Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Dec 2002

Vol. 559 No. 3

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2002 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Cullen)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The primary purpose of the Bill is to amend Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 which deals with housing supply. The Bill will also make other miscellaneous amendments to the 2000 Act and certain amendments to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1992 and 2002 and to the Housing Finance Agency Act, 1981. The Bill will make two separate and important changes to Part V.

First, it will restore the life of the planning permissions of some 80,000 houses, subject to the developer paying a levy in respect of each unit concerned. Under the 2000 Act, these were due to expire early, after only two years instead of the normal five years, starting from 31 December 2002. The other change I propose to make to the planning code is to give new options for local authorities and developers as to how they comply with the social and affordable housing requirements.

I stress that the Government is committed to making Part V work. The changes now proposed are designed to make the system operate more efficiently and effectively, eliminate the rigidities that were slowing down supply and bring more social and affordable housing on stream more quickly while continuing to promote social integration. There was never any question, even though some thought I would and wanted me to, that I would set aside the requirement on housing developers to make a contribution to the provision of social and affordable housing. My aim is to remove obstacles and make Part V work to ensure a continued good supply of housing. This is the only way to ensure that affordable housing will be available for house purchasers in Ireland.

The Government has a proud record of achievements in delivering housing to date. Since 1997, our efforts have brought a substantial rise in output, with a consequent moderation in the increase in house prices. Some 52,602 houses were completed in 2001, another record year, and 2002 is shaping up the same way, with a projected 55,000 units by the end of the year. The strong performance was particularly marked in the Dublin area with over 10,000 units constructed in 2002. The overall objective of the Government is to continue to maintain these record levels of output in order to satisfy the projected housing demand.

The Government, therefore, decided to review Part V to ensure that it was meeting its objectives in terms of delivering social and affordable housing. The review was initiated mainly because complaints had been received, not only from developers but also from local authorities, that the system was overly bureaucratic and appeared to be slowing down supply, the opposite of what was intended. The review, which was conducted with all key stakeholders, reached some interesting conclusions on which there was a fairly general consensus. There were two key points. First, there was no support for a complete repeal of Part V. The provisions in relation to making housing strategies, and the requirement to zone sufficient land for residential development in particular, were regarded as positive. However, stakeholders also argued for increased flexibility and less bureaucracy in the operation of the provisions of Part V. A number of stakeholders also raised the issue of the provision which causes certain planning permissions to wither after two years. This provision was not viewed as helpful in terms of increasing housing supply. The changes announced in the Bill are specifically designed to meet the concerns about bureaucracy and flexibility and the withering provision expressed in the review and thereby boost housing supply.

The Bill will replace section 96 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. The purpose of the new section is to give new options as to how an applicant for permission for development can comply with the requirements of Part V. Agreements are currently confined to providing land within the proposed development for the local authority or providing houses or sites within that development. In addition to these existing options, the applicant for permission will now be able to reach an agreement to reserve land or provide houses or sites at another location. Alternatively, developers could make a payment to the local authority which would be used for the provision of social and affordable housing. However, I intend to convey to local authorities my view that financial compensation to authorities, while an option, is the final option. All other aspects will have to be exhausted.

Local authorities will have to negotiate with developers to ensure that each agreement delivers the best possible result in terms of social and affordable housing supply for their area. In considering whether to make an agreement as an alternative to reserving land within the site, which will remain the primary requirement, the authority will have to consider a number of important issues. The most important will be the need to counteract undue social segregation in the area.

I am determined that this new flexibility in Part V will not lead to builders providing new estates at the edges of communities with no social links and no infrastructure. I will be setting firm guidelines for local authorities as to the types of alternative arrangements that will be acceptable in terms of social integration. The agreement's potential contribution towards achieving the objectives of the housing strategy and how quickly housing is likely to be provided as a consequence of the agreement will also be considerations for the local authority. These changes to Part V are all about delivery of housing more quickly and efficiently. Local authorities will also have to ensure that any agreement they reach is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan. The new provision will not lessen the obligation on developers. Any agreement under the Bill must result in a contribution of an equivalent monetary value to the reservation of land within the development. In practice this means the equivalent of whatever the local authorities would have saved if they were acquiring the land within the development at existing land use value instead of market value. Any alternative arrangement must be of equal benefit.

These changes to Part V will introduce a flexibility into the system which will give local authorities a variety of choices in deciding how social and affordable housing requirements of their communities are met. These changes are firmly within the principles of Part V of the Act – to integrate housing supply fully into the planning system and to require applicants for permission on residentially zoned land to contribute towards meeting the existing need for social and affordable housing. This new flexibility is similar to the system in Britain under which developers are required to make up to 30% of larger developments available as social or affordable housing. The aim of the British policy is also to achieve mixed communities with a balance of housing types and tenures. The difference is that, through their more flexible system, they are delivering a greater volume of low cost and social housing. Developers negotiate with local authorities on the level of social and affordable housing provision and on whether to build those houses either as part of the development or at another location, as part of the normal course of the planning process. This is what we are doing, building in this same flexibility and trying to ensure that Part V becomes a settled part of the planning process in Ireland.

The review of Part V also signalled problems with the provision under which certain permissions withered after two years. This withering provision was introduced to put all planning permissions on an even footing as soon as possible in relation to social and affordable housing. It is estimated, however, that it would cause thousands of permissions to expire. As it is critically important to ensure continued supply in the next two years, I propose to insert two new sections into the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

Section 96A reverses the impact of section 96(15) of the 2000 Act, which provided that permissions for residential development granted after 25 August 1999, but before a housing strategy was included in the relevant development plan in accordance with the Act, and to which Part V of the Act would have applied if the housing strategy had been incorporated when the application was made, would last until 31 December 2002 or for two years from the date of granting of permission, whichever was longer. Section 96(15) provided that planning permission would expire for houses within the development for which external walls had not been built by the relevant date, but the new section 96A provides that the normal rules concerning the duration of permission will apply to such permission. Per missions are not subject to Part V requirements because they were applied for before the requirements came into force.

It is consistent with the principles on which Part V was based that developers of the houses in question should be required to contribute to the cost of social and affordable housing. I considered retrospectively applying Part V to these permissions but, in addition to the legal difficulties in doing so, I saw practical obstacles which would seriously delay the construction of these houses. There would undoubtedly be a legal challenge to such a move, suspending the operation of Part V to those permissions, which could have the effect of preventing construction. If such a challenge were dealt with quickly, developers and local authorities would have had to renegotiate agreements for all the affected permissions, a process that would have taken many months. Construction under these permissions would have had to wait until the agreements were negotiated, which could have seriously obstructed construction of the houses. I have decided instead on a more robust solution that will allow developers to build on the basis of the permissions without delay. In return for extending the duration of permissions affected, developers will be required to make a once-off contribution to funding social and affordable housing.

Section 96B provides that a levy must be paid in respect of each house for which permission would have expired if this Bill were not passed. I emphasise that it is not a levy on all houses to be built, just those where permission is being restored. The levy, which will be 0.5% of the cost of a house worth less than €270,000, or 1% of the cost of a house with a value equal or greater than €270,000, will be paid to local authorities to put towards the provision of social and affordable housing. Setting the levy at this level should not discourage developers from building. It will be an incentive to set the price of the houses that are built at an affordable level. Payment of the levy will be a condition of the planning permission for each house and will be the responsibility of the developer. There may be concerns that the cost will be passed on to the purchasers of the houses but this section prohibits this. It provides that if an agreement of sale includes a requirement on a purchaser to pay the levy, that term of the agreement will be void and the money, if paid over, can be recovered.

I brought forward two important amendments during the passage of the Bill through the Seanad. The first inserted a new subsection (7) in section 96B to require local authorities to issue a receipt once the levy has been paid. This receipt is evidence for purchasers and their solicitors that the levy has been paid and that the condition of the planning permission has been complied with. It is another protection for purchasers. The second amendment inserted a new section to amend the rules concerning small housing developments which are not subject to Part V, under section 97 of the 2000 Act. That section provided that an exemption certificate may be sought in relation to small housing developments, that is those of four or fewer houses, or on land of 0.2 hectares or less, which is about half an acre.

A number of urban local authorities argued that under my Department's residential density guidelines the exemption allowed developments of much more than four units to be built without any social and affordable housing element. In relation to town and city centres where small infill sites of this size are found, the guidelines recommend that, in principle there should be no upper limit on the number of dwellings that may be provided. A site of 0.2 hectares in a town or city centre could therefore accommodate at least ten to 15 units. Requiring the reservation of some of these units under Part V could supply a number of units where they are most needed and supply is most limited. Therefore I brought forward an amendment to reduce the limit to 0.1 hectares and this was endorsed by the Seanad. Deputy Gilmore has raised this issue on more occasions than anyone else and I acknowledge his important contribution to the Bill, as I did when I was in the Seanad.

This Bill does not just deal with Part V. In preparing the Bill, a number of amendments to the Housing Acts were included to facilitate the supply of housing. The opportunity was also taken to make a number of miscellaneous and mostly technical amendments to the Planning Act, 2000. Part 1 contains the standard citation and definition sections, Part 2 contains the provisions to amend Part V of the Planning Act which I have already outlined and Part 3 contains the other amendments to the 2000 Act. These are technical amendments to the 2000 Act for the most part, although some are more substantial. Sections 8 and 9 amend the provisions dealing with local area plans to clarify that land may be zoned in a local area plan. A second public display period will be provided where it is proposed to make material amendments to the plan following the first display period – this is similar to the requirements for development plans.

Section 13 will permit a decision by a local authority on a declaration in relation to a protected structure to be referred to An Bord Pleanála for review. This will be similar to the procedures where a local authority makes a declaration on what does or does not constitute development, or exempted development, under section 5 of the Act. Section 15 amends section 262(4) which provides that certain regulations made under the Act are subject to a requirement to get positive approval. This removes the requirement to get positive approval for procedural regulations in relation to development by State authorities, while retaining the requirement that regulations determining the types of development approved under the special procedure will be subject to the positive approval requirement. The same rules, therefore, will apply in this case as, for example, apply in relation to local authority development.

Part 4 makes amendments to other legislation, namely the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1992 and 2002 and the Housing Finance Agency Act, 1981. These amendments are designed to ensure a continued supply of housing. Sections 16 to 19 amend the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1992 to 2002, to introduce measures to facilitate the provision of affordable housing. The amendments complement the changes to Part V. The changes will allow approved housing bodies to provide affordable housing for sale, in addition to providing houses for rental. The voluntary and co-operative housing movement wishes to become involved in the provision of affordable housing and these amendments will facilitate such involvement by enabling approved housing bodies to provide houses under the affordable housing and shared ownership schemes and by providing that persons granted a shared ownership lease by an approved body will be eligible for subsidy on their rent on the same basis as under the local authority shared ownership scheme.

An important change is that the terms of the shared ownership scheme will be amended, in so far as the scheme applies to approved housing bodies, to allow the bodies to retain part ownership of the houses and so ensure that they remain within the affordable housing market. This was welcomed by all Senators. Under these amendments, a person granted a shared ownership lease by an approved body will not be required or entitled to eventually purchase the interest of the body in the house. The lessee will, however, be entitled to eventually sell his or her interest in the house to a person who meets the eligibility criteria applicable to the scheme.

I hope the House agrees that the amendments to the existing schemes provided for in these sections represent a reasonable balance between the right of the lessee to purchase an interest in a house and the retention of a social equity in the house. I am satisfied that this will help avoid undue social segregation in housing projects which the sector provides by enabling approved housing bodies to provide a mix of social rented, shared ownership and affordable houses.

Section 20 amends section 10(a) of the Housing Finance Agency Act, 1981, as inserted by the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, to correct a technical error in the section in order to permit the National Treasury Management Agency to borrow on behalf of the Housing Finance Agency. While the error was technical, it could have prevented the NTMA acting on the HFA's part when borrowing money. I reiterate that this Bill is primarily about improving housing supply and promoting social integration. The new flexibility will speed up agreements and free up resources. Agreements will be concluded more quickly and more social and affordable housing will come on stream more quickly. The level of contribution required from developers remains the same, there is no reduction, and the agreements allowed under the Bill will ensure that it continues to support the objective of social integration.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Allen

The Bill has to be taken against the background of the provisions in Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 being delayed and opposed vehemently by interests within the construction industry who contested them through the courts. That type of obstruction led to the lack of success in many areas.

Adequate housing is a basic need which the Government has failed miserably to meet. There are over 100,000 people on local authority housing lists, which are destined to become longer over the next number of years because of policies being pursued by this extreme right-wing Fianna Fáil - PD Government. The recent budgets which we referred to earlier today – three since the election – have hit the most vulnerable in our society.

While the Celtic tiger was alive the old, the sick and those dependent on social welfare barely felt its benefits. Now that the Government has strangled the tiger by allowing public spending to run out of control, it is society's most vulnerable who are suffering the consequences of the gross mismanagement of the economy. The Minister for Finance, as Minister for Social Welfare, implemented the savage "dirty dozen" cuts. Today the vulnerable are again being treated with disdain. There is high inflation and the measures taken in recent weeks – the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant and the increase in VAT on houses – will mean fewer people, mainly young people, will be able to buy their own homes. The pressures on local authority lists will become even greater. Ministers are now claiming that measures introduced by them will have only a very marginal effect on house purchase prospects. How wrong they are and how out of touch they seem to be.

Mr. Cullen

There were 14,000 houses sold on 14 November.

Mr. Allen

The Minster has a tendency to interrupt people. Just an hour ago a constituent phoned me. He was distracted and distraught because he and his partner were told that although they ranked sixth on the local authority list which has 700 applications for affordable housing, unless he showed evidence in a matter of days that he had €6,000 his application would fail. The family will comply with the requirements. They have been given a breathing space due to the reasonable attitude of the local authority official. It is an indication of the pressure that people are under. Deputy McCreevy said that €3,800 is nothing. It might not be to some people, but to that couple €6,000 was a lot of money. It was the difference between getting a house under the affordable scheme or going on a local authority list.

Mr. Cullen

We reduced the deposit by the equivalent amount of the first-time buyer's grant.

Mr. Allen

They were asked for €6,000 which they could not come up with and told that by tomorrow they would be—

Mr. Cullen

The Deputy can pass that information to them.

Mr. Allen

I certainly will. I thank the Minister. Obviously the officials were not told that.

Mr. Cullen

They should have been.

Mr. Allen

I will give the Minister a time and date if he wishes.

Mr. Cullen

That is not necessary. I was trying to assist the Deputy.

Mr. Allen

I understand that. In a sector where imagination, determination and decisiveness is required, there has been a second major U-turn in the Government's housing and planning policy in recent years. The approach which resulted from the Bacon reports caused instability and uncertainty in the housing sector.

This latest and second U-turn is creating further worry and uncertainty. It comes against a background of the Government promising and failing to control the rise in house prices. It also promised to increase first-time buyer's grants to €6,350 for couples, but failed to do so. It promised to accelerate the supply of new houses, and failed. It promised to implement a multi-stranded approach to addressing housing needs, and again it failed. It promised a greater availability of serviced land so that demand would meet supply, and also failed. It promised to commit to a further expansion of the various social housing programmes to make a real impact on housing needs. In my local authority alone there are 700 applications for 42 affordable houses. It promised to implement a full package of reforms in the rented accommodation sector, arising from the report of the Commission on the Private Rented Sector, and it failed. It promised to consider the introduction of legislation to regulate the establishment and operation of apartment complex management companies. Where is that? It promised to ensure that the comprehensive homelessness strategy, now in place, would be implemented, but again it failed. It also promised to ensure the implementation of local authority traveller accommodation plans, which has failed to be effective. It promised to take further steps to streamline the approval procedures for local authority housing building projects, which has also been a failure.

The great surge in house prices over the boom years has caused massive upheaval to the industry. The supply of zoned residential land, the sup ply of houses and the labour supply have so far been inadequate to meet the demand of people wanting to buy a house. The result has been a doubling of house prices and, in certain urban areas, more than a doubling. People who owned property throughout the boom years saw their wealth effectively double and people who did not saw the prospect of owning their own home go further out of reach. The people worst affected by the house price increase are those with income levels too high for council housing and too low to support a big mortgage.

It is naive economics that the Government fails to acknowledge the importance of this group of people as they are the backbone of all of the industries and services. Two types of individuals stand out most in this group, namely the consistent and stable worker who gives 30 to 40 years of his life to one job, providing his employer with great dependability and loyalty, for example a rank and file garda, a production line worker or a person working in education, and those in the younger workforce who will lead the country, in all aspects of life, into the future, ranging from junior doctors to people currently working in McDonalds while preparing for their chosen careers. Without the security of owning their own homes people may begin to question their loyalty or become less confident in their own way of life.

What type of Ireland do we want? For years my party has advocated the creation of a national housing agency to solve deficiencies in the whole housing area. There are gaps and bottlenecks in the planning process and in social housing provision. Demand has far exceeded supply in the general housing market for far too long. To tackle these problems the agency would anticipate and prevent instability in the housing market where demand far outstrips supply or vice versa. This could be done by ensuring a steady supply of land to meet demand either by rezoning more or less land or by recommending Government agencies to buy or sell land. In this regard I have tabled questions this week to establish exactly the land and building assets which each Department has and their level of use.

It would monitor the cohesion between national and local development plans, supervise planning teams as they work with each local authority in developing annual council plans, and act as a liaison between all relevant Government Departments and other service providers to ensure that residentially zoned land is serviced. All of the basic living needs, from transport, education and recreation to water and sewerage, must be planned for and in place by the time the development is occupied. It will liaise with relevant Government Departments to ensure the compulsory registration of all rental properties. This is not happening in most local authority areas for different reasons, but I will deal with that at a later stage. It would also co-ordinate cross-boundary local authority projects.

The way in which councils have zoned land in the past has not been as effective as the people deserve, and that is an understatement. The long-term consequences of the rezoning of land are so important that all rezoning should be part of a single plan which would obtain for five years as part of an overall longer plan. Creating four or five planning teams of expert professionals to work with local authorities would facilitate best practice planning for a better future. Reasonable time limits need to be introduced on zoned land to stop the practice of sitting on land waiting for its price to inflate. Failure to build within these time limits should result in a compulsory purchase order at the original land rates, plus the cost of construction up to that time. The benefits of rezoned land in making profits beyond the original value of the land should be considered.

One of the major obstacles to providing the supply of housing is inefficiencies in the planning process. Additional resources need to be channelled into Departments that deal with planning and development so that larger housing projects get priority. There must be greater contact between local authorities, public transport companies and other basic necessity providers to accommodate all the extra requirements of a still-expanding house market. It is pointless to attempt to take the pressure off Dublin's housing market and transport corridors if there are no facilities to absorb a large influx of people elsewhere. This is important for our immediate future as Dublin's infrastructure continues to build up, increasing the pressure on bottlenecks. Investment should go to places that have the space to take on extra population and industry. I am worried that in Adamstown and other large-scale housing developments, houses will be built without the necessary infrastructure, transport facilities or career opportunities to sustain the population.

A total of 100,000 people are on the local authority waiting lists for housing. We have seen little or no positive change in these waiting lists. In a time of economic boom, the lists have increased by 50%. Given the right-wing tendencies of this Government it is not surprising, but it must be deplored. How we treat the weakest in our community is a primary indicator of social justice. We must determine to right the wrongs this far-right Government has imposed on the most vulnerable in our society. It is blatantly clear that this Government is not concerned with any person who is struggling to buy his or her first home. This has become apparent over the past number of weeks. I am appalled at its attitude to first-time buyers and at the betrayal of the younger generation by the Government at a time of economic well-being. The true colours of this Government are displayed in its attitude to housing, both private and social. I referred earlier to the State assets. Under the guidance of a national housing authority and the Office of Public Works, all Government agencies should collectively release enough land and property to the market to meet the current demand.

When will homeless people be part of the Minister's equation? The Government has failed to tackle effectively the growing marginalisation of people with no home. First we must consider why people lose their homes or run away from home. Consultation has taken place, but implementation of the Government's strategy has not occurred to any great degree. Unfortunately there will be no room at the inn this Christmas for many people. The Simon Community of Ireland recently criticised the Government for failing to honour commitments to tackle homelessness made two years ago. It said that the Government's failure to meet its funding commitments left homeless service provision dependent on the generosity of the general public and fund-raising.

The Government's strategy on homelessness defined the role of local authorities in funding a combination of services. It made health boards responsible for funding the health care needs of homeless people. However, two years later many projects still do not know what funding they will receive to cover this year's costs, let alone what will happen in 2003. The Simon Community has said that the Government's position falls far short of its commitment to provide three year funding for projects. It is disgraceful that last year over 50% of Simon services had to be funded by the generosity of the general public. Of course, the Minister is not the only culprit. The Minister for Health and Children announced that he would increase the allocation for the Simon Community from €7.6 million in 2000 to €15.2 million in 2002 and €22.8 million in 2003. It remains unclear how the money will be allocated. The Government has also failed to put the local homeless action plans on a statutory basis and to implement a comprehensive data strategy on homelessness.

According to figures released by the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the number of people on housing lists has soared to more than 100,000. This represents more than 48,000 households, an increase of 23.5% from a figure of 39,000 in 1999. At the present rate of progress it could take up to 30 years to clear the waiting lists. This crisis exists because of the Government's failure to satisfy the demand for social housing. It is essential that locations are identified and given immediate priority. However, local authorities themselves are finding it difficult to carry out this task.

Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, was intended to make a percentage of all new homes more affordable. The legislation, however, has had the opposite effect. The supply of homes and affordable housing has not been increased, rather some counties have seen the supply of planning applications dry up as builders and local authorities differ on the interpretation of Part V. In areas such as Cork, Limerick, Clare and Kerry we have seen this, while in Meath, Wicklow and Kildare applications have fallen by as much as 60%.

The Bill is another reversal of the work carried out by the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey. In recent weeks we have seen many of his decisions reversed and I expect to see further announcements reversing his decisions shortly. His time in the Department is being effectively airbrushed out. This Bill is part of the process.

The two-year "withering" rule was included in the original legislation because planning applications were submitted to local authorities before the Act came into operation in order to avoid the 20% social and affordable housing stipulation. If builders were forced to reapply for planning permission upon the expiry of planning decisions, they would be subject to the social housing provision. It is estimated that 80,000 planning applications will wither, 44,000 early on and a further 36,000 in 2003. They should not have it both ways: the planning application, if not allowed to wither, should be subject to the provision. This legislation provides for the extension of the validity of those planning permissions to five years. The social housing provision will not apply but developers are being asked to pay a 0.5% levy. I noted what the Minister said on this subject in the Seanad. He should consider making these extended planning permissions subject to the social housing provision. Does the withering rule affect schemes of four houses or less? Will the Minister clarify the position for smaller group schemes?

Mr. Cullen

It is worked out by site area.

Mr. Allen

The levy will be of insignificant value to the local authority in some areas. In an area where 400 houses are being built at an average price of €200,000, the value of the levy will be less than the value of one house.

Mr. Cullen

The levy is €1,000 on €200,000. The average house price is €260,000.

Mr. Allen

For 2,000 houses, the levy would be the equivalent of one house. It is a bit of a joke.

Mr. Cullen

It will raise between €80 million and €140 million for local authorities.

Mr. Allen

How will the value of the houses be defined before they are built?

Mr. Cullen

Value will be defined by the sale price.

Mr. Allen

I assume the levy will already be on the houses.

Mr. Cullen

The levy will be on the sale price.

Mr. Allen

There will not be a sale price before the houses are built.

Mr. Cullen

No, the levy will be imposed on the sale price. That is how we will extract the maximum.

Mr. Allen

It will be levied retrospectively?

Mr. Cullen

No, when the builder completes it and agrees the sale price, it will be levied then.

Mr. Allen

Who will arbitrate if there is a dispute between the local authority and the developer?

Mr. Cullen

I know where that point is coming from. It is a good point.

Mr. Allen

Where is it coming from?

Mr. Cullen

The developers.

Mr. Allen

I have not been speaking to any developers.

Mr. Cullen

They had amendments tabled in the Seanad.

Mr. Allen

The exchange of land between developers and local authorities in Part V is too vague. The situation could arise where builders exchange land in less desirable areas for land in areas of high demand. Could a developer give more than one plot of land in exchange for the 20% he is getting back in this amendment? In exchange for 20 acres, could he give the local authorities four five acre lots in less desirable areas?

Mr. Cullen

Regulations will be very tight.

Mr. Allen

We will not oppose this Bill on Second Stage but we will oppose some sections on Committee Stage unless amendments are submitted.

Mr. Timmins

I feel strongly about this issue and my views might differ from those of Deputy Allen. If we had not interfered in the housing market this Bill would not be necessary. When the Planning Development Bill was published and I saw Part V, I fundamentally disagreed with it. Some people might accuse me of political incorrectness and say I am against social housing but that is not true. When Government interferes with an industry over which it has no control, difficulties will arise. The role of Government is to create an environment where industry can work. The Bacon reports were a waste of time. If we had not interfered we might now have an adequate supply of housing. All these measures interfere with the supply. That is why we are here today. The investor left the market. The Minister for Finance probably opposed the 20% levy. Money was leaving the country and it was right to let the investor back into the market.

We must, at the same time, be conscious of home owners and first time buyers looking for a house. This could have been addressed by addressing difficulties in supply. When we zone land, no matter where it is, we should maximise the amount rezoned and put a time limit on it. When a certain amount of land is zoned, if the approach is minimalist, difficulties will arise. The availability and sale of land is not subject to normal market forces because people are reluctant to sell it, particularly a person whose land becomes valuable all of a sudden. He wants to hold on to it and pass it on to his children. We should zone more land. I have seconded a few proposals for zoning land in County Wicklow. Some councillors would ride on the wave of the tribunal and have a go at me but if I believe it is right, I will do it.

The withering of permission after two years is a crazy provision. It is unrealistic to expect someone to get a scheme of 100 houses up to wall plate level within that time frame.

I have grave doubts about the levy. The Bill states that the levy should not be passed on to the purchaser. Who else will it be passed on to? I cannot see the builder picking up the cost.

In Greystones Zapi Developments obtained permission to build 1,450 houses within a week of the publication of the housing strategy. The development plan was referred to An Bord Pleanála because Wicklow County Council did not have the staff to deal with it. This measure will save Zapi Developments €10 million to €15 million because the company will pay the levy and will not have to give over the 20%. It would have had to do that if it had made a new application in the event of its permission withering. It certainly would not have been possible to build 1,450 houses within the two years.

There should be provision in that Bill if there are 100 houses or more, that would impose a levy for community facilities. When a company benefits so much there should be an obligation on it to put social infrastructure in place.

Mr. Cullen

The local authorities can do that. All development charges are a matter for the local authorities.

Mr. Timmins

In this case, permission has been granted and this Bill is the only mechanism to address the issue.

Will the Minister look at the provision for protected structures and increase the penalty for someone who interferes with a protected structure? Where a building is demolished or trees removed, there is currently a penalty of €1,500. This should be increased and a section should be inserted to prohibit development on such a site, as a result. I have seen protected houses being demolished in the middle of the night.

There are many illegal developments in County Wicklow but the country council does not have the wherewithal to go out and check them. The architect or planner of one off housing sites or estates should be required to give a certificate of completion as per the plans. The Planning Development Act dealt with the situation where an estate would be taken over by a local authority if the estate's residents petitioned the council within a set time frame. No council, to the best of my knowledge, has a system in place to cater for that because they do not have the staff.

There is a difficulty in County Wicklow in that the strategic planning guidelines talk about local growth. That can be interpreted so that "local" is taken to mean people have to be blood-tested to get planning permission in a certain place. Mr. Justice Quirke, in McEvoy and Smith v. Meath County Council, rightly states that the strategic planning guidelines are flawed, that local authorities do not have the wherewithal to interpret what “local” means and that this should be re-examined. It is not examined in this Bill. The approach by the county councils of Meath and Kildare is the correct one and I agree that the Members of this House have adopted the wrong one. There seems to be a message from management that the Planning and Development Act is being correctly interpreted; I believe that is wrong. The Minister should look at that and give direction.

The provision of public housing is not working because we have proactive local authorities. A housing agency is a possible solution but the fact that there are people without running water or electricity in every constituency is well known. Those people do not have the wherewithal to fill out the necessary forms, or get estimates and contractors. If they had, they would not be in this situation. We should have a proactive approach where local authorities take responsibility for housing from the health boards.

Deputy Allen mentioned land assets and said that he was to table a series of questions. If memory serves me, the Minister for Finance wrote to the other Ministers and Departments and it was to be in by December 2000. The Ministers have clearly dragged their heels and it never came in. This is mainly to do with brown sites in and around the city. It should be followed up on.

Mr. Cullen

It is done.

Mr. Timmins

The Minister should take some of those matters on board for Committee Stage. I am very committed to them.

Mr. Gilmore

This is my fourteenth year in this House, a lot less than the time you are here, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The period since the general election has, in my experience, been the least productive in terms of legislation addressed by the House. I do not recall any Government over that 14 year period producing less legislation than the present Government since its re-election to office last May.

On the legislative list circulated to us, there are 15 Bills promised for publication in this session. Only six of those have been published. There is a long list of legislation from the Minister's Department which has been languishing for some time. It includes an Environmental Protection Agency Bill.

Mr. Cullen

It is ready.

Mr. Gilmore

There is a Building Control Bill and the Housing (Private Rented Sector) Bill for tenants which has been awaited for two and a half years.

Mr. Cullen

I will deliver it.

Mr. Gilmore

There is a long list of legislation, including on national monuments, water services and local government rates, which has been stacking up for some time. Out of this legislative lethargy, suddenly last week, a new Bill was born – the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill. The Minister would like us to believe it had an immaculate conception. However, if we scratch beneath the surface to find who are the key stakeholders the Minister referred to in his script, those who have apparently sought the publication of this Bill, we might find out why the Bill appeared so suddenly.

On 28 November, the Minister answered questions in this House. He was asked, by myself among others, about his plans with regard to Part V of the Planning and Development Act. He told the House that he was conducting a review and that it was almost complete. He did not tell us that he had a Bill in his back pocket.

Mr. Cullen

I had not.

Mr. Gilmore

If the Minister did not, this must be the record for the conception, preparation and drafting of a Bill.

Mr. Cullen

I was obviously working on it.

Mr. Gilmore

Within five days the Bill was printed. The date on the Bill is 3 December which was the following Tuesday. It was not circulated until the Wednesday night.

Mr. Cullen

That was as soon as it was ready.

Mr. Gilmore

It is a remarkable record to have complex legislation with 20 sections produced in that period of time. We are asked to have this Bill enacted by the time the House rises for Christmas. Deputies Allen and Timmins propose to wait until Committee Stage to address some of the details of the Bill. They will be greatly disappointed because there is no Committee Stage provided for this Bill. I expected that it would be referred to the Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government in the normal way. My information is that this is not the case and the Committee and Remaining Stages of this Bill are to be taken together in one and a half hours next Wednesday afternoon.

That is no way to deal with lengthy and complicated legislation of any kind; but it is particularly no way to deal with what is one of the most shameful Bills to be brought before this House in a long time and which the Labour Party will oppose at Second Stage and every other Stage of its consideration by this House.

The Bill effectively abandons the social and affordable housing provisions of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 2000.

Mr. Cullen

It does not.

Mr. Gilmore

It is a Bill in which the Government turns its back on the 60,000 families who have applied to local authorities for local authority housing or some kind of social housing. It comes on top of a sequence of hits that this Government has inflicted on the real stakeholders in the housing area, those trying to acquire a home for themselves and their families.

Mr. Cullen

I agree they are the stakeholders.

Mr. Gilmore

It comes on top of the abolition of the first time buyer's grant, the increase in VAT, the cut in local authority housing provision and the capping of the rent allowance. It is shameful legislation and, as so often happens when Fianna Fáil or a Fianna Fáil led Government is ashamed of what it is doing, it is being slipped into the House close to a holiday period, published at short notice, debated quickly and rushed through the House in the hope that everybody will have forgotten about it by the time the holiday period is over.

The core aim of this Bill is to hand back to the private building sector 16,000 sites that would otherwise be available for social and affordable housing. That will immediately deepen the housing crisis and in the longer term, unless homelessness is to increase, it will cost taxpayers up to €1 billion because the sites which are being lost to public and social housing provision under this measure will have to be replaced at a cost to the taxpayer by the various housing authorities.

Mr. Cullen

They were never part of it; it is as simple as that.

Mr. Gilmore

I will deal with that. I want to deal with the history of this issue. As Deputy Timmins acknowledges, it was the Labour Party which first made the case for what became known as the 20% social housing provision in planning legislation. It was first introduced in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 1999. If we cast our minds back to that time, house prices were rising rapidly, thousands of families were, as they still are, being priced out of the housing market and it was becoming increasingly difficult for local authorities or voluntary housing bodies to obtain land for the social and affordable housing programme.

This must be put in context because some commentators give the impression that the 20% social and affordable housing provision was an unreasonable and draconian measure which was forced on the construction industry. That must be put in the context, as the Minister did, of land which had gained considerably in value due to its zoning for development by public authorities and which the Supreme Court found, having regard to the common good, was not unconstitutional as was alleged by those who challenged it in the courts. It also comes against the backdrop of the Government's decision to cut capital gains tax for the sale of development land from 40% to 20% and to increase residential density on residential development land which, in some cases, doubled the number of units which could be built on the same sites.

Against that background, it was not unreasonable in a climate where public housing authorities were finding it impossible to compete with private developers for the purchase of limited land, where voluntary housing agencies were also finding it difficult to obtain land for the provision of social and affordable housing, and where increasing numbers of people were unable to purchase a home of their own, that such a condition was introduced to provide land for social and affordable housing. The Labour Party and I were delighted when the Government took up the idea and included it in the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

We were the first to spot the flaw and the loophole between theory and practice. The way in which the 20% provision was to come into effect under the 2000 Act made it unlikely, as the Labour Party pointed out at the time, that many sites, units or houses would emerge in the way it was originally conceived. The Bill was published in August 1999 and it took until the middle of 2000 before it was passed by the Oireachtas. There was then a legal challenge, which had been anticipated. The Bill provided for the drawing up of housing strategies by local authorities, which would take up to a year.

Mr. Cullen

The President referred it to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Gilmore

I stand corrected. The housing strategies had then to be included in development plans. That process took the best part of three years. In the meantime, as we predicted, those who owned development land hot-footed it to their local authorities to apply for planning permissions. Those planning permissions did not attract the social housing condition because they came into effect before the housing strategies were included in the development plans. To be fair to the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dempsey, he acknowledged, when it was pointed out to him, that this was likely to occur. As Deputy Timmins acknowledged, he responded positively to proposals I made to close that loophole. The way in which he intended to do that, which was provided for in the Bill and which was thought to be constitutional, as all the Bill was, was to provide a finite time for the life of interim permissions acquired in the period between the publication of the Bill and its coming into operation.

It is a measure of the degree to which land owners and developers availed of that interim period that to date only 300 housing units have been produced by Part V of the Planning and Development Act.

Mr. Cullen

It is 75 units. I hope to get 300 by the end of the year.

Mr. Gilmore

I use that figure because the Minister told me two weeks ago that he expected 300 by the end of the year. It is at least three years since the Bill was published. Some 150,000 housing units have been built. Some 300 out of 150,000 or 55,000, which will be produced this year, is not 20%. In the meantime, the Minister acknowledged that landowners and developers have stockpiled permissions for 80,000 sites which will not attract the social housing condition. The Minister proposes to release those 80,000 sites back to the home building industry, which means they will not have the social housing condition attached to them.

The Minister said this measure will be introduced. He referred in his speech to his concern that the social housing provisions of Part V will affect housing supply. There is no evidence of that. As I understand it, supply this year will be at a record level of approximately 55,000 housing units.

Mr. Cullen

Completions.

Mr. Gilmore

As I understand it, the house building industry is operating to capacity. The Minister also seems to give the impression that unless this legislation is enacted, these 80,000 permissions will wither and disappear into the ether and that 80,000 homes, which would otherwise be built, will not be built. That will not happen. Under existing legislation, any landowners or developers who own those sites for which they have permission can go back to the planning authority and get it renewed. It will not be the same as the long drawn out process of the original planning application. That point was anticipated by the Department. When the Department set fees for making planning applications, it set the fee for the renewal of one of these withering permissions at 25% of a normal fee. It explained that in a circular to the planning authorities which stated that the renewal of these withered permissions would not require the same attention as an ab initio application. That makes sense.

Unless the Minister is suggesting that the landowners and developers concerned will abandon those sites, let the permissions wither and hope for a finer day, those permissions will be used. I do not know too many landowners or developers who will let a planning permission wither and not apply for a renewal, albeit one which will attract the social housing condition. It would be an unwise course for a landowner to take because, as I understand the Planning and Development Act, 2000, the down-zoning of land is now poss ible under that Act without attracting the same risk of compensation which attached to its predecessor. If one of the key stakeholders, the home building industry, as I believe it was, suggested to the Minister that it would walk away from such sites and permissions, it was bluffing and the Minister should have called its bluff.

The Minister also stated that he does not have any choice in that if he attempts to apply the Part V condition retrospectively to these sites, he will run a legal risk. There is a way to deal with that.

Mr. Cullen

It could not be done in the original Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

I am surprised the Minister did not tell the landowners who own the 80,000 sites that they had two choices. They could live by the existing law, the permissions would wither and they could go back to their local authorities and apply for a renewal of the permission to which the social housing condition would attach.

Mr. Cullen

They still have that option. The Bill does not change it.

Mr. Gilmore

On the other hand, the Minister could have introduced a provision whereby the permission would stand but would attract the social housing condition. It would then be up to the developers to exercise the choice.

Mr. Cullen

That is what I wanted, but I could not do it.

Mr. Gilmore

Had he done that, he, this House and the country would not find that these sites are effectively being handed back.

Mr. Cullen

For the Deputy's information, that is what I wanted to do but it is not legally possible.

Mr. Gilmore

In this Bill, the Minister has conceded lock, stock and barrel to a section of the building industry and is handing back to it 16,000 sites which would have been available for social and affordable housing.

Mr. Cullen

This is not about developers, it is about people who need houses.

Mr. Gilmore

Yes, that is what it is about.

Mr. Cullen

It is about housing supply.

Acting Chairman (Mr McGinley): Deputy Gilmore without interruption.

Mr. Gilmore

By the Minister's admission, there are 80,000 sites—

Mr. Cullen

That is factually correct.

Mr. Gilmore

—permission for which will wither. In anybody's mathematics, 20% of that is 16,000. If the Minister let the legislation stand, those 16,000 sites—

Mr. Cullen

Units.

Mr. Gilmore

Those 16,000 homes would have been in the social and affordable housing domain.

Mr. Cullen

We have 75 after three years. It was not working.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister will not get many more.

Acting Chairman

This is Second not Committee Stage.

Mr. Cullen

I am trying to be helpful.

Mr. Gilmore

What time am I due to conclude?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has ten minutes.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister got 75 units because the builders and developers had already escaped the trap. They got their permission before Part V came into operation. They are about to be brought into the loop because the permissions are to wither and the Minister is reopening the door to them. Over the next three years, the period of time for which planning permission is being extended, the Minister will continue to get little out of Part V. He is letting the builders and developers off the hook.

Mr. Cullen

Local authorities tell me differently and they are the biggest stakeholders.

Mr. Gilmore

Let us come to the local authorities. The gainers in this arrangement are clearly the developers who own the sites.

Mr. Cullen

The gainers are the purchasers of houses, first-time buyers and, particularly, those in the affordable or social housing areas.

Mr. Gilmore

The purchasers are gaining nothing. The Minister knows from the housing strategies that have been drawn up and analysed by the voluntary housing agencies, not by his Department, that 33% of newly formed households have been priced out of the housing market. That is acknowledged by the housing strategies drawn up by local authorities. In urban areas it is 42% and 52% in greater Dublin. These are the families who are dependent on those 16,000 sites coming into the public and social housing domain. You have turned your back on them. Those 16,000 sites will remain in the private ownership of builders and developers.

Mr. Cullen

They were never anywhere else.

Mr. Gilmore

Under the existing legislation—

Acting Chairman

The Deputy may be provoking the Minister. Perhaps he could address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Gilmore

That does not bother me.

Acting Chairman

I would like to be able to give the Deputy the benefit of the seven minutes he has left.

Mr. Gilmore

The 16,000 sites, which would otherwise have had to come into the public domain, will now have to be replaced by local authorities at a cost. The average cost of a site these days is perhaps €60,000 or €70,000 and it is certainly much higher in urban areas. It is a great deal higher in Dublin. No matter how one looks at it, €1 billion is the minimum that this legislation will cost the taxpayer.

Mr. Cullen

The 20% did not come free.

Mr. Gilmore

The greatest disgrace of this Bill is the abandonment of the social housing provision of Part V. The second issue that arises—

Mr. Cullen

The Deputy is suggesting that these sites came free.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister will get his chance to reply.

Mr. Cullen

They did not come free.

Acting Chairman

The Minister cannot intervene.

Mr. Gilmore

The second issue that arises—

Mr. Cullen

The facts do not seem to bother the Deputy.

Mr. Gilmore

Can the Chair do anything about this Minister?

Acting Chairman

The Minister will get an opportunity to reply when the time comes. Deputy Gilmore has six minutes remaining and he has much to say.

Mr. Cullen

I would not like the Deputy to be incorrect in the House.

Mr. Gilmore

It is a pity the Minister was not as forceful with the developers when they came to talk to him about this.

Mr. Cullen

I was. They wanted 12%, but they were not going to get it from me.

Acting Chairman

The Minister will have the opportunity to reply. Deputy Gilmore without interruption.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister surrendered to them and has ended up giving them even more than they asked for.

Mr. Cullen

I have not.

Mr. Gilmore

"Flexibility" is the other big word the Minister has introduced. I have no problem with flexibility and I am quite open to having flexible arrangements in the operation of Part V. However, the flexibility the Minister proposes to introduce will restore the old style social apartheid that applies to the location of houses. I was fascinated by what I heard in the Minister's speech with regard to this issue. He spoke of wishing to avoid undue social segregation in housing. I compare that with the speech he made in the other House which featured a couple of interesting sentences not included in today's script. What he said in the Seanad provides an interesting insight into the Minister's thinking in this area.

According to the Minister, social integration does not mean people living side by side and that some voluntary housing bodies argue against pepper-potting housing through estates for management reasons. He contends that it means ensuring that people of all kinds in a community are represented within a locality, use the same shops and schools, benefit from the same community facilities and travel on the same transport links. That means the Minister has acceded to the view put to him that social housing units should not be built on the same estates as private housing. He agrees that a builder seeing he or she was caught by the 20% rule should decide that the 20% would not be provided on an estate where he or she wished to sell houses at premium prices. The builder could then provide for the 20% at a different site. Whatever old guff comes from the Minister about avoiding social segregation, we are back to the form of social apartheid which places public housing in one place and private housing in another.

Mr. Cullen

I was never one to give out guff, as the Deputy knows well. The Deputy has no faith in local authorities or in Labour Party councillors. It is up to them.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister has slipped into the Bill a provision to allow for the zoning of land in the making of local area plans. We will not get an opportunity to discuss that further because there will not be a Committee Stage on this Bill. It is quite a significant change in the planning legislation. Zoning has always been done in the context of the review or variation of a development plan. This widens the net greatly and it requires much more consideration by the House and its committee than it is going to get as this Bill is rushed through.

Mr. Cullen

I thought the Deputy would welcome it.

Mr. Gilmore

Lest I be accused of being entirely negative about the Minister's actions, I acknowledge that he has responded to the suggestion I put to him during Question Time. Social housing provisions should apply to small sites on which apartment blocks are being built in urban areas.

I acknowledge this is a matter on which he has moved for which I thank him. I also acknowledge that he recognised from where the suggestion came.

I see merit in some of the changes being proposed in relation to arrangements for the voluntary housing sector, although I predict that the proposal to allow voluntary housing agencies to retain ownership of housing—

Mr. Cullen

The Deputy agrees with what I am trying to do.

Mr. Gilmore

While I understand what the Minister is trying to do, this is an issue that could usefully benefit from a more detailed discussion on Committee Stage. As he is aware – there is some evidence of this not too far away from him – there will be pressure to buy out dwellings from those who enter a shared ownership arrangement, although I understand what he is trying to do in terms of keeping them in circulation as affordable housing, an objective I share and one with which I agree. However, the provision which he is inserting into the Bill needs to be thought through to its conclusion. While it is fine to include it in the Bill now, in five or ten years' time when families concerned start to put pressure on their local Deputies to have the regulations changed to enable them to buy out the houses in question, there will be a different story. This is an issue to which greater consideration should be given.

The Labour Party is utterly opposed to the measure the Minister has placed before the House. We are disgusted at the manner in which this is being done. It is one of the most retrograde steps that has been proposed for a long time in relation to social housing for which 60,000 families are seeking of one kind or another. Between one third and one half of young families are unable to buy their own home. There are local authorities and voluntary housing agencies which do not have and cannot get land and are unable to compete because of the price of land for social and affordable housing, yet the Minister is giving the biggest Christmas gift ever to the building industry in handing it back 16,000 sites while families who need them for housing purposes will have to wait even longer.

Mr. McHugh

I wish to share time with Deputies Cowley, Cuffe and Morgan.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. McHugh

At the risk of provoking the Minister, I will address my remarks through the Chair. The introduction of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2002, is effectively a statement from the Government of a belief of failure in relation to the policies it is pursuing and which the previous Government pursued in respect of the social and affordable housing provisions contained in Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

The previous Government went to great lengths to resolve the issues surrounding the price of houses, the provision of social and affordable housing and related matters. Expert views were obtained, reports commissioned and recommendations given effect, but the outcome at the end of the day was failure. House prices and local authority housing waiting lists continue to rise while the resistance of property developers continues to increase. The Government's answer was to give in to property developers.

Let us not forget the courage of the previous Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and the various measures he endeavoured to implement, including the requirement in Part V of the 2000 Act to provide social and affordable housing within private developments. That has to be seen as a courageous attempt to level the playing field for all. The Government is throwing out the hard work done by the previous Minister at the behest of property developers. Effectively, this Bill has been designed, drafted and forced by the might of the vested interests in the property development business. It reflects poorly on the Government that it would allow itself be dictated to by external forces. It does not augur well for the prospect of strong government in the years ahead.

Let us be clear about what is happening. Property developers made a judgment that the social housing provisions contained in the 2000 Act were not to their liking. They engaged in extensive lobbying and the Government capitulated. The measures inserted in the 2000 Act were so well flagged that the developers were ahead of the posse. They had sufficient planning permissions obtained for a number of years before the 2000 Act was passed to allow them to continue developing while mounting lobbying campaigns to bring about a change and at the same time flex their muscles in the pretence that they would not continue house-building unless there were changes. The Government, needlessly, blinked first. Developers only make money when they are developing and as sure as night follows day, if the Government had held its nerve and called the developers' bluff, it would have won the game.

The provisions of this amendment Bill have nothing whatever to do with planning and development and certainly nothing to do with proper planning and development. The 2000 Act allowed us to provide housing at an affordable price. If it had been implemented, it would have integrated the various strands of housing, social, affordable and private, in a more socially respon sible and democratic manner and undue social segregation would have been avoided. The effect of this Bill will be to revert to an unacceptable position where the developer can develop housing in an upmarket part of town or neighbourhood, while at the same time satisfying the requirements of Part V of the 2000 Act by handing over land in the rundown part of town or neighbourhood to the local authority. Social segregation in housing provision is being established in this Bill and is an indictment of the Government. It is designed to ensure segregation is legally enshrined in legislation. That is a retrograde step and I say shame on the Government.

The Government should have acted in a firm manner, stated Part V of the 2000 Act was irreversible and acted accordingly. Had that avenue been pursued developers would have got the message and knuckled down to developing sites and houses. Instead they sat back and waited to see what the Government would do because they had got vibes that changes were afoot.

In recent weeks first-time house buyers have been hit sucker punches by the Government. The VAT rate was increased to 13.5%, the new house grant abolished and the price of diesel used in construction equipment increased, all of which add enormously to the amount the first-time purchaser has to find to pay for his or her house.

This amendment Bill imposes another burden on the house buyer in the form of the 0.5% levy on a house valued at less than €270,000 or a 1% levy on a house valued in excess of €270,000. We are informed the levy cannot be passed on to the purchaser. That is a joke. Does the Minister, his officials or any other Minister seriously suggest developers will not build into their costs the 0.5% or 1% levy? Of course, they will. Put simply, the purchaser will pay the levy.

Debate adjourned.