I echo what Deputy Ó Broin has outlined, which is the Opposition’s extreme disappointment at the pace at which this Bill is being rushed through. It does not take seriously the role of Parliament. It is also extremely frustrating that the Government gives out and complains that the Opposition does not come forward with solutions when the key point - the only point, really - at which we have a real opportunity to engage with Government policy in a meaningful way is on legislation, amendments and discussion at committees. With this Bill, we have two hours for 86 pages. This shows me that the Government is afraid of something here. It is unwilling to engage in serious debate and discussion on what is in this Bill. If it were not concerned, it would give the Bill the time. Is the Government rushing just to try to be seen to be doing something, given that it is not taking substantial time to look at this Bill? There are very significant changes in the Bill. In particular, the one that I am most concerned about is the change to apartment sizes. This has the most impact on my constituency. New apartments are being built in places like Santry and Whitehall, and will be built in places like Ballymun. It is all apartments that are being built in my constituency. These are going to have profound changes for the livability of those apartments. It feels like the Government is simply ignoring the Opposition and is not taking our concerns seriously or giving us the time to scrutinise the Bill and discuss it with professional bodies. I want to highlight what the Irish Planning Institute said about the changes being made to apartment guidelines. It stated very clearly that professional planners not only recognise the gravity of the housing crisis, they welcome meaningful evidence-based reforms but the institute is not convinced that the announced changes to apartment sizes and standards would achieve what is intended. It said the erosion of unit mix requirements presents a market-led approach to housing that is fundamentally at odds with the significant work undertaken by the Department of housing to create a plan-led system with high-quality long-term sustainable outcomes. That is the major concern. What we are building will not provide sustainable communities and homes. A significant concern is that this is about cramming as many units as possible into a site for two reasons. The first is for viability, which is profitability, and the second is so the Government can say it is delivering whatever number of units but are they actually homes? I also want to read into the record an article by Dr. Lorcan Sirr on the implications of the changes to apartment sizes for climate change. He referred to the real issue, namely that apartments with windows on more than one side, known as dual aspect, have a considerable advantage over those that do not as windows can be opened to cross-ventilate the dwelling. Single aspect apartments can get stiflingly hot and have limited capacity for ventilation. The point he made was that new apartment standards introduced by the Minister will now make apartments smaller and reduce the amount of dual aspect apartments required in any one development, the requirement for balconies and floor-to-ceiling heights, all in the interest of increasing financial viability for developers. The viability of being able to live in these apartments, in particular with more frequent hotter summers, has not been given as much ministerial attention. I ask the Minister and his officials to give the committee some clear detail next week on how these apartments will be livable, in particular in the context of climate change, and what impact climate change is likely to have on these changes and the livability of the apartments. I am concerned that the apartment standard size changes the Minister is about to make are about reducing standards and the livability of apartments to achieve what the Government calls viability but which we should call profitability. The term "viability" is a politically safe word. The Government will not state the truth, namely that this is about reducing housing standards so they are sufficiently profitable for developers and institutional investors who are already making hundreds of millions in profit. They are doing so because the State is dependent on the private sector to build. It is funnelling, and will funnel in the coming years, millions of euro in public money into private developers and investor funds and reduce the livability of homes at the same time in order to increase their profitability so that they will build more units which are not actually homes. This is about increasing units, not providing homes. IRES REIT and the developers and investors have been very clear that they are delighted with the changes and being given open access to a public sector ATM slush fund, which is effectively what we are doing rather than expanding our public sector and councils and developing a State construction company that would build affordable homes. The reality is that more expensive built rent units will not solve our housing disaster or provide any more new homes for people to buy that are affordable. Just a tiny fraction of what is being built in Dublin, including in my constituency, will be available for sale. No apartments are available for sale. Nothing is being sold at a reasonable price. Of course, this adds to house price inflation because everyone is trying to buy existing built homes and there is no supply of homes to buy that could reduce house prices. The lack of affordable homes to buy being delivered in our cities, in particular Dublin, is the fundamental problem. The Minister spoke about the justifications for these changes, which are outlined in the Bill. He said it is about addressing homelessness and providing residential supply. He spoke about what is changing. The reality is that the housing disaster is happening right now. What is the Government is doing about it? It will not put in place a ban on evictions, which it could do and would solve people being pushed into homelessness. Instead, it is making changes that institutional investors and developers want. It is deeply unfortunate that the Government is taking this approach. I want to highlight a case that came to me. There is a human reality to all of this which I have raised in the House again and again and which the Government is completely ignoring. There is a human cost to the housing crisis. A constituent who was in touch with me highlighted that they have been in homelessness for year. Prior to that, they were in homelessness for three years and got a HAP property for a year but were made homeless when they were evicted. This family, with three children aged 16, 12 and four, have been homeless for four out of the past five years. The mother described how stressful it is for her older kids. She said they have been in this situation and have seen no normal life. She said no child should have to deal with this and they are stuck in extreme conditions, living in rooms together. She said they have no family to visit because her mum and dad passed away. They cannot get a break. She said it is distressing and embarrassing for the children. This is something that frustrates me. The impact of homelessness on children is not being taken into account. It is extremely damaging for children, even if a child is homeless for a short period of time, such as a week or two weeks - we know it is often much longer. One could argue that this is not related to the Bill but it is directly related to it because it claims to address homelessness. The Bill will not address or solve homelessness. It will not provide homes that people can live in because the changes to apartment sizes and standards are about increasing profitability so developers and investor funds build more units that nobody can afford to buy or rent. As we have seen in reports from the Central Bank and others, institutional funds increase rents overall. The Government's claim that this is about increasing supply and will eventually reduce rents is untrue. The Department repeats the same mantra, namely that increasing supply will reduce rents. There is no point in the near future when that will happen. Rents will simply increase, which is pushing more and more people into homelessness. I support some aspects of the Bill, such as giving the Housing Agency increased borrowing capacity. It is important to increase that. Unfortunately, other aspects of the Bill make it very difficult to support it as a whole. I will continue to engage with it and I hope the Minister can address some of these issues in committee.

Sentiment score: 0.00