Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Regardless of whether we move our amendment, my party fully supports what is being proposed by the Green Party this evening. We just have some doubts with regard to the specific locations that are identified in the motion. I will begin by talking about our support for the motion. There is a real opportunity here but that opportunity is being lost as time passes. The 700 or more publicly-owned sites, most of which are owned by local authorities, could be used to address and solve our housing crisis. The Government's amendment to the motion refers to a suite of measures, one of which is the "development of large-scale mixed-tenure housing projects, with social, affordable and private housing, on publicly-owned lands" but that is not happening. That may be the stated policy but it is not actually happening because it is being left to each local authority to work this out and the private element is winning out over the public element. I am really concerned that we have an opportunity here with these 700 publicly-owned sites which are ideal for that kind of mix of social, affordable and cost-rental accommodation but not for private, for-profit housing and that is the problem. I am concerned about the Government's amendment to the motion because we have heard a lot of talk and lots of schemes have been introduced, which are listed in the amendment, but we are not seeing any action. I am very worried that in using the local infrastructure housing activation fund, LIHAF, and in using public lands, an opportunity will be missed and that private developers will move in and make a profit instead of using their own lands, for which many have already been granted planning permission. It was estimated recently that there is enough zoned land to build 40,000 new homes in Ireland and 19,000 of those in the Dublin area. The private sector should be building on its own lands and the publicly-owned land should be used for social, affordable, cost rental models and a mix of same. We should not be allowing the private sector to come in, take the rich pickings and use the LIHAF scheme and publicly-owned lands to make a profit. They should be using their own sites to make their profits.

The aforementioned publicly-owned sites represent a real opportunity to address the current housing crisis and that opportunity must be grasped. The cost-rental model is the one proposed in the motion tonight and we fully support that as part of the solution. I will now outline the reasoning behind our proposed amendment. We proposed our amendment because the two particular sites that are identified in the motion are not local authority-owned sites. Cathal Brugha Barracks and Broadstone bus garage are used by other State agencies at the moment. While the Labour Party fully supports the concept that is being put forward, we believe that progress would be much quicker if the sites identified were local authority-owned. I understand that the Green Party suggested these particular sites because it wanted to begin with projects of scale but this could be equally effective if we chose a bigger number of smaller publicly owned sites. Deputy Eamon Ryan has suggested that we might propose sites but I do not know Dublin as well as I know Limerick. I certainly know that the problem in Dublin is bigger than elsewhere. In Limerick, for example, there is a site known as the Guinness site, which is owned by the council. I understand from Labour Party councillors that local authority management will propose the sale of that site next week. The site, which is big, is publicly owned and would be perfect for a cost rental housing project. That is one site I know of in my own constituency, located on Carey's Road near the station. I know that site well but I suggest there must be similar sites in Dublin that could be used. I do not know whether there are already plans for O'Devaney Gardens but that is one possibility, although I have not researched it in depth.

The Labour Party supports the cost-rental model. Indeed, the Nevin Economic Research Institute has done some good work on it and the NESC has produced a report on same. Deputy Eamon Ryan referred to the Viennese model. The model in Vienna is excellent. People can live right in the centre of the city and can afford the rents. The tenure is mixed and it works really well. There are models that can be used and cost-rental is a very important element of the model that we should be seeing in action. I would also refer to the Ó Cualann model, which others have also mentioned. That is working on a publicly-owned site that the Ó Cualann cohousing alliance got for €1,000 per unit. There are certain elements of the normal cost of sites that the alliance did not have to pay for but it is able to provide housing at affordable prices in Dublin.

A conference was organised recently by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, at which Mel Reynolds, an expert in this area, spoke. He said that 35% of the cost of any housing development is land and profit. A cost-rental model on State-owned land should be able to eliminate that 35% and that is where we need to be going with this.

We need to grasp the opportunity that is there now. Local authorities all over the country are looking to figure out how they can comply with the Government's policy of using those sites for mixed tenure development. Each local authority has to develop its own proposal for each of its sites, however. A State model that kept out the private profit element really could supply housing for those on social housing lists and also for the growing number who are in the in-between category. They do not qualify for social housing, cannot get a mortgage, are facing rent increases continuously put upon them and are really worried about their future. A cost-rental model and affordable purchase and rental schemes are the only way we are going to address their needs.

I support the two previous Deputies who spoke about rent pressure zones. I also live in an area that is not included in rent pressure zones. They are not working for very large tracts of the country that are either just outside the zones or not in them at all and in which rents are increasing at the same kind of pace as they are within the zones. It is simply because of the model that is used that they are not included. That legislation is over a year old now and needs to be reviewed. We need to go back and look at better ways of protecting tenants from rent hikes that put them in real fear. There are many households that are really worried about their current situation.

We support the overall thrust of the motion although we have tabled an amendment, which I am not sure will be accepted. We think it is a very positive motion but would have preferred if the sites that were chosen were actually ones owned by the local authority.

See this speech in context