Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the principle and the aspiration behind Deputy O'Brien’s Bill, and the reality of the difficulties being faced by first-time buyers as well as the fact that block sales are more evident. They are attractive for developers. Some developments are being entirely bought up by investors, even during the construction phase. It is not surprising that the word "cuckoo" is being used to describe those funds because we know the reputation of the cuckoo which pushes the eggs of other birds out of their nests and moves into the nest.

I accept there is a different view that Dublin, for one area, needs to build tens of thousands more rental homes, but we do not have the type of rental system of fair rents, fixed rents and long-term leases other cities have so it is no wonder that people want to buy and own their own home. I am talking about a single person or a couple on the kind of salary that would have ensured they would be able to buy a home previously. I refer to those working in the Civil Service, teachers and nurses. Many of them are paying exorbitant rents today, much more than a mortgage repayment and with the substantial deposit needed to comply with the Central Bank regulation, even if they did get mortgage approval and to put in a bid for a property, the reality is that they would probably be outbid by an investment firm. What chance does an average first-time buyer, working and paying their taxes, have of buying a home? I hope the Bill will give the average earner a fair chance because the average earner cannot compete with investors and their level of capital. The Bill recognises that and the fact that they deserve a fair chance of access to the housing market.

The growth of buy-to-let properties is a very worrying trend. I will just give a prime example of the North Lotts in the docklands area where ugly towers are going up, swamping the communities that are there for generations and depriving them of daylight and quality of life. It is not doing anything to alleviate the housing situation, nor is it doing anything for the average first-time buyer. A 10% allocation of social housing is not even being provided in the area. Who benefits? It is the developer, the investment firms and the companies bulk-buying and renting to their employees. The first-time buyer who wants a home, not an investment property, does not have a chance.

The Bill proposes that one third of new development land would be set aside for first-time buyers. We know we live in an unequal society. We know that people who have access to finance will be able to put down any deposit they want on an apartment or a house so the first-time buyer I want to see being helped is the average earner, not those who have access to the big deposits. The situation must be clarified in the Bill by means of amendment if need be. When I started teaching in the early 1970s, after a struggle, my colleagues were able to get a deposit and to buy a home. When I talk to young people who work with me today, who are also average earners, they are so pessimistic about ever having a chance to own their own home unless there is a drastic change.

I looked at Respond's annual report earlier today. It acknowledged the significant challenges and outlined its own contribution. Its vision is that every family and individual would have high-quality housing but the point was made that a holistic approach is required. Numerous agencies are involved in housing: the Department, local authorities, the Housing Finance Agency, the Dublin Region Homeless Executive and the HSE, among others, but we do not see a holistic approach. In the meantime, as one person or family is housed, another person or family is evicted and in need of emergency accommodation which is costing a fortune.

I had the opportunity to attend part of the Social Justice Ireland, SJI, annual conference yesterday. It went through the five pillars of Rebuilding Ireland and analysed them. Its analysis was very critical. The first pillar is to address homelessness. The view is that it is very ambitious and is a very worthy objective, but it is not being delivered. The second pillar is to accelerate social housing. The 2019 European Commission country report summed up how this is not being achieved. We see it in the waiting lists and the length people are waiting. The third pillar is to build more homes. There has been an increase since 2013 but it is just not enough. The point made by SJI is that the increased construction alone will not solve the housing crisis as affordability remains an issue, which is my concern about the Bill. The fourth pillar is to improve the rental sector. We know rents are increasing and the only answer seems to be to build more student accommodation and I just do not know about that. The fifth pillar is to utilise existing houses. We know that more could be done in that regard. The UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing refers to the financialisation of housing. I question whether the Bill will make a difference and I hope it does.

See this speech in context