Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The launch of the housing action plan is a significant event. It is particularly significant for the 4,152 adults in emergency accommodation, an increase of 160 on the previous count, and for the 2,206 children who will sleep in emergency accommodation tonight, an increase of 29 on the previous count. It is also significant for all the people who are sofa-surfing or living in overcrowded accommodation, those at risk of homelessness due to repossessions or excessive rents, the 130,000 or more households languishing on local authority housing lists for up to ten years and those priced out of the first-time buyer market. The plan the Minister launched today will determine whether things start to get better for many, if not all, these people.

It is also a big day for the Government. This is the first real test of how it intends to govern, whether it will abandon the failed policies of the previous Administration and embrace new ideas and new politics or continue to underinvest in social housing and under-regulate the housing market as it did over the previous five years. As we all know, that had devastating consequences for many people.

I commend the Minister, the Minister of State and their team on completing and publishing the report early. It involved a significant amount of work, something I acknowledge. I also acknowledge the work of others who assisted the Minister. The continual references to the Committee on Housing and Homelessness is a very positive sign. The Minister referred to appendix 2 of the report when he referred to cross-referencing recommendations of the committee with his recommendations. In fact, he only referenced our priority recommendations. Although that is welcome, there are only 23 priority recommendations while there are 84 other recommendations.

I have only read the full plan properly once. The Minister has only fully accepted seven of our 23 priority recommendations. The 15 others have not been accepted or fall substantially short of what we proposed. I have written to the Chair of the Select Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Maria Bailey, to request that not only do we have a meeting to scrutinise the plan this week or next, but also that the Minister attends the committee in order that we have time to get into the detail of many of the questions Deputies will no doubt want to ask. He will address some of them today, and I hope he will facilitate a committee meeting.

I want to comment very briefly on each of the five pillars of the plan. I want specifically to address funding. The total amount of funding allocated goes to the very heart of this plan and its ability to deliver on its commitments. Earlier today, the Minister claimed that increased investment on the Kelly plan is in the region of €2.2 billion. This is simply not the case. I will talk Deputies through the figures. Deputy Alan Kelly's plan committed €3.8 billion over six years or €633 million per year, on average. The Minister's plan commits to €5.35 billion over six years or €891 million per year, on average. That is an annual increase or difference of €258 million between his plan and that of Deputy Alan Kelly's. Over the course of six years, that is €1.54 billion.

The total increase in the Minister's plan compared with what would have happened otherwise is significantly short of what he says. In fact, if one compares the five years left in Deputy Alan Kelly's plan and the first five years of the Minister's plan, the difference is €1.2 billion. That is a substantial gap. Massaging the figures is not a good place to start when one is announcing such an important plan. The Minister should clarify that issue on the floor of the House today.

I will deal with the pillars in order. I strongly welcome the commitment in the plan to reduce dramatically the use of hotels by mid-2017 through rapid build and the acquisition of vacant units. That is a very brave commitment on the part of the Minister. I am concerned that the timescale is very tight and I am not sure how many families the Minister intends to move into rapid or refurbished units and how many families will remain in them permanently or will be moved on to council housing or housing assistance payment, HAP, schemes. That is not clear in the plan, and it would be good for the Minister to clarify that today or at a later stage.

I also welcome the commitment on additional funding for mental health supports for people in emergency accommodation. I am deeply concerned about the text of the plan with respect to tackling mortgage distress, in particular preventing people at risk of losing their homes from becoming homeless. The proposal for a dedicated court in the programme for Government seems to be gone. The clear commitment in the programme for Government for amending the code of conduct on a statutory basis also appears to be gone, and there seems to be a significant roll-back on what was in the programme for Government to help those families in very significant mortgage distress. Again, I would be interested in hearing the views of the Minister on that.

Sinn Féin absolutely and unequivocally welcomes any increased investment in social housing and output. There is an increase in both of those in the action plan, which I fully acknowledge. I also strongly welcome the shift towards the greater use of mixed tenure states, as the Minister has outlined.

I see the plan moving in the direction of local authorities providing housing, while private sector developers build estates and benefit from the cost rental and private units. That is a more expensive way to do things and denies the statutory sector the profits that generate from that which could be recycled into increased social housing provision. I do not believe it is the best use of local authority land or expertise. Therefore, I again urge the Minister, as I did privately before, to include in the mixed tenure plan or aspect of the plan the ability of local authorities not just to lead but to develop fully, control and benefit from those mixed tenure estates.

Obviously, an additional 12,000 social housing units are outlined in the plan, but it is important we interrogate that figure fully. The headline of 47,000 social housing units does not adequately characterise or capture what is taking place. According to the Minister, 26,000 units will be built by councils or approved housing bodies or purchased under Part V. I am interested to know whether there is an estimation of the balance because clearly the State has more control over housing provided by local authorities and approved housing bodies as opposed to Part V.

Some 11,000 units are to be provided through other acquisitions by council and approved housing bodies. Given the fact that the census figures from 2016 tell us there are 189,000 vacant units in Ireland, it seems to me that the 11,000 target is too small. If I am misreading the plan, I ask the Minister to clarify the figures.

A journalist asked the Minister about the 10,000 units to be provided through leasing, and he evaded the answer. How many will become public or voluntary housing association owned units? How many will remain in the private sector and be leased over a period? That is quite important.

On the potential 5,000 units to be delivered through a special purpose vehicle off-balance sheet, are they in addition to the 47,000 thousand units mentioned in the plan? Are they included in the plan? Who will own the units? These are crucial questions.

From my estimation - I am more than happy for the Minister to correct me - what we are looking at is an increase of the real social housing stock owned by approved housing bodies and local authorities in the region of 6,000 units a year over the lifetime of the plan. That is 40% short of what the committee proposed and that was a minimum.

I am deeply concerned that the total increased funding according to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, at the press conference this morning for next year is €150 million. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the case? I appreciate the fiscal constraints on the Government but if it is, given the scale of the crisis, that is not enough when we need to front-load direct State investment in social housing.

Pillar 3, which relates to building more homes, is disappointing given how much of a centrepiece the Minister has made of increased provision of private housing by the market. In the region of 25,000 units a year is required. I echo some of the comments made by Deputies Cowen and Curran so I will not repeat what they said. It seems to me that there is little of real substance in terms of concrete actions to make homes more affordable. There is no great value in increasing the stock of private housing if it is costing between €330,000 and €350,000 for first-time buyers. I am deeply concerned about that.

Notwithstanding the additional 12,000 social units, I am concerned that the Minister is talking about 100,000 units ultimately for social use being delivered by the private rental sector. The Minister referred today to 84,000 housing assistance payment, HAP, units, 10,000 leased units and 4,000 rental accommodation scheme, RAS units. That remains an enormous over-reliance on the private rental sector. I admit it is slightly better than the proposal of the previous Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, but it is still deeply concerning.

Pillar 4 focuses on improving the rental sector. I fully agree with Deputies Curran and Cowen that this is the most disappointing section of the strategy. There are no firm commitments.

See this speech in context