we on the cusp of something similar here. Deputy Mulherin was correct in saying that NAMA has made an absolute hames out of its obligations in terms of the supposed goal that it would play a role in assisting in providing housing and so on. That is only one side of the equation because, ultimately, it is this Government and other Government policies that have contributed to this situation.

The Dublin City Council housing manager had to take to the media outlets to highlight the fact that his budget for this city will be €18 million short to deal with the homeless crisis. Even today three people contacted my office. These are people living in hotels or hostels with serious mental health and physical health problems. People are being told to source accommodation themselves. If they find hotel or hostel which will take them, they are told to telephone a number and that the person at the end of that line will activate a credit card to pay for that accommodation. When people do that, they do not get an answer to the number they telephone to activate the credit card and then the hotel accommodation is often gone. The idea that we are expending millions of euro on this type of accommodation for families is appalling. It is appalling wrong way round economics when we have so many units supposedly in the ownership of the State in NAMA.

Instead NAMA is being used to off-load large quantities of property in big chunks which, as Deputy Wallace and others have said, has resulted in a distortion of the rental market, contributing on that side to other housing pressures. A number of residents in my area have sought to approach NAMA as a co-operative of residents. They would be middle income earners who would be refused large mortgages for the types of prices being charged for properties but if they collectively approached NAMA for some of the units, the Sate would get more money than it is getting from some of these big vulture funds and people would be accommodated. These are extremely important issues. We are talking about billions of euros of taxpayers money potentially being wasted, ending up in the private gain of individuals.

The idea that the Government would say it is okay, there is a very transparent process there, we have a Comptroller and Auditor General and that this body is open to scrutiny is laughable because it was not open to scrutiny when those in government were on the Opposition benches. The amount of information that is now in the public domain makes it abundantly clear that given the huge interest this project is to the Irish taxpayer, and in terms of our housing strategy as we move forward, nothing short of an independent investigation is needed, involving external forensic accountants and financial people who can track down the money and find out what is going on. Something of a side show has been conducted over the past few days.

I mean no disrespect to any politician but the idea that the Committee of Public Accounts would have the wherewithal to carry out this function is laughable. I wonder if this idea is being pushed as a sort of side show to divert attention from what is actually necessary, which is a real inquiry. This issue is far too important for people to try to grab a cheap headline or get themselves heard at a committee. I am sorry, but that expertise does not exist. We need something bigger. We need someone from outside our society to come in and analyse this. Given the huge property portfolios, American interests and so on, whose attention is now on this issue, that will happen sooner rather than later, but it would be far better that it would operate in the short term.

Deputy Barry Cowen

On foot of the amendment proposed by Deputy Mulherin, I want to add my voice to those of other Members in placing on the record our trepidation with regard to the workings of NAMA since its inception. There is no doubt that the setting up of NAMA was not without its own controversies. There were many fears on the part of the then Opposition Members, who occupy Government benches now, as to the remit afforded to it. In the first instance, it allowed banks breathing space to get their houses in order to start again in terms of the sort of banking practices that were to be the norm from that time onwards, and more akin to what we had expected to be the norm in the first instance, despite the fact that those charged with the responsibility for their regulation assured us of that. However, we see where that has got us, together with everything else that came in 2008 and 2009. NAMA was charged with a responsibility to yield a dividend to the taxpayer. It was given certain powers and briefs, and distance from Government to allow it do that properly and effectively, but it also had to play its role in yielding a dividend from a social perspective and particularly because of the loans that were associated with property that it could play its part in addressing the deficit that was allowed develop regarding the provision of housing.

Year on year since the Government came into office we questioned it on the delivery of housing units to those on that list. As we know, there are 100,000 applications for housing. That does not mean there are 100,000 applicants; it might mean there are up to 300,000 applicants. As Deputy Clare Daly said, we hear about the dilemma faced by Dublin City County Council regarding the provisions it had made on foot of commitments made by the Government regarding the homelessness problem. There are still approximately 1,000 children in emergency accommodation in Dublin. There are still 2,200 on the waiting list in the county I represent, and that is replicated throughout the country.

It is only in recent months that the Government appears to have gotten to grips with this problem and come forward with suggestions, plans and mechanisms which it believes might address that deficit but to go back to the point I was making, year on year we were told there would be a dividend from NAMA for the State but year on year, that did not materialise because, as Deputy Wallace said, we were led to believe that many of these properties were not suitable for local authorities or their tenants. There was no in-depth analysis done of the reason that might be the case and that has allowed us to express our fears that these units - multiples of them - were much more suitable for the profiteering that exists for those who come in and buy them in bulk.

It is against that background, and some of the details that have come into the public domain in recent weeks, that the fears we had over the past number of years have been heightened to such an extent that one recognises and is almost forced to agree with the perception that it might take somebody of more eminence than is proposed to address, analyse and audit NAMA and allow the House to adjudicate thereafter on the effectiveness of this organisation and its ability to deliver a return to the State in the first instance, whether that be in the form of monetary profit or social dividend. I would argue there has not been a social dividend to the extent one would have expected when NAMA was set up initially. I see that in my constituency, and I hear others say they see it in their constituencies. That is at a time when there is great difficulty in terms of this Government being able to address the housing crisis and the disastrous situation that has since arisen.

I have stated on numerous occasions in debates in the House on the provision of housing, whether it be questions on legislation brought before the House or at other times, that up to 40% of the representations I receive are in the area of housing provision. That is a failure on the part of all of us who were elected to work together to address the problems that arise for the constituents we represent. I am at a loss to know how to explain to the many people who come into my constituency office how they will be housed. Yesterday, I had a couple in with me from the town of Edenderry who are faced with eviction from the home they have been renting. They travelled the town in the past week or two and there is no emergency accommodation available. The stress, anxiety and exasperation in the eyes, and on the faces, of those people, who were with their children, was terrible to witness, and we are witnessing it all too often.

The background music to all of that is what we heard today, during the week and, to be honest, what I have been hearing on an annual basis, is the failure of NAMA to yield a social dividend. I accept what has been said about the Dublin GAA county board, the Spawell facility and so forth, which seems to make sense in terms of the provision of an amenity to suit its needs and the needs of those people who would benefit from it. More importantly, however, is the area of addressing the housing needs and if it is proved that there has been a failure and neglect on the part of whomever to realise the reason people are in such terrible straits, then somebody has to be held accountable. What person, body, office or Department that is remains to be seen but unless a clearer picture emerges this week in regard to the deliberations of the Committee of Public Accounts on one issue in particular but, more importantly, on many others that need to be teased out, then the commitment from the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to the Dáil earlier will have fallen on deaf ears and he may then be forced, with his Government colleagues, to acquiesce to the request that has been made by many on this side of the House for a full independent inquiry by eminently qualified professionals who can get to the root of this problem.

Deputy Wallace talked about a figure of up to €60 million or €70 million in regard to the Chicago situation. That would house the 2,200 people needing housing in my county. That would satisfy the person who was in my office yesterday and the 40% of constituents who have sought my assistance in the office I hold and the responsibility I have been given as a Member of the Dáil in order to access the public services.

When funds were available and revenue was forthcoming, we were told we were spending too much. As was stated last week in another part of the building, whom do we say is not entitled to what is available?

The demand for a social dividend from NAMA to the State was made in good faith and with the best of intentions. All we want is reciprocation by those who have been given that authority. I have not seen that social dividend in the form of housing units and I would like to know why that is the case. I want a better answer than that I have been given heretofore, namely, the qualification by NAMA, or the local authority, that the units do not suit the needs. What suits the needs if many of these buildings do not? I do not know. I am at a loss to explain that.

As I said, I will reserve my judgment until we hear what is said at the committee next Thursday when those charged with oversight of taxpayers' spend question those who act on behalf of the taxpayer in relation to public funds and dividends that may be derived from their dealings. Next week, the Government will have to be in a position to say categorically that there is nothing to be fearful of here; that there is no bomb waiting to explode and that this matter is being dealt with as it should be. As I said, it might take a bit longer for explanations to be forthcoming that satisfy me and many others in relation to the failure to address the real problems that I see in my constituency in terms of the provision of housing.

Deputy Brian Stanley

On the amendment, an attempt is being made to put a levy on a body that is to be wound up. I am not too sure what the benefit of that would be. While there are many questions surrounding NAMA, it is a public body. Based on what we are being told, it will be out of business soon. The real issue is not that NAMA will be sitting on vacant land but that it has not delivered social housing. At a time when there are thousands of vacant NAMA-owned houses across this State, hundreds of which are in locations where housing is needed, there are thousands of people on housing waiting lists. NAMA is not releasing houses. Any of the houses that have come on stream through NAMA are being made available on a medium-term to long-term lease basis. I am not too sure about the sustainability of that in the long term.

The key issue is that assets, which are under the control of a public body, are not being used to the benefit of local authorities and people on local authority waiting lists and in need of affordable housing. It is frustrating that many loans have been sold off at a proportion of their original value. People in areas where there are NAMA properties, who would like to purchase one or two of them, cannot do so. It is an all or nothing situation, which does not assist in addressing the housing supply issue across the State, in particular at the lower end of the private market. We should be trying to assist people at that level.

The Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, will be aware that people whose income is above €25,000 do not qualify for social housing. If they have children or a number of dependants this increases to €26,000 or €27,000. There is a huge group of people who are not eligible to purchase affordable housing and cannot afford housing on the open market. As announced yesterday, house prices across the State outside of the cities, including in the midlands and Laois and Offaly, increased by 15% in the last year. As house prices continue to increase so too does the issue of affordability.

On the proposed levying of local authorities in respect of vacant sites, I believe this is counterproductive. As far as I am aware there are not that many local authority vacant sites which are causing problems. If there are any such sites they are, in the main, greenfield sites that are awaiting housing development. In my time as a public representative, I have not received too many complaints about them. Local authorities are anxious to develop sites. In levying a local authority, we would be levying not somebody on another planet but Joe public by way of increased property and PAYE taxes. A levy on local authorities would impact Joe public and not an anonymous body from outer space. The local authority is the public. The public will have to pay for any levy imposed.

There is no issue in regard to local authorities and to levy them would be to miss the target. The target is the cohort of developers and speculators who bought land and are sitting on it while it increases in value. That is the group we need to go after. We need to focus on the people who are buying sites and sitting on them for long periods. There are many such sites across different counties which are causing a problem.

Another point worth mentioning in regard to local authority vacant sites is that the public will pressurise local authorities to develop them. Local councillors, in conjunction with local communities, will pressurise local authorities to address problems around vacant sites. This morning I had to deal with a matter involving a vacant property which a local authority sought to purchase recently and on which there was a fire last week. Had the local authority been able to purchase it that might not have happened. The financial institution which owns the site does not have it registered in its name. It is almost impossible to have this matter addressed under the derelict sites legislation. The sites in respect of which problems are arising are those sites are owned by financial institutions. They are playing a cute game. Where issues arise in relation to sites owned by local authorities, one need only telephone the CEO of the council or the director of services and one will get a result. That has been my experience. If one does not get a result, councillors can hold the CEO and so on to account at the next council meeting and, under the new Act, they can hold the executive to account in regard to why an issue is not being resolved.

The imposition of a levy on local authorities is a circular action in that it will be the taxpayer and ratepayer who will have to pay thereby taking from councils resources that are badly needed for other purposes. What the local authorities need is resources to build social housing on sites that are suitable for same. I know there is no silver bullet that can solve this issue straight away but, hopefully, address of this issue can be accelerated, which Sinn Féin would like to see. While every new house is welcome the pace at which social housing provision is happening is not quick enough. We would like to see greater development of sites and thus greater social housing provision. That is what is needed. In areas where there are problems with local authority sites, the public, with the help of local councillors, will apply pressure to have those problems addressed. I do not see any major issue arising in that regard. In terms of what is proposed, we are missing the target. We need to target the speculators who bought vast amounts of land during the collapse of the property market.

We have to face the reality that it will shortly be wound up. Many NAMA loans have been sold on and, as a result, there is a huge pot of money in NAMA. The Minister and the Government should give serious consideration to the use of a portion of that money for the provision of social housing, thereby releasing the pressure on local authorities in terms of the 90,000 households currently awaiting housing. I do not recall housing waiting list numbers ever being as high.

The action I have proposed would also discourage people from getting involved in leasing, which only benefits developers and landlords. That approach will not provide social housing on a long-term basis, will not add to the social capital of local authorities and will not ultimately be to the public good. I ask the Minister of State to examine those two issues.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

I acknowledge the valid concerns expressed by Deputies regarding the housing shortage we are currently experiencing. The question is how we respond to that shortage and utilise all available resources, not just those of the National Asset Management Agency but also those of local authorities, approved housing bodies and the private sector.

The purpose of this Bill is to initiate changes and reforms that will incentivise the provision and supply of additional housing by addressing the issue of vacant sites. The Bill is designed to stimulate supply, especially in urban areas of high demand. We must work on a number of fronts to ensure construction on urban vacant sites gets under way as soon as possible. It is perfectly logical that where sites are serviced by existing public infrastructure, they should be brought back into beneficial use as soon as possible. Deputies have expressed concerns specifically in regard to NAMA, but many owners of sites that are serviced by the public in areas of high demand are not, unfortunately, active in terms of regeneration and bringing those sites back into use for housing.

Deputy Mulherin's amendment No. 1 relates to the definition of the owner of a site, which I will deal with in more detail. Given the thrust of the debate, it is useful to consider some of the statistics in respect of NAMA's involvement in the provision of housing. The agency has already delivered more than 1,600 housing units, 5,800 are in the process of obtaining planning permission, and 2,400 are under construction across 40 sites. In addition, planning permission will be sought in respect of a further 4,300 units this year, and 13,600 units are at preplanning stage. We all know that one of the several impediments to the construction of housing in the private sector is the issue of access to credit for builders. It is interesting, therefore, to note that NAMA funded 43% of all completed units in County Dublin in recent years. Moreover, in the past 18 months, NAMA sold land that is capable of delivering 10,300 housing units.

We need to be active on a number of fronts to address the problems in the housing sector. Local authorities were not, in the past, given the funding to do what they are statutorily obliged to do, which is to provide housing. That funding is now being provided. It will never be enough to meet all existing need, but the first phase has been announced and is having an impact. In addition, the approved housing bodies' allocations will be announced in the coming weeks and there will be a further phase of local authority direct provision housing announced shortly after that.

It is interesting to note that planning applications in the first three months of this year are up 30% on the same period last year. Units are in the pipeline, in other words, but the problem we face is what to do in the meantime. I acknowledge that Deputy Boyd Barrett is genuine in the concerns he raised. However, if he was standing tomorrow where I am today and he had full powers to do whatever he wanted, he would not be able to deliver the number of houses he would like to deliver no matter what he tried to do. To cut off the private sector as he proposes would only escalate the problem significantly. Whether or not he agrees with it from an ideological perspective, we are dependent on the private sector to house many of those people who are under threat of homelessness and the people coming into the housing market. It is important, therefore, to incentivise the sector to get building again. Not only will that ensure more houses come on stream, the measures and provisions in this Bill will ensure we maximise existing sites that are already serviced. It means we will not have to look to the greenfield sites which cost far more to develop in terms of the public services that have to put in place before a single unit is built on them.

These measures are just one element of the response by the Government to the housing shortage. There are many more fronts we need to tackle. We can debate the ins and outs of this all day long but, ultimately, it is about how we can supply more houses. There is no single solution or magic bullet. This Bill is about addressing one particular issue, namely, the shortage of supply in high-demand urban areas. The objective is to get those sites moving by way of the introduction of a vacant site levy and other measures.

Returning to amendment No. 1, the relevant section of the Bill provides for the definition of the owner of a site. The amendment proposes that this definition be amended such that where land is under the de facto control of NAMA, the latter shall be deemed to be the owner of that land for the purposes of the Act. Under the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009, loans have been acquired by the agency. Except for a very small number of cases, however, NAMA is not the owner or manager of the properties in question. Its role is essentially like that of a bank or secured lender. Other than in the case of properties that have been enforced, all of which are listed on the agency's website and are managed by the appointed receivers and administrators, the properties continue to be managed by their existing owners. In enforced cases, the receiver is appointed to take the place of the property owner as an independent officer and to act in accordance with clear statutory obligations. This would apply to NAMA in the ordinary course, as to anybody else.

The definition of owner in the Bill is consistent with that set out in both the Derelict Sites Act 1990 and the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, of which, on enactment, this Bill will form part. This legislation provides that where the vacant site levy is determined to apply to a site, the owner must be clearly identifiable. This will ensure the efficiency of the measures. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

I thank colleagues for their contributions and the Minister of State for his response. For the past three to four years, I have been raising various questions and issues to do with NAMA, at the finance committee, by way of parliamentary questions and directly with the Minister in the House. Most of the answers I received left a lot to be desired. When NAMA was established, we were assured there would be parliamentary oversight of its activities. However, when representatives of NAMA come before the Committee of Public Accounts, I cannot put any questions to them because I am not a member of that committee. When they attend a meeting of the finance committee, each member only has a very short slot in which to ask questions.

Considering the scale of the activity of NAMA, there must be proper oversight of its operations. Many developers have been brought to their knees under its remit. Indeed, NAMA has been engaged in bully boy tactics, trading on the negative sentiment in general towards developers, notwithstanding that some of them are in NAMA through no fault of their own. We are all familiar with the Paddy McKillen case. I referred to the case of Michael O'Flynn, where the second highest bidder was successful. What about value for money for taxpayers? When one asks these questions, one is left wondering. There is still an opportunity to put in place the type of oversight I am suggesting.

My amendment No. 1 is very simple. NAMA has control over vast banks of property and, as such, should be subject to the same rigours as private property owners. This is not just about developers. As I said at committee, these measure could potentially affect the little old lady up the street who has a property she cannot afford to develop. If a local authority decides to proceed in a certain way as part of its core strategy, this type of thing will happen. That is why it was so important that councils were included in the provisions. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, which is precisely my point in respect of NAMA.

I do not accept the Minister of State's argument that NAMA is like a bank. NAMA is more than a bank. It is engaged in activities as a developer, as we are discussing here, although we might not be happy with its level of activity. It is also engaged in joint ventures. Is the Minister of State saying this is what banks do? To capture the actual situation that pertains in regard to NAMA's care and control of properties and its track record in regard to developers, these provisions should apply to the agency.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

In my first contribution, I focused on the amendment without dealing with the broader issues.

I want to say a couple of things about NAMA. It has been a disaster and will prove to be one of the scandals of the country in the future. There are a lot of questions to be answered. When it was set up we could not get answers to from it about anything that was going on, no matter what parliamentary question we submitted. It was set up by the previous Government to deliver a social dividend. We were told properties could not be transferred to local authorities for social housing, which is another disaster because the vast majority of properties should have been used to deal with waiting lists. That did not happen, and we have ended up with many leasing arrangements with NAMA. It is accumulating funds, we are paying it and the funds are used to pay developers. Such a policy is scandalous and makes no sense.

The large portfolios have been sold off. What is the rush? Am I missing something in terms of why the Government is forcing NAMA to move quickly and sell off properties? They have been sold at knock-down prices and people are being put in jeopardy. Those living in some of the properties that have been sold on are being put under pressure, which is adding to the housing problem. The Minister of State mentioned the housing crisis. We have a major crisis. I do not know where he is coming from when he says the housing crisis is being addressed. It is quite clear that in the past year, and since the death of Jonathan Corrie, that the number of people and families that have become homeless has doubled.

I attended meetings at Christmas with the Minister of State. One would have sworn that the housing crisis would be resolved. The Minister of State mentioned the €3.8 billion that was going to be spent on housing and the €2.5 billion to be allocated over the next couple of years. Where is the money? I have spoken to local authorities, which have not received it.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The fundamental problem with NAMA is its mandate. Everything else flows from that. It is important, in demanding the necessary independent investigation of the sale of its assets, to note that there are a hell of a lot of questions to be answered about the large portfolios which have been sold off at a fraction of their par value and whether the public interest was protected. All of this can only happen because of the flawed mandate of NAMA, which the Government should have changed. Some of us on this side of the House called for it to be changed from the minute we entered here, saying it needed a much stronger social mandate. The social dividend aspect of NAMA was tacked on, as we all know, to assuage public concern about these matters. However, NAMA was told to get the money in as fast as it possibly could and that the Government did not care how it got it; hence, assets were flogged to vulture funds. That inevitably opens the door to possible corruption and dodgy dealing.

This is not about ideology. Wherever there is a sale of State assets or the handing out of State contracts to private interests, corruption exists. It happened in Italy with the Mafia and in Russia with the oligarchs. Corruption is an inevitable by-product of the process. I will give the Minister of State a more detailed answer on what I would do if I was Minister when we deal with the next amendment.

Deputy Mick Wallace

We will not be able to sleep tonight waiting for that.

The Minister of State referred to the private sector. As he might understand, I would not cut it out. Rather, I would consult with it. The private sector has a few different parts. The construction sector alone comprises land bankers, developers and builders. Most of the units currently being built will be rented rather than sold. One might say that at least they will be put on the market. The Minister of State said NAMA sold land that would allow 10,300 units of housing in Dublin alone, but whom was it sold to? Many assets are being sold in parcels so large that Irish individuals, including builders and developers, have not been able to buy them. The people with the deepest pockets have mainly come from places outside Ireland, such as America. NAMA refused to divide assets and sell them in such a way that private investors in Ireland could afford to get involved. I will not go into the decision to sell all of the Northern Ireland portfolio in one block; it is an argument for another day.

The Minister of State referred to land that would allow 10,300 units of housing. When will they be built? It is not attractive for a builder or developer to build a serious number of units in Ireland today. It would be difficult to get the money from a bank because the figures do not add up; too many assets have been sold in fire sales, particularly by NAMA and the banks. Units were bought too cheaply, for less than the cost of building them. How can one build and compete with such units? It is a major problem.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I listened carefully to the Minister of State's response on the amendment and understood it as far as I could. I would like some elaboration on what Deputy Mulherin said, given her legal background. I refer to the management and holding in trust of land belonging to the person or company that took out the loan in the first instance and the same person or company's inability to meet the demands of the loan. It would lead one to believe that NAMA would be not only taking in trust but taking in charge, which might constitute it as the owner. I would like the Minister of State to elaborate on that in order to set my mind at ease before we vote on the amendment. I am sure Deputy Mulherin would also like such a clarification.

I refer to NAMA's contribution to and ability to succeed in various local authorities throughout the country. I suggest that the Minister consider putting in place or instructing local authorities to have dedicated NAMA teams within each local authority to liaise exclusively with NAMA in order to realise a dividend in the areas for which they have responsibility.

I do not see much within the Bill to incentivise the private sector to play its part in the reactivation of the housing market. I am conscious of what Deputy Wallace has said. The price of constructing units now far outweighs the prices that will be paid by those buying the units in bulk, and for a construction sector that is to compete properly and effectively, that poses a problem in its own right. If that is to be resolved and if we were playing on a level playing field, the best way to incentivise the private sector, given that credit is not flowing for up to 50% of builders, may be the setting up of a strategic investment fund in such a way that a home development fund would fund developers at competitive rates. The profits derived from that could be reinvested by the State in providing local authority units over and above 20%, rather than the 10% the Government wishes to have from such developments, as provided in the legislation.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

The suggested amendment would not be accurate in terms of either the consistent meaning of "owner" already contained in planning legislation or to NAMA's loan connection with land assets. If anything, the amendment would potentially cause confusion and concern about inconsistency in the application of the levy by indicating the obligations of the actual owner may be different depending solely on the lending institution from which he or she borrows. This is why we oppose the amendment.

Deputies spoke about economic viability and how to get the private sector going again. The Bill is just one mechanism being adopted to address viability issues and reduce overheads. The Bill has three main parts. We will reduce Part V obligations from 20% to 10%, and we will speak about this in more detail later. The Bill deals with the ability of local authorities to reduce the development levies on existing planning permissions which builders state are not viable and cannot deliver houses. There will be flexibility for local authorities to reduce the cost so that they can get building. The third measure is the vacant site levy, about which we have spoken. There will also be other measures. The Government will make other interventions on a number of fronts to stimulate and normalise the construction market so we can increase supply. It is important that this happens, and we need to continuously evaluate how delivery is going.

NAMA's mandate has five strategic objectives, which are to redeem senior debt of €30.2 billion by the end of 2018 and subordinated debt of €1.6 billion by March 2020; optimise income and the disposal value of assets; deliver grade A offices in the Docklands strategic development zone; deliver 4,500 new housing units by the end of 2016; and make a positive social and economic contribution. This is the mandate and it is what NAMA is working towards. For the information of Deputies, 90% of NAMA sites are in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway, which will be the main focus for the Bill in terms of regeneration of urban sites.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

The Minister of State made comparisons between secured lenders and banks. This is not the case, given the activities of NAMA as a developer entering into joint ventures. As I do not even have support from the Opposition, I will let the matter rest.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, line 29, after "land" where it secondly occurs to insert "not owned by a local authority or publicly owned housing body".

The purpose of the amendment is that local authority sites and publicly owned sites should not be the subject of a vacant levy. Although all efforts should be made to use such lands for social housing, this is not possible due to the lack of funding from the State. At present, Dublin City Council owns land to build thousands of houses, but it does not receive the funding to build them. Imposing this levy would only make it more difficult and would lead to lands being sold off to private developers or speculators who can afford the levy or afford to build. It could also mean that levies would be imposed on lands that local authorities zone for parks, other play areas or areas of land sprinkled around. Where would it end? This is a bad idea with regard to local authorities and publicly owned sites, which are very important for various reasons, and there should be flexibility. In the past we have turned much of this land and many of these vacant sites into playgrounds and other amenities. The possibility of levies on any of these lands would be a disaster.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I have thought about this since Committee Stage, and when the Bill is added together with the social housing strategy it would be fair to say it is something of a pincer movement to force the further privatisation of social housing. If local authorities are levied for a failure to develop lands in their ownership, and if they do not have the money to build social housing because the central government does not give it to them, they will either sell the land or be forced into arrangements which effectively privatise the land through public-private partnerships. They will have to do this to avoid the levies and get capital from the private sector. That is the plan. This dovetails with all of the other measures in the social housing strategy.

If announcements about housing solved the housing crisis we would have solved it in the past year, but when we look at the detail of the social housing strategy and start to parse through the numbers we see the pressure on the local authorities, to which this measure will add, to privatise land. When we look at the detail behind the targets for social housing 2020 strategy, we really begin to see that the strategy is the wholesale privatisation of social housing. Taking the social housing strategy for 2015 as a sample of what is coming between now and 2020, the response to one of our councillors who wrote to the Minister trying to get a breakdown was very illuminating. According to the reply, the Minister expects that 7,400 new social housing units will be provided in 2015, broken down as follows: 1,400 units will be built or acquired by local authorities and approved housing bodies; 3,000 will be under the social housing leasing initiative; 1,000 will be vacant local authority units which will be returned to use; and 2,000 will be new rental allowance scheme units. This amounts to 7,400 units. In addition, there will be 8,400 new housing assistance payments.

Out of a total of approximately 15,000, 2,000 plus 3,000 plus 8,400 will be from the private sector. The vast majority will be money going out to developers and landlords in the private sector. A tiny fraction of the big headline social housing commitment being made by the Government will be through the direct provision of local authority housing. The rest of it will be under various rental and leasing arrangements with private landlords and private developers, the very people to whom we have just sold all of these massive portfolios for a song. These vulture funds or speculators have benefited from the misery inflicted on the rest of us in terms of austerity, the cost of the crash and the cost of the bailout. These guys come in, buy the stuff for a song and will rent it back to the local authorities, sucking huge amounts of money on an annual basis out of the public coffers and into their swelling bank accounts. This, of course, also has the advantage of driving up rents and property prices because, if it were possible, it is an even smaller cartel than the previous cartel of developers and land bankers. We will have an even smaller golden circle of people controlling the vast majority of rental and commercial land and profit in the State.

This includes private rental and commercial property etc. It is an absolute pincer movement, a scam of unbelievable proportions, with which we will at an even more intense level do again what caused the last crash. The last lot in power made an absolute bags of it and reduced social housing provision to a trickle but this Government is, more or less, closing it down. That was the announced policy in July 2011, when it was publicly indicated that direct social housing provision would be stopped. Even with the slight reversal of that at the rhetorical level, in reality the Government is continuing along that line.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

That is very cynical.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I am reading the figures from the Minister. How can they be explained? From a total of 15,000 housing units next year, only 1,400 will be new council houses. That means 10% of the social housing that the Government has indicated it will deliver next year will be council housing, with slightly over 80%, taking into account the returned units, being sourced from the private sector. This, in conjunction with the housing assistance payment, HAP, is a wholesale move into the privatisation of social housing. The voluntary housing bodies, generally speaking, are decent organisations with decent people in the social housing area for the right reasons. Still and all, many people would prefer to be in council houses than in housing provided by the approved housing bodies. I bet that most of the 1,400 houses is not council housing but rather stock from approved bodies. In England, as the voluntary housing sector expanded at the expense of direct provision of social housing, it became big business as well. For-profit operators began to move to the voluntary housing sector and I can guarantee that will happen here too.

The Minister of State has challenged us on making these criticisms by asking us what we would do. I, along with most of the people making these contributions today, have been saying since the week we came in here what we would do. We have been saying it almost on a weekly basis for approximately four years. It is disingenuous to say we have not put our views forward but, for the record, I will do so again. The total cost of projects like the rental accommodation scheme or RAS, HAP and the various ways in which we subsidise private landlords and developers in the social housing sector is approximately €1 billion per year. That includes RAS, social leasing and rent allowance, and it is money going out and down the flipping drain. If we take 15 years, for example, to solve the problem, we could spend €15 billion on a serious emergency social housing programme that would build 20,000 or 30,000 social houses per year for the next five years. It would cost much money up-front but that would be recouped within ten or 15 years because every single council house built is money saved in the long term. That would equate to money not going out of the State coffers into the pockets of private landlords. It would be a sure-fire, guaranteed winner for State if we built directly provided council housing. We would own the asset and it would be much more secure accommodation for the tenants and so on. It would also generate money for the State through rental revenue.

Another big effect would be regulation of the housing market in general by keeping down property prices. If a tiny oligarchy of developers and vulture funds controls all the property, we are guaranteed bubbles and busts because we have no control over what they do. This can be counteracted with a big bank of social housing, which would act as a sort of deadening weight on property bubbles occurring in the first place. That would keep down the general level of property and rental costs. In the 1940s and 1950s, when the State had far less money than it does now, at least we understood that logic. When Ireland was virtually a Third World country, we built thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of council houses per year. How did people manage that? They knew it was a good investment. As the proportion of housing provided in any given year has become less public and more private, we have ended up where we now are, complete with bubbles and crashes. This idea would be an investment against future crises, not to mention saving the State money and, most importantly, dealing with the catastrophic housing crisis we now face.

The Minister of State might argue that we could not achieve that in a year or two. If the Government had listened when we argued for this in 2011, we would not be in the current mess. If the Government admitted that the housing list is a disaster and it messed it up but it would rectify it, even if people were not housed in a year, they could be housed in the next two to three years. That would at least give people hope. This does not even consider the construction work that would be generated, taking people off the live register and giving employment at a local level. All of this would provide hope and enthusiasm to people, who could believe that we are seriously dealing with the problem.

There would of course have to be temporary measures in the mean time and there is no good solution in this regard. That is the cumulative cost we are paying for the failure to get this right over the past 20 years. We should start now and recognise what we did in essentially abandoning the provision of council housing over the past 20 years. The process has worsened under this Government but it was a disaster under the last Government as well, when resources were reduced to a trickle. This was a major contributor to the property madness, as housing came to be seen as just a commodity on which to speculate rather than an essential element of society.

Even the economy will now pay a price. Government Deputies often see us as the bleeding heart liberals who want to do everything for everybody but who do not know how to pay for it. Those Deputies see themselves as the hard-headed pragmatists who really understand the economics of the issue. If we do not deal with the cost of accommodation, property and rental prices and the lack of affordable accommodation, there will be a serious problem even for the Government's beloved foreign direct investment. Even the multinationals know that people need affordable places in which to live, although they do not want to pay any higher taxes to provide them. Jesus Christ, I would not want to say that Guinness had particularly enlightened capitalists but even that company built social housing and understood that its workers, from whom they wished to profit, had to have somewhere to live, or else those people could not go to work the following day. The capitalists from the 19th century were more progressive than the gang of multinational vultures that we now have. They will not do it unless the Government indicates that housing must be provided for all sorts of reasons, including macroeconomic and humanitarian reasons. There is a basic right to housing and a decent, dignified existence for human beings, whether one argues from the bleeding heart liberal perspective or the hard-headed macroeconomic side.

Instead, with this Bill and the other measures it is taking, the Government is pretty much outsourcing the lot. That is going to be an absolute disaster.

That was a slight digression from the amendment, but the point about the amendment is that imposing this levy on local authorities will be a pressure for them to privatise, either directly by selling the land or indirectly by engaging in public private partnerships, which will effectively privatise it.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I am not sure where the idea to levy the local authority is coming from. Putting a levy on a land-banker who sits on his land and refuses to develop it is obviously a great idea, but I do not see why the Government wants to do the same to local authorities, except that it thinks the local authority will sit on it as well. If a private investor has a site that is zoned for development and he decides not to build on it, there is a reason for it. He is deciding that it is a better idea not to develop it just yet. He is making a financial decision. If the local authority decides not to build, or is not building, I imagine it is because it does not have the money. The Government has decided it will only levy sites where housing is needed, although I would prefer if all land zoned for development that was bought for investment purposes was levied, but we will argue about that in later amendments. If the local authority has land and there is a need for housing, obviously the State should give it to them.

I said in my last contribution that it is really important that the private sector plays a part in the construction of apartments and housing, but the truth is that we will continue to have a housing crisis until the State decides to start building housing again. There is a number of factors at play. I agree with the Central Bank's new rules, but the result is that up to 50% of people, young people between 20 and 30 years, who might be looking to buy a home in the near future if they settle down and start a family will not be able to afford to buy a property. That is for a number of reasons, including the Central Bank regulations. They are sensible, but the result is that the State must take more responsibility for providing housing for those who need it and who cannot afford to buy it. That number is going to grow. Some local authorities have land and are not developing it because they could not get State money because the State did not want to invest any more in the construction of housing than it had decided. Sadly right now there does not seem to be an appetite for the State to start building many houses.

As the Government's so-called strategy specified before Christmas, it will remain very dependent on the rental market for its housing. The lack of joined-up thinking is a bit scary. I have made the point in here on a number of occasions that much of the development land that is out there now has been bought by the big investment funds. Of the ones that have decided to build on it, I can assure the House that they will not sell the majority of the units they build because from a financial point of view it is not a very clever thing to do at the moment. It makes far more sense, if they have the money to invest in building them and given that they got the land much cheaper than they would normally expect, to rent them out. That is what these big players have been doing and it is one of the reasons rents have gone so high. As I pointed out before, I have seen the rent for a rental property in a working class area of Dublin city centre on the north side of the river go from €1,000 a month to €1,400 a month in three years. The reason is that there are now so few players controlling the rental market. They can dictate the price. Whatever influence they have on the price currently, it will increase because these guys bought land at a fire-sale price, they had the deep pockets to do it because the land was sold in large parcels, and now they are going to build on it and rent out units.

Places like Dublin are brilliant places to rent property. They are hard to beat. I am not exaggerating, but one can rent a two-bed apartment in Turin for €300 a month and we are looking at around €1,400 in Dublin. That is the place to be. There is no point in those fellows building apartments in Turin and renting them out. They will not be going over there, but they will like this place. If we are going to have a housing strategy that is geared towards huge dependence on the rental market, rent supplement is going to be too expensive for the State. Currently, rent supplement does not meet the rent, because rent is too high and the State does not want to pay too much in rent supplement. That gap is going to grow. If the Government wants people to avail of the private market, because there will not be State-built houses for them, its bill for rent supplement will be so large that it cannot be a sustainable way forward. The Government will have to rethink it. We have so many issues around it. It does not look likely that we will introduce serious rent control and even if we did, it would take a couple of years before it would work properly.

The chances of us getting to grips with the housing crisis in Ireland in the next two years are almost non-existent because of the approach we are taking. I know the Government cannot provide social housing overnight, but although Rome was not built in a day, they did start it one day. We should start building houses ourselves now. I do not agree with the public private partnership model. One of the most outrageous laws in the European Union is that an EU state is not allowed to borrow money at market rates to invest in infrastructure. They insist on it going on the books. States are confined by the rules about 3% of GDP and are not allowed to escalate it. If a state borrows all this money for infrastructure, it ends up breaking EU rules.

I do not see much sense in that and I would like to hear someone make a good argument as to why the EU would not encourage investment in infrastructure. Investment in infrastructure is a powerful use of money. It is an investment in the future and it creates significant employment. Although money is so cheap - one can borrow significant sums for less than 2% on the markets - the Government will not borrow it for social housing because the EU rules do not really allow that. There are different mechanisms to get around this. They are creating little pockets where one can do different things, but how in God's name can the EU stand over the rule that the State is not allowed borrow money cheaply, keep it off the books and invest it in infrastructure? It is a no-brainer. There is no logic to not allowing it. What happens is that the State can only invest X amount in social housing or other infrastructure because it is confined by the rules. If it wants to do something else in the public sector, it must go to the public private partnerships, PPPs. PPPs are really a licence for the private sector, like vultures, to feed off the carcass of the State that cannot borrow any more money at market rate. We want the work done but we have exhausted the borrowings that we are allowed to work into the system without breaking EU rules so we must now go to the PPPs. PPPs can cost anything up to approximately the 15% mark. Thanks to EU rules, instead of the State borrowing money for less than 2%, it will give private investors 15% over a longer period of time for their investment.

I still almost feel uncomfortable using the word "neoliberal" in the House but the core of neoliberalism is the drive to privatise social services. Obviously, another aspect of it is the reduction of workers' rights and conditions. It has led us to a situation where there has been a serious increase in zero-hour contracts. Everyone throws their hands up in the air when workers, such as those in Dunnes Stores, are on the receiving end of that same philosophy. Everyone states this is not fair, but yet we go along with the neoliberal philosophy. That is why I believe that if people want fairness in Ireland, they should challenge every person who stands in the next election to state whether he or she is prepared to be part of a neoliberal grouping after the election or not. It is that important; it is crucial. Obviously, I will not get into the argument about Greece but it is part of the same argument. It is sad the way in which it has developed.

The European Union was about something else, or at least I thought it was, when it began. I thought it was about not only keeping peace in Europe and avoiding wars but about raising the living standards of people across Europe in general, in particular, on the peripheries, closer to that of those who were doing better than themselves. Sadly, as it stands, I now see neoliberalism as driving down living standards. It is reducing democracy and Greece is very much on the receiving end of it. Many in Ireland also are on the receiving end of it.

When in years to come people read the history of the period from 2008 to date, and probably later, how NAMA has operated, who has benefited from it and who is picking up the tab, they will find it hard to believe. We have serious problems and, as I keep saying, our housing crisis is not disconnected from that. The failure to build State housing now and the strategy of over-dependence on a rental market, which we are not able to control and which we will even struggle to ensure is affordable for many people, will be a massive problem. I had better let Deputy Cowen speak before he goes home.

Deputy Barry Cowen

Who said he is going home?

Rather than elaborating, I support the proposed amendment pending a better explanation from the Minister of State on what exactly is entailed. Is it that the Government proposes to levy local authorities for hoarding land, despite their best intentions to do otherwise? There must be a better and more succinct and clear way in which one can adjudicate on the local authorities' performance in their efforts to develop the lands that they have in their possession as time passes.

Specifically, I want to ask about the land aggregation scheme. Much of the land purchased by local authorities around the country was purchased at exorbitant prices but there has been an inability to both make repayments and develop those lands. Would it be possible for NAMA to give this social dividend in so far as it could make available funding to local authorities to address that issue of land that was purchased and that is now sitting in land aggregation schemes? Who is responsible, if there is to be a levy on vacant sites throughout the country? Who exactly would be responsible for those lands that are now in that scheme and that are not necessarily the responsibility of various local authorities throughout the country which purchased them with the intention of development but found themselves unable to do so without the State's backing and funding to do so? I acknowledge it may well have been, especially in the earlier years since the crash, that the funding was not readily available on the part of Government to address that but, obviously, the State has met the interest costs related to those lands.

When we hear now of the difficulties with regard to the State, more particularly, local authorities, not being able to benefit from the proceeds of NAMA, is this an opportunity whereby legislation could be brought to in to allow NAMA invest in developing these lands, among others? If there is to be a levy, will the Minister of State clarify whose responsibility it is in the case of those lands specifically within that scheme?

Debate adjourned.