Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I am somewhat mystified by the Bill because we are discussing it in the context of two ongoing processes. First, we have the biggest housing emergency in the history of the State and we urgently need social housing on a mass scale. Second, house prices are rising faster than they did during the boom. What is being proposed in this Bill will reduce the proportion of social housing from 20% to 10%. Why is it proposed to take affordable housing out of these planning permissions given that house prices are rising faster than they have for years? It is suggested that the requirement to build affordable housing is too much of a burden on developers. Why would that matter to the developer if he or she is getting a price for the housing? Most of the affordable housing was supplied through the local authorities, which took the hit for the claw back.

The Bill also provides for an off-site option. I saw how this was applied when I was a councillor in Fingal. I live in Mulhuddart, which has the highest concentration of social housing in one square mile. However, there is very little social housing in Castleknock or Malahide. The Bill proposes that the off-site option would only be permitted in exceptional cases or where there is insufficient social housing demand at the location of the proposed development. People in Killiney or Malahide might say there is not much demand for social housing. We will continue to see social housing being built in certain areas but not in others. That is the end of mixed tenure.

I am probably in a unique situation in that I live in a mixed estate of 700 units. The estate is a mixed private, social and affordable housing development and, in fairness to Fingal County Council, nobody knows who lives in what unit. Why is that concept being dropped? Part V was ineffective. It only delivered 15,000 units between 2002 and 2011, or 2.5% of all houses built. However, it delivered a higher number of affordable housing for people who, like me, were single and unable to buy in the market. Surely we need more housing of this nature. Why is that provision being removed?

The development levies, which we were told were urgently needed to provide community centres, etc., are being reduced. I see in this Bill a continuation of our reliance on and worship of private developers in the belief that somehow they will solve the social housing situation. Senator Hayden estimated that 45,000 houses would have been built under the old scheme if it had been properly enforced. If this policy was in place, it would have delivered 15,000 units. It is an easing of the compulsion on developers to provide social and affordable housing.

What is the basis for the claim that house prices have fallen? House prices are rocketing. The Bill is premised on the notion on the notion that we no longer need affordable housing. I might have agreed with that five years ago, when I saw estates in which social housing could not be sold because it was cheaper to find housing on the private market. That is no longer the case. It is certainly not the case if we are to build mixed housing in areas where the demand is high.

This confirms my opinion that old-style public housing construction, which involved councils being given the money to build social and affordable housing, is needed. These kinds of schemes will deliver very little for the people out there who are desperate. As public representatives, we deal with such people in our clinics every day. I think we need compulsory purchasing of sites that are not being used. We should forget about trying to incentivise these people. Compulsory purchase orders should be used. There is an absolutely dire social crisis out there. It is an unbelievable crisis. I will not even bother going into the types of cases we are coming across here. Surely we need to take extraordinarily radical measures, such as acquiring sites that are not being used and providing compensation at a minimal rate. We should give money to councils to build.

I was very disappointed to hear that we are going to see more rental accommodation scheme-type houses or more leasing of houses. I thought that council houses and social houses would be provided to people. We all know about the instability. We know a load of people who are being evicted from rental accommodation scheme houses right now. Their landlords want to sell those houses in a rising housing market. People are being made homeless. This is adding to the instability. Not only is the current approach disappointing, but in addition it is based on the wrong premise that house prices are falling. They are not.