Colette Kelleher (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am also interested in the type and the equation. A total of 10% of social housing seems to be a bad deal, given the large size of the giveaway. There is also the question of what is affordable. A great debate is ongoing about whether €310,000 is affordable but I do not believe that it is for people on an average wage. What are our guests' views on the definition of "affordable"?

If it is not a matter of 10% social, 30% affordable and 60% market, do our guests believe we could move to a higher proportion of social and affordable in that policy? How do we ensure we get the correct mix out of the giveaway of public lands to the LDA? According to the summary of social housing assessments in 2018, 47% of the 72,000 households on local authority waiting lists are single-person households. Of the more than 10,000 people who are homeless, just over 4,000 are single. The national Housing First implementation plan, published last year, requires an additional 750 to 800 one-bedroom properties in order that people can move out of hostels and those places that are not good for anybody. Housing First provides immediate access. How do we ensure that in the transfer of land we all own today, the goals we need are achieved? Should the aim of balancing a return to the State be dropped? Is the only objective achieving the type of housing we need?

On permanent affordability, I like the idea but wonder what law needs to be in place to ensure that is the outcome of the transfer? I am interested in the ownership and the retention of a State interest. In Singapore, where the state built significant amounts of housing, it retained a lease. There was a 99-year lease on any properties bought as a result of subsidised mortgages. Leasing was raised by both ESRI and the NESC. I am interested in the idea, given that the State would not give away everything but rather retain an interest. Perhaps we should consider models such as Vienna and Freiberg. I would imagine that the market portion of the mix in such places would not be 60% and it would need to be adjusted.

I would like to hear the witnesses' responses to the questions I have raised.