Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps I could come back on both of those points. My question about the turnkeys was not to make a case against them. I understand why they are there and as long as they are done in the right way, they make sense. The difficulty is we are not getting any cost rental in Dublin city because the cost of the turnkeys is too expensive. We cannot deliver unless the Government decides to increase the cost rental equity loan, CREL, which it has done with the affordable housing in local authorities. The only way we are going to get cost rental in Dublin city is through a pipeline of own-delivered projects on public land led by the bodies represented here today and local authorities.

My question relates to the total quantum of social and affordable housing. As it increases, albeit at a rate too slow for my liking in terms of volume, how hopeful are the witnesses that an over-reliance on turnkeys might balance out so that there would be more own-developed properties? It is not a case of one or the other but my concern is about the own-developed properties.

On equity, I should be very clear that my thinking is not that any of the approved housing bodies, either in the Housing Alliance or elsewhere, have plans to do anything with their stock other than what they are currently doing. However, given the volume of State expenditure on public housing, none of us can say what will happen when we are all retired, dead and buried and there is a new generation of Ministers and chief executives of housing associations. Therefore, it is reasonable for the State to argue that if it is putting in money, not just through a capital advance leasing facility, CALF, and CREL but also through the availability agreement for social housing, there should be some guarantee that the use cannot be changed without the consent of both holders of the equity. If the conditions of the equity were light and only on future use, my question was whether it would get the housing bodies over the gearing ratio problems with respect to private sector borrowing. My understanding is they do not have those gearing problems with the Housing Finance Agency. If the witnesses have any comments on that, I am interested in hearing them.

If there are 30 seconds left, will the witnesses comment on the P&A for rural areas? What are they hoping for in that regard?