Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Jun 2015

Vol. 882 No. 3

Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill 2015: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The primary background to this Bill is the housing supply shortage, which is one of the most pressing and important challenges facing society and the Government. This supply shortage is especially acute in Dublin, where demand for housing well outstrips supply and has done for a number of years, with consequential knock-on effects for house prices and rents, which impacts negatively on thousands of households.

As Members will be aware, in May 2014 the Government published a comprehensive Construction 2020 strategy for a renewed construction sector encompassing 75 specific actions aimed at addressing issues in the property and construction sectors and at ensuring any critical bottlenecks that might impede the sector in meeting residential demand, as well as non-residential commercial demand, are addressed. I have responsibility for co-ordinating the implementation of the Construction 2020 strategy on behalf of the Government, which is central to restoration of growth in our economy and growth in employment. The construction sector is one of the sectors which was most adversely affected by the economic downturn. In line with the significant decrease in employment in the sector, the level of housing completions has also reduced significantly since the downturn. To put this in context, at the peak of construction activity in 2006, more than 93,000 houses were built nationally, which in hindsight was an unsustainably high level, with 19,000 of these being built in Dublin.

By 2013 the number of housing completions had plummeted to a mere 8,000 units nationally, with just 1,200 of these being constructed in Dublin, an unsustainably low level of completions. We need to reverse this scenario and generate increased activity, with a view to increasing the number of house completions over a number of years in order to return to market equilibrium, where housing supply equals demand and where the sector operates at a more sustainable level in line with what one would expect in a well performing economy.

Since publication of the Construction 2020 strategy last year, we have begun to see some positive signs of recovery in the sector. The number of housing completions rose to 11,000 nationally in 2014, an increase of 30% on the 2013 figure, with just over 3,000 of these completions being in Dublin, while a further increase in activity is expected in the current year. However, we still have some way to go to overcome the current housing supply shortage. Taking account of household formation patterns which are changing, recent studies have estimated that in order to meet projected housing demand, we need to be building approximately 25,000 houses nationally on an annual basis, with between 8,000 and 10,000 of these being completed in Dublin.

Further to action 2 of the Construction 2020 strategy, a housing supply co-ordination task force for Dublin, comprising representatives of the four Dublin local authorities and other relevant stakeholders, was established, with an immediate focus on addressing supply-related issues in the Dublin area. The initial report of the group indicates that there are sufficient existing planning permissions or applications with no insurmountable infrastructural deficits with the potential, if acted on by developers, to supply almost 21,000 residential units in the Dublin area. The challenge now is to ensure the stock of existing permissions is activated and the associated housing supply materialises. While some of the barriers to activating these permissions appear to be financial and economic, the measures included in the Bill are designed to ensure perceived barriers to housing supply from a planning perspective will be addressed. These measures will not on their own solve the housing supply problems which are, unquestionably, multifaceted and require a broad-ranging co-ordinated approach, but the intention is that they will help to make a start in addressing these problems.

The main provisions in the Bill relate to amendments to the Part V provisions of the Planning and Development Acts to support the provision of social housing; the introduction of revised arrangements for the application of development contributions by planning authorities; and the introduction of a new measure, a vacant site levy, to incentivise the development of vacant, under-utilised sites in urban areas for housing and regeneration purposes. These main provisions are set out in five Parts, comprising 36 sections in total.

Part 1 of the Bill, sections 1 and 2, contains standard provisions dealing with the Short Title of the Bill, collective citation with existing planning Acts, construction and commencement. It also incorporates some standard definitions.

Part 2 which forms a substantial part of the Bill comprises sections 3 to 26, inclusive, and relates to the proposed introduction of a vacant site levy to incentivise the development of vacant sites in central urban areas for housing and regeneration purposes. This proposal follows from action 23 of the Construction 2020 strategy.

In other areas of interaction between public policy making for the common good and property rights the courts have determined that private property rights may be counterbalanced where there is a need to address matters of pressing or compelling concern and the wider community good. Examples in this regard include the Derelict Sites Act 1990, the derelict site levy and the Part V provisions of the Planning and Development Acts relating to social and affordable housing. In effect, there is already a legal precedent for measures of this nature impacting on private property which are socially desirable and in the overall common good.

The Bill contains number of changes to the vacant site levy provisions compared to the general scheme which was published some months ago, all of which are intended to make the provisions as fair, reasonable and proportionate as possible. Essentially, it now proposes that, from 1 January 2019, planning authorities will be empowered to apply an annual vacant site levy of 3% to the market value of vacant sites which a planning authority has determined were vacant or idle in the preceding year. The sites liable to the levy will be in designated areas identified by the planning authority in its development or local area plan for residential or regeneration development.

Section 3 provides for definitions of terms used in the context of the vacant site levy provisions such as "housing", "market value" and "owner". Section 4 outlines that the vacant site levy provisions shall apply to residential or regeneration land, other than land owned by a local authority for housing purposes.

Section 5 is central to the vacant site levy provisions in that it provides for the definition of a vacant site which shall be residential or regeneration land as zoned by a planning authority in its local development or local area plan. In the case of residential land, this means a site in an area where there is a need for housing which is suitable for the provision of housing and is vacant. In the case of regeneration land, it means a site that is vacant and has an adverse effect on the existing amenities or character of the area. A vacant site will be any area of land exceeding 0.1 ha but which does not include a structure that is a person's home.

Rather than go through the remaining sections of the vacant site levy provisions individually, sections 6 to 26, inclusive, which are quite complex and detailed, I will instead give a summary of the provisions in order that Deputies can obtain a better understanding of how the proposed scheme will operate.

Beginning on 1 January 2017, a planning authority shall establish and maintain a register of sites, the vacant sites register, of lands zoned for residential or regeneration use which, in the planning authority's opinion, were vacant sites during the preceding year. Before 1 June 2018, a planning authority shall issue a notice to the owner of a vacant site included in its respective vacant sites register indicating that such site owner shall be charged a levy in respect of 2018 in January 2019, with such charge to be continued every year thereafter until the site is no longer vacant. A planning authority shall, as soon as possible after the entry of a site on the vacant sites register and at least every three years thereafter, determine the market value of a vacant site and serve notice on the owner of the site of the valuation, or revised valuation, of the site in question which may be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. A planning authority, or the Valuation Tribunal on appeal, may, where it considers it appropriate, deem that a vacant site has a zero market value where there is no market for the site or it is on contaminated land and the estimated necessary remediation costs in order to use or develop it exceed its market value. With effect from 1 January 2019 and every year thereafter, a planning authority shall, in respect of the preceding year, charge a vacant site levy of 3% of the market value of a site on the owner of each site included in its vacant site register, which shall be payable on demand or by instalments if agreed by the planning authority.

To help to alleviate the financial burden faced by the owners of vacant sites which are subject to a site loan, a zero rate of levy shall apply if the outstanding amount of the site loan is greater than the market value of the vacant site on the date of its determination. This is to address site owners in negative equity who may have purchased sites in the boom years. Where the outstanding amount of the site loan is between 75% and 100% of the market value of the vacant site on the date of its determination, a reduced rate of 0.75% shall apply. Where the outstanding amount of the site loan is between 50% and 75% of the market value of the vacant site on the date of its determination, a 1.5% rate shall apply. The vacant site levy shall remain a charge on the relevant land until it is paid. Where there is a change in ownership of a vacant site, or the owner of a site dies, the amount of levy chargeable on such sites in respect of that year or the previous year shall be zero. This shall not apply where ownership of the vacant site transfers from one company to an associated company, to another member of the family, other than on the death of the owner, or for the principal purpose of avoiding the obligation to pay the vacant site levy. The vendor of a vacant site on the register shall, before the completion of a sale of the site, pay to the relevant planning authority any vacant site levy due in respect of that site. Moneys received by a planning authority in respect of a vacant site levy shall be spent by it on the provision of housing or the regeneration of the area. Regeneration expenditure can include the preservation and protection of structures of special architectural, historical or cultural interest, the provision or improvement of educational, recreational or cultural facilities for the local community and projects or works to improve local shopping streets and business areas.

In line with fair procedures, numerous opportunities are provided for site owners to make submissions and appeals to planning authorities, An Bord Pleanála and the Valuation Tribunal on the proposed inclusion of a site in the vacant sites register, the annual notices of levy liability, the market valuation arrived at for a site and the annual demand for payment of the levy.

Part 3 comprises just one section, section 27. This amends section 23 of the Derelict Sites Act 1990 to provide that a derelict site levy shall not be payable in respect of any land in respect of which the vacant site levy is payable under the Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill, when enacted. That is to ensure a double payment situation does not arise in respect of the vacant site levy or derelict site levy.

Part 4 deals with two separate issues, namely, local authority development plans and development contribution charges applied by local authorities. With regard to development plans, section 10(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 outlines the objectives that planning authorities are required to take into account in the preparation and adoption of development plans for their respective areas. Those include the zoning of land for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational and other uses in line with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area; the provision of necessary infrastructure to facilitate development; and the preservation of structures of historical interest as well as the character of the landscape of the area.

Section 28 amends section 10(2) of the 2000 Act to provide that the current objective incorporated in a development plan for the development and renewal of areas in need of regeneration should be broadened to provide that such objective should be for the explicit purpose of preventing adverse effects on existing amenities in such areas, urban blight and decay, anti-social behaviour, or a shortage of habitable houses or land suitable for residential use or a mixture of residential or other uses. This amendment is necessary to support the vacant site levy provisions - elaborating on the principles and policies relating to the levy - and outlines the basis for identifying lands as being in need of regeneration for the purposes of being so designated in a local development plan.

With regard to development contribution charges, these are generally used towards the provision of necessary public infrastructure such as new roads, footpaths, lighting, open spaces and car parking to service new developments. In line with action 14 of the Construction 2020 strategy, section 29 amends section 48 of the 2000 Act to provide that where a new development contribution scheme is adopted by a planning authority to provide for reduced development contribution levies compared with those which were in place under the previous development scheme, the reduced development contributions under the newly adopted scheme shall have retrospective effect for existing planning permissions that have yet to be activated. In addition, section 29 provides that where there are unsold housing units in a development, the new lower development contribution scheme shall also apply to those unsold housing units.

Section 30 amends section 49 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to provide that the arrangements in relation to reduced development contributions will also apply in respect of supplementary development contribution schemes which are sometimes deployed for the purpose of facilitating a particular infrastructure project in a local authority area such as a new motorway intersection which will directly benefit the development on which it is imposed. These changes to the development contribution provisions should assist in reducing costs for developers, make developments more economically viable and influence developments to be brought forward sooner than might otherwise be the case and at a lower cost, which is critical in terms of improving housing supply.

The final Part of the Bill, Part 5, relates to amendments to the existing Part V provisions in the Planning and Development Act 2000 concerning social and affordable housing. In this regard, action 9 of the Construction 2020 strategy called for a review of the Part V requirements with a view to ensuring it is delivering as intended, and the bringing forward of any legislative changes deemed necessary. In this regard, the original Part V housing supply provisions in section 93 of the 2000 Act have played a significant role in the delivery of social and affordable housing since their introduction. There are many people in good quality housing today as a result of the Part V mechanisms. Furthermore, Part V has been successful in delivering social integration and more sustainable mixed tenure developments throughout the country. That was one of the of the positive outcomes of the original Part V arrangements. However, the economic context within which the original Part V provisions were developed in 2000 has changed, as has the mix of housing need. The capacity of Part V to deliver on its objectives is related to the level of housing construction activity. Accordingly, since the downturn and the decreased construction activity associated with it, Part V has delivered very little in terms of social housing in recent years. Notwithstanding that, in the context of a recovering housing market and increasing housing construction activity, it is considered that the Part V mechanism, with appropriate adjustments, has the potential to again be a significant contributor to future social housing provision. From the Government's perspective, it remains proper that the gain to developers derived from the planning system should contribute towards meeting the housing needs of citizens, including those on local authority housing lists.

Informed by an extensive public consultation process and an in-depth review of the Part V provisions, the Bill provides for a series of amendments to the operation of the Part V provisions, with the principal objectives of enhancing the economic viability of developments, maximising the opportunity for the delivery of social housing units, securing the principle of integrated mixed tenure developments, and addressing weaknesses in aspects of the existing legislation identified in a number of court judgments. The proposed provisions will also be a key component of the range of delivery mechanisms that will be required to achieve the targets set out in the Government's Social Housing Strategy 2020. My Department estimates that in the region of 4,000 additional social housing units will be delivered by 2020 using the new Part V provisions which will be a significant contribution to the ambitious social housing targets set out in the strategy. Upon enactment of the Bill, the new Part V arrangements can also be retrospectively applied to existing planning permissions where works have not commenced. In the operation of the revised Part V arrangements, the priority will be to secure social housing units on site. The current practice of developers making cash payments in lieu of social housing is to be discontinued.

I will now outline the key changes to Part V in some more detail. Section 31 amends section 94 of the 2000 Act by requiring a planning authority to consult approved housing bodies in its functional area in the preparation of its housing strategy and to have regard to relevant housing policies of the Government or any Minister. It also halves to 10%, from 20%, the percentage of land that must be provided for social and affordable housing in a housing development.

With regard to affordable housing, Deputies will be aware that the general scheme of the Bill, as published some months ago, proposed that the existing statutory provisions relating to affordable housing would be removed from the Statute Book. However, after further consideration, in particular following the contributions made during the scrutiny of the general scheme by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, the Government now proposes that the existing statutory provisions relating to affordable housing will be retained in the Planning and Development Act in order that when the current acute need for social housing has been met, it may be possible to reintroduce the affordability aspect into the Part V arrangements when and if required. Up to now, Part V has been perceived as an inefficient process which caused difficulties for developers and local authorities alike. Under the existing arrangements, any Part V agreements are required to be reached within an eight-week period, but in practice that was rarely achieved. Accordingly, section 33(1)(a) will now require a Part V agreement to be reached between the developer and the local authority prior to the commencement of works on a development. That is to be notified by the lodgement of a commencement notice to the planning authority by a developer, which will reduce the opportunity for negotiations to become protracted beyond commencement stage, as has generally occurred up to now.

Sections 33 and 34 amend the options contained in section 96 of the 2000 Act with a view to maximising the provision of completed social housing units by a developer. The transfer of land to a local authority for the provision of social housing will remain the default option, as is currently the case. However, the option of making a cash payment to a local authority in lieu of social housing is being removed, as is the option of providing sites or land elsewhere. The transfer of completed social housing units off-site on other lands, however, will be allowed in specific circumstances, for instance, where there is insufficient social housing demand at the location of the proposed development and where there is greater need at another location. Provision is also being made for the Part V obligation to be fulfilled by developers through long-term leasing of properties and rental accommodation availability agreements.

The complexity and ambiguity of some wording within the original Act has resulted in several significant court cases.

Accordingly, a number of technical amendments are being provided take account of court judgments and practical difficulties reported in the operation of Part V. These include the provision of greater clarity on the meaning of terms such as "attributable costs" and "equivalent monetary value". These amendments are intended to improve the Part V negotiation process for all parties. Section 36 amends section 97 of the original Act of 2000 to provide that the social and affordable housing obligations on developers shall in future apply only in respect of developments consisting of ten or more houses. Currently, developers are exempted from Part V obligations in respect of developments consisting of four or fewer houses.

On Committee Stage, I will bring forward a number of technical amendments primarily relating to the Part V provisions which are required to remove any doubt regarding the application of provisions relating to the charging of rents. The Bill contains a number of fundamental, important and necessary revisions to the Planning Act of 2000, all emanating from the Government's Construction 2020 strategy and all aimed at increasing housing supply. The amendments to the Part V provisions and those providing for reduced development contributions will in particular help in reducing costs for developers and removing disincentives to construction, thereby making developments more economically viable and helping to increase housing supply. As a major employer, the performance of our construction sector is central to Ireland's economic recovery and well-being, and the measures in the Bill should assist in stimulating jobs in the construction sector, as well as in the manufacturing, retail and professional sectors that it supports.

The other main measure proposed in the Bill, the vacant site levy, has a positive objective to incentivise the development of vacant, underutilised lands for housing and for regeneration with a view to breathing life back into designated urban areas and addressing urban decay. All the measures proposed in the Bill - the Part V revisions, reduced development contributions and the vacant site levy - are socially and economically desirable and serve the overall common good. I commend the Bill to the House and would like it to refer it to the Select Sub-Committee on the Environment, Community and Local Government.

While many elements of the Bill are welcome, we will oppose it unless amendments are accepted that protect and maintain Part V obligations at 20%. I urgently request sufficient time for a meaningful debate on housing in general. Inaction or poor action on the part of the Government has sleepwalked the State into a housing crisis that many would describe as a national scandal. Up to 100,000 people are on housing waiting lists and it is not necessarily a true reflection of the real housing needs. Despite the fact that we might not agree wholeheartedly with everything the Minister of State says, he was right to say that housing is in short supply. The rental sector is in crisis. More than 1,000 children live in emergency accommodation in Dublin and beyond. Although there is massive demand for social and private housing, there is no supply.

There are people in rental accommodation who can barely get by and who cannot and will not, in their present circumstances, qualify for a mortgage or, more alarmingly and worryingly, for a local authority housing list. They cannot necessarily qualify for rent allowance, housing assistance payment or rental assistance schemes. In other words, the State is providing no solution for them. Another cohort of people is those in severe mortgage difficulty who, we have recently been told, have been asked to sacrifice their homes in exchange for an assurance from their financial institutions that they will not be pursued for the negative equity. This is based on the assumption that they qualify for social housing and are placed on a local authority housing list. The problem is, they do not and will not qualify for the housing lists. Many Deputies regularly meet people in this bind.

Yesterday, 60% of those who visited my clinics had housing issues. One couple told me they were paying €650 per month in rent with one person working and earning €35,000 per year and three children. They have the costs associated with rearing and seeking to provide a home for those three children, including school, medical expenses, transport, clothes, food and heat. They are on the bread line and depend on family for assistance. They ask what solution, resolution, options or prospect they have of being assisted by the State. Would it not be right and proper for them to qualify for a local authority house that might cost approximately €300 in rent per month? This would ease the burden on them and the locality in which they reside by offering €300 extra into the local economy. However, there is no available mechanism by which they can be helped or resourced by the State, given that the qualifying income for such a couple to be eligible for a housing list, irrespective of their personal outgoings and the percentage of their income available to put towards rent, is €28,000. These figures have not been amended since 2011, although the crisis has worsened to a great extent since then. This is just one example. There are many others, which we could all relate.

The problem is that we are considering old solutions and ways of doing things and not asking everybody who is in here with a responsibility to provide solutions to engage in a meaningful debate that might bring about resolutions and proposals on which everybody could agree and for which funding could be sought. This is the greatest, gravest issue facing society. I am not alone in my constituency. The Government's proposals to deal with the issue in Offaly as regards the Government, Department or local authorities being funded in a way in which they can provide units is 33 over the next three years. There is a waiting list of over 2,000, and that is just those who qualify. As I said earlier, if 100,000 people are on housing lists, there is a forgotten cohort that should also be on a housing list or be in a position to be helped, resourced and accommodated by the State. That could bring it up to 150,000. In the county I represent, it would probably increase the list to 3,000. Meanwhile, the State plans to provide 33 units. This is why the House needs to have a serious debate.

As I said earlier, we accept and support many elements of the Bill, however there must be a greater holistic approach to this problem, crisis and scandal. There must be a twin-track approach by private and public sectors. Whether people like it or not, the Government must offer solutions to allow the private sector to provide homes.

The pillar banks are not in a position to lend or they are not willing to lend. We were promised a strategic investment bank. A home investment bank should also be established to finance housing construction.

The proposal to reduce the 20% social housing obligation to 10% to encourage private developers does not go far enough. If we do nothing about the people to whom I referred, they will remain hidden from the statistics and reports brought before the House, and they will be forgotten. This crisis needs a radical response. It is not good enough to provide 33 units when there is a need for 2,200 in my county alone. The Government was aware of the problems in the public finances when it came to power. It promised that things would be done differently and that it would not necessarily follow the programmes developed by the previous Government in rectifying the public finances. As it turned out, it did much the same as its predecessor despite giving the impression that it would find a softer and easier way. During the first four years of its term, it allowed the housing crisis escalate into a national scandal. We need to take a two-pronged approach to this crisis. The Government needs to be proactive in encouraging private development.

There are regular announcements on building programmes that will not have the necessary impact. We should have the opportunity to analyse and debate proposals to solve the crisis. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Coffey, should be available to respond to suggestions made in this House and his own proposals need to subjected to scrutiny in order that the public can be assured that everything is being done to address what has become a scandal. We have a housing crisis, a rental crisis and a lack of supply. We have heard the rhetoric in recent months but there is no recognition of the scale or human cost of this scandal because many of the people who should be included in the statistics are being ignored and forgotten. I ask the Minister of State to broaden the debate by setting aside time for Members on all sides of the House to bring forward proposals that he and his officials might, in their wisdom, implement sooner rather than later.

The amendment to Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is my main bone of contention with this Bill. I wholeheartedly disagree with the proposal to reduce the social housing obligation on developers from 20% to 10%, although I agree with the proposal to end the practice of cash in lieu. Between 2005 and 2011, Part V provisions yielded up to 15,000 units. That is no mean feat. The provision could have delivered more to the State, however, and with the necessary tweaks it will deliver more. I agree with the proposal to double the threshold from five to ten units before Part V becomes applicable. I do not agree with the proposal to remove the option of providing affordable housing. It should be a matter for local authorities to measure the availability of housing in their area against the demands on the waiting list. Affordable housing could help those who are not eligible for local authority housing because of their income levels. We will debate the need to amend these income thresholds on another occasion, but in the meantime, people who do not qualify for social housing might be able to purchase affordable housing with the assistance of local authority or private sector loans. The Government should also investigate the potential of a home development bank to address these issues.

I support the vacant site levy in principle but we may bring amendments to the provision to reflect the differences between country towns and large cities. I am conscious of how many towns and villages were decimated because of the loss of retail trade and commercial activity and depend on outlying sites for the residential development they require. Local authorities need to be more adventurous in their development plans and more lenient in their zoning to allow mixed residential development on such sites. Existing derelict site legislation already allows local authorities to deal with properties, for example, by resolving any title issues that might be acting as an obstacle to development. I do not think they have made sufficient use of the existing legislation but I would welcome the provisions in this Bill if they strengthen their hand in this regard. I will be consulting local authorities in the coming days and weeks to find out why they have not used the existing legislation to deal with the problems of dereliction that exist in many of our towns and villages. Local authorities have made only limited use of compulsory purchase orders in recent years. When I first became a councillor 20 years ago, there was much more activity at a time when there were fewer residential developments. Perhaps we are in a similar situation now. There is an onus on the State and local authorities to assist towns and villages which are struggling to regain their vitality. The Government needs to provide the funding required to regenerate these areas.

I welcome the provisions allowing local authorities to reduce development charges retrospectively to encourage development. Local authorities will be able to reduce development charges on sites with existing planning permission. This provision was introduced after a number of representations were made. While I welcome many aspects of the Bill, I hope a more holistic approach will be taken. Perhaps the Minister of State will elaborate on his proposals in this regard. However, I would not kowtow to representations from CIF on this provision as a one-size-fits-all solution. I received representations from a private company which is seeking to construct housing for the elderly which would allow people to trade down.

It told me that the 20% obligation in the mix would not be right. We have many elderly people on the housing list, too, who need accommodation to meet their current situation, which was not the case some years earlier. I acknowledge that it would be wrong for them to be disbarred from being in a community such as the private sector is providing.

We have made proposals to assist developers in that area. For example, we would have a reduced capital gains tax for people who sell their homes to buy a home such as that when trading down. We would go further and have no property tax for five years to enable people to do so. That in itself is an incentive for people to make such a move. In doing so, they are leaving bigger homes available to those who wish to trade up. There must be a wider effort by the Government to adopt a parallel, twin-track approach to address these issues.

Against that background, however, I commend the Minister of State on those elements of the Bill which I support. I hope that on Committee Stage we can debate, scrutinise and analyse the contents of the Bill with a view to gaining more universal support for it. Ultimately, we will be able to produce a Bill that is more effective and will meet the thrust of what the Minister of State set out in initially proposing the legislation.

I respectfully ask the Minister of State to use his influence with his colleagues to provide time for a more wide-ranging debate on the current crisis in the housing sector, including rented property.

I call Deputy Dessie Ellis who has until 7.30 p.m.

Tá 30 nóiméad agam, ach táim ag roinnt mo chuid ama leis an Teachta Michael Colreavy.

Tá rudaí maithe sa Bhille seo, ach tá an Bille an-lag ar fad i dtaca le Páirt V agus in áiteanna eile agus sin an fáth go bhfuilim ag vótáil ina choinne.

This Bill contains some positive steps which could be a lot stronger in some places but are none the less welcome. Unfortunately though, as in most cases when the Government gets something right in a Bill, it generally also gets something horribly wrong which is tacked on to the legislation making it unacceptable to the Opposition.

The reform or further gutting of Part V in the Bill is just such a horrible mistake. Part V as it currently operates is a weakened version of the system introduced by Fianna Fáil. It was already in effect halved by this Government when it ended the affordable housing scheme in 2011. That scheme allowed local authorities to provide homes built by private developers for purchase by low-income families at below the market rate. This was a good scheme which worked well for many people priced out of the market who could never hope to avail of social housing as currently constituted. The original intent of Part V was much stronger than the one which finally made it onto the Statute Book.

The scheme was flawed but was positive overall, despite the potential for misuse. Developers building five or more homes would have to provide 10% for social housing and 10% for affordable housing from that development. Local authorities are not just given these properties, of course, as they pay a price based on the apparent cost of the construction and land. This works out at below the market rate and represents a recoupment of expenses for the developer. When it worked, Part V provided mixed communities of council tenants, low-income families, and middle and higher-income families as well.

However, it did not work when councils abused the system of contributions which could be paid to them instead of providing the housing. Developers also liked this option as they sometimes wanted to keep council tenants or lower-income families out of particular developments. Alternatively, they sometimes offered other places for these homes to be built, thus completely undermining the scheme's intention of ensuring these would be mixed communities.

Despite these problems, thousands of homes were provided for social and affordable housing in the eight or so years during which Part V was fully operational. The ending of the affordable housing scheme caused an imbalance in the provisions of Part V. As a result, developers were only required to provide 10% social housing. This halving of the requirements on developers needed to be addressed. However, in its planned reforms the Government not only failed to do that but also gutted the entire provision, potentially making it almost meaningless.

If the Government reforms pass, they will move Part V away from being a provision to ensure developers provide for low-income families in need of a home. It will become a scheme for the recoupment of some expenses by developers while they pretend to be contributing to a solution to the housing crisis. The new system removes the 10% affordable housing requirement, which addresses its suspension, but it also undermines the 10% requirement for social housing. The Labour Party may claim that a success has been achieved in removing the potential for a get-out clause in the form of contributions, but the get-out clause has simply been redefined. Now developers will not have to sell their properties for below market rates, but simply enter into social leasing agreements and have their properties returned to them in time, potentially with renovation costs covered by councils at a later date, as can happen in social leasing agreements. This means that the 10% social housing provision is not all that it seems. It is not a provision for social housing at all but simply provides more properties for tenants receiving rent support payments while not increasing the social housing stock by a single unit.

With rental properties in such short supply, any extra homes for low-income families are welcome, but not at the expense of providing real social housing owned by local authorities and rented to tenants from waiting lists. Some 90,000 families are on those waiting lists and more than 1,000 children are in emergency accommodation. We need much stronger requirements on developers, not weaker ones.

This Bill will also mean that many developers who were previously required to contribute to Part V will no longer have to do so. In the past, any development numbering more than four homes had to provide for social and affordable housing. Now it will only apply to developments of ten or more homes. If the Government was serious about getting developers to contribute to a solution to the housing crisis, it would be strengthening Part V, not making it weaker and less far-reaching.

Under this Government the new scheme will apply to fewer developments, require half the homes, and will lead to costly leasing agreements in many cases which result in no increase in housing stock for councils. Ending contributions to get-out clauses is not good enough if one is just going to open up more get-out clauses and exemptions.

This reform also presents a major challenge to the Government. If it is serious about providing more housing from this scheme, the Government will need to ensure councils have funding to buy these homes when they become available. Councils with long waiting lists must be provided with funds to purchase available homes. A situation cannot be allowed to arise where councils are passing on homes for purchase and renting them through social leasing instead. We have already spent nearly €500 million subsidising landlords and developers through the rental accommodation scheme, rent supplement, housing assistance payment and other leasing agreements.

The main point of this Bill is one which I welcome, having called for such a measure in the past. A vacant site levy would be a positive move in encouraging the use of land which is zoned for housing, although it could be stronger. My major issue with it is the timeframe because the planned introduction of this levy is simply too far in the future. If the levy was at a very high rate I could understand the long lead-in period, as it might act as a more effective stick to move developers into action before the charge ever comes into place. The levy is very fair and reasonable, however, and I fear that too many developers will pay it for a period and delay putting their property into use. We are in the midst of a very serious housing crisis.

Simply put, we cannot tolerate any longer developers allowing property which could provide housing to lie unused.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn