Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion and I thank the Social Democrats for tabling it.

I believe I speak for everyone when I say the Government's decision to gift €450 million to developers is a massive slap in the face for the many in this country who are struggling with the cost of housing. Why is it always the priority of this Government to put developers first? Why do we allow this at the expense of our citizens?

I support this motion's proposal to scrap the subsidies at which the Government is throwing €450 million for the construction of apartments that will be sold at the full market price. The reality is that these apartments will be too expensive for most people to buy. Basically, we are using public funds to give to developers to build accommodation that will be too expensive for the public to buy. On top of that, the funds are to be spent without a cost–benefit analysis, regulatory assessment or independent cost evaluation. This is an appalling use of public funds. The money would be far better spent building affordable homes.

The amendment to this motion put forward by the Government is very weak. Much like most of the answers to parliamentary questions that we receive, they do not lack in words or length but in substance. They state the Government is committed to supporting homeownership through a range of targeted measures, which is completely untrue. The Government may support ownership for those few who can afford the current extortionate rates but it certainly does not support homeownership for low- or even average-income families. It is completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

This is further proven by the introduction of yet another scheme for the well-off: the first-home affordable-purchase shared-equity scheme. Much like the help-to-buy scheme, it does little to address the affordability challenges seen in most households today and only facilitates those on higher incomes to buy their house at a cheaper cost.

Have we not yet learned that pumping money into subsidies and schemes just does not work? What we need is direct investment in the building of affordable homes. Anything less is not addressing the issue, end of. We on this side of the House believe the outcome should be the provision of homes but the Government side believes the outcome should be the provision of wealth to developers. There is a difference, and a difference in tack.

The Government cannot pretend that this issue is not a result of its bad housing policies. I note the Government amendment suggests the Covid-19 pandemic and global supply-chain disruption are to blame for the housing crisis today. That is amazing. It is as if we had not had a housing crisis at all before Covid-19. Who does the Government think it is fooling? This crisis was around long before Covid and everyone in this country knows that because everyone in this country has been affected by it.

The Government amendment also suggests there has been a strong demand for urban living, with people wanting to live close to work. This just shows how out of touch this Government is. The constant focus on urban centres will only worsen this housing crisis. Our cities emptied during the pandemic, with many people returning or moving to rural areas and working from home. The suggestion that everyone wants to live in an urban centre is unfounded and simply wrong. My constituency, Donegal, saw an incredible influx of people over the course of the pandemic. People want to live where there are amenities, services and public transport connections. The pandemic made it clear that people would move to rural areas if they had these amenities. If the Government sought to invest in rural areas, it would encourage people to locate in them and put less pressure on urban areas; however, the Government is not interested in investing in solutions that actually make sense.

Overall, I support this motion in its original form. If the Government were serious about the housing crisis, it would have supported it too without putting forward such a weak and disappointing amendment. The one thing pointed out to us all is that the Government is not interested in people who need housing; it is interested in supporting and making developers rich. For that reason, this motion works.

See this speech in context