Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. I reiterate that supporting homeownership is a top priority for the Government. I know some parties in this House are generally opposed to the principle of homeownership. It is extraordinary that they come with a motion relating to people who want their own residential house and that they talk about residential property prices. The policy of the party that put forward this motion is clearly to make sure every householder in the country is plunged into negative equity. We saw what it said about houses over €300,000. I am not talking about Dublin. I am talking about Portlaoise. A new house in Portlaoise costs more than €300,000. Houses are selling and people want to buy them. The policy of the party that put forward tonight's motion is to make sure that the day a person takes on a house and signs a contract, they should be in negative equity for the rest of their lives because the party wants to put a cap on the value of all houses. The actual outcome of what that party is proposing is that every householder in Ireland should be in negative equity. Why would they do that? The party would do that because it is opposed to homeownership and it is extraordinary that it is professing to be concerned about homeownership in this motion. It is important to state at the beginning that this is where this motion is coming from.

I understand a previous Deputy said that there was no reference to homelessness in the Government's response. We tend to deal with the motion that is before us. I looked at the Opposition party's amendment and there is no mention of homelessness in it. I also looked at the amendments put forward by two other groups in opposition and again, there is no mention of homelessness. It is a little unfair to chastise the Government, which is dealing with a motion that does not deal specifically with that issue. We are trying to respond to the motion and the amendments put forward by the Opposition, which make no reference to homelessness. I want to put that on the record.

This topic has been discussed during the course of the day. The standard rate of stamp duty that applies to the acquisition of residential properties of up to €1 million in value is 1%. The rate that applies to properties exceeding €1 million in value is 2%. Stamp duty legislation provides for a higher 10% rate of duty to be charged on the acquisition of individual residential properties when a person acquires at least ten such properties during any 12-month period. There is a reference to Belgard Manor on the north side of Dublin in the actual motion. It is very important to say that the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage issued section 28 guidelines for planning authorities which aimed to prevent multiple units being sold to a single buyer. The planning application for Belcamp Manor predated these new restrictions. However, planning applications from May 2021 are subject to the restrictions. We took a very reasonable approach. It is the policy in most legislation that it cannot be applied retrospectively. The argument now is that we have implemented this since May 2021 but the case being cited predates that. It would be very difficult - a question would arise - if we could backdate legislation and make it retrospective in respect of planning permissions that were granted before this legislation came into place. It is a fair point that needs to be dealt with.

Revenue Commissioners data demonstrate that a total of €40 million has been collected in this category over the last two years. This is very significant and shows that the tax is actually working. That represents less than 2% of the houses that were for sale during that period. We have a situation. There are issues with apartments which generally need funding upfront because most builders and developers would not be able to fund them. They need a commitment because building apartments is more expensive. Many of them fall into this category. That is why, with regard to housing people who want to live in apartment blocks, there is a greater level of apartments that are funded by institutional investors than in regular housing estates. First-time buyers accounted for 470 mortgage drawdowns per week in the first three quarters of 2023. We are dealing with a situation that relates to houses.

I am not talking about apartments because the motion generally concentrates on houses. It is important to remember that we are talking about 2% of the market and much of that is a hangover relating to issues that had arisen before we introduced the legislation.

Some 28,000 mortgages were drawn down by first-time buyers alone. That excludes people who were trading up and perhaps moving on from starter homes to larger homes. Over the 12 months to September 2023, this figure was the highest for many a long year. The responses we are taking are achieving results. Do we want more to be done? Yes, we do. Do we want higher targets than we have? Yes, we do. Do we want to build more houses than the 30,000 plus per annum we are currently building? Yes, we do, but we are working and we are getting there. It is taking time. I could list many a town and city in around the country where we will see hundreds of houses being built if we drive through them. That is the case in many of the new provincial towns. It will grieve some members of the Opposition that such progress is being made in this area.

I say to all those who bought houses in recent years and those who already own houses that the principal aim of the main Opposition party is to ensure they will be in negative equity for as long as they live. I say that because it is not possible to buy a house in Portlaoise for less than €300,000. It is ridiculous to talk about that kind of kind of price cap. We would all love if things cost less, but people used their life savings and obtained mortgages to buy houses and the main party in the Opposition wants to devalue them. I am afraid that it ties in with its philosophy of being against homeownership. That policy more than anything else has demonstrated the real intention of the main Opposition party on this particular issue.

There was a comment earlier that was almost against people making a profit from building houses. It is considered almost immoral for a builder to make a profit at the end of a year's work if somebody wants to build a house or a group of houses or people want to build their own houses. The word "profit" has been used against people. We cannot expect a builder or people to work for nothing and not even to achieve a return on their investment for months spent in building a house. Then they would move on to build another house and another one after that. People have to earn a living. People have to be able to make a profit if they are running a business. One cannot run a small or large business without making a profit. What is coming through this debate is that Sinn Féin is against people making a profit in the housing market. We would have no houses built in Ireland if that philosophy were carried through. People need to be able to survive and to acquire land for sites for new houses. They can only do that if they have demonstrated that they have some funds available. If people go to any financial institution saying that they did not make a profit on any of their last three projects but could they please have a loan so they can invest in building another group of houses in the future, the answer to that would be very quick and sharp, namely, that they cannot survive on that basis.

We see a consistent assault on the various schemes by the main Opposition party. It has opposed planning permissions right, left and centre whenever it can. Some people were lucky enough to get deposits through various schemes provided by the Government and also to get some of their own hard-earned tax money back, but that has been opposed consistently by several members of the Opposition because they do not want people to own their own properties. They want people to be beholden to the State and local authorities. We have heard lots of criticism of local authorities but those who engage in such criticism do not want people to own their own houses; they want people to be tenants of the local authorities, which they criticise day in and day out and every time they come in here.

This motion highlights a level of hypocrisy from a party that is opposed to homeownership and that criticises people who want to own a home as well as those who want to make a profit out of that. We are only talking about less than 2% of the houses that have been built since this legislation came in that have been affected by this tax. Those involved have already paid a large amount in terms of the levy that has been collected.

See this speech in context