Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I listened to the Minister's speech the last time we discussed the Bill. I congratulate him and his speechwriter as it was a very fine speech indeed, full of high-flying rhetoric, full of absolutely correct observations about the housing crisis and the importance of housing as a basic necessity of life. It stated:

...the State has to step up to the mark to provide affordable homes for purchase and rent using all the means at its disposal. A good home ... should be the launch pad for life's adventures and a refuge from its storms. The bricks and mortar of a solid home are the cornerstone of a good life.

[...]

...the central promise of democracy is that each generation will be better off than the last, the current housing crisis represents a fundamental threat. In an era where the waves of dangerous populism are hitting the shores of established democracies, we need to keep our democracy strong and vibrant.

These are very fine words indeed. The only problem, of course, is that this Bill and other Bills the Government is progressing do none of the things the Minister claims are needed to address the housing crisis. In fact, if we could build homes with the fine words of all the previous housing Ministers to sort out the crisis, we would have a surplus of homes in the State for the people who need them.

The Minister's words reminded me of another speech at the unveiling of a previous grand plan in 2014, where we were told by one of his predecessors that it is the right of every household to access secure, good quality housing at an affordable price and in sustainable communities, and that this strategy would put the State back at the centre of social housing provision. That was in 2014 and it was Deputy Alan Kelly, who was then the housing Minister. His plan did not work either. I could quote from the former Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and the Minister, Deputy Coveney. Their plans, their strategies and their grand press conferences did not work either.

The State is not stepping up. The State and the current Minister are actually doing the same as his predecessors. Far from the pragmatism the Minister claims, a pragmatism that is supposedly devoid of any ideology, this is, in essence, pure ideology masquerading as the answer to the housing crisis produced by that very ideology. If we take the Minister's pronouncements at face value, the purpose of this is to build social and affordable housing but it would be doing so in the most elaborate, complex and Byzantine way. This is the State stepping up to build homes for its citizens. In reality, this Bill, like other grand plans, is utterly reliant on developers, builders, financiers, estate agents, property gurus and those who have bequeathed us this crisis in the first place. It accepts that the market is an actual living thing, a natural occurrence, and it places its hope that this market can, with the right mix of coaxing, possibly some prayers and lots of incentives, actually provide people with the homes they need. This is not the State building homes. This, like many other acts, is the State facilitating developers to do the building they want to, if they decide it is worth their while and the profits accruing to them are sufficient.

The Minister told us some weeks ago that, perhaps, depending on what he thinks, or what his successor feels, or which way the wind is blowing on a particular day in a particular place, there may be more than 50% of social and affordable homes on any plot of land developed by the Land Development Agency. Might be, could be, or there might be less; it will depend on a number of factors, such as the Minister's particular humour on the day the decision is taken. No, it will not. It will depend on location, location, location and what the market value is. What will determine the market value? The Minister seems to think he might determine the market value. That would be news to everyone, including the market, and not least the developers and the financiers who have basically written Government housing policy over the past three decades.

The Minister seems to think if he declares something is affordable, then it is. It is as if he declares that a donkey is a unicorn, it is, but it still will not fly. The definition of affordable, whether that turns out to be to rent or to buy, is not linked to what people actually earn. It is not linked in any way to the Minister's gift under the regime envisaged in this Bill to declare something affordable based on what people actually earn. That is not what this Bill does. The Minister seems to believe that, like Humpty Dumpty in a Lewis Carroll yarn, “When I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” He can waffle on all he likes, he can be outraged at the ignorant Opposition who do not understand his beautiful Bill, but none of his outrage and none of his waffle will make a €400,000 two-bedroom apartment affordable for an ordinary citizen in this country. None of his outrage or evocation of the days of de Valera and social housing projects of the 1950s will turn a monthly rent of €1,200-plus into an affordable rent for ordinary people.

The Minister has denied that this Bill guts local democracy. It removes the last vestige of local councillors’ ability to have any say over land development in their area, and there is no doubt about that. I note that, hilariously, other Government Deputies tried to blame local councils for the failure to build or boost the stock of social homes. Aside from the fact that most of those local councils are run by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, one would think, listening to them, that the housing crisis only started last year. One would think that the inability and unwillingness of local authorities to build public housing was a decision of their own, not an actual belief and a project built into Government policy, with their reliance on the market on the one hand, and the crash and fallout from their reckless mates in the finance and development class on the other.

I have observations to make on the specifics of the Bill, if I have time.

See this speech in context