Dr. Tom Healy:

There were a lot of questions. I will try to deal with them as quickly as possible. The first related to how long this would take and how it would be done in light of the culture that exists. The culture is very much that people should buy their own homes and that if they are renting long term in the local authority sector, they should have the right to buy their own homes. That is something we will have to rethink, as is the idea that a sprawling, low-density city is still possible and feasible. Paris city would fit well within the perimeters of our M50 and families can live there without the need, necessarily, for private transport. There are public facilities and services. I am not saying it is easy for people to live in those sorts of cities, but it is possible. There is an excellent public transport system of course.

The problem right now is that houses and apartments are being built in all sorts of places well outside Dublin. While there is nothing wrong with that, one has to ask where the commuter trains, extra tracks, bus corridors and other facilities, including medical and educational, are. Water is a major issue in parts of north County Dublin. It may be connected to recent new housing developments, I do not know, but there is clearly a need to look at all these things in the round. That is where local authorities and other public agencies have a crucial role to play. The housing needs of asset fund managers are not the top social priority right now in Ireland, but we should take note that 55% of asset fund managers polled recently in the UK said they were preparing to redomicile to the Republic of Ireland within five years of Brexit. One might ask what that has to do with Inchicore, the East Wall or Ringsend, but, in fact, it is a significant issue because it will place huge upward pressure on the demand for accommodation in Dublin city areas.

To get to the point, in our proposal on cost rental, we suggest the establishment of a single entity to be called the "Housing Company of Ireland". It could, of course, could be called any number of things. This company would sit beside and outside general government at central and local level and could do the work of designing, commissioning, building and maintaining services over time. It would gradually build up in terms of new builds as well as in terms of converting existing property also. The potential for the latter is limited, but it is there, in particular in some urban areas. The point touched on by the people from NESC is that this is a potential game changer. However, that does not mean it can happen overnight. It will take five, ten, 15 or even 20 years of cultural shift. We have to realise that we are grappling with 40 years of bad social policy, starting with the sidelining of the Kenny report in 1974 and the implications that has had for land values and land management over four decades, the dropping of a modest proposal to tax vacant sites in the 2014 budget and the policy of gradual withdrawal of the public sphere from housing. This problem did not begin in 2008, rather it goes back to at least the mid-1980s when, mirroring developments in the UK, local authorities withdrew significantly from the supply of housing. We need to unravel those unwise policy choices, which will take time.

I will comment briefly on the question of affordability raised by Deputy Coppinger. This is important. Clearly, we are not suggesting one single rent level for everyone. There is a possibility, which my colleague Mr. Goldrick-Kelly can discuss further, of cross-subsidisation whereby families with higher incomes could pay a somewhat higher rent level, still below the market rate. That would enable other families or individuals to pay a bit less. It is undoubtedly the case, however, that some form of subsidy would be required for households on very low or modest incomes. It would be a better use, frankly, of the housing assistance payment to apply it for that purpose than to continue with the existing arrangement where the Exchequer is, in effect, subsidising private landlords in a market that is out of control.