Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

My series of amendments covers a number of areas, but my major concern is the get-out clause, that is, that instead of the 10% to the local authority, there is a leasing option, if I understand this correctly, so that the developer, instead of the local authority or, for that matter, a voluntary housing body, ending up with the 10%, the developers can just agree to lease this property on a long-term basis to the council. We do not get permanent social housing, we get property that is being leased by the developer. In effect, this is a way out of even the 10% requirement. They get 90% at full-market profitability for themselves and then they can lease the other 10% at market rates. Given market rates at the moment, that is a recipe for sucking local authorities dry. The money continues to pour out from the public sector to the private sector, but we do not even get something permanent to call our own social housing. I consider this an unacceptable, major get-out clause, which could store up significant costs for the public and the taxpayer, where the public coffers get sucked dry. It would be like rent allowance, but on a massive scale, sucking the local authorities dry.

The other one in this series of amendments relates to the idea that the price paid by the local authority for the 10% social housing should include a profit on the normal construction and development costs calculated at open market rates. I have a big problem with that. We are even including profit on the 10%.

They are making profit on the 90%. Is that not enough for them? We should get the 10% at cost price.