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

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, for his response.

First, I find it hard to believe that the reason that the Government is not opposing this Bill is because it hopes to see it receiving pre-legislative scrutiny in a committee. There is a long list of Opposition Bills that have passed Second Stage in the previous Dáil and in this Dáil and Government Members so far, despite repeated requests by Opposition Members, have yet to table any of that legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny. I am hoping that I will be proved wrong in this case but I suspect in a few months' time that this will not be the case.

The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, is also correct in stating there is no quick fix but his party has been in government for ten years. Bad housing policy is the cause of this crisis. If it continues the same failed housing policies in the present and into the future, then there will be no fix whatsoever.

As for the actual substance of what we have in front of us, we have learned a couple of very interesting things today. The first is that although the Housing Agency provided its review of Part V to the Department in December of last year, no opportunity was afforded to members of the Oireachtas housing committee to consider any of those matters, not even to consider the legislation itself, because of the way it was introduced. That begs a range of questions.

What is also interesting is the very carefully worded speech by the officials from the Department. I always like comparing the carefully worded speeches by officials with what Ministers often say to the press. This confirms some of the concerns that I had at the start. The particular recommendation that the Government introduced in the legislation was not in and of itself strongly recommended by the Housing Agency but transitional arrangements were. There is a logic to that.

It also confirms that more than one option was provided by the Housing Agency and it would be very helpful if the Government simply published both the Housing Agency’s report and any correspondence between Department officials and the Housing Agency in respect of earlier drafts in order that we can tease through all of that.

I would be particularly interested to know, for example, because it is suggested in the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan’s remarks, whether the Housing Agency really wanted to see a transitional arrangement similar to that contained the original Act, which was to move immediately to 20% but compensate landowners who were affected by clear changes in the compensation they would get. That would have been a much more sensible thing to do. Nobody would have been out of pocket. No homeowner would have bought properties at a higher price and we would have got the 20%.

Even if the Government thinks that the transitional arrangement proposed by it is a sensible idea, why five years? That does not at all seem like a carrot and stick and it is certainly a very large carrot and a very tiny twig. Why not a year or two years? On what basis was a five-year transitional arrangement arrived at? I take the Minister of State at his word that the decision on the Part V exemptions was made before the submissions from various lobbyists on the Government’s housing plan, but is the Government suggesting that none of those same organisations did not engage either with politicians or with officials or with the Housing Agency during the review or in the period between December, when the review was conducted, and whatever month the decision was made. Again, we can save ourselves a great deal of trouble in freedom of information, FOI, requests if the Government releases all of that information in order that we can assess and judge it for what it is worth.

The core problem here, however, is that we were told Part V was going to increase to 20% in order that more affordable homes could be delivered as a matter of urgency. This exemption - there is no surprise why developers were so keen to get it - essentially means that we are not going to move to an additional 10% of Part V affordable housing for many years. It is true that were I to buy land next year or the year after I would be captured but in real terms, we know how the development cycle works. That means that those Members who have suggested that in real terms, 20% social and affordable housing is unlikely to be delivered until closer to 2030 are probably not far wrong.

For me, the tragedy is that there are not 36,000 generally affordable homes to purchase in the Government’s housing plan because a very significant number of those homes are actually unaffordable open-market-price private homes purchased with a questionable and controversial shared equity loan scheme. We can argue the merits or otherwise of that scheme but those homes are not affordable, which is why people have to be given up to €100,000 of extra debt, albeit with a different interest regime.

The number, therefore, of actual affordable homes that will be delivered under the new plan, particularly in 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, will be embarrassingly low. That is why this exemption is a sweetheart deal to developers who are benefiting at the public’s expense. That is why it was the wrong thing to do and should be revisited and I look forward to the Minister of State convincing his colleagues and our committee to bring it to pre-legislative scrutiny as a matter of urgency. I suspect that that will not happen and that this Bill will gather dust, like so many other Opposition Bills that have passed through Second Stage, but we will pursue it because we believe ultimately that we need more affordable homes now and not at some distant point into the future.

See this speech in context