Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

First, by way of clarification, my earlier statement was on behalf of the Government. That is very important. It is a matter for the Oireachtas in its own time to decide how it wishes to proceed. That is an important point. My earlier statement in terms of the judicial issue was on behalf of the Government because the Government has a constitutional duty and responsibility relating to the judicial arm of government in terms of confidence in it. I think I might have inadvertently said I had spoken on behalf of the Oireachtas. I did not. I spoke on behalf of the Government in my contribution earlier. It is a matter for the Oireachtas independently to take its own initiative if it so wishes.

On the question of Oscar Traynor Road, we hear a great deal of rhetoric and there are many fixed ideological positions from different political parties on housing. As a general plea, sometimes we will have to leave ideology outside the room and start building houses in some shape or form. I attended a Cabinet committee on housing yesterday. This talk about developers is nonsense. We do not have a superfluity of developers any more. We will not build 20,000 houses this year because of Covid-19. The ESRI says we should build 33,000 housing units per annum to try to keep up with population growth. We will not meet that target this year because of Covid, and we will not meet it next year. We will try to get to 25,000. Of that 25,000, 12,500 will be State builds or approved housing body builds. It will be social housing. That leaves 10,000 to 12,000 private sector houses being built. We all need to concentrate on the reality. It is grand to say we just want it all one way. Some people want cost rental, which is valid. I have great respect for the cost rental model, but there will have to be a mix in different sites.

This Government has no responsibility for the evolution of the Oscar Traynor Road site, and it is not appropriate that an attempt is being made by the Deputy, and indeed in Dublin City Council in its motion, to enjoin the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, as if it is now his problem and he must resolve it. This has been ongoing in its most recent phase since 2016. Dublin City Council's executive had progressed the plan to develop 853 homes on the site, on the basis of 30% social housing, 20% affordable housing and 50% private housing. The approach was agreed by the council's housing strategic policy committee in 2016 and there was agreement by the full council in January 2017, by 58 votes to four. The council executive has contended that the council members' voting down of its own proposal may set this site back five to eight years. The executive said, regarding the council's contention that it would develop the site itself, that Dublin City Council is not a developer or a construction contractor, and the expertise for large-scale construction work of this nature is specific and complex. The council executive is saying that it would take on substantial legal planning and, above all, funding and financial risks associated with undertaking a development of this scale. In any event, that was not the model that the councillors had agreed in January 2017.

Apparently, the site has been vacant since the 1970s. It was prioritised for development via the housing land initiative and the approach was put to the council chamber. The council's executive advice, that is, the city management, is that an exhaustive process has been undertaken over recent years. It considered the most effective way to develop the site in terms of mixed tenure and from the financial perspective. There was a motion to defer the vote on the issue to have further engagement with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the developers selected by the council and Dublin City Council's consultative group. However, the council members rejected that and agreed with the proposal that the council would develop the site itself, and that the executive should write to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage for an urgent meeting with regard to developing the site for public housing, referred to as the St. Michael's model. The Dublin City Council St. Michael's site includes 30% social housing and is 70% the cost-rental model, the cost rental element of which is anticipated to be funded via Dublin City Council's borrowing from the European Investment Bank, EIB.

The Minister has asked the chief executive of Dublin City Council for a report on the issues, with a view to engaging with Dublin City Council on what the next steps forward are. That is the current position. The Minister will meet with Dublin City Council, but I do not suggest that this is all going to be simple or that it will all happen next month. The decision is significant.

See this speech in context