Rebecca Moynihan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach and thank the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, for again coming into this House to discuss it. I welcome the opportunity to discuss Housing for All, which is a comprehensive policy document which will form the basis for our housing policy for years to come. We have, however, seen other comprehensive policy documents in that regard such as the Rebuilding Ireland policy of 2016. We have stated previously that we want the Government to succeed on housing and that we will, where allowed, be constructive but it is also the job of the Opposition to challenge and over time, hold the Government to account in terms of delivery because, as we saw from Rebuilding Ireland previously, Governments can be big on ambition and on targets and not directly address it. Indeed, the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, who was present previously, was the one who over time put in parliamentary questions to show that the previous Fine Gael-led Government was not delivering on the targets that it itself had set in Rebuilding Ireland.

Housing for All is big on ambition in terms of certain parts of the sector but it is very short on specifics. It also does not address some of the key issues and stakeholders in the housing debate. First, I want to address the issue of renters and the lack of real commitment to or acknowledgment of them in the policy document. Housing for All commits to bringing forward legislation with provisions to address long-term security of tenure. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, has said that it would be dependent on the legal advice that is received from the Attorney General and the Department, and it is hard to describe this as a firm commitment to delivering real security of tenure for renters.

Renters do not need security of tenure to be "addressed". They need it to be comprehensively enshrined in law. They need long-term security of tenure to be a feature of the rental market in Ireland rather than an exception, which is what it was. Most importantly, renters - families, single people, young, old or whatever their situation - need somewhere to be able to call a home.This month, it was reported that the figures for August show that a further 23 families were made homeless, taking the total numbers without a secure home to 593. The number of children entering homelessness increased in August by 60 to 2,189. This is the direct result of the lifting of the eviction ban which the Opposition had warned about. We know from the statistics that the main reasons for termination of a tenancy are the sale of property, at 51%, and the use of a home for a wide range of relatives, at 24%. Last week, the Labour Party brought before the Dáil a Bill that would restrict these practices and ensure that people living in rental accommodation are protected. We cannot do that without enshrining in law long-term security of tenure. The Minister needs to give us specifics on how his housing policy will do that. Housing for All does not address that issue.

There is an imbalance in favour of landlords. There are sections of government that believe paying off a mortgage is more important than keeping children out of homelessness. There is need for a rebalancing. A person's home is more important that another person's or entity's investment. I am unequivocal in saying that. I urge the Minister to implement indefinite duration tenancies and secure tenancies to bring us in line with other European countries. All renters deserve certainty of tenancy and affordability. The patchwork effort of the Government does not help renters. It highlights the Government's continued failure to address the twin central issues of soaring rents and lack of secure tenancy. We must change the dynamic in the rental sector if it is to become a sustainable option for the people who need it. The Minister says he supports home ownership. That is fine and a legitimate aspiration. There is a right to purchase in regard to local authority housing. Why not be radical in the Housing for All policy and provide for a rent to purchase for tenants in the private rental sector as well? Other jurisdictions in the European Union, such as France, allow that. To be truly radical and shake up the rental market, a commitment in that regard is key. Renters are not transient. Security of tenure is the bedrock of key protections and rights which they deserve, as well as a rent-freeze on the basis of rising rents and where they stand regarding the living wage. We also need a ban on eviction to try to stop families and children entering homelessness.

Moving to student accommodation, it is important this area is addressed in light of the guidelines issued today. The guidelines are non-specific and they provide get-out clauses for developers. Developers already had get-out clauses under the development plans. We need to legislate against the repurposing of student accommodation and to ensure such accommodation is not rented at the type of rents currently being charged. Landlords should be required to either drop rents in order that students can afford them or we need to stop granting approvals for an oversupply of student accommodation in specific areas. Issuing guidelines with non-Covid get-out clauses is simply not good enough. It is similar to the approach taken regarding investors being able to buy homes under the noses of first-time buyers in that it pays only lip-service to that practice and does not ban the bulk purchase of apartments or build-to-rent developments.

Another area where Housing for All fails is in regard to a vacant property tax. We understand that this is a complicated area and that there are issues with probate and the fair deal scheme, but we all know of properties up and down the country that have been lying idle for years and are of no consequence to the people who own them and of properties within the build-to-rent sector that are allowed to remain idle to keep rents high. The effect of the Housing for All policy is such that these sectors will dominate for years to come. Can we allow them to develop a semi-monopoly and to restrict supply of housing? What is contained in this measure in terms of a vacant property tax is not good enough.

Fundamentally, the Minister says that we cannot tackle the housing crisis with one hand tied behind our backs. We also cannot tackle the housing crisis when one sector refuses to build quality housing for all. The construction sector is building, but it is focused on purpose-built student accommodation, which it is then turning into hotels, and on the build-to-rent market. It is not building housing which will still be in use in 100 years' time. The private sector has a fundamentally different objective when it comes to the provision of housing. We cannot control what that sector is doing in terms of building homes. Housing for All gives enormous power to the private sector regarding delivering the aspirations of the Government. On that basis, I fear this Government is bound to fail in terms of delivery and meeting the targets. There is a need for a radical rethink of housing policy in this country. This is a missed opportunity on the part of the Government to put State direct build back at the heart of our housing policy.