Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It seems I got the short straw. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute to the debate today on the Affordable Housing Bill 2021. I would love to be excited about, welcome and look forward to the difference this Bill will make to the housing crisis. The reality is, however, that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael would not know what affordable was even if it was part of a presentation at a golf dinner.

Last week, Billy Kelleher MEP tweeted that the Dublin Bay South by-election is dictating the issues around “free housing for everyone”. Will we get free houses everywhere that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael lose seats or is it just starting from now?

There was uproar on Twitter after Mr. Kelleher's ridiculous comment about free houses and rightly so. Everyone knows that there are no such things as free houses and those who live in local authority houses pay rent. Oftentimes, those who live in local authority homes can be living in unsuitable conditions with damp, urgent repair needs, replacement windows needed etc., but have to wait until the maintenance crew gets to them.

Approximately 1,000 people living in social housing in Donegal have walls crumbling around them because their accommodation was built with defective concrete blocks infested with mica. It was an accident waiting to happen. There are, of course, at least 4,000 owner-occupied homes crumbling because of mica. The cost of rebuilding or refurbishing one's home while continuing to pay the mortgage, and pay rent somewhere else while the repairs are taking place is unaffordable. The 90% mica redress scheme is not fit for purpose and I reiterate my call for 100% redress for affected homes, alongside the other necessary measures such as covering rent and pausing mortgage repayments.

Last Monday, the Take Four blog by Unite the Union was launched, as part of which Conor McCabe wrote an excellent opening article: Why Fine Gael created a housing crisis – and who they are doing it for. It is the most recent in a long line of reality checks being delivered to the Government about the housing crisis. Dr. Rory Hearne, for example, has also been highlighting the culpability of the Government in the crisis. Mr. McCabe's article begins as follows:

On 14 October 2015 Taoiseach Enda Kenny stood up in the Dáil to speak against government intervention to tackle the rising cost of rents. "It is very clear that interference in the market to its detriment is not something that we should do" he said, adding that "if you interfere in the wrong way you make the matters worse"...

However, there is a wider context to his remarks, one that shows that what is at play here is not just ideology but the protection of a state-sponsored strategy that has led to profits of hundreds of millions of euros for private investors, to the detriment of social cohesion and stability.

When Kenny stood up in the Dáil to denounce rent freezes, it had been two years since Fine Gael and Labour had introduced legislation to allow Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs] to operate in Ireland.

Given the recent outrage and faux shock at the vulture funds gobbling up full housing estates, the article is an important reminder that those funds were welcomed by the Government.

Mr. McCabe goes on to say: "[T]he REITs business model, then and now, demands an under-supply of housing that forces rents up in order to work." He also writes:

[D]avid Ehrlich of Ires REIT was able to say in 2016 that Ireland is "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."

Mr. Ehrlich may have felt bad for Irish people but he went ahead and made profits off their backs in any case. I could quote much more from Mr. McCabe's blog but, instead, I urge members of the Government to read it for themselves. I urge them to listen to the voices of those affected by the Government's broken housing policies. For many people, there is no bank of mam and dad. There is no reprieve from extortionate rents to enable them to save a deposit and get a secure home. There are no options to stay in their neighbourhoods or community settings, where they have support networks. For too many people, there is little or no choice when it comes to housing.

Mary Coogan, a 41-year-old single woman from Wicklow has been very vocal on the difficulties she has experienced in finding a home. Mary has a good job with above average wages but she is buying alone and is finding it impossible to afford anywhere in Dublin. She has appeared on "Claire Byrne Live" and other media outlets to highlight the accessibility issues for single purchasers. On her blog, Mary writes:

Facing into a future of never having a secure home, no matter how early you get up in the morning, is grinding down tens of thousands of people in this country. It is heartbreaking. The housing system that successive governments have created – the refusal to tackle fundamental issues like security of tenure and rent certainty, the slavish commitment to private investors, and above all, the ideology that treats housing as a source of profit rather than as a home – is ruining people's lives. It is fracturing our communities, wrecking our mental health, stifling creativity and innovation and forcing yet another generation to feel that their best option is emigration. It is robbing children of their childhoods and robbing parents of the ability to protect their children.

Turning to the Bill, a number of issues struck me when I read the explanatory memorandum. The first was the statement that "the current schemes of priority (adopted by housing authorities in 2018) will cease to have effect on the coming into effect of section 11." That is grand but how transparent will this process be? Will people who were not housed prior to the enactment of these provisions lose their place or priority on housing lists? There are people, including families, who have been languishing on lists for ten or 15 years. Will they be kicked to the back of the queue?

The second point I noted was that applicants would be given priority "on the basis of having lived some length of time in the housing authority area". What about people fleeing domestic violence? What about applicants who are in recovery from addiction and need to be away from their previous circles? Will priority be given to people who are leaving direct provision or coming out of State care? We have seen the problems that arise from the DRHE's local connection criterion for providing emergency accommodation. The Government denied there was a problem in that regard but it was clear it was happening.

The third point that struck me was the explanation relating to the provisions under section 34, entitled "Setting and review of rent in cost rental tenancy". The first paragraph explains that the rent calculations will "take account of any increase in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices" and that the rents calculated in this way "are upper limits, giving landlords the option to charge lower rents as circumstances allow".

The other essential reading when examining this Bill is the briefing paper by the always excellent Oireachtas Library and Research Service. This paper by Dr. Sinéad Ashe, Shane Burke, and Hari Gupta, published at the end of April this year, is entitled Proposals for Affordable Housing. The subtitle is "Briefing paper to support consideration of the proposed legislation". Did the Minister take on board any of the key issues highlighted in that paper? It makes for stark reading and offers astute analysis and important points for consideration.

In regard to cost-rental housing, the Minister has said that the provisions in the Bill are targeted at those with "moderate incomes", but what that means is not defined. Given that he seems to think €450,000 is affordable for a house in Dublin, I dread to think what rents he imagines people on moderate incomes should be able to pay. The pilot scheme in Stepaside in Dublin, for instance, has rents set at €1,200 per month, which is ridiculously high. The ESRI has said that the Minister's shared equity scheme will probably push up prices. The Central Bank has come out against his proposals. Neither of these bodies could be called a radical left-wing think tank.

For whom is the Minister introducing these schemes? Are they, once again, for the benefit of private developers and landlords? The Central Bank has said that an average of 34,000 dwellings must be built per year. The Tánaiste - I will call him Comrade Varadkar - promised at his party's Ard-Fheis that 40,000 houses would be built. In fact, there were fewer homes built in 2020, when 20,676 were constructed, than in 2019. The Covid-19 impact is likely to be drastic for construction this year and next. There is much more I would like to say on this issue but I am running out of time. I will just note that in 2020, the 16th annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey placed Dublin and Galway in the category of "seriously unaffordable".

At the pre-budget 2022 online meeting of the Oireachtas Disability Group last week, we were informed about the housing crisis for disabled people. Why does the Government not insist on universal design standards for buildings? Most disabled people acquire disabilities in later life and need adaptations to their homes. We cannot account for every eventuality in our designs, but why do we allow developers to cut corners and minimise living space or light in an effort to fit as many units onto a site as possible, instead of ensuring buildings are designed and built to a high, inclusive and universal standard? The Oireachtas Disability Group is asking for a commitment that 7.5% of new builds will be accessible. This is a drastic under-ask but it has decided to go with the evidence-based approach.

Finally, I want to refer to my submission to the Minister on the housing for all policy, in which I listed proposals that would make a huge difference to the housing crisis. I noted of the significant funding available for housing, the majority of it is being misdirected, misspent and is far too focused on lining the pockets of private landlords. I called for a referendum on economic, social and cultural constitutional rights. I asked that the maximum income limit for the housing list be removed, thus giving a realistic picture of the numbers in need of housing. I called for vacant homes to be subject to immediate compulsory purchase order and made available to people on waiting lists and first-time buyers. I proposed that all unoccupied apartment buildings be commandeered to provide immediate housing as an emergency measure. I urged that NAMA release all residential units to local authorities immediately for the provision of social and affordable housing. I argued that affordability should be set to enable those on the minimum wage to buy a home. I proposed that Central Bank lending rules should be changed such that an applicant's ability to pay would take account of years of rental payments. I suggested that house values be set by an independent commission and that there be greater regulation of estate agents. Finally, I argued that vendors should be instructed to undertake a structural survey prior to the home going on the market, as is the case in Toronto and Ontario, where the home inspections are then provided to interested buyers prior to their making an offer. This means they know how much work is needed and that can speed up the process.

See this speech in context