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

I have no issue with the information as presented, but the Minister of State has not addressed my question, which related to section 19 specifically. Let me explain it with a little more clarity. When the ESRI did its study in 2019, which was based on the census figures from 2016, the terms of reference for that work were not decided by the ESRI, but by the Department. I know this because I have met the ESRI, I have gone through the ESRI report and we have discussed this at some length. The 2019 study is a good piece of work and the ESRI did exactly what it was asked to do under the terms of reference, so nothing I am saying is a criticism of the integrity of that research, but under the terms of reference, the ESRI was not allowed to examine what we call pent-up demand. This demand is not new household formation, which is what the headship category deals with, or people coming into the country, be they returning Irish or folk from other parts of the world; it is the unmet demand in the system at the point in time the survey is being done.

The problem is that the census data does not properly capture pent-up demand because it does not ask that question. There are some relevant elements in the census, for example, the number of people in their 20s and 30s who are living at home and how that number changes over time, but that is not a full consideration in and of itself.

When I met the ESRI about this matter last year and asked whether it would be possible to model an accurate projection of current pent-up demand, the ESRI said it would be but that it had not been considered in its previous report. From what the Minister of State has said, it is not being considered in this report either. It is not the same as headship and new household formation. It is very different.

I am not asking why pent-up demand is not included in the ESRI report, although that is an important question. Rather, in the absence of it being explicitly listed in section 19, the Government is now being allowed to do what it did in 2019, that being not including pent-up demand or unmet demand in the ESRI’s terms of reference. Why is the issue of pent-up or existing demand not included in section 19(2)? Why is it not explicitly referenced in sections 20 and 21 in respect of the review of the national planning framework that is being undertaken currently? Does the Minister of State not accept that, just like the 2019 ESRI report based on the 2016 census and the inadequate terms of reference given to the ESRI by the Government, chronically underestimated new need for housing is one of the reasons the Government has been so widely criticised by all independent experts, the industry and the Opposition for having macro targets in the housing plan that are too low? If the Government repeats the same mistake – from what the Minister of State has said, it sounds like it will – any revision of the underlying population growth targets in the national planning framework, the review of the planning framework and the subsequent underestimation of real housing need delivery in the revision of the housing plan, as these three matters are connected, will pose a major problem. Why is the issue of pent-up demand not included in section 19?