I move:
That Seanad Éireann condemns the Government for its failure to resolve the housing crisis and, in particular, for its failure to address the scandal of homelessness.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, to the House for what he will agree is an extremely important debate on the housing crisis, particularly homelessness. There is no doubt there is a housing crisis which is not being dealt with and which is growing by the day. There is also an unprecedented level of homelessness.
The Labour Party believes that housing is a social good. However, this view is clearly not shared by the Government which sees housing in a market and commodity mindset. We believe it is a fundamental requirement that good quality housing be available and accessible to as many people as possible and that every person has and should be considered to have a right to good quality, affordable housing appropriate to their needs. We would go as far as to suggest that this right be enshrined in the Constitution and, at the very minimum, in legislation.
Housing has a particular relevance and significance for society. In light of this fact, market forces alone cannot be allowed to dictate its provision and price which they are doing to a great extent. We believe the State should intervene to ensure that in the interests of social justice and the common good, this right to good quality, affordable housing is assured for everyone who needs it and according to their needs.
Land is one of the critical resources required for housing. For this reason, when the State intervenes on behalf of the community, such as in rezoning, planning permission or the provision of infrastructure by way of roads, sewerage and so on, this should not automatically result in significant and untaxed gains for landowners. However, these are not the principles which underpin the Government's housing policy.
Housing is seen as a commodity by this Government. It regards housing as a market and, therefore, will not allow State intervention. This is particularly the view of the Progressive Democrats. We know that the house building industry is the commercial wing of Fianna Fáil and, as a result, it has been reluctant to intervene in the interests of house buyers. It has taken two failed Bacon reports for the Government finally to wake up to the need for intervention, as seen in the last legislation based on the Bacon report.
During Committee Stage of the planning Bill in the Dáil, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, admitted that a couple whose joint earnings were in the region of £40,000 could not afford to enter the housing market as first-time buyers. This situation is unprecedented in the history of the State. Home ownership, the aspiration of the vast majority of Irish people, is rapidly becoming, and has for many already become, an impossible dream. As a result, side by side with unprecedented economic prosperity, there is a crisis of home ownership and the exclusion of an increasing number of people from the aspiration to own their own homes.
The inability to enter the housing market as home owners has left people exposed to the difficult area of renting accommodation from the private sector. The Government's continuing failure to set up a structure to protect those in the private rented sector from exploitation, insecurity of tenure and so on, has added to the crisis.
It is our contention that the housing crisis is at such a level that it threatens to undermine the economic prosperity which some would claim has caused it. The labour force shortage is regularly mooted as one of the potential threats to economic prosperity but is being exacerbated by the housing crisis. How can we expect to attract Irish people living abroad if they cannot afford to buy a house when they return, despite coming back to very good incomes? Similarly, how can we expect to attract foreign workers if they are unable to afford housing in the private rented sector and who more than often find, if they do manage to get rented accommodation, that they are unprotected and have no security in that accommodation?
We are not suggesting this Government has single-handedly created the problem of rising house prices. This problem began before the Government took office but a few figures are worth citing. On average, the price of housing has gone up by £20,000 per year since this Government took office. In Dublin prices have risen by £30,000 per year. The average price of a family home when this Government took office was £84,000 but is now over £163,000. Figures indicate some stability in the past few months but this happened before and there is no reason to believe the price of houses will not continue to increase.
In the same period, the number of applicants for local authority and social housing has increased from 26,000 to 50,000. If we accept that each application involves an average of three or more people, the figure becomes 150,000 people. This is a considerable figure by any standards and one which is not being tackled by the Government.
The Government's attitude is, "Crisis? What crisis?" It is an attitude of denial. According to the Government, there is no crisis and over a considerable period of time the market will obviously meet the need. The market clearly has not met the need. Indeed, far from meeting the need, it has exacerbated the need.
If we take the issue of land, for instance, in the first debates on this issue around the time of the first Bacon report, the issue was the release of land, the availability of land. It is clear that sufficient land is zoned and available for the development of residences but it simply is not being released. It is not being used but is being hoarded. This is finally recognised in the third Bacon report and the Government's response to it. Indeed the Labour Party supported the Government's moves to penalise those who were sitting on rezoned and serviced land, those who were effectively the investors in the market. However, it took the Government a long time to recognise that and despite the fact that it is nearly six months since that legislation was enacted, there is no appreciable effect on the market, certainly from the point of view of those who are trying to enter the housing market.
What should we be doing? Clearly the answer is that the Government must intervene for the reasons which I have set out. Housing cannot be seen just as a marketing commodity. That attitude has led to the current crisis. Clearly a number of interventions are necessary. I want to look at the need for a major initiative on, and a rapid increase in, local authority and social and voluntary housing. We all know from our experience as public representatives, particularly those of us who have experience as members of local authorities, that the social and voluntary housing project is extremely successful. There is local initiative and flexibility to meet the needs, particularly of those who, although they might qualify for the local authority housing lists, find themselves in a situation where they may never be housed. I am thinking particularly, for instance, of single people, returned emigrants and elderly people who will never be housed and who are reliant on the local authority.
If this initiative is to take place, two things must be done. First, a national housing authority must be established. Clearly we are facing such an unprecedented need for house building and new dwellings that the need for serious intervention by a particular body, established with the specific purpose of driving and co-ordinating the provision of housing, must be taken on board. Our proposal is the establishment of a national housing authority which would be responsible, as other authorities are in other areas, for spearheading a plan to meet the need, estimated to be 500,000 new dwellings over the next ten years. One in every three houses which are needed by 2012, must be built over the next decade. Clearly that need will not be met, judging by the current pace of development. Therefore, it is critical that a single agency, with a single plan designed to meet this need, is established. Provision can no longer be left to the traditional sources of private house building and local authority housing. It simply will not work, hence the need for a single authority.
On local authority and social housing, earlier this year the figure for applicants on local authority housing lists and various other forms of social housing, to which I referred earlier, was 50,000 – I would venture that that figure has increased and is closer to 60,000. Despite the fact that overall house construction has doubled in the past five or six years, the number in the local authority and voluntary housing sector has remained static. Clearly this need is not being met, despite the best efforts of the local authorities in this area and the popularity of voluntary and social housing programmes. It simply is not enough to meet the massive increase needed in this area. Therefore, we propose a front-loaded programme for the construction of 50,000 local authority houses in this area.
On the regulation of the housing market, as I stated, there is clearly a need for intervention, particularly in the private rented sector. My colleague, Senator Ryan, will deal with the area of homelessness which forms part of the motion. I commend the motion to the House and look forward to the debate here.