Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change) | Oireachtas source

I welcome that there is at last some semblance of an idea and legislation in the Dáil on affordable housing. I question whether it actually is affordable housing, but at least there is something before us. I also welcome the cost-rental model being put on a statutory footing. However, the Bill will in no effective way solve the housing crisis. It will not make housing more affordable for many of those who want to buy. In fact, the Central Bank and the ESRI say that it could increase house prices.

Why is there such a reluctance by the political establishment to move towards a real solution to the crisis? A large State-funded and State-led programme of building public housing is one of the key ways of dealing with it. To me, one reason is obvious - the ties between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and the banks, developers, landlords and, now, vulture funds. The refusal to build public housing as far back as the 1980s was a deliberate policy to force people into the private rental sector to a point whereby, in 2016, Mr. David Ehrlich of IRES REIT was able to say: "It's a great market. We've never seen rental increases like this in any jurisdiction that we're aware of.... I truly feel badly for the Irish people." IRES REIT has invested heavily in this country over the past eight or nine years. The refusal also forced people to take on unaffordable mortgages, burdening a couple with a virtual lifelong debt, with one partner essentially working simply to pay it off. Even that option is not available to the majority of young couples now.

There is another reason, namely, good old-fashioned snobbery. I do not just think that - I know it. There has always been an element of people who look down their noses at people who live in council housing estates. It is astonishing, or perhaps it is not, to see this attitude reflected by a leading member of the Government. The Tánaiste and leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Varadkar, let the mask slip when he spoke about people wanting "free housing". No one ever talks about free housing. There is no such thing. There never was and never will be. People in council housing paid rent and still do. The Tánaiste likes to speak about people who want "free housing, free education, and free healthcare" without making any contribution towards their provision. It seems that he is unaware not just of council housing rents, but of how the tax system works. Even if someone is unemployed and not paying income tax, he or she will pay VAT and excise taxes. In fact, the lowest 10% of income earners pay 30% of their incomes in taxes, which happens to be the same percentage paid by the top 30% of earners. The Tánaiste needs to grow up, leave behind the privileged posh boy notions of his youth and get to grips with the reality of life for the majority of people in this country.

Having got that off my chest, I want to make it clear that people like me recognise that problems can arise from going about building public housing the wrong way. If public housing is used as a social dumping ground with badly designed estates, a lack of facilities, tenants being targeted by criminals to pull them into drug crime and no hope for the families living there, it can lead to problems with crime, drug abuse and anti-social behaviour. It does not have to be like that, and should not be. It is certainly not the type of public housing that the Opposition, and I am sure many in government, advocate. We can have a mix of public housing options, including traditional council housing and affordable cost-rental apartments for those who do not qualify for council housing lists because they are above the income thresholds. This will result in good, strong communities in well-designed eco-sustainable housing with good public transport, heavily subsidised schools and crèches, primary care centres, community and sport facilities and green spaces.

Many people have claimed to have led on cost-rental policy. The first time I heard of it was in 2017 when Dr. Tom Healy of the Nevin Economic Research Institute commissioned an explanation of what "cost rental" meant, taking from the Vienna or European model. The concept was initially based on a fair rent scheme and has since turned into the cost-rental model. The key aspect of the scheme was that the rent was affordable and there was security of tenure for all walks of life - bus drivers, retail workers, nurses, manufacturing workers, post office workers and all workers above the income thresholds for social housing lists.

The concept was that rent would be based on one third of a person's income, which is not provided for in this Bill. It was also based on the fact, and I refer to Dr. Healy on this, that it would not include a profit margin in the cost.

The Minister of State emphasised that where any private providers wish to deliver cost-rental homes, for instance, large institutional pension funds, they will of course seek to earn a modest return. That is profit no matter what way you look at it. The legislation provides for regulatory powers to set a cap on the allowable level of return, for example, between 3.5% and 5%. That is not on what the cost rental or fair rent scheme was based. It was based on non-profit. There are many ways things can be changed and become something they are not. This is certainly the case with the cost-rental model the Minister is putting forward today.

I am not opposed to private house ownership. The Small Dwellings Acquisition Act allowed for a scheme whereby the State provided mortgages administered by local authorities. The mortgages were for 35 years with interest at 50% of the going rate to make them affordable. Will the Minister consider a similar scheme to meet today's needs. Between the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, and local authorities there is sufficient publicly-owned land to build 100,000 housing units. We know that. This has not only been reported, but scientifically proven. If 20,000 of said units were built over the next five years, we would be close to 100,000 housing units. It would have a dramatic effect on the crisis and would help to reduce rents in the private sector, alongside effective rent-control measures to give real security of tenure. It would reduce prices in the private sector by reducing demand and increasing general supply. This crisis will only get worse unless this type of radical action is undertaken because housing has to be based on need and human rights. The more we move towards the private sector controlling the public sector, the less that need will be met. The programme for Government includes a commitment to a housing referendum. What is the point of a housing referendum if we do not have houses to make it a reality?

See this speech in context