Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes:

— the significant fall in home ownership rates in Ireland;

— the legitimate aspiration of families to own their own home;

— that the lack of housing supply is causing distortions in the property market;

— that the dramatic increase in rents and the failure to increase rent supplement supports have put many individuals and families at serious risk of homelessness; and

— that 90,000 persons are currently on the social housing waiting lists around the country;

and

agrees that:

— action is required to improve housing affordability, particularly in respect of mortgage interest rates;

— the level of savings required should not be prohibitive thereby preventing people from buying their first properties or progressing to a second home;

— a coordinated initiative by Government and local authorities is needed to improve the supply of new housing; and

— the rent supplement scheme be urgently reviewed to take account of current rents in the market place.

A first-time buyer purchasing a property of €350,000 will require a deposit of €48,000 or 14%, and somebody purchasing their first property at a value of €400,000 will require a deposit of €58,000, which is 15% of the purchase price. The Central Bank has come up with a tiered approach in terms of the requirements for first-time buyers and has gone a long way to addressing the genuine concerns we and others conveyed in respect of first-time buyers and the impact the rules would have had on them. Some first-time buyers within the greater Dublin area will still be required to come up with a deposit of well in excess of 10%. For most people outside Dublin the deposit will be in the region of 10% to 12%, which is what our party advocated in our submission during the consultation phase.

One issue stands out from what the Central Bank has published tonight and that is the impact on those who are not first-time buyers. The Central Bank is holding to the requirement that a 20% deposit is required for such buyers. That would present serious difficulties for many people in that category and at first glance, having looked at the proposals in the last couple of hours, it will unfortunately result in many thousands of home owners essentially being trapped in properties that are unsuitable for their needs. That may be a young couple living in an apartment who now have children. It may be somebody who owns a home in Cork but has found a job in Dublin. As I interpret them, and this remains to be seen as more details emerge, the rules appear to me to be particularly onerous in respect of those who are not first-time buyers who in many cases will now be stuck with their current properties.

To take an example I worked out earlier, if a couple currently in a house with a value of €250,000, a mortgage of €230,000 and therefore equity of just €20,000, who now have a family and want to upgrade and buy a home of €400,000, they will be required under these rules to come up with €80,000 in respect of the new mortgage. If the equity they would have from the sale of their first home is offset, in net terms they will have to come up with an additional €60,000 in cash to buy that property. That will present very serious problems for people in that situation.

To take the example of a couple seeking to trade up to a second home, which is a situation many people will find themselves in, if they wish to trade up to a house worth €350,000 they will need to have €70,000 in cash having cleared their first mortgage with the proceeds from the sale of their home. If they have significant equity in the first home, this may well be achievable, but for many people it is not.

The Central Bank, in respect of those who are not first-time buyers, is placing an undue emphasis on the issue of the deposit percentage. The key issue for me is affordability, and that comes down to the repayment capacity of the borrowers. Do they have sufficient income to have a reasonable quality of life and make their monthly mortgage commitments based on reasonable assumptions about interest rates, potential shocks to their income and so forth? That is the key issue, and the rules that have been published tonight raise serious concerns about that.

There is one point in the Central Bank statement which needs to be clarified. It is saying that the housing loans for borrowers in negative equity who wish to obtain a mortgage for a new property are not within the scope of the loan-to-value limits and therefore presumably will not require a 20% deposit. However, if somebody is marginally in positive equity, it would appear from the statement issued tonight that they will be fully subject to the 20% rule in respect of a new mortgage they take out for a new property to which they are trading up. That sounds like an anomaly to me that I believe requires clarification from the Central Bank because if somebody has 1% or €3,000 equity in their property worth €300,000 and the mortgage is very close to the value of the home, it would appear they are fully subject to the 20% deposit rule in respect of any new mortgage they intend to take out if they are trading up, but according to the statement issued tonight, somebody in negative equity is not subject to the rule. That issue requires clarification. We want people who currently own properties but who need to trade up, move home, downsize or whatever the case may be to meet their own needs to be treated consistently.

I welcome the fact that switcher mortgages - people who are moving their mortgage from one institution to another without changing their home - will not be subject to these rules because it is in all of our interests that we have a much more competitive banking environment in respect of mortgages. It is welcome that people in this situation who are not moving home or seeking an increase in their mortgage but merely seeking a better rate from a new lender can be facilitated outside of that.

These are some initial reactions to the rules that only came out just before 7.30 tonight. Overall, I welcome the improvement in the position facing first-time buyers vis-à-visthe proposals issued originally by the Central Bank but grave concerns arise in respect of those who are not first-time buyers who have little or no equity in their property, many of whom will be unable to move. It would be a travesty if that were the outcome of the rules.

The Central Bank, having made the decision to implement these changes immediately, needs to review them within a short period because this is a fundamental change to the nature of home ownership in Ireland and to the issue of mobility, which has always been an important aspect of our housing market in that people have had the ability to move from one home to the other or to change their mortgage. That now seems to be very much impaired by these rules. I suspect the Central Bank was very much guided by the fact that arrears tend to arise more often in non-first-time buyer scenarios. That is why it is probably far more cautious in respect of that group of borrowers, but major issues arise that need to be addressed.

The Central Bank consultation process which has now concluded has taken place at a time of considerable upheaval in the housing market. Prices have been rising rapidly in Dublin in the past 18 months and, more recently, the growth in house prices has spread throughout the country. A total of just over 11,000 housing units were completed in 2014, well below the rate of household formation. It is clear, therefore, that there is pent-up demand. Many people have been waiting on developments in terms of the direction of house prices and also in regard to the rules concerning new deposit levels and loan-to-income levels, which have just been confirmed tonight.

It is little wonder that there is a spillover effect in the private rental sector. Accommodation prices have recovered to levels close to their peak and severe shortages of suitable rental units are occurring throughout the country. Conditions for first-time buyers have deteriorated in recent times and are now at their worst level for well over a decade. The abolition of mortgage interest relief in 2017 will come as a shock to existing home owners who have come to rely on the assistance it gives them in meeting the monthly mortgage bill. In fact, its abolition represents an effective €400 million tax increase, which nobody is talking about. That is an issue that warrants attention.

There is a major policy decision to be taken not just by Government but by the State. Are we in the business of supporting people who want to buy a home? Do we believe it is a legitimate aspiration for people to buy their own home if they have the financial means to do so or are we moving more towards the European model where people are entering long-term leasehold arrangements in respect of their accommodation? Our party believes that the aspiration to own one's own home is legitimate and should be supported. It is good for society if people can achieve that and it is one where policy should, wherever possible, support that objective.

Prudent lending practices and the capacity to withstand economic or property market shocks without financial upheaval are essential for our economic well-being.

When my party made its submission to the Central Bank, it sought to balance the danger that a dysfunctional housing market would pose to the long-term well-being of the economy with the widely held desire of families and individuals to purchase homes that are suitable for their needs. We said at the time that people should be supported in this respect. In the past, the policy of the State was actively directed towards assisting people in this regard, with measures like the first-time buyer's grant, mortgage interest relief, relief from capital gains tax and various other subsidies being made available. Now the policy seems to have gone to the other extreme, with a raft of planning-related levies and restrictions and the abolition of State supports for home ownership putting the aspiration beyond the reach of many people. The prospect of the implementation of the new strict rules that have been clarified tonight could be the last straw for many prospective purchasers, particularly second-time purchasers who want to buy more suitable homes.

I would like to speak briefly about my own background. My parents were living in a local authority housing estate when a grant scheme was introduced to assist people who were willing to relinquish their council houses in order to buy private homes. In the 1980s, such people were able to apply for grants of £5,000 for these purposes. Today, we seem to be disincentivising and discouraging those who want to buy their own homes. For example, the Government is dragging its feet on a new tenant purchase scheme. There are many people in local authority dwellings and social housing units around the country who would like to have an opportunity to buy their homes from the council, but are not being afforded such an opportunity. We all have constituents who are in such circumstances. Many of them are being denied the chance to buy their homes from the local authority.

I had not intended to spend so much time talking about the new Central Bank rules in my opening remarks, but they have just been published and this was an opportunity for me to give an initial reaction to them. The motion before the House is more broadly based and deals with issues pertaining to social housing, where there is a real crisis. It addresses the dysfunctional nature of the housing market, the crisis in the rental sector and the failure to reform the rent supplement scheme and bring it into line with the current prevailing market rates. My colleagues, particularly Deputy Cowen tomorrow evening, will go into more detail on these issues and on our general housing policy. I will leave it at that for now. I hope we have a good and constructive debate on this motion, which is designed to be positive. I hope that at the end of the debate, we can reach some level of consensus on what needs to be done to meet the housing needs of the general population.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleagues, Deputies Michael McGrath and Barry Cowen, for placing this motion before the House. I wish to echo Deputy McGrath's comments about hoping to have a reasonable discussion on this issue over the next two evenings.

I reiterate much of what Deputy McGrath said about the new guidelines that have been published in the last hour. I have particular concerns about those who want to trade up and move into larger houses that meet the needs of their families. If these people were able to place their smaller houses, which were previously known as starter houses, on the market, other people could get a foothold on the property market. Current property values, regardless of how quickly they are rising, mean that gathering a 20% deposit will be unattainable for many people. It will be very difficult for many people who are still in negative equity and want to move on to a new property to put a deposit together for a larger house. The specific isolating of such buyers is particularly strange because it is to be presumed that they have shown an ability to repay their mortgages over some time. If they have young families and are in a position to get a mortgage, presumably they can pass the sustainability tests that have been put in place by the financial institutions.

I have a general fear, based on my first interpretation of these guidelines, that they will lead to a glut of houses coming onto the market. I am concerned that many people who would otherwise have taken advantage - in a good way - of the increasing property prices, been freed from negative equity and moved on to the next stage of housing might not be able to do so now, or might delay doing so. They will certainly be delayed in doing so. That will deprive them of the opportunity to move on from their starter houses and deprive other individuals of the opportunity to move into those houses. I hope this serious concern will be clarified.

Rent supplement, which is mentioned in the amendment to be proposed by the Government, is one of the areas in which greater flexibility needs to be given. It is clear that the one-size-fits-all approach to rent supplement is not working. There are multiple rental markets around the country. There is one market in the centre of the city of Dublin, another market in the suburbs of Dublin, another market in large towns and cities and other markets in rural areas. The rent supplement model is constrained at the moment in terms of addressing that issue. This is causing serious problems.

The rights of tenants, particularly local authority tenants, is an issue. We have all dealt with cases after being contacted by local authority tenants who have genuine grievances about the condition or state of their houses. In the last year, I have noticed that local authorities are increasingly coming back and saying they have no money for refurbishments and repairs. Tenants in the private rental sector have agreements with their landlords. They have the Private Residential Tenancies Board on their side if they are trying to get repairs done but their landlords are unwilling to do them. It seems we cannot provide for the same thing in the case of local authority tenants.

My local municipal district, which used to be known as a town council, has said it has no funds for repairs to heating systems etc. It is keeping its repair funds for emergencies. In the past couple of weeks, I have been in houses in which the heating systems are not working and the residents are freezing cold. No money is available to repair these systems or to put in the necessary insulation. The contradiction is that this estate is shared with one of the social housing companies, which has done all the necessary repairs to its houses. One person's house might be fully adapted, but the house next door might not be because it is a local authority house. Some sort of consistency needs to be brought in there. Some sort of rights should be given to local authority tenants.

I would like to mention a scheme to which the Tánaiste referred during the Order of Business last week. It kind of got lost in the debate. The needs of tenants whose houses are being sold from under them by landlords who are selling out under bank instruction also need to be looked at. I am sure all Deputies have dealt with cases in which no notice was given to tenants who were literally told to get out. That cannot be allowed to happen. If there is a scheme in this area, the Tánaiste and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government need to promote it and show people where their rights are in this situation. This is particularly relevant because all the commentators are saying there will be a particular focus on the buy-to-let sector in 2015 as the banks are restructuring. There is the potential for a glut of buy-to-let houses to come on the market. This would place the tenants who are living in them in a very compromised situation.

I pay particular tribute to housing companies like Clúid and Respond, as I always do during housing debates. They have always been very good in my dealings with them. They bring a certain element of professionalism and a no-nonsense approach to these matters. They do not put up with tenants who, for whatever reason, abuse their tenancies or the estates they are in. That is what we need across the system. Perhaps there are some cases in which balls get dropped, but the housing companies are quicker to respond to developing situations, particularly around anti-social behaviour etc. That is to be welcomed. I would like that to be rolled out across the system.

I am forever talking about silos in government, particularly in the permanent government. Given that we have tens of thousands of unfinished houses, the shells of many of which are finished, and we have hundreds of thousands of people on housing waiting lists, it is absolutely ridiculous that somebody cannot come up with a way of matching the two. Any elected Member of this House who has any kind of sense would be in favour of a scheme that would involve the completion of houses that are in the control of NAMA or the State-owned banks. Such a scheme would create employment and give a craft to people who are without employment. Former construction workers continue to constitute the largest group of unemployed people. Completed developments under a scheme of this nature would give homes to families and individuals. It seems that we put people through every possible hoop. NAMA seems to be putting every possible block in the way of the establishment of a scheme like this.

It is necessary to reiterate the reason we cannot do this.

The State controls the property or the financial interests therein. Surely it is in the State's interests to use that property for homeless citizens and those who have been on housing lists for seven, eight, nine, ten or more years. Opportunities are available. There will be issues with the housing being away from urban centres, facilities and so on, but dealing with those will not take much resolve compared with what it will cost to build all of the houses promised by the Government or with the effort that will be required to knock heads together and knock sense into the various blockages in the system. The Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, has expressed a willingness to do this. I wish him well and hope he brings some urgency to the work, as it has been lacking for a number of years.

The Government has laid out ambitious plans. Now that we are one month in, we will see whether they are being met when the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government or the Minister of State with responsibility for housing provides an update on the current situation. Construction of rural social housing will recommence this year. This is welcome, as many families do not want to live in a town but have had no option in recent years.

Greater consistency needs to be brought to the various housing schemes, for example, housing aid for older persons and the housing adaptation grant. My local authority in Mayo runs the schemes well. Unlike some other areas, the waiting lists in Mayo are in the months rather than years. Schemes like these encourage smaller builders and trades people to maintain their skills and sustain employment.

The party opposite made a great thing of hammering builders for many years. Now it seems to want to embrace and love them again. Let us see action. If the Government is to reach the point of building 35,000 housing units, it must deal with the shortage of apprentice bricklayers, carpenters, joiners, plumbers, etc. We need to make an investment in the education system this year so that we do no end up reaching the targets only to find that the price of labour has once again eliminated many people from the housing market.

I thank Deputies Michael McGrath and Cowen for allowing us the opportunity to discuss this matter. I hope that the Minister or some Ministers of State from the Department will attend tomorrow so as to provide the House an update on the current position of the plans, particularly now that the attention that homelessness received at the beginning of the year has moved elsewhere. The problem is still there. People are still on the streets and others are still on the housing lists.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend my colleagues, Deputies Michael McGrath, Cowen and, in particular, Calleary, who represents a rural area like I do, on their contributions. The first issue that strikes me in this motion is that of the lack of housing supply. Some 90,000 persons are currently on social housing waiting lists around the country. While I welcome the announcements that have been made, we are still falling below the 25,000 units that are estimated to be required if people are to be allowed the opportunity to find suitable homes. Yesterday's newspapers referred to an increase in the number of homes built in 2014, but the amount is still far short of what the market requires. Last year, 11,016 units were built, which is far fewer than 25,000.

I hope that we will see action on the new building programme. For a long time, we have heard about what NAMA will do and that there might be a special unit in every local authority to deal with NAMA and turn its units into social housing. We have also hoped that there will be dedicated people to deal with the housing associations. It is disappointing that, even though we have good plans and proposals, not all of them are being approved. In fact, the most successful association in County Galway is the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. One would not normally associate the society with housing, but its proposal on housing for the elderly in Ballinasloe has been approved. I hope that this proposal can be expedited and the targets can be met, as we are way behind at the moment.

The Housing Agency, which advises the Government, stated that 2,994 houses were built in Dublin last year. That is in a city where demand is high. There are long waiting lists in County Galway, particularly on the east and west sides of Galway city, where just 87 units were completed when more than 2,000 units need to be built during the next three years. I am told that 155 units were completed in Cork city, representing a 34% decrease on the previous year's figure. While output increased in 22 counties, it fell in nine and did not change in the remaining three. Units are needed.

I support the comments on the rural housing programme. I am glad to see that steps are being taken to deal with it. Half of the units completed last year were one-off homes. People often frown on them as examples of bad planning, but they are also good examples of families helping one another. Local authorities should consider building houses in rural areas. It has been a successful scheme, but most counties have seen few houses built in recent years.

I was interested in the statement by Mr. Tom Parlon of the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, to the effect that we were 14,000 units short of the 25,000 that should be built annually. He referred to the upward pressure on prices and rental costs as demand continued to exceed the levels of supply. He also stated that there was a considerable shortfall in Dublin, the area with the greatest level of demand.

It has been reported in the media that county councils will soon start hiring additional expert staff to work on the building of 35,000 social houses. One must ask why that process has not already started. We have had strategies, launches and Construction 2020 and the social housing strategy was launched in November. People are caught between high rents and the Central Bank's new plans for a mortgage cap. Obviously, we welcome what the Central Bank has stated, but it remains a serious situation and could lead to homelessness. I have spoken with the Galway Simon Community about increased homelessness as well as the growing number of people on the housing list while paying rent. The CEO of ALONE and COPE Galway have proposed an investment programme that would ring-fence units for the homeless. Now, families are living in hotels and hostels. In Dublin, more than 300 children are in this situation. This creates difficulties when trying to arrange for education opportunities and to deal with the issue of mobility that has been mentioned.

Last night's "Claire Byrne Live" saw a discussion on the difficulties with the mortgage-to-rent scheme and people who believed they were prudent while the price of property increased. We need clarity on these issues. I would also like to bear in mind what the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland stated when discussing the apprehension among builders planning new housing developments. I hope that the Central Bank's announcement will help in that regard.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Ó Cuív, who has ten minutes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even though that is a reasonably significant slot, it is not in any way sufficient to deal with all of the housing issues that we must address. I do not view housing in isolation. Nearly more than anything else, it defines the type of society one wants.

Before I address the wide vision for housing and the issues alluded to in the Fianna Fáil motion, we have not dealt in a constructive way with the crisis many people face due to debt. We have introduced personal insolvency measures but, given the small number who have availed to that process, it is too complicated.

The mortgage-to-rent scheme is one that is great in theory, but can anyone show me someone who has been able to avail of it?

There are so many crinkles in it, so many conditions that one would have to fulfil, that in fact the Minister will find that the number of people who have availed of that scheme to date is totally insignificant.

We need to examine the problems faced by people on a day-by-day basis who in some cases may be paying their mortgages but are finding it nearly impossible to handle the unsecured debt. In other cases, they have done deals with the bank to tide them over for another period, but there is no long-term solution for a large number of them. If constructive leeway was given, these people would be in a sustainable position.

The Government often talks about changing the minimum wage. One aggressive change was made in the previous four-year plan, in which there was a promise to strengthen and improve the mortgage interest supplement, which was a safety net to tide people over when they temporarily lost employment and could not pay their mortgage. The interest kept getting paid until they got a job again. Extraordinarily, this measure was removed by the Government. For the life of me, as an ex-Minister for Social Protection, I cannot understand the rationale of the Tánaiste in acceding to such an idea. We know from statistics that 60% of those who become unemployed are re-employed within a year. By preventing them from falling into a spiral of debt, the mortgage interest supplement was hugely cost-effective.

I wish to discuss the wider issue of housing policy and what we believe is the broad policy we should pursue. Some commentators said we had too much home ownership in this country and that we should pursue Continental policies and practices in this regard. One of the great contributors to the stability of post-Independence Ireland was high home ownership. People who owned their own homes had a stake in society. From the early days of the State, assistance was given to people to own and improve their houses. It was given in direct grants and through tax relief. It seems that somebody somewhere - these great people who know all the problems but only consider narrow financial criteria - decided it would be much better if we all rented or leased houses. We need to have that debate in the first place, because I think they are wrong.

I have always believed that apartments have a role to play, but for the vast majority of families with children, a conventional house - not a duplex or an apartment - should remain the preferred choice. Children are the future. They are the raw material that will pay all of our pensions, please God. If we do not look after them and give them a stable childhood - not only for their own personal well-being but also for society's benefit - then we cannot expect the best outcomes. Security of tenure, for those who can afford it, means buying their own houses. For those who cannot afford to do so, it means getting a local authority house, as was the case in the past. Security of tenure for families is vital. It is a totally different situation for young, mobile people who are coming and going, but we must focus on the importance of stability for families.

There is another issue that this Government seems to ignore totally, which is the insistence on having a policy that concentrates everything into the major cities. For example, the Government insists on rolling back policies for rural development and decentralisation. It should not be surprised, however, if it creates a housing crisis in those cities which are expanding too fast. Meanwhile, areas of the country that could provide houses quite easily are left without people to live in such houses. The situation is exacerbated by new social problems that are created.

We should re-examine our spatial strategies. The optimum arrangement would be to try to get every community in the country growing, rather than allowing the depopulation of certain areas which already have schools as well as sports and health facilities. People are being put unnecessarily into new estates with no community bonds or supports, including being near their families and facilities.

I wish to echo what my colleague Deputy Kitt said. There seems to be a policy driven by architects and town planners whereby there is something objectionable about the rural house. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has instructed local authorities not to allow the building of any more one-off rural council houses. That is gentrification of the worst kind. In other words, rural Ireland is moving away from being a mixed community as those who cannot afford to build their own houses are moved away. All sorts of other barriers are being put in place which prevent people from settling in the communities they came from. The upshot is that old people are living without their families around them.

The stratification of society includes moving people into towns and segregating them by social class. That is one of the biggest social challenges we face in towns and cities. Housing is not just about putting a roof over somebody's head; it is about the construction of our society. Bad planning featuring segregated housing in cities is one of the greatest causes of anti-social behaviour and other such challenges we face every day. There are large pockets of society where, despite all the resources put into education, very few children can aspire to third level education.

Housing policy must be societal rather than just financial. Once one knows what one's societal aims are and what one is trying to do, one should then build the financial constructions around them - not the other way around. Leaving housing policy to central bankers is wrong. The bubble was not caused by people owning one house for themselves, but by people who started to buy extra houses and speculate on the market. We should therefore return to a policy of prioritising single home ownership and helping each family to own one house.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, who is sharing time with Deputies Liam Twomey, Seán Kenny and Tom Barry. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:"acknowledges that:

— the construction sector and the housing market were very heavily affected by the economic downturn and the bursting of the property bubble; and

— a poorly regulated banking sector, with lax lending standards combined with pro-cyclical and inappropriate fiscal policies adopted by the previous Government, led to a property bubble, the consequences of which are still evident throughout the country;

recognises the importance of ensuring a strong and sustainable construction sector and housing market that meets the needs of the economy and society;

notes that:

— in 2014 a total of 11,016 homes were completed in comparison to 93,019 units completed at the peak of the housing bubble; and

— at the peak of the housing bubble in 2007 over 270,000 persons were directly employed in the sector and that by 2012 this figure was below 100,000;

further acknowledges that new housing supply - both social and private housing - is a key issue that needs to be, and is being, addressed;

notes:

— in this context, that the Government’s Construction 2020 Strategy for a Renewed Construction Sector is focused on addressing constraints that are inhibiting new housing supply, including as regards planning, mortgage and development finance, infrastructure and public investment, standards and regulation and education and skills;

— in addition, the recent announcement of the Government’s Social Housing Strategy 2020 and the Government’s commitment therein to deliver 35,000 new social housing units over the period to 2020;

— the additional €2.2 billion in funding announced for social housing in budget 2015 and the publication of the Social Housing Strategy 2020 in November 2014, which builds on the provisions contained in budget 2015 and sets out clear, measurable actions and targets to increase the supply of social housing, reform delivery arrangements and meet the housing needs of all households on the housing list;

— that the Central Bank has recently issued macro-prudential proposals in relation to residential mortgage lending and will shortly make decisions in relation to these in accordance with its independent mandate in such matters; and

— the encouraging signs of a recovery in the construction sector and the housing market;

and

agrees that a whole-of-Government approach to the implementation of Construction 2020 and the Social Housing Strategy 2020 will deliver a sustainable housing market that meets the needs of our society."

This motion is timely, however, particularly in view of the announcement made by the Central Bank approximately two hours ago in respect of the new regulations relating to mortgage lending.

As the Central Bank outlined in the statement it issued earlier, the key objectives of the regulations are to increase the resilience of the banking sector and reduce the risk of bank credit and housing price spirals developing in future. The latter is a welcome ambition. In developing the new rules, it was important to strike the right balance between achieving this objective and the ability of first-time buyers to save deposits to purchase their first homes. This balance is both important and sometimes difficult to achieve. The Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, consulted the Minister for Finance earlier today in respect of the bank's macro-prudential proposals on residential mortgage lending. This consultation was required under section 48 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013. Following the meeting, the Minister for Finance agreed that the revised regulations would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas as required under section 51 of the 2013 Act. Further details relating to the specifics of the regulations, many of which Deputy Michael McGrath read into the record, are available on the Central Bank's website.

I note the Deputy's comments to the effect that there are many elements to the motion before the House. We can all agree that the previous housing model in this country was unsustainable. Predicated on ever-rising house prices, housing supply expanded to the extent that when the tide went out, we were left with the legacy of ghost estates, a collapse in construction employment and thousands were left with a variety of negative equity and mortgage arrears problems. On the financing side, mortgages were made available on terms which helped to inflate house prices, and the model in use for financing development was partly responsible for the problems that arose in our banking sector. It is for this reason I find it difficult to reconcile the comments made by Deputy Ó Cuív earlier with the policies he implemented when serving as a Minister in the previous Government. It is widely accepted that certain tax breaks for housing resulted in an unaffordable subsidisation of house purchases which expanded well beyond the underlying level of demand. This misallocation of resources meant that less was achieved than would have been otherwise possible and our economy and society were left more vulnerable to the subsequent economic downturn. The latter then led to an increased dependence on the State for social housing supports. Waiting lists for social housing rose from 43,000 in 2005 to a peak of 98,000 in 2011. As the economy and employment improved, the waiting lists fell to 90,000 in 2013. The position with regard to rent supplement was similar. In 2005 some 60,000 were in receipt of this supplement. This rose to a peak of 97,000 in 2010 and fell back to 71,500 in 2013.

The Government has recognised that recent price and rent developments in the housing market reflect the interaction of a recovery in the economy and in employment, with a consequent shortage of supply of new housing, especially in Dublin and some other urban centres such as Cork. With economic recovery, there is an increased level of housing demand as a result of the growth in the number of people at work. According to the Central Statistics Office, in the third quarter of 2014, GDP was 3.5% higher than in the same period last year. The rate of employment was 27,700 or 1.5% higher during the same period. This was the eighth successive quarter of annual growth and the level of employment is more than 80,000 above the low point reached in mid-2012. In addition to these factors, population growth has continued while some of those who had postponed purchasing in recent years have begun to enter the housing market. To date, supply has not responded commensurately to this increased demand and, as a result, prices and rents have risen. The level of housing supply - owner-occupied, social and privately rented - especially in Dublin, is below what is required. Rising rents and prices are a concern for the families that are finding it difficult to access suitable homes, but they also represent a risk to our competitiveness as an economy and our attractiveness as a place in which to live, do business and raise a family.

Boosting supply is set to remain a key priority for the Government in the coming period. This is co-ordinated under Construction 2020, the Government's strategy for a renewed construction sector. This strategy sets the goal of an appropriately sized construction and housing sector which is sustainable, well-financed and competitive. It addresses the key prerequisites for a property market in terms of demand and supply. On the demand side, the essential requirement is the existence of sufficient numbers of purchasers or renters and ensuring that this demand is supported by viable finance. Hence, for prospective buyers, access to finance to fund the acquisition of a house or commercial building is essential. The strategy works on the basis that there will be a need for, on average, 25,000 new dwellings per year for the next 15 years or so. On the supply side, prerequisites include the availability of a supply of suitably zoned land with appropriate planning permissions and backed by appropriate planning and building regulations; adequate industry capacity, including both expertise on the part of developers and affordable access to skilled labour; and the availability of appropriate equity and-or debt capital. The strategy includes actions to ensure that the required sources of land, labour, capital and expertise will be available to meet medium-term demand.

The strategy involves ensuring that any critical bottlenecks that might impede the sector in meeting residential and non-residential demand are addressed. It is about realigning demand and supply while promoting stability. Its detailed programme of work includes 75 time-bound actions, encompassing areas as diverse as planning, financing, regulation and public investment. Significant progress has been made to date, including the establishment of a dedicated task force on housing supply in Dublin, which has examined housing demand and supply across the four local authorities, initially focusing on measuring short term viable supply; the drawing up of a roadmap for the development of the national housing framework; the publication of a new social housing strategy setting out a comprehensive approach to the delivery of social housing to 2020; the development of proposals for major reform of the planning process to include revision of Part V requirements for developers, incorporating a reduction to 10%, retrospective application of reduced development levies, a vacant site levy and so-called use it or lose it planning permissions; and the establishment of a high-level working group which is leading an examination of, and reporting on, the availability of development finance. In addition to the latter, the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, under the auspices of the NTMA, is exploring ways, through its commercial mandate, to support financing projects that will enhance the supply of housing. To underpin further the whole-of-government approach to this matter, in July the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Coffey, was given responsibility for driving construction work forward. In addition, a dedicated Cabinet committee ensures that focus is maintained at the highest level of Government. It is supported in this regard by an implementation group of Secretaries General. The strategy puts forward a multi-pronged, holistic approach aimed at developing a world-class construction sector which is competitive, innovative and sustainable, and capable of supporting a recovering economy. The plan represents a multifaceted, joined-up approach to addressing all issues relating to the sector.

I will comment in more detail on a number of the matters being addressed by the Government. In November the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government published the Social Housing Strategy 2020 - Support, Supply and Reform, which is to support the realisation of a new vision, namely, that to the greatest extent possible, every household in Ireland will have access to secure, good quality housing which is suited to its needs, which comes at an affordable price and which is located in sustainable communities.

The strategy is focused on three main areas. The first is the provision of a new social housing supply. In this regard, the aim is to provide 35,000 new social housing units, over a six-year period. This is to meet the additional social housing supply requirements, as determined by the Housing Agency. This housing will be delivered by local authorities and approved housing boards at an estimated cost of €3.8 billion. The second area is providing housing supports through the private rental sector. This will support up to 75,000 households via the housing assistance payment and rental accommodation scheme in an enhanced private rental sector. The third area is the reform creating more flexible and responsive social housing supports. This incorporates a suite of reform measures to improve overall social housing delivery, including a national rents framework, tenant purchase scheme, anti-social behaviour measures and a review of assessment and allocation policy.

The strategy is backed up by an action plan with detailed work streams, objectives and timelines. The governance structure has been developed to ensure delivery of the actions within the required timeframes.

In 2015, some 15,800 housing units are to be provided through a combination of new social housing units and the housing assistance payment. To date, meetings of both the project board and the Dublin Social Housing Delivery Task Force have taken place. These meetings agreed the process for setting targets for each local authority. Targets will be issued to each local authority very shortly and each will be required to outline delivery proposals, starting with 2015. Every local authority is meeting officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government over the coming weeks. Officials have been appointed to lead working groups on the various work streams under the strategy. These working groups will be required to deliver on a particular list of actions within the timeframes set out in the strategy.

As I mentioned, a well-functioning house-building sector needs to be able to access appropriate levels of development and other finance on a sustainable basis to support new supply. Under Construction 2020, the Department of Finance was charged with the implementation of a number of actions in the areas of development and equity finance.

To take this work forward, the Department of Finance established a high-level working group which brought together representatives of the main banks, the Irish Banking Federation, NAMA, the National Pensions Reserve Fund, the Construction Industry Federation and Property Industry Ireland. This work was also complemented by in-depth discussion of the issues with other key players in the sector, including equity providers, planning experts and academics.

What has been clearly established through this work is that while the banks are in a position to provide development finance for viable, shovel-ready projects, this finance is generally available for up to only 60% to 65% of the total development cost. The remaining 35% to 40% equity gap has to be met by developers themselves. While this may represent a challenge for some developers, including smaller-scale operators and others who find themselves in a weak balance sheet position, I believe this is a much more sustainable funding model than the one that characterised the boom years, which was dominated by bank-based financing. I do not believe I have to spell out to Deputies where that funding model brought us to. We have to remember that development, of its nature, is a risky undertaking and, as such, the appropriate way to fund it is through a combination of debt and equity finance.

The current position is that developers have to adapt to a new regime where the rules of the game have altered. As I have already said, while we should welcome this transition to a more sustainable model, I recognise that it brings some challenges for developers and builders. To help address these challenges and facilitate dialogue and mutual understanding between developers and equity providers, the Department of Finance, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Federation, is organising a networking event in the near future. Through this proactive approach, the Department aims to match market participants such that opportunities for new construction can be identified and pursued.

On the rental sector, a noteworthy change in the housing market is the large increase in the rental segment. The private rented sector is an increasingly important element of the housing market, with the proportion of households in the sector almost having doubled in the period 2006 to 2011, and approximately one in five households is now renting a home in the private sector.

An efficiently functioning rental sector is an important contributor to providing a full range of housing options to people and families. The Government recognises that the rented sector is an integral part of our housing policy for the future and that a well-balanced housing sector requires a strong and vibrant rented sector which is appropriately regulated.

Growth in rents, particularly in Dublin, is a cause for concern, not just for the families that are finding it difficult to access suitable homes. It is also a cause of concern because of the way in which it puts our economic competitiveness at risk. However, as with house price growth generally, it is the resolution of the overall housing supply problem that is the key element in restoring stability to the rental market.

Nonetheless, a number of specific actions have been undertaken in regard to the rental sector. The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012, currently before the Oireachtas, builds on what has already been achieved by the Residential Tenancies Act and the Private Residential Tenancies Board in providing for the further development and regulation of the rental sector.

The rent supplement scheme provides support to approximately 71,500 eligible people living in private rented accommodation whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source. Expenditure on the scheme in 2014 was approximately €339 million. At the end of December 2014, approximately 29,000 rent recipients were on the live register, representing 8.1% of the total on the live register.

Approximately €300 million has been committed for rent supplement for 2015, which represents a transfer of funding in excess of €20 million to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to support the new housing assistance payment, and also the reduction of persons in receipt of rent supplement as a result of the fall in the number on the live register.

Rent supplement is a demand-led scheme and the Government will continue to ensure the necessary funding for the scheme is in place. The Department of Social Protection is a significant player in the private rented sector and, therefore, not only has responsibility for persons in rent supplement tenancies but also for the market as a whole, including those in private rented accommodation. There are concerns that raising rent limits is not the solution to the current market difficulties as it is likely to add to further rental inflation and affect not only rent supplement recipients but also many lower-income workers and students.

As a result of supply constraints in the private rental market and the difficulties faced by prospective tenants, the Department of Social Protection put measures in place to ensure the housing needs of rent supplement customers throughout the country who were a risk of homelessness were addressed by providing for increased flexibility within the administration of the rent supplement scheme.

Turning to the issue of housing in Dublin, where the demand pressures have been strongest, the Dublin Housing Supply and Co-ordination Task Force was established to examine the issue of housing in the city. The first report of the task force, submitted at the end of June 2014, concluded that across all four Dublin local authorities, 12,785 houses and 7,925 apartments then had planning permission, equating to three years of infrastructurally unconstrained supply. Second, a further 25,507 new homes are considered permissible on existing zoned lands, if landowners and developers wished to seek those permissions. Third, given a predicted housing requirement of approximately 7,500 new homes per annum, identified by the Housing Agency, the above figures indicate that there are permissions and lands to meet predicted requirements for approximately the next six years.

The first report also concluded that given good immediate availability of implementable planning permissions, consideration of other possible issues with an impact on supply was required, as evidenced by the low level of new planning applications for multi-unit developments.

It is fair to say that the general picture is one of solid improvement across the property and construction sectors, with the caveat that this is coming off a very low base level of activity. A preliminary estimate of 40,500 residential property transactions in 2014, representing an increase of over one third compared to 2013, provides a strong indication of recovery in the property market. However, despite the promising increase in house completions, the number continues to fall below estimates of demand, which we acknowledge.

This supply and demand mismatch is particularly pronounced in urban areas, such as Dublin, and is feeding into higher house prices, although there are tentative indications of a moderation in prices in Dublin based on the most recent figures. The Government is cognisant of this issue and as I highlighted, is working to resolve them through the Construction 2020 strategy and, more recently, through the Social Housing Strategy.

The Government has made substantial progress in addressing a wide variety of issues in the property and construction sector. Under the Dublin housing supply and co-ordination task force, we have established that there is at present planning permission for 20,000 units in Dublin, enough to provide three years' supply.

I have exceeded my time. There are a number of other points which I can leave to be included in the record.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suppose if there was some bit of advice I would give to my Fianna Fáil colleagues across the House, it is that they should restrict their Private Members' motions to matters on UFOs and extraterrestrial life because their former Ministers walk in here as if the party has just landed on earth. Theirs is the party that was expert in building houses, except it built them in places where nobody wanted to live. Their party completely misled tens of thousands of construction workers to the point that it was telling them about soft landings, and they misled young families in the same way. They now come in with bleeding-heart talk about it, as if they were going to do something for those families after landing them in this crisis. The party has no credibility.

I listened to the former Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, talking about rural areas. He was part of a Government that decimated rural areas with housing policies and with the way it carried on. He was also part of Government when I was here listening, in 2006, to a Minister talking about people wanting to own not only one house, but two, three and four houses. They ratcheted it up and caused the crisis and now they are acting as if they were never part of it in the first place.

Even when they were talking like that, in 2005, there were still 45,000 applicants on the social housing list. Even though it peaked at 90,000, that was still a considerable number of applicants on the housing list at the time when Fianna Fáil was talking about everything being so rosy in the garden.

It is on the back of that where the Government has had to make such significant changes. That is why there is now in place a proper strategy, the Social Housing Strategy 2020. There will be investment of at least €3.8 billion, which will lead to 35,000 new homes.

There are now 7,000 more working in construction which is a fantastic improvement, and 11,000 more new homes were built in 2014, an increase of 30% in one year. Some 40,000 residential properties changed hands in 2014. That is such a change, and something positive for thousands of families right across the country.

There is still considerable pent-up demand for apartments and houses and that is the reason we need to have a clear strategy on this. We are lucky in the sense that this has happening to some degree because it indicates that matters are finally improving in this country, that Ireland is back, that there is demand for jobs in the capital city and in Cork city, and there is a need for us to have a clear approach to how we plan providing housing, both social and private, for the future. I am glad to say this is a Government that takes its responsibility seriously. It is not a Government that will merely ratchet it up and create another cycle of disaster for this country like what happened in the past.

There is significant supports being given to people right across this country. It is amazing. Listening to some of the Opposition so far, one would swear nothing was being done. Some €300 million in rent supplement alone is a significant amount. That is positive for those who are in receipt of it. It is something we are protecting to try and keep borrowers in their own homes as much as we possibly can.

The Minister of State did not quite get the opportunity to highlight the positive matters that he was talking about. I reiterated some of them, such as the new residential houses that went on the market in 2014, where there was a significant increase. There is so much more that is so positive, in both this year's and last year's budget. It is also important that we are bringing out legislation on the issues around planning to ensure the land banks are used properly. There is considerable potential, even in the capital city, to build so many more new homes. NAMA has been directed to ensure that it gets houses onto the market and develops the houses that will give the potential to provide so many new homes in the capital city. There is, maybe, a need for us to do more and for us to do it faster but we at least are working to a clear plan, and that should be commended. I commend the amendment to the House.

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the face of it, the Fianna Fáil motion says practically nothing. It certainly proposes very little, and what it does propose is either vague or seriously flawed. The lack of any firm proposals in this motion speaks volumes. Fianna Fáil, like the Government, is incapable of grasping the reality, namely, that the crisis we face in housing and particularly social housing has now reached epidemic proportions. Fianna Fáil is incapable of talking about the real solutions because like the Government, it is utterly opposed to them. Like the Government, Fianna Fáil is completely wedded to the model it carved out in the early 2000s, namely, to dismantle State provision of housing and move all responsibility away from local authorities and onto the private sector and voluntary housing bodies. Fianna Fáil cannot really propose solutions because like the Government its policies are more of the same.

Under Fianna Fáil the primary way new applicants for social housing got housed was through the use of a public subsidy of private accommodation and coupled with large discounts for council tenants to buy their homes, and a reliance on disastrous PPP models. The local authority housing stock was chopped again and again. There was a steep decrease in the delivery of major social housing projects and increased use of regeneration projects which delivered more private units where council houses once stood. Even back in the mid-2000s it was clear there was a major problem with the provision of social housing as tens of thousands of applicants waited for months and even years to be housed. We did not realise how bad things would get, but it was clear from the policy of the time that they were not getting better.

Due to the failure of Fianna Fáil to regulate the banks and its utter capitulation to Europe, we were left with a bailout programme that required serious financial readjustment. Unfortunately, with right-wing parties in government such as Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, the adjustments tend always to be about squeezing from those who have little to give. In Fianna Fáil's last few years in government, housing became a major target for cuts. Fine Gael kept up the tradition and now we have a yearly housing capital spend that is more than €1 billion short of the spend in 2008. This year, the Government had the audacity to herald from on high an announcement that it would spend just over twice the 2008 housing budget over a period of six years. As one might expect when one picks the numbers apart, much like the motion, it is very short of anything approaching a solution.

Fianna Fáil might not have a solution to the housing crisis but neither does the Government. The Government does one thing very well when it comes to housing and that is spin. It has shown itself to be a master at moving the goalposts and twisting figures. I cannot count how many times Government officials have announced the same figures and pretended they were new figures. In the early days of the Government it seemed that every few months we were told NAMA would deliver 4,000 homes, as if it was new information or even touching on being accurate. At present, NAMA has only delivered a quarter of that, and it only did it once.

Now the Government is shouting to anyone who will listen that it willspend €3.8 billion on housing in the next six years. That is, on average, €630 million a year, which is approximately €34 million more than was spent last year. In case one was not paying attention, 2014 was not the year that the housing crisis was solved. It was the year homelessness reached record highs, housing need did not budge and we spent an additional €500 million on private rent subsidies for good measure. We also spent millions renting hostels and hotel rooms for families for whom we could not be bothered to build houses.

That said, the Government did produce its Housing Strategy 2020 in 2014. This is the strategy which pledged an extra €34 million a year and claimed it would deliver 35,000 houses. Of course "deliver" is a somewhat vague term. One could ask from where the houses will be delivered. According to the Minister's responses to recent parliamentary questions, they will be delivered from thin air in a lot of cases, brought into being by wishful thinking and more of the same. When I asked the Minister how many of the promised 7,400 homes local authorities would deliver in 2015, I was told it would be approximately 2,400. Somehow, in the midst of the greatest shortage of residential rental properties in recent memory, when construction is still very low, the Government believes it will find 5,000 new rental properties on the private market. I am very interested to hear how it will do that. Many people cannot even find a room in Dublin. Vacancies are filled within hours of advertisements appearing. People are so desperate they are agreeing to take on apartments at extortionate rents without even a viewing. The Minister must be clear about how the Government intends to deliver the housing and the extra cost the private subsidy will incur.

Sinn Féin has been clear from the very start of the crisis that the problem is a shortage of social housing and the only solution is more social housing. The private market is unable or unwilling to provide housing to large sections of society in any kind of stable way and the State has the ultimate responsibility to ensure its people have access to affordable, secure and comfortable housing. The money now pledged for the Government's strategy must be redirected towards investment in the building of social housing. The only policy difference Fianna Fáil offers is one which simply does not stack up. Increasing rent supplement levels by removing the cap would simply drive up rents further while providing no security for the vast majority of people under threat due to high rents or unable to find housing within the range of the cap.

In autumn 2014, the average rent in Dublin, where a significant number of rent supplement recipients reside, is €1,296, while the average rent for a double room is €518. The problem in many cases is not with rates of rent supplement or the cap but simply the fact that rents are impossibly high not just for the unemployed who are eligible for rent supplement, but for single people with no dependants on low and middle incomes. The average rent supplement payment last year was €4,400 a year for approximately 75,000 people. A 10% increase in rent supplement payments would cost approximately €32 million and would do very little to protect recipients from eviction. It would simply further line the pockets of landlords. The removal of the cap or its increase would probably push up prices. It would also ensure many people on rent supplement would be forced to pay even more in their own contribution, leaving less for food and utilities. Throwing more money at private rents only serves the landlords, but of course many landlords sit in this House and it is no surprise that such a measure might be popular. In the absence of a major increase in social housing this policy would be disastrous and at best it would be a costly exercise in distraction.

The solution to the rent crisis is to introduce a system of rent control in conjunction with a major campaign of building social housing through local authorities. Rents must be regulated. They cannot be allowed to be so strongly controlled by the whim of private developers and landlords who are reaping the rewards of a housing shortage and extorting inexcusably high rents from struggling families and working people. Rent control would set a guide level for accommodation based on location and quality, which could be tailored to reflect changes in the economic climate, the cost of living and inflation. There is no excuse for increases in rent which amount to 40% in one year.

Rent control would ensure that rents would never fall below what is reasonable or rise above what is affordable. It is essential that housing is affordable for the public. Any claims that rent control would be unconstitutional are clearly incorrect, as any fair-minded reading of the relevant articles of Bunreacht na hÉireann will show.

Seven years after they presided over an unprecedented property crash, Fianna Fáil members still rail against financial regulation; they have learned nothing. Imagine we were back in 2005 and a Central Bank were to propose an end to 100% mortgages. Fianna Fáil would be up in arms, as its members are now. They are very slow learners. Their instinct is to oppose regulation and especially when issues like property are being discussed.

The bubble in both residential and commercial property was down in large part to a failure in regulation. It is depressing to hear the party that oversaw that bubble and did its best to reduce regulation once again attacking proposals that bring some sense into the property market. The rich and those with rich families will always be able to outbid others. What creates bubbles and forces workers out of the housing market is excessive and unregulated credit.

In our proposal Sinn Féin welcomed the broad thrust of the Central Bank's original proposals. There has much concern during the public discussions about how these rules will affect young families trying to buy in particular. Sinn Féin shares that concern. The reason young families and young workers cannot save is due to the low wage economy this Government is building. It is because young workers cannot make ends meet and that is before water charges come in. Even when it has some space to give something back, the Government brought in a budget that favoured only the top 40% better-off and made the rest, the majority, poorer.

At the end of the third quarter of last year, 117,000 families were in arrears on their family homes. That is 15.5% of all family homes. Many of them are working families but when a bank that can borrow money from the ECB at 1% or 2% is charging them 4% or 5% interest, they cannot afford their mortgage. However, that does not concern this Government. It acts like Pontius Pilate and ignores the fact that it owns some of these banks.

Sinn Féin has drafted legislation that would give the Financial Regulator the final say as to whether interest rates hikes are justifiable at State-owned banks. When this Government first came to power, its members huffed and puffed when the banks increased their rates but now they hide under the table with their hands over their ears. The Central Bank is doing its job and the Government should start doing its job.

I refer to the big problem which is that families are becoming homeless. There has been a haemorrhage from rental supplement and RAS. People are ending up homeless and are going to hostels and bed and breakfast accommodation. Some of them are dragging their children across the city and they do not know where they will end up. There are significant social and financial consequences.

Prices are heading back to those of the Celtic tiger era. Have we learned nothing? Last night, I visited a house in Whitehall. The tenant and her children had to sleep downstairs in a three-bedroom house because of the serious dampness and mildew which threatened their health. I went upstairs and I could not breathe when I entered the room. These are the conditions of some of the houses. I refer to a survey of housing in central Dublin carried out by the local authority. Many houses were below standard.

The rules and regulations governing landlords and their responsibilities are not being enforced. More power was given to local authorities but it is not sufficient. People who complain are sometimes served with notice to quit, as happened in the case to which I have referred. That person, who has several children, was served with a notice to quit. The mortgage to rent issue needs to be reviewed. There has been a very small take-up but it is a necessary step. Given that house values have now risen above €200,000, people are told they are not suitable candidates for the mortgage to rent scheme. This is scandalous and it must be revisited. Housing should be a right which should be enshrined in the Constitution. There needs to be an investment in housing by providing an immediate stimulus. A total of €1 billion should be taken from the strategic investment fund. It did not bother us taking over €500 million from the pension reserve fund for water meters for which there is no need. There is money available in the strategic investment fund. The Minister has stated that he intends to use some of that money. I welcome that decision because I have been saying for years that the money is there. Sinn Féin has tabled numerous parliamentary questions to find out that information. That money needs to be invested immediately to get things up and running because we all know that if we start building now it will take a year or a year and a half to two years before we can deliver. That is one of the problems we face. We need to act now. With regard to housing, it is clear we are moving back to our lax ways that put us in this position in the first place.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a very significant housing crisis in this country and the figures are truly horrendous. A total of 90,000 families languish on local authority housing waiting lists throughout the country. A total of 73,000 families are on rent supplement, in many cases, condemned to live in poor, substandard, damp and insecure accommodation.

For example, in Tipperary, 3,100 people are on the local authority housing waiting list and not a single local authority house will be built in 2015. No council, including Tipperary, has been given a capital allocation for housing this year as yet. This means that the council will be lucky to build any houses in 2016 - or at the very most, it will be at the end of 2016 before they are built.

This huge housing crisis is a result of the policies pursued by the previous Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government and by this Government slashing the local authority house building programme and privatising housing. The 2020 social housing strategy is a continuation of that privatisation. At the end of that period, we will find that three quarters of the social housing will be provided by private rented accommodation, with only 5,800 new local authority builds per year. Some 40 years ago, in 1975, we were building 8,794 local authority houses. We need to repeat those figures; we need to build at least 10,000 local authority houses for people on the housing waiting list. There is no doubt that the privatisation of public housing has been an absolute disaster. No less a person than Uachtarán na hÉireann has drawn our attention to the issue. He has stated that we have to accept once and for all that people who need housing and cannot provide that from their own means should not be abandoned to the market place and the principle should be accepted that their housing should be as good as any other housing. He stated that one of the most basic deprivations a human being can suffer or fear, is that of being homeless. He further stated that it is about democracy, that one cannot leave the provision of housing to a residual feature of the market place. We have done that and homelessness is the consequence. He also stated that we have to accept that we need a great, huge increase in public rental accommodation.

The Irish Council for Social Housing said something similar when it stated that the over-reliance on the private market to meet social housing demand is unsustainable and ultimately unpredictable. Barnardos states that it is seriously concerned about the scale of the housing crisis now facing many low-income families, particularly those reliant on social welfare.

Many children experience their childhood in overcrowded, unsuitable and insecure accommodation, which affects their social, emotional and educational development. We need an emergency public house building programme, with an absolute minimum of 10,000 local authority builds every year. This programme would be self-financing and would make common sense. It would put construction workers back to work and ensure additional PAYE income for the State. It would also ensure a saving to the State in social welfare payments and it would provide additional rental income for the State. It would also support the local economy, as it would put money in people's pockets which would ensure a huge boost for local shops and businesses in danger of closing.

What we have heard from the Minister and the Government this evening is not the real world. A total of 90,000 families are on local authority house waiting lists, which is a huge figure. These thousands of families are condemned to live in insecure, poor and substandard accommodation. This must stop.