Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I did not single anybody out. I am saying I disagree with people who reduce it.

The impression is given that the response to the housing crisis is only happening in Dublin but that is not the case. The entire country is impacted upon by the housing difficulties. Different counties are affected in different ways. The major pressure and the greatest number of homeless families are both in Dublin and that is why much of our talk is about Dublin. However, we intervene in the same way across all the other counties in terms of supply measures. In the early years, Carlow was very successful in bringing forward housing projects that were all funded. We did not say "No" to anybody. I wish to be very clear on that point. Somebody asked if the approved housing bodies do more because they can access finance. There was no issue with finance. Any projects that are brought to us go through various scenarios to ensure that they provide value for money and that money is available for them. Local authorities do not need to access private finance. They can access taxpayers' money through the Department and they get it. We have asked them to increase the number of projects in the pipeline.

People raised the issue of the process. It is a pity Senator Craughwell has left. I would like to ask him what he thinks the private sector is doing. It used to take between four and seven years to bring forward local authority projects, but we have introduced a new 59-week process. Many projects are meeting the target and many others are close to it, taking approximately 61 or 62 weeks. The industry norm in the private sector is not 59 weeks. A period of 59 weeks is not bad to take a project from a greenfield site through all the planning and procurement stages to start building. I would like if it could be done in 20 weeks, but with all our rules and regulations for proper planning and procurement it is not possible to do that and to allow for the input of residents. Taking all that into account, 59 weeks is a good timeline. I do not believe that local authorities are being held back because of the four-stage approval process. I do not see where projects could gain time. The maximum gain would be approximately six weeks if we cut out the four-stage approval process. No local authority has told me, either on or off the record, that it could beat that timeline if the Department was not involved. Where there were opportunities to go it alone, local authorities often did not take those opportunities and decided to stay with the system. People make comments in here because it might suit a narrative, but they do not reflect the feedback I am getting from local authorities or from housing or planning officers. They think the system works quite well. It needed to be changed and timelines needed to be introduced in order that we had something to aim for. The latter was not the case in the past. Previously, projects could meander on for years but that does not happen now because we track progress. It does not mean that every project meets the timeline but the majority do. I accept Senator Humphreys point that projects relating to some of the larger sites around Dublin are taking far too long. I will return to that matter.

Some information is coming out because I see a common thread in a number of the comments made in the Houses and in the media about what Dublin City Council and others are being asked to do with regard to projects worth more than €20 million. I am not directing my remarks at Senator Humphreys. We have engaged with Dublin City Council in terms of what it has to do on larger sites, and what the requirements are for the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform, Finance and Housing, Planning and Local Government as well. They are not excessive and it is not as if they cannot be worked out. It is not rocket science. Any large-scale projects would generally have to undergo a cost-benefit analysis. That is a requirement when using taxpayers' money. That does not explain delays of years in respect of certain sites. It is not a case of the Department being over the top. A lot of money has been spent on housing projects. We are getting great value for money on all the projects. I can see great results. Social housing is coming in at the same standard as private housing and, very often, it is being built for less and it is being made available for a lot less. That is the way we want to keep it. We must keep doing that without losing the run of ourselves. I am aware of figures quoted in the media about some of the sites in Dublin. Those figures are not correct. I have not seen them on paper from the councils, but they are out there as if they are real, but my understanding is that they are not real. If they were real I would confirm them here and talk Members through them.

I do not believe permission has been refused for the Poolbeg site but they are still in negotiations regarding the price and the figures. It is a difficult one to try to get the prices right for affordability. The matter was well flagged. They are trying to tease through it as well. If I am wrong about permission being refused, I will confirm it. They are trying to work through the figures to see how we can deliver the affordable housing project. As Members know, with the clause, An Bord Pleanála has an increasing amount of affordable and social housing to consider, and rightly so. I will check and I will come back to Senator Humphreys if I am wrong because I am aware it is an issue he has raised a lot and he is interested in it.

It appears that home ownership figures going down is the message of the month for Senator Murnane O’Connor and her Fianna Fáil colleagues, as well as other Senators. They had better check their homework on that and track the history of it. The figures have been going down consistently for the past 20 to 30 years. The percentage of home ownership declined greatly in the years when Fianna Fáil was in government. The figures have not fallen dramatically in the recent years. There has been a steady decline in home ownership since the 1980s. It was more than a steady decline in the years when Fianna Fáil was in government. Senators should check their figures before they start with their mantra. There are different reasons for the decline. I accept that some people cannot access money for the house they want to buy. I do not say that is not a reason. Another reason is that it is a personal choice. There is a general trend towards not owning houses in some parts of the world, for example, in Europe, which is reaching here too. There has been a steady decline. For various reasons, people set up their permanent home much later in life. There are reasons for the decline in home ownership, but it is an issue that will affect how we manage wealth, pensions and incomes in years to come when people retire. That is the reason the document we produced in February 2019 in conjunction with the Department of Health on housing options for our ageing population, focuses on how we will deal with people who will not have equity in a house. Currently, approximately 87% of people over the age of 65 own their own house and that will change in years to come for various reasons.

Regardless of whether we fix the housing crisis, the level of home ownership will still be a lot lower. Senator Humphreys is correct; we are trying to develop policies in that regard. It does involve focusing on pensions and income but also the choice of housing and the housing options available appropriate to people who are ageing.We must also have the conversation about those who are renting in the long term, that is renting from the age of 30 years up to the age of 70 years, and how they can manage that rent when they are no longer working at the same level. We are focusing on that and we are trying to develop solutions. I am not saying that we have all the issues worked out but we are in that space and we are watching those trends. Let us be clear that these are not new trends, and it is not true that this is something new that has only happened in the past two years.

The issue of the credit union movement being involved in the mortgage market was raised. We would like the credit unions to be involved in housing. The credit unions have money that could be invested in housing projects and community projects through housing bodies. We had a discussion on this issue in the other House twice this week. Some of the credit unions are ready to do that. The housing bodies are permitted to do it but are choosing not to do it. It is not a case of the Government stopping credit unions from investing in housing. The rules have been changed in the Department of Finance and the Central Bank of Ireland. CUDA is one of the representative bodies that represents some of the larger credit unions which are ready and waiting. There is a special purpose vehicle ready to invest money into housing. Naturally they would like to do it other ways as well. I think there is space for them to do so. I would welcome the involvement of credit unions with housing bodies and others to provide houses in the years ahead. Hopefully we can do that.

I think Senator Murnane O'Connor was raising the home loan market and mortgages. I believe some of them are making changes there too. When it comes to some of the vacant properties and some of the cheaper properties in various counties, one would not need a full mortgage to do them up, and a credit union loan might be more appropriate and that should be looked at as well.

The Senator mentioned the home loan - perhaps she missed it during the months of July or September - but the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, consistently told this House and the Dáil that the money was available for an application that would meet the criteria. There was never a doubt about that in his mind. He always said it. In fact the figures were given at a committee meeting a few weeks to confirm there was an extra €353 million allocated to match the commitments that Deputy Eoghan Murphy had made. We were never in doubt but there is always a hysteria that the money is not there. It was always there.