Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Tá an-áthas orm go bhfuilim ag labhairt ar an mBille seo. Tá sé an-tábhachtach ar fad. The programme for Government promised to deliver an affordable housing scheme to help out first-time buyers and, in exceptional circumstances, those who lost their homes in the financial crash as well as those who were forced to sell their homes as a result of a relationship break up. These are the principle ways to avail of the affordable housing scheme. However, the Minister's recent announcements as to what constitutes affordability as a maximum of €450,000 for an apartment and €500,000 for a house in Dublin has sent shockwaves to anyone trying to put together a deposit to buy a house or apartment.

Those buying their first home will need to have saved at least 10% of the house price as a deposit, but preferably up to 20%. Additional costs would also include the likes of legal fees. As the Ministercan see, there is already a heavy financial burden being placed on first-time buyers. This is clearly a disincentive for many young people looking to get on the property ladder for the first time and will shackle them to long-term renting. Others will have to continue to live in the family home.

It is a positive move that the Minister proposes to return the Part V take to 20% of any housing development if the development comprises more than nine units. This should have been done long ago and it is something that we in Sinn Féin vehemently opposed when it was originally changed to 10%. It is to be hoped this will happen. However, it is not clear what proportion of this 20% will go towards affordable housing.

Prior to 2015, the breakdown was 10% social and 10% affordable. Is it the intention of the Minister to do something similar? I heard him say that he is talking about that. He has clarified some of these matters, but further clarity is needed.

I have a great concern that, among other categories of development that are exempt under Part V, one is where a site is on land of 1,000 sq. m or less. This has had a detrimental effect on developments that are mainly located in the city centre and where more than nine units are being built. This exemption is being abused and should be removed.

It appears that the Minister has set the affordable rental bar too high, which is at approximately €1,300 per month in Dublin on average. These high rents have two effects: first, they are not affordable for many people; and, second, a great part of many people's incomes goes on paying rents, leaving them with no spare capacity to save for a house deposit. Even couples in good employment on what would be considered reasonable incomes would struggle to pay such high rents.

The use of homeless housing assistance payment, HAP, and housing HAP cost the State €422.729 million up to 2019, and the cost is still rising. More money is given to homeless HAP than housing HAP and local authorities have discretion to exceed the HAP rent limits for homeless households, including people in homeless accommodation. Local authorities are authorised to uplift HAP amounts by up to 20%. In the Dublin region, this can rise to 50%. Large sums of money are being spent by local authorities that could otherwise be used for building sustainable social housing.

The Minister's plans for a new affordable purchase shared equity scheme whereby the State would take a 20% equity in a purchased property have previously proven unworkable. Experience of such schemes shows that they have led to inflated house prices and individuals accumulating large and unsustainable debts, forcing them to go from mortgage to rent after having paid their mortgages for many years along with their rent as the schemes entailed. We are still dealing with the repercussions of these earlier share ownership schemes. The flaws in the Minister's proposed scheme have been highlighted not just by us, but by economic organisations like the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, and even members of his own party and other Government parties. I hope that the Minister takes on board our concerns and does not repeat the mistakes of the past.

See this speech in context