John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My master in primary school, Frank Madigan, would be very proud of the fact that I still remember "An Old Woman of the Roads".

I welcome the chance for discussion and will address some of the specific issues that have been raised towards the end of my remarks. Like everyone in the House, I share the objective of increasing the supply of housing for first-time buyers and indeed for all buyers in the Irish housing market. I share with the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, the view that the Private Members' Bill that we are discussing would delay the delivery of new homes to first-time buyers and indeed to others in the sector. I know that the Minister has already spoken about some of the issues. This Bill would intentionally reduce social housing obligations on the private sector. I draw Deputy Scanlon's attention to section 4 of the legislation, which specifically refers to Part V and the potential removal of the obligation with regard to the rent-to-buy sector. That would have the effect of reducing social housing delivery if it was enacted.

I believe the Bill would have many other unintentional consequences and would serve to do the opposite of what the Government and, I believe, the Opposition are working to achieve, in that it would restrict the availability and supply of a range and choice of housing for people to purchase or rent. Currently, derogations from Part V are only available for small-scale housing, at less than 0.1 ha and less than ten units. To give that advantage to a particular class of developer engaged in delivering build-to-rent units would make such development the most profitable way to deliver a site and would therefore see movement of finance into build-to-rent as opposed to build-to-buy. It would be unequitable and would run counter to the arguments made before the Supreme Court when the Part V provisions were tested for their constitutionality. The central plank of the Bill, requiring up to 30% of residential lands to be reserved for housing for sale to first-time buyers, would be counterproductive.

This approach assumes that first-time buyers are all the same and that they only seek to buy new houses, which is not the case. However, first-time buyers also gain access to housing in the second-hand market and I have heard many Members, including those from Fianna Fáil, speak about the need to bring existing housing back into the stock. The assumption that first-time buyers will only buy new houses is not borne out by the evidence. Not all first-time buyers are in the same income bracket and there is no clarity in this Bill on how these homes would be priced, nor is there clarity on how these transactions for first-time buyers would be monitored or who would enforce the provisions if any developer or builder was found to be circumventing the rules.

What the Government is seeking to do is support those seeking a home and to increase overall supply with a mix of house types and tenure to meet the local demand. Whether people choose to rent or buy may depend on their income, length of time in the rented sector, household formation patterns and whether they are returned emigrants or migrants with capital to invest. By contrast, this Bill is likely to restrict mobility within the market, reducing choice and making market access more difficult for first-time buyers.

It is worth clarifying Ireland’s position. According to recently published European Commission figures, 70% of the Irish population lives in owner-occupied dwellings, which is just above the EU average of 69.3%. This is similar to other EU countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, but significantly higher than Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France and Britain.

As the economy grows and living standards improve, there is a need for greater mobility and choice in the housing market. This is where the biggest potential adverse impact of what is proposed in the Bill could arise. The Bill will directly and substantially disadvantage households that are seeking to trade up, for want of a better term. People whose family conditions have changed, whose families may be bigger and who are looking for larger accommodation would be directly adversely affected if these provisions were implemented. Housing provision is complex. A badly-worked Bill such as this would damage social housing supply, damage general supply in the market, do nothing for first-time buyers and do nothing for affordability.

As the Minister, Deputy Murphy, outlined earlier, the Government is taking a multi-strand approach to supporting home ownership for first-time buyers. No single initiative will resolve the current difficulties. Together with other complementary and targeted affordability measures under Rebuilding Ireland, the delivery of affordable homes as supported by the serviced sites fund, LIHAF, the Rebuilding Ireland home loan and the help to buy scheme is having and will have a very positive impact on availability and affordability. Targeted measures are delivering. Some 1,200 families and individuals have purchased a home with the Rebuilding Ireland home loan and another 15,000 have secured a deposit using the help to buy scheme. By the end of next year, almost 1,800 homes with a cost reduction will be delivered under LIHAF and the serviced sites fund will help deliver 6,200 homes for affordable purchase or cost rental.

I have outlined how the Government is addressing housing needs through evidence-based policy responses, initiatives that are already proving to be successful. The Private Members' Bill from Fianna Fáil is in stark contrast in that the provisions in the Bill are not grounded in any evidential base. If enacted, they will do nothing to increase access to affordable housing for first-time buyers. The Bill will also result in a reduction in the number of social homes being provided. That is why the Government will not support the Bill.

I want to address directly some of the issues raised. The 70% figure for owner-occupied dwellings in Ireland does not include tenants who are in social housing and have been renting for perhaps all of their adult lives. There are a significant number in Irish social housing stock who never buy out their home. The 70% figure, which is higher than the European average, does not take that category of people into account.

Deputy Scanlon is right that there is under-utilised housing stock in this city and in other parts of the country, like Sligo and Kilkenny. There are several schemes for renovations, some of which have proved more successful than others and some of which are promoted more by some individual local authorities than by others. While I do not take any pleasure in this example, Deputy Scanlon mentioned the 58 houses built in Ballymote in 1947. However, there has never been more money allocated by a Government for the provision of social housing. In my county, not since the 1970s have we had a bigger social housing build. It varies between each local authority but there can be no excuses for Sligo County Council. The Deputy's colleague from Mayo last week said that 38 social houses were built in the last two years in Mayo. If it is true, which has not been borne out yet, it is a shocking indictment of the local authority. In the case of Sligo, I know the Fianna Fáil Party is in charge there and I know the issue takes on board the role of the executive, as well as elected members. I can only point to towns in my constituency like Castlecomer, a coal mining town which is building its first social housing estate for 40 years, with 38 houses being built currently. That is all because there is a proactive local authority. I urge other local authorities to be more proactive. Some have unique challenges, and I understand there is a financial situation in Sligo.

Deputy Michael Collins contradicted himself by talking about the decline in population when the population of County Cork in the last census was the highest it has been since the famine, and that includes west Cork. He talked about the closure of the school on Sherkin Island but then, in the next breath, spoke about how seven children have been born on Sherkin Island and how he wants to open up the school.

See this speech in context