Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Following on from what Deputy Smith said, there is significant anger and it is not just from young people. People in their 30s and 40s who would have aspired to own a home and in previous generations, working hard, saving and putting their shoulder to a wheel, would have been able to afford a home, are increasingly angry about this and about being locked out of home ownership. Older generations are angry about this. I remember the number of people I met during the election campaign who told me about how, when they were younger, they were able to afford a home and how angry they were that they had their grown-up children and grandchildren in the box rooms and the worry that they had for them. They were angry that the social contract that they had, which they expected for their children and grandchildren, has been ripped up.

This has happened because of the choices and decisions made at a Government level. None of this is an accident. I have several issues with the Government's approach to housing. A specific issue that is unforgivable when it comes to housing policy is that the Government will not listen to mainstream, independent advice. I can understand if the Government does not listen to people in the Opposition and dismisses it, which is the Government's own prerogative, but not to listen to its own advice from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Central Bank and the ESRI is unforgivable. They have specifically advised that the shared equity scheme in the Government's affordable housing Bill will drive up house prices. It is an indisputable fact that they have advised that. Another indisputable fact about the shared equity scheme that the Government is putting forward is that it was lobbied for by developers. One can see that if one looks through the lobbying register. That was where the idea came from.

It was not in any of the parties' manifestos in the last general election. Another undisputable fact is that, when a shared equity scheme was introduced in the UK, it caused the profits of the larger developers and builders in the UK to soar. Their profit levels went through the roof. These are three undisputable facts.

When the Government is making its decisions regarding housing, what is missing in its approach is a realisation of the great human cost of housing unaffordability and insecurity for people and families. It creates incredible stress. It causes delays in the formation of families as people put off having children. People do not know whether their children will be able to stay in their school or if they will have to move. This is heart-wrenching for parents who have quieter children or children with additional needs. It may have taken them a couple of years to get them settled into school and to get them to a point at which they are comfortable and have friends. The stress caused by housing unaffordability and insecurity in the private rented sector is heart-wrenching. Of course, if it wanted to, Government could tackle this latter issue straight away. It could bring in improvements and security of tenure for renters. It could do that straight away. Parents face heart-wrenching stress and anxiety because, having gone through everything to settle their kids in a school, they just do not know if they will be uprooted and have to move away again. It might take years for their children to again form friendships, to get involved in local GAA clubs and so on. I wonder if this was considered properly at all.

Let us look at the role of institutional investment funds. We have heard reports in the media over recent days as to what the Government is planning to do in this area. We have heard about measures that would be completely and utterly insufficient to deal with this problem. The planning measures the Government are floating and talking about will not, in effect, kick in for several years. Planning permission was secured for Mullen Park in Maynooth in 2014. That is when the process there started. One might be looking at delays of four, five or six years in respect of many developments that have been given planning permission. We also know the Government does not believe the very limited planning protections being talked about should apply to higher-density developments or apartments. It does not believe the families and individuals who live in apartments should have the same rights as those who live in lower-density housing.

We do not yet know what the Government intends to do with regard to stamp duty but I would be surprised if it brought in the sorts of measures needed, for example, a rate equivalent to that in the UK, where it is 15%, and surcharges for investment funds and companies investing in properties worth more than £500,000. At a minimum, these are the sorts of measures at which the Government should be looking with regard to stamp duty, but it would not be enough. Really, the Government should be looking at rent levels, especially for new-build developments. If one wants to tackle the very high yields investment funds make from buying up properties here and renting them out, one needs to look at the rent levels. That would be a proper deterrent and would also provide more affordable rents for people. With regard to institutional investment funds, the Government and State are playing a key role in that, through the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, they are using public funds, State funds, to buy up property though investment funds. These investment funds the State finance may build themselves or they may buy up property. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Earlier today, I cited an example. Activate Capital has put State funds, provided by the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, into a housing development in Blackhall Place. Dublin City Council then agreed long-term leases on these same homes, homes which were at least part-financed by State funds, and has guaranteed rents of €2,000 per month per home. This is an absolutely unacceptable use of public money. It is inflating home prices while agreeing these sweetheart deals on long-term leases. It is completely unacceptable.

It is worth noting that the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers has said that the Government should seek discounts of approximately 50% on market values when negotiating long-term leases for houses and discounts of 30% for apartments. What sort of discount does the Government look for? It looks for a discount of between 5% and 10% on full market rates when industry sources say that we should be going for something in the region of 50%. We also know from responses to freedom of information requests I have made that, in some cases, the State did not even look for an independent valuation in respect of market rates. The State just signed up on the basis of the valuations given by the developer. One really could not make it up. The Government is ploughing in these great sums of money while not seeking value for money, not attempting to drive down rents and not trying to ensure housing affordability.

As to what needs to be done in this regard, there is no question at all but that the recommendations of the Kenny report should be implemented without delay to drive down the price of development land. That is what the Land Development Agency should be doing. It should be assembling land for affordable housing and affordable homes. Ó Cualann Cohousing Alliance has proven that genuinely affordable homes can be built if land is made available. That is what the Land Development Agency should be doing but that is not the Bill the Government is bringing before us with regard to the agency. Instead there are all sorts of revisions to the Land Development Agency. For example, it will be allowed to take land from public bodies and, if it does not use it, it will be allowed to sell it off to a private third-party developer. Why include that provision in the Bill if it is not something the Government wants to use? Why not provide safeguards by removing those sorts of clauses from the Bill? We will know if the Government is in any way serious about this because, if it is, it will remove those clauses from the Bill straight away.

People are very angry about this. There is a responsibility on all of us to make sure we do everything we can to address this issue. The Government should really start by listening to mainstream independent advice in this area. It should listen to such advice and drop the shared equity scheme. That would be a good start.

See this speech in context