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

I thank an Teachta Ó Broin for the motion. The Social Democrats will support it. It gives us an opportunity to discuss these issues on affordability and housing. I want to respond to a couple of things the Minister said. He spoke about the need for supply and the problem with people objecting to housing. It is worth noting that the people who voted to dezone land earmarked specifically for 100 social housing homes in South Dublin County Council were not, as far as I know, Green Party councillors or from People Before Profit, the Social Democrats, Independents, Sinn Féin or the Labour Party. The people who did it were Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael councillors. They voted to dezone the land in the middle of a housing emergency. If the decision is not reversed it will deprive us of 100 social homes that are badly needed in south Dublin. If the Minister is serious in his comments on this, he really should call on these councillors to reconsider their position. He should show some leadership on it.

We saw at the launch of Housing for All, and we heard again in the Chamber today, Ministers commenting on their belief in home ownership. They can say that all they want but the reality is that under the Government, home ownership is in freefall. It has been collapsing since Fine Gael took office in 2011. The Parliamentary Budget Office, which is independent, recently concluded that home ownership among adults of prime working age between 25 to 54 in Ireland has collapsed. We know from analysis done by Mel Reynolds and Lorcan Sirr that the number of new homes available for individuals to buy last year fell to its lowest level in several years to fewer than 6,000. There were only 5,698 new homes available for individuals to buy throughout Ireland.

Why is this happening? It is because more and more investment funds are buying up homes and more and more build to rent is dominating. Analysis by Dublin City Council shows that 82% of planning permissions sought or obtained in 2020 were for build to rent. That is what is happening under this Government.

The previous speaker said the Government was considering giving a grant of €100,000 to developers. Unfortunately, there is no evidence this is under consideration. The Government has published the details of this and it is not €100,000. It is up €120,000 per apartment. This is effectively a gift of public money to developers. What is it with this Government gifting public money and resources to private interests? Why is it so keen on doing this? Why will it not use that money to create better public services and directly build more affordable and cost rental homes? For €120,000, it could buy the sites for these apartments at probably about €30,000 and then build them out as affordable or cost rental at much more affordable rates using low interest loans from the Housing Finance Agency that are much more cost effective than private finance. Why is the Government not doing that? It is not even €120,000 that is the cap on this. The document published by the Government says that while it has a ceiling of €120,000, it may be exceeded by no more than 20% in certain cases so the real cap could be €144,000 per developer. Should we be surprised when developers come back and say building costs have increased and end up looking for more?

The key issue in terms of this gifting of public money to developers is the question of who asked for it. Who asked for it? It was not the ESRI or any independent commentators. I am quite sure that when we get the detail, we will find that the people who asked for this are developers and their lobbyists. The Government document on this and how it defines the viability gap reads like something straight out of what the developers and their lobbyists talk about. In fact, the viability gap was not an issue several years ago but is something that has been exploited quite considerably by developers and their lobbyists. I want to quote from a paper by Dr. Richard Waldron. He interviewed policymakers, planners, politicians and lobbyists for the development industry. He said that "a complicit State has further liberalised the planning system, introducing an array of policies that are ever more facilitative of development interests". He goes on to discuss the viability cap. What is this viability gap? How is it defined? We are not told how it is defined by the Government in what it has published. It has not told us whether it includes a profit margin of at least 15% for developers, because that is how they define their viability gap. Is the Government going to come clean and tell us whether its subsidy of €120,000, which may go up to €144,000, per apartment will include a profit margin of at least 15% profit for developers, because that is how they define viability? These are resources that could and should be put directly into affordable purchase homes and cost rental built on a not-for-profit basis rather than this developer-led way.

I will quote once more from Dr. Waldron because it is important. A lobbyist featured in his research spoke about how they have inputted into the planning process. The lobbyist said they gave all the headings, the first draft was written, the lobbyist reviewed it, described what they wanted in terms of the level of tax relief, a policy was agreed and the law was written up. That is what developers are telling researchers in terms of their influence on planning, tax and other aspects of housing policy.

Incredibly, no affordability is built into this. I do not think we should be giving a subsidy to developers at all, but if we do, surely there should be some sort of affordability criterion. There is none. The homes are going to be sold at market value but we are not told how the market value will be set exactly. Regarding build to rent schemes and investment funds, which are pushing up the price of apartments, will market values be set against them, because they are impossible values for most people to be able to afford?

Incredibly, given this level of public money going to developers and the significant climate crisis, there is no sign of any carbon budgets, limits or ceilings in terms of these developments. I do not need to tell the Minister of State that we are out of time in terms of the climate crisis and that nothing is more urgent than what we do to address it, yet his Government is giving public subsidies to developers to build these houses with no affordability measures built in, no discount off full market prices and no measures to ensure carbon ceilings or limits in terms of the embodied carbon aspect of these developments. That makes no sense to people who care about the environment and people struggling to afford to buy a home.

Will the Government withdraw these outrageous proposals to gift public money to developers through these subsidies and instead use this money to buy up dormant planning permissions and sites and build genuinely affordable homes to rent or buy? We know that works. We know it has been done well in other countries so why can it not be done here?

See this speech in context