Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will respond first to the comments of Deputy Matthews, the chairman of our committee. These amendments would not stop private investment in any housing project. It would stop a particular type of developer-led development, exactly as the Minister said. It would stop PPPs and joint ventures. Almost of all of the AHB sector, for example, is financed either directly by private finance from banks or with private finance funnelled through the Housing Finance Agency. That would continue if these amendments were to pass. It is simply not accurate to say that this is about crowding out all forms of private investment; it is about ensuring that affordable homes are delivered by not-for-profit agencies, including local authorities, AHBs and community housing trusts.

It is also not the case that these amendments would prevent local building contractors getting building contracts for the delivery of social and affordable housing. In fact, one of the big problems with PPPs and joint ventures is that small- and medium-sized building contractors cannot get access to those contracts because of the way in which PPPs are set up.

I do, however, strongly agree with Deputy Matthews on one issue. The decision by two Sinn Féin councillors to vote against a much-needed social housing project in Bray this week was wrong. That is not just my personal view; it is the strong view of our party. I have spoken to both of the councillors directly to give them that view. While Sinn Féin strongly defends its position of opposing the transfer of land at low or no cost to private developers for joint ventures, to which I will come in a second, it does not support opposing social housing. In fact, our party has a strong track record, as does Deputy Matthews' party, in supporting Part 8 housing planning applications.

I also want to say to Deputies Lahart and Matthews and the Minister that there seems to be an assumption that some of us in the Opposition are opposing this Bill. I have made this point a number of times. There are aspects of this Bill that I fully support and have, in fact, campaigned on for many years. Those include cost rental, the funding of local authorities to deliver genuinely affordable homes to purchase and the Part V increase. However, it is entirely legitimate for the Opposition to make proposals to improve the Bill. That is what all of us in the Opposition, whether individual parties vote for or against this Bill in the end, are trying to do. I am fundamentally opposed to some of the ways in which the Government seeks to deliver what it calls affordable housing. On that basis, I am trying to improve this Bill. It is unfortunate that Deputy Matthews seems to be suggesting that I do not have such a right or that my motives are questionable for trying to improve a Bill that I am on public record as saying I am broadly supportive of, notwithstanding my strong objections to, for example, shared equity, PPPs or private sector involvement in cost rental.

With respect to the amendments, particularly my amendment No. 24, the Minister is correct about what this amendment proposes. That is because joint ventures dramatically reduce the number of affordable homes delivered on those sites. In the case he mentioned that in his constituency, 60% of the homes will be sold at open-market prices of €400,000-plus. That is not a good use of public land. In the case of O'Devaney Gardens, for example, not only will 50% of the homes be sold at unaffordable, open-market prices, but the deal with the developer is so bad that, notwithstanding the fact that the developer has effectively got the land for free, a three-bedroom affordable home will cost €310,000, plus a €50,00 equity cash return to the State if the purchaser sells the home in the future. If one is in favour of maximising the delivery of genuinely affordable homes and more social homes on public land, one cannot support joint ventures or PPPs because they are more expensive to the taxpayer and dramatically reduce the volume of affordable homes. The one thing the Minister and I agree on is what these amendments will do. The difference of opinion between the Minister, myself and other Opposition Deputies is that we want 100% affordable homes on all public land. The Minister told us last week that he was going to use the LDA legislation to deliver 100% affordable homes on public land, although I will wait to see if that happens. Today he is arguing that we should allow joint ventures on public land that, in some instances, will allow 50%, 60% or 70% unaffordable, open-market prices that are way beyond the reach of working people. That makes no sense at all and, therefore, I stand over these amendments and will certainly press them.

See this speech in context