Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. After months and months, we finally have the Government's new flagship housing plan. After almost a year in office, we finally see how the Government hopes to bring an end to the housing catastrophe in this country. However, what did we get? We got very little. We got, essentially, an admission of failure and a total and complete lack of any vision or ambition. We got a plan that scrapped targets, provides no serious pathway to secure affordable homes for ordinary people and is not ambitious enough on social housing. It has nothing new on affordable ownership and it does not even give proper clarity on the role of State bodies like the LDA.

This could and should have been an opportunity for Government to change course on housing. Housing for All, objectively, was not a success. In its lifetime, homelessness rose from around 8,000 in 2021 to 16,766 at the last count. Family homelessness, in some cases, has risen by 120% and the number of single adults living in homelessness has never been as high. In that time, the average price of a home has risen from €272,000 to €380,000 and the average rent has risen from €1,516 to €2,200. In the lifetime of the plan, the Government never met its targets for social and affordable housing construction. In 2024, the target was 12,930, of which it delivered 10,596. It will not meet its targets this year either. The Government claims to have delivered 7,126 affordable homes in that time but it can only get that figure by including vacant property refurbishment grants. As for private homes, I will not even go there.

There are a couple of particular issues I have with the new plan. First is the abandonment of annual targets for the private sector. This is a naked attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Irish people and to avoid accountability and scrutiny. It will not work because people know the previous target of 40,000 per year was a complete fiction. They know when they look at the Central Bank forecast of 32,500 homes in 2025, 36,000 in 2026 and 40,000 in 2027, that there is not a hope of reaching 300,000 by the end of the plan.

There is a section in the plan on promoting affordable ownership. This is the most pressing issue facing us as a society. We have an entire generation locked out of home ownership with all the threats that poses to the social fabric of the country. There is nothing here on reducing prices or on making home ownership a plausible reality for younger people. Instead, we have had what I can only describe as a PR rebranding exercise, repackaging existing supports as a so-called starter homes programme. Again, the Government is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. The plan states that giving existing schemes a new name under one umbrella will "strengthen the focus and visibility of these initiatives". This is the bit I find most absurd. Is Government seriously suggesting the issue with the housing market is that people are not aware of the support schemes that are out there? This is a supply-led crisis and demands a radical supply-side response. We in Labour believe we need a massive ramping-up in the State's capacity to deliver homes. There is nothing in this plan that offers any hope on that front.

I am glad the Government has at least retained an annual target for delivery of social homes but the target of 12,000 units is too low. It should be around 15,000 units per annum. This is something we proposed in our manifesto and it is more in line with the recommendation of the Housing Commission that social and affordable housing stock should be 20% of all housing stock. It is currently around 10%. That has been ignored. It is important to note the Housing Commission estimated a deficit of between 212,500 and 256,000 homes and it is clear from the targets published here that the Government has once again ignored that.

In relation to the 72,000 target, how many of these social housing units will be turnkey developments and how many will be direct-build homes? That is something we need clarity on. We also need clarity - I pursued this last week with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell - on the issue of gearing and access to finance for approved housing bodies. We know how crucial the AHB sector will be to our hopes of getting anywhere near the targets for social homes. We know many of them are approaching their borrowing capacity. I do not take much confidence from the Minister of State's reply to me last week that the Department will now move the recommendations of the strategic forum to a sectoral reform working group - yet again, more delay.

I want to talk about land speculation, which we know is making this crisis worse. I welcome the commitment in the programme for Government to implement the land value sharing residential zoned land tax to penalise land hoarding and ensure zoned land is developed. During the last Dáil, we published legislation on implementing the recommendations of the Kenny report; however, that Bill lapsed at the election. This is something we will be coming back to because the Government must be committed to dealing with the issue of excessive profits being made following the zoning of land.

It is nothing short of shameful that 17,000 people will spend this Christmas in homeless accommodation. This is a wealthy country. The focus on family homelessness in the plan is welcome but the Minister will be judged on it. The plan will be judged on its delivery of outcomes. I am slightly concerned by the lack of specific measures for single adults in homelessness. We need a stand-alone strategy for dealing with this group because it is the biggest group of what I would describe as non-movers. The plan recognises this because it states single adults account for around two thirds of households on social housing waiting lists, but there is no real, tangible detail on dealing with the issue. We need to increase the stock of one-bed housing units. That is an important first step but we also need a specific plan for dealing with single people in homelessness.

On the rental market, the plan refers to stability but what is proposed in terms of the RTB (amendment) Bill is nothing short of a horlicks. It is unenforceable, confusing, incoherent and seeking to satiate two competing interests at the same time. Rents will, unfortunately, continue to rise and so will the rate of terminations. I am more concerned by the lack of an updated definition of "rent" or of a long-term coherent vision for renting in Ireland. We need real protections for renters, protections that keep people in their homes. People deserve stable leases, predictable rents and clear, coherent procedures that can be easily understood and enforced. In relation to the RTB (amendment) Bill, I am concerned we will be back again in two, three or four years' time when rents continue to rise and whatever government is in power at the time comes under undue political pressure. While the intention here is good, I do not think this plan will deliver the radical reset in housing policy we need.

See this speech in context