Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)

What is the smallest apartment the Minister of State has ever lived in? What was it like when he was living there? The idea that young people can slum it for a while in a dark small shoebox and build up to something better is deeply disturbing in many ways. The expectation is that young people and not-so-young people, people in their 20s, 30s, 40s or increasingly their 50s, will live in dark cramped shoeboxes. Those who are making this decision are not living in small apartments. They are likely to be living in houses. The reality is that it is one law and one set of housing for one group of people, while for the generations coming up behind, for those who cannot afford to buy a home and are forced to rent, it is a completely different standard.

We got rid of bedsits for a reason. ALONE which works with elderly people agreed with that at the time because the people who were living in one-bedroom apartments and one bedroom units - bedsits at the time - were vulnerable and older people. They actually need things like light and space. Increasingly with one-parent families, we see the need for space for children to come over at different points in their lives. Essentially the Minister is saying that having light and space is a luxury not a necessity, which is just not true.

The units that will be built - if they are built at all - as a result of the changes will be smaller and darker. They will lack the space that we see in other European cities. As a result of this, fewer two-bedroom and three-bedroom units will be built in developments. Instead there will be more studio and one-bedroom apartments in which, of course, people will be forced to overcrowd to cover the rent.

There is callousness and cruelty in this decision. I have raised it here before and was lambasted by a Deputy, who is not here today, for being sanctimonious - I think that was the phrase - for highlighting that there is something in the State's and Fianna Fáil's and Fine Gael's decision-making that it is all right to make decisions which affect future generations once it is not affecting the voter base of those who are living in a house now. Of course, they are failing to see that their voter base is increasingly older people whose children cannot move out and cannot afford to move out.

Why is the Government doing this? It is to have more units built which are unaffordable. Young people will not be able to afford them. It is an illogical policy because the idea that reducing standards will lead to reduced rents and reduced house and apartment prices is absolutely illogical. Developers and investors will simply pocket the difference because there are no requirements on them. They get to increase the number of units on the development and reduce the size with no requirement to have affordability or to reduce the price. The Government is essentially giving them a blank cheque to charge whatever they want, as it is doing with the rent measures. They can charge whatever they want and the Government will keep making changes for them. Where does it end? The Government is proposing that young people leave their childhood boxroom in their parents' house where they are stuck to move into another boxroom and pay €3,000 a month for the privilege.

Is this a measure that the Government will consider a success? How does it change? How does it reverse? How do we get to a place where people actually have apartments being built for rent at €800 a month? That is what it is in Vienna. Our aspiration, our policy, is to build apartments that cost €3,000 or €4,000 a month. Where does it end? There is no strategy of clawing back this deregulation. Surely the Minister is aware that once they are brought in, they are here to stay. As I said earlier, the Minister is unfortunately joining a long line of Ministers, including Alan Kelly who was the Minister for housing in 2015 who introduced measures which reduced sizes.

We did not see cheaper rents as a result. When the former Minister Eoin Murphy introduced similar measures, we did not see reductions in rents. At what point will the rents fall or be reduced as a result of these measures? It is deeply disappointing that the Government has made more changes that reduce and alter what it is to have a home in this country. A home, the most fundamental need that people have, is supposed to give them sufficient space and light and be a place where they can be themselves, have friends over and start or have a family but that is not what we are going to see built as a result of these regulations. This is going to have negative impacts down the line.

The Minister said that radical thinking is needed on housing. It is interesting that he has taken the word "radical". This was clearly used by the Housing Commission, which mentioned "radical measures" several times, but the only radical measure in the provisions to change rents and regulations is to radically increase the profits and returns that institutional investors will make from delivering apartments in this country. There is no radical change to reduce house prices or rents and there is no radical change to massively increase the delivery of affordable housing. Of course, what we are seeing is the failure to deliver affordable housing. The Government's policies on rent regulation and the changes to regulations will lead to higher rents and reduced home ownership. The policies make private, build-to-rent property accommodation even more profitable so rather than building homes for sale at affordable prices, land will be bought up, planning permission will be granted on it and what we will see is more investor-funded, build-to-rent accommodation, if it is built at all. It certainly will not lead to increased home ownership or to reduced rents.

I submitted three amendments to the Bill on behalf of the Social Democrats. They seek to create a specified zoning for affordable housing and to create a use or lose it clause for planning permission. Regarding the three-year extension that will be added on to planning permission, I want to clarify the current position. Currently, planning permission is valid for ten years and then an extension for another ten years is available. Under this Bill, and the Minister or Minister of State might correct me if I am wrong, the maximum duration proposed is ten years, with a further extension. The Minister of State is indicating that is not the case and I look forward to clarification on that. Is there a bonus extension of three years if a developer decides to sit on the site? I ask the Minister of State to clarify what the developer will get under the proposed changes.

I also ask him to respond on the use it or lose it measures. Did the Government consider these? If not, will it consider them? The Government is adding an extension to planning permission but has it explored the possibility of going for use it or lose it measures? It is as if the Government is telling people not to use their planning permission. Essentially it is giving them additional time but for what? This is additional time during which they can watch rents rise higher and land prices increase and they can sell these sites with the planning permission extended. By extending the planning permission time, the Government is essentially promoting further speculative development. This is the fundamental problem with the housing policy that has been delivered in this country for years, which is based on speculative development. We do not have the development of affordable housing; rather, there is speculative development. Huge numbers of planning permits exist but the land is not being built on. Where is the approach that will deliver more affordable housing?

The second amendment I tabled relates to the profits being made by developers. The level to which private developers and institutional investors are, and continue to be, subsidised by the State is really astounding. I refer to the croí cónaithe scheme and housing assistance payment. Now we have reports of developers gaming the system by circumventing the value limits of the help to buy scheme. There needs to be proper oversight of developers in receipt of State subsidies and that is why I tabled this amendment. It aims to increase transparency around profits made by property developers who receive State subsidies. The amendment would require these developers to publish annual financial statements and this would apply to developers benefiting from schemes such as the shared equity scheme. The amendment represents a step towards greater accountability and could impact land hoarding and speculation, which we know is ongoing in our housing market. It would be completely naive to think that developers and those who own land, including land with planning permission already on it, are building on the basis of providing housing that is actually affordable; they are not. Their aim is to maximise the return from their sites and land and this is speculative development. We should not have financial penalties under this Bill.

My final amendment relates to zoning for affordable housing. This is a key feature of housing delivery in Vienna. This is a model that the Government has cited as an inspiration in the past but it does not seem intent on implementing any measures that would emulate the Vienna housing model. Creating a zoning for affordable housing would mean that only genuinely affordable homes could be built on specific areas of land. For example, if industrial land was zoned for affordable housing, a maximum price per square metre would be set on the homes built on that land. This would ensure that these homes remain affordable for future generations, even when the initial occupiers have moved on. What is really frustrating is that the Government says the Opposition does not provide any solutions or alternatives and that all we do is criticise but here is one very specific measure, the introduction of a specific zoning for affordable housing, that would ensure permanent housing affordability is introduced into certain areas, as is done in Vienna. That would mean genuinely affordable homes could be built on specific areas of lands and in those areas, we would essentially be keeping housing affordable in perpetuity and not allowing future speculation on that housing or land. This is something that should be introduced.

The Government is using this Bill, the shambolic rent changes legislation and the deregulation that it is now talking about in relation to apartment standards to deflect from its own failures. Ultimately, that is what this is about. These failures are the housing policies of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael for over 40 years, which has seen the State moving away from the delivery of housing. Councils up and down the country built homes that working people could afford to live in, rent or buy but under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael we have had decades of the State moving away from the delivery of housing. This is the fundamental core of our problem. While the Government says it is returning the delivery of social housing to local authorities, the majority of the social housing being delivered is not actually being built or delivered by local authorities or not-for-profit housing bodies. It is being bought from the market. It is being bought from developers as turnkey housing or being leased. This is not increasing the capacity of local authorities or not-for-profit housing bodies to deliver housing. Local authorities need to be given the capacity to deliver social housing on a significant scale and, importantly, to deliver affordable housing for rent and for purchase.

I will turn briefly to my constituency. In areas of Dublin North-West plans for housing, including social housing, are being withdrawn or ripped up. I refer here to public-private partnership, PPP, housing projects. It is absolutely scandalous that we are now seeing a judicial challenge to those projects.

It is so frustrating. The language I want to use is not language I should use in this House but this is a complete shitshow as regards housing. The public-private partnerships were in place, were going to deliver and were going to start on sites weeks ago but the Minister decided to pull these projects. He had to know there would be judicial proceedings as a result of that decision. If he did not know, his officials need to be brought in. I cannot believe a Minister for housing with a legal background did not consider that there would be a judicial challenge to a decision to withdraw projects at the last minute when a preferred bidder had been selected. It is beyond belief. The State has spent €8 million on these projects. It is likely to cost significantly more if this judicial challenge is successful.

On top of that, these projects, which were going to deliver 500 social homes, are going to be delayed as a result. There is no doubt about that. Dublin City Council has made it clear that there will be significant delays with these projects. It will not be able to go forward with public contracts if legal proceedings are ongoing so not only do Dublin City Council and the local authorities in counties Wicklow, Sligo and Kildare, where these 500 social homes were going to be developed with works ready to begin on site, have to figure out ways to deliver these projects - direct build is the obvious choice and what should be done - but they also will not be able to go to public tender until the legal situation is clarified. This legal situation could drag on for months. We do not know. It could drag on for years. What is it going to cost the State?

A decision that was made on the basis of value for money because these projects cost too much is going to end up costing significantly more. Building costs are going to increase so the projects are going to cost more anyway. What an absolute shambles of a decision it was to withdraw those public-private partnerships without considering the potential for legal challenge. I assume that was not considered because, if it was, it will have to come out someday that the Minister made the decision to cut those projects knowing that it could potentially be subject to a legal challenge. Whether that was considered will have to come out. Either way, it is a scandal. It shows the complete disconnect from the need for social housing in communities like those of Ballymun, Wicklow, Sligo and Kildare that the Minister would play with these decisions because he might be brought before the Committee of Public Accounts at some point. It was a bad decision. It is clearly an absolute mess as regards these social housing projects. It also sets us up for future problems.

There is a complete lack of investment in our public sector's capacity to deliver housing. We need a step change. We need to do what we do in health and education and have the State provide public housing through building and financing, particularly through the homes for Ireland State savings scheme, which I have mentioned. Such a scheme would channel the €160 billion in bank accounts into this area. It would not be an SSIA scheme, despite how the Taoiseach and Minister have completely misunderstood our proposal. It would be similar to the Livret Ascheme in France. It would channel deposits to provide funding for social and affordable housing delivery on a long-term basis. That solution should be taken up.

See this speech in context