Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 2000

Vol. 522 No. 2

Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2000: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

It is interesting that this Bill should come before us now. It is two years too late. I have remarked on a number of occasions that the economic policy being pursued has failed miserably everywhere it was tried. I cannot understand why the Government did not intervene earlier. I compliment my constituency colleague, the Minister for Finance, on bringing forward this Bill even at this late stage. What amazes me is that the economic philosophy and financial management pursued over the past two years do not measure up to his well-established principles.

Measures were needed to check the spiralling rate of inflation. House prices are rising at an alarming rate and have been for the past number of years. I know it is not the Minister's philosophy to stand idly by but rather to do something about it. Nobody understands why what happened in Britain was allowed to continue happening here unchecked. The Government has decided to intervene at long last. However, instead of providing more houses to deal with the housing shortage it introduced in the market certain corrective measures. I do not believe these proposals will do anything to help those who require a house. The inflationary spiral will continue. There are more people seeking houses now than at any time since the foundation of the State.

One of the false premises on which Government policy has been built is that it was doing relatively well by comparison with the previous year. If we go back ten years local authorities, including Kildare County Council on which the Minister and I were members, could build up to 350 houses in a year. That was reduced to 15 in the bad old times. In 1988, 1989 and 1990 no houses were built. Where it all went wrong was that nobody recognised the demand. With the upturn in the economy, the demand increased and nobody responded. Everyone looked to the previous year. If there was an increase of 100% in the number of local authority houses provided in every local authority area in the years after 1988 it meant nothing because we were way short of what was the norm in the early 1980s.

The Minister has intervened at last, obviously as a result of the alarm concerning the inflation figures. That was on the cards for 18 months and every commentator has spoken about it. The measures introduced by the Minister are an attempt to arrest the spiralling figures. One of the most alarming comments I have heard is that there is a noticeable slow down in the rate of house price increase and that prices have stopped increasing. I do not see any evidence of that. If the analysts have found it they are better than we who are on the ground. House prices are increasing on a daily basis and that will continue to be the position for as long as there are ten people seeking to acquire every house that comes on the market.

Many first time home seekers acquired their house through the local authority loans system. The SDA loan was increased to £50,000 in counties such as Kildare. That would not buy even half a house today. It would make no impact on the market. It is cynical to have such a level of loan. The shared ownership loan is not the best in the world but it is an attempt to address the urgent issue and it has done so to some extent. It is a maximum of £95,000 in Kildare. How many houses can one buy for that? None. One will not even get a look in the door for that amount. I cannot understand why measures have not been introduced that would have an immediate and dramatic impact on those seeking to acquire a house at a reasonable price. The Government is locked into an inflationary position. If the market tumbles we will have negative equity and that will be just as serious as the problem that existed in Britain in the late 1980s. The fact that it happened there has not rung a bell with us. Analysts said it could not happen here because we have ongoing demand but it can happen. If the economy takes a downturn as a result of fuelled inflation arising from spiralling house prices the position will change very quickly.

While I welcome the Bill it is dramatically late. It will not address the issues. It is unfortunate that the Minister must attempt to rescue this matter that has been allowed to drift for the past two years in a way that only those who did not have regard for the marketplace could ignore. The Bacon reports have come and gone. We were told that the first Bacon report was a dramatic attempt to address the problem. It had no impact, good, bad or indifferent. Nobody seemed to realise the real problem was a shortage of available housing to an ever increasing market. It did not even touch on the problem.

If the measures that are being taken now had been taken two years ago there would have been some visible result at this stage. The recent budget was a give-away one. I envy my constituency colleague being in that position. I would have thought wise counsel would have prevailed in Departments and someone at the Cabinet table would have said this was a serious issue that needed to be addressed as it had been allowed to go unchallenged for the past number of years. Those of us who tried to do something about it by raising the matter at various committees, the Committee on Social Affairs, the Committee of Public Accounts and so on, and in other ways and who pinpointed the damage that was being done to the economy were treated with disdain. We were told we did not know what the issue was nor were we au fait with modern economics. However, we were on the ground, meeting our constituents, listening to what people were saying, looking at auctioneers' windows, watching prices rising on a daily basis and listening to our constituents telling us the maximum loan one could get, what the possibility of getting a house was and why people who were on a housing list two years ago are still on it, whether it be a local authority list or a private housing one. The problem is virtually out of control.

This measure is being introduced too late. It could well create further inflation. Once one begins to intervene in the natural market in this way, instead of supplying the market one creates further problems and obstacles. We should remember that we have availed of the open market in Europe and enjoyed dramatic economic benefits as a result. The Single Market meant the removal of tariffs, subsidies and interventions. We paid a high price for that at the beginning, but we availed of the opportunity and our economy has blossomed accordingly. The end will come when we start to reinvent the wheel and to intercept the natural course of the market. That is very dangerous, but it is about to happen. I hope this Bill has some positive impact, but I cannot see it at this stage.

I apologise to Deputy Ring for not having sufficient time to share with him, as he was anxious to contribute. I heard a startling statistic today from my county, where there are 1,500 people on the local authority waiting lists. This year Kerry County Council will probably build approximately 150 houses, so one can imagine the crisis people are facing. There are approximately 40,000 people on the waiting lists while there is a commitment to build approximately 5,000 houses. Those on the lists will experience a long wait, not to mention those who will be added to the lists soon. One must consider the asylum seekers and refugees who, once they receive their green books, will also be joining the waiting lists. We have a huge task ahead of us. If one looks at the number of houses built by the private sector, it has doubled since 1993, while the number of houses being built by local authorities has stayed the same. The local authority housing fund is under-resourced.

There should be higher density housing available exclusively to first time buyers. That was suggested by the IHBA and should be adopted, as it would provide between 5,000 and 7,000 houses per annum. Public-private partnerships involving local authorities should also be considered. I mentioned the experience of Fingal County Council in this regard last week, where the public-private partnership was very successful. Only two local authorities do not own extensive land banks and establishing partnerships with builders would greatly accelerate the supply of houses on local authority lands.

Deputy Durkan may have mentioned the need for the Government to invest more money in the shared ownership scheme, and I agree with him. With the amount of revenue coming from the building industry, this is an area in which the Government should invest. There is a need for intervention in the housing market. The Minister is doing so through taxation, but he must also use different schemes. The coalition Government of the mid-1980s proved this when it opened up the housing market, although it did not have much resources. The Minister has the resources and creative and innovative schemes would help those with low incomes and on local authority housing lists in particular. This is a challenge to the Minister more than anyone else and I hope he measures up to it.

Deputies Noonan and McDowell referred to the increases in house prices and the persistence of house price inflation in recent years. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government with responsibility for housing and urban renewal, Deputy Molloy, published figures for the first quarter of this year which show a reduction of 1.1% and 2.7% in the average prices for both new and second-hand houses in Dublin respectively. This moderation in prices is also reflected in new and second-hand house prices nationally. The document states that Deputy Molloy released:

. . . his Department's latest house price data for the March quarter 2000 which shows that average house prices generally have stabilised and, in some cases, reduced since the last quarter of 1999. In fact the March quarter figures for Dublin show reductions of 1.1% and 2.7% in the average prices for both new and second-hand houses respectively. This is the first quarter that average prices have dropped nationally and in Dublin since 1995. . . Year-on-year house price increases (March 2000 on March 1999 prices) are significantly lower than in previous quarters. Nationally, new and second-hand house prices rose by 13% and 14% on the same period last year, the lowest increases since 1996. In Dublin, annual increases of 13% and 17% have been recorded, also down on 12 month increases to December 1999.

I can give the figures, but as Deputy Molloy said, this is the first time since 1995 that there has been a small drop in prices nationally and in Dublin. Prices have risen more than we would like, but we are getting the situation under control due to the action the Government is taking to confront the problem.

When we discussed the first Bacon report and brought in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1998, I remember saying here and in the Seanad that the purpose of the Bill was to have a temporarily distorting effect on demand. The intention was to give a sharp jolt to the market in order to allow first time buyers to have some chance. The only way to get house prices under control is through supply and demand. As Deputy Noonan said on Second Stage, I am a believer in the market, that is no secret. I said that the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1998, was designed to have a temporarily distorting effect on demand, but the only medium or long-term solution to house prices is to bring supply into line with demand. We have expounded on the reasons for the increase in demand in Ireland, but the main reason is our economic success. Due to economic growth there are more people in employment – approximately 1.7 million people are in employment in Ireland, while a few short years ago the figure was only one million. Instead of net emigration from Ireland we have people coming back and people are earning very good salaries. This is pushing up house prices because supply has not kept pace with demand.

We can disagree about many economic theories. Many such theories have debunked themselves over the past 20 years and I played no small part in debunking others. However, we can all agree on one fundamental law of economics: when demand is greater than supply – of any product – the price goes up. That is what has been happening in the housing market for some time. Deputy Durkan referred to the situation in my county and I have seen that at first hand over a long period. Dublin, Wicklow and Meath are all part of the greater Dublin area and we have had to deal with the population overflow and the demand this has placed on housing.

Deputy Noonan made a valid point which I have made previously on Question Time. He talked about trying to line up – if I am quoting him correctly – national policy from the Department of the Environment and Local Government and what is happening in local authority areas. I see from where he is coming because I see local authorities getting directives about increasing densities for a period of time, but I do not see much of that in certain counties around Dublin.

I have referred to another factor on a number of occasions here and we have experienced this in County Kildare as well. If Deputy Durkan was here, he would be able to attest to it, having had experience of it for the past five years. We recognise there is a housing supply problem but Deputies who give out about the price of houses going up, go along with every pressure group set up in their constituencies to stop houses being built. One cannot marry the two things. There should be a reasonable amount of development in areas with good planning and control. One cannot be against all development. Some Members want it both ways – they want to be able to give out about the price of houses while at the same time they want to be able to play to some constituents who do not want any extra housing built next nor near them. It just does not square. Local authorities are trying to grapple with this problem.

Deputy Noonan said the Government had ignored the three Bacon reports and did not understand the dynamics of the housing market. I do not accept this proposition. Action was taken, and in a speedy manner, after each Bacon report. The Government understands the need to bring supply and demand into balance. Our policies are aimed at bringing forward substantial increases in supply by removing the speculative demand from the market. An enormous amount of investment is going into infrastructural investment which will reap rewards and help to provide the homes and accommodation we all want to see. In relation to rented accommodation, our interest is to put the rented sector on a firm basis capable of providing long-term supply of residential units. We established the Commission on the Private Rented Residential Sector and will act on its report as required.

As Deputies will note from the Bill, there is a considerable number of outs where the anti-speculative tax will not apply. The first and third Bacon reports are not just centred on the tax measures in order to have an effect on demand. There are such items there, and that is what we are dealing with here, but the whole thrust of the Bacon report and Government policy for some time has been to increase supply. We have had the serviced land initiative. I acceded to nearly every reasonable request from the Department of the Environment and Local Government for more water and sewerage schemes to open up the prospect of more development land so more housing will be built. That is now coming on stream. One cannot simply make a decision today and houses will come on stream tomorrow. That is not the way the market operates. Deputies will see within a period of time how this is having an impact. That is the way one will get supply back in sync with demand.

Deputy Noonan asked if the Department had an estimate of the extent of the hoarding of development land in the Dublin region. Last year an official expounded the theory on the national airwaves that land was being held. I do not have the document with me at present but no less an authority than the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, took the opposite view in a recent article. He said it was now his opinion – this was before we published the third Bacon report – that there was an active supply of development land in the Dublin and greater Dublin areas and that, according to all the evidence he could find in the past year, it was being substantially traded.

Bacon put forward suggestions in his report that people would be penalised if they did not put this land onto the housing market in time. I introduced a section in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1998, to encourage people to do that. We are seeing greater supply at present. I do not have evidence of the amount of land held but I believe trade in development land has been increasing at a rate of knots in the past 18 months or so. In regard to the person who made the submission last year that land was being hoarded, I have seen no concrete evidence of whether that is correct. It is my view that the balance lies more in what Dr. FitzGerald said about the matter, that is, that the problem is not as great as it might have been some time ago.

Will the Minister give way for a non-argumentative question just to lull him into a false sense of calm?

All right.

In regard to the proposal in the Bacon report, which the Minister mentioned, obliging developers to act on a planning permission once it has been granted or face a fine of £3,000, is the Government committed to doing that?

That is the suggestion Bacon makes in regard to the strategic development zones, SDZs. When that rapid planning permission process has been gone through and people get permission to build houses, there will be a levy of £3,000 per housing unit if they do not build. The Government is committed to that and it will be included in a subsequent Finance Bill or a local government Bill from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. There are many tax matters surrounding this and this could be regarded as a levy or a tax matter. We will discuss all this in the context of the tax strategy group. With all the different suggestions going around, we had better not bring in something which would contradict another, otherwise we could end up with a bad situation.

Deputy McDowell suggested housing supply is constrained by land hoarding. I have dealt with this matter. I am not sure of the evidence in this regard and I do not want to start a dispute about it. My view is similar to Dr. FitzGerald's, who said this may have been a problem, but that is was no longer a problem. That is my belief as well. That gentleman who spoke last year did not produce the evidence to show land was being hoarded, which I would have thought was necessary.

The evidence would seem to be in the other direction. There has been a record output of over 10,000 housing units in Dublin 1999. Completions to date in 2000 point to a further record of output of housing in Dublin. An analysis undertaken by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in conjunction with the consultants indicate a three to four year supply of zoned serviced land and a similar level of development land at the various stages of the planning process.

The Government measures set out in Action on Housing will remove infrastructure and planning constraints on housing supply. The use of strategic development zones for housing also involves the introduction of an annual levy of £3,000 per housing site unit in the event that the development site does not proceed as scheduled. This is a necessary quid pro quo for the fast-tracking of infrastructure provision and planning in the strategic development zones. Action on Housing also provides that the scope and implications for further tax measures designed to bring serviced zoned residential land into development will be examined urgently by the tax strategy group.

There has been a vast increase in the number of local authority housing starts. There is the multi-annual programme of 25,000 starts over four years. Local authorities are being given every encouragement to front-load their programmes. The local authority SDA loan limit doubled from £50,000 to £100,000 in Action on Housing. Income limits for SDA loans, shared ownership and affordable housing schemes increased from £20,000 to £25,000.

As I said, I believe in the free market and the way to control the price of houses is to increase supply. As a general principle, it is a tricky enough measure to interfere in the market. It is a measure whereby one cannot really predict the outcomes. I am saying so because it would be against all I ever stood for. I also said this at the time of the first Bacon report. When one interferes in the market one does not know what the effect will be. There were predictions at the time of the first Bacon report that it would happen in the case of the supply of rented accommodation. I agreed because it would take them out. Others said that no one would have rental accommodation. I stated that the price would go up in time as the market got into synch and people would get back into the market. When one interferes in a market as fluid as the housing market one can never be certain about what will happen. The Bacon report is trying to apply a shock to the demand side together with the supply side measures and things will work out over time.

As it is now 9 p.m. I am required to put the following Question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Question put and declared carried.
Top
Share