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

I will speak in support of the amendments. I start with the point on the delivery of homes on public lands, who does it and whether private builders are involved. There is a key distinction that needs to be made and Deputy Ó Broin has made it. In terms of delivering homes, there is a huge difference between contracting tradesmen and private builders and having a private developer leading the project. There is a difference in cost to this. If private developers are involved, they have higher financing costs than are available to the State or to not-for-profit bodies borrowing through State or European funding mechanisms. This pushes up the cost of delivery, which means the price of the affordable purchase, or the rent if it is cost rental, will be more expensive at the end when someone is coming to buy or to rent.

If we look at the Ó Cualann model, and I have referenced it often in the Dáil, we see two-bedroom apartments available in Dun Emer in Lusk for approximately €166,000 and three-bedroom semi-detached homes being available at €258,000. They are being built by private builders and private contractors but Ó Cualann, a not-for-profit housing co-operative, is the developer. It has a margin that it takes to reinvest in future schemes but it is not taking the type of profit margins from it that a private developer would. This makes a huge difference to the overall delivery cost because its aim is to deliver homes at the most affordable amount it can achieve. This is what it is trying to do rather than private developers trying to maximise their returns and profits, which is their right and business.

Private developers play a huge role in housing delivery in Ireland and will continue to do so. The question here is whether we can maximise the amount of affordable, social and cost-rental homes on public land. This is the question. It is true that progress is being made on this. The Bill is much better than previous proposals from the previous Fine Gael-led Government. It is welcome that the Minister is speaking about, and giving commitments to, 100% social, affordable and cost-rental housing on public lands in Dublin and Cork. The Bill does not guarantee this. It allows for it. It does not prohibit it but it does not guarantee it. If the Minister changes his mind, there is a different Minister in office, different circumstances are cited or agreement on financing is not reached at government level, the Bill allows for 40% of homes on public lands to be sold at full market cost.

Why would we do that at any time, especially in the middle of a housing and affordability crisis? Why are we presented with a Bill that allows for that, notwithstanding the improvements that have been made? I do not think it makes sense that the Bill allows for that.

I have another concern regarding the delivery of affordable housing under this Bill. The vision given so far of affordable homes that will be delivered means many of them could be set at a price beyond the reach of people on average incomes. There is no definition of affordability in the Bill or in the Affordable Housing Bill that would set affordable homes within reach of people on average incomes. There is talk of affordable homes but how affordable will these homes be? There will be homes available for people at a discount from full market price, so that will help some, but will there be housing available for people who do not qualify for social housing and have the ability to pay a mortgage up to around €250,000?

There is a significant risk that the cost rental homes mentioned in the Bill will not be delivered at fully cost rental because the Affordable Housing Bill, which is related to this, includes references to equity returns. If there are equity returns on the delivery of cost rental, it is not at cost. It is cost plus equity plus equity returns. The entire point of the Bill should be to ensure there is the maximum amount of affordable, social and cost rental homes delivered on all public lands, rather than some or some parts of public lands. That should be what we are trying to achieve.

The other thing missing is the ability to build up a pipeline of land that could be used to deliver affordable and social homes. The strong compulsory purchase order, CPO, powers that should be in this Bill are not there and it is a major weakness. If the Land Development Agency is not being set up to buy land at existing land-use value before it is rezoned to create and capture the value of land rezoning to help deliver infrastructure and housing affordability, then what is the agency about? Is it not missing a key role in strategic land assembly that should be to the forefront of this? Recent reports from the executive in Meath County Council, for example, have said it is having difficulty buying land that can be used in the future for social and affordable housing because it is competing with developers who are paying higher prices, including for agriculturally zoned land. When the executives of councils and local authorities try to do this, the CPO powers which they lack and which the Land Development Agency will lack mean there is no solution. We should be ensuring that land value capture, which is done well in other countries to deliver affordability and pay for infrastructure, is done by an LDA with CPO powers.

See this speech in context