Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 13 Dec 2002

Vol. 559 No. 4

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

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

May I ask a question?

No, the order was made yesterday. Deputy Cowley is to begin.

This Bill is a bit like "The Late Late Show"– there is something for everybody in the audience. There is something for the punter, the builder and the powers that be. A Bill that gives something to everyone is not necessarily a good Bill.

There is great potential for this Bill to do good. I seek to be constructive in what I say. I am aware of the genesis of the Bill, particularly Part V and the need for land for social housing. As chairman of the special needs committee of the Irish council for social housing, as a board member of that council and as someone involved in providing social housing for older people, I am aware of how much was expected of this Bill and of how it could, potentially, help prevent social segregation.

I commend the efforts of the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and his Minister of State, former Deputy Molloy. I hope the present Minister realises the potential of this Bill. It has been put through the wringer of the builders' lobby and has survived Supreme Court referral by the President. Changes have been made such as the introduction of the payment of a levy as the cost of doing away with the withering rule. This money should be used to the advantage of the people. It was intended for the provision of social and affordable housing and will mean a fund of €60 million to €70 million for the local authority. This fund should be used specifically for supporting non-profit sheltered housing initiatives.

Sheltered housing is far down the priority list of local authorities and unless the fund is ring-fenced for this purpose the money will not be used for it. There are good capital supports for non-profit sheltered housing through the Department's schemes. Non-profit housing associations managed more than 2,000 sheltered housing units for the elderly throughout Ireland and there are another 2,000 older people waiting on local authority housing lists for some type of sheltered accommodation. In recent years there has been a dramatic fall off in the production of sheltered housing because of the lack of an ongoing funding scheme that would encourage communities to build units.

Because of the difficulty with funding, communities cannot now support older and disabled people who would like to stay in their community but cannot because of the lack of accommodation. For that reason they are forced into profit driven non-community nursing homes. We spend €70 million on subvention for people in nursing homes. Those homes are fine when there is no alternative. Ministers talk about value for money but a defined revenue funding scheme would provide alternatives at 1% of that cost. The builders have got flexibility but what about providing flexibility to older people who wish to stay in their area. Would it not be better to keep people in their homes at one tenth of the cost. I suggest the Minister should consider setting aside some of this levy for those who cannot take care of themselves.

Another concern is that the new Act will put an onus on planners to negotiate with builders. The builders are like cattle dealers and I mean no reflection on their good name. The builders will suck in the planners and blow them out in bubbles. Planning authorities must decide how they will cope and must understand how this will operate. The planning officer needs to be as hard as nails. This will involve giving planning authorities the resources they need to deal with this new challenge. Planners are trained to zone land, not to negotiate with able dealers. They need to watch themselves.

When Part V was brought in there was no extra money. The Government has paid the price now. It should have learned the lesson now that there must be resources if the legislation is to work. The United Kingdom has a similar arrangement which is more flexible. There they found that planners needed up-skilling in negotiation skills. We need guidelines and a consistent approach. Progress also needs to be monitored. There must be an inspectorate to see how Part V is working. To ensure social integration can take place and that gerrymandering does not occur, a regulator or ombudsman type inspector needs to ensure that Part V works, that land offered by builders is not on the edge of town and that it complies with requirements. This will ensure that no large housing estates are built like those of the 1970s and 1980s which are currently being demolished. It is a matter of being penny wise and pound foolish.

Under this Bill, approved housing bodies should be exempted from the levy. I ask the Minister to consider that. The recent budget increased VAT by 1%. The effect of that on construction costs will cause a significant reduction in housing output. That negative effect should be offset by providing increased funding. I hope the Government will address that issue. It is contrary to the Bill for the builder to add on the levy to the purchase price, but how will people know whether it has been added on? They will not know and they will have no way of knowing. If capital gains tax increases, house prices will increase also. This Bill puts the onus on individual purchasers, if they are charged with a levy, to go back and fight for the return of their money. That is not right.

I understand the Deputy is sharing time. There are 16 minutes remaining for two Deputies.

How will the impact of the tax be regulated? That is the challenge. Unless the situation is changed, it will put stress on the home owner. Like "The Late Late Show", there is something for everybody in this Bill but it also has great potential. I hope the Minister will ensure the realisation of that potential.

The Minister has given in to his friends in the construction industry. This is a slap in the face for those who are seeking affordable housing. The pious sentiments of the Minister's predecessor have been cast to one side in the proposals in this Bill. Article 43.2.1 of our Constitution recognises the rights of private property, regulated by the principles of social justice. The principles of social justice have been thrown to one side by this Bill which does not recognise the common good. Clearly, lobbying by the Irish Home Builders' Association and the Construction Industry Federation has worked. The Minister's predecessor said he was able to "look beyond that" but he is going backwards. He is listening very carefully to the advice of those bodies.

I am listening to the local authorities.

The Minister is listening to his developer friends who are contributing to the coffers of Fianna Fáil.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I ask that the Deputy's latter remark be withdrawn. It is an outrageous suggestion, unbecoming of a Deputy in this House. Is it being withdrawn?

No. It is clear, to my mind—

The remark should be withdrawn.

—that the advice coming from the construction industry—

Through you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his remark. Such remarks are not permitted in this House.

It is clear from the tribunals exactly what is happening.

It is a political charge.

It is a political charge. I stand over it and my party stands over it. On the principles contained in this Bill—

This is typical nonsense from the Greens. There is no basis for it.

The Minister will have his opportunity to reply.

In this Bill, instead of following the European model of social integration, the Minister is taking his cue from the gated and guarded enclaves of North America. That is not an appropriate housing model for this country and we should not follow it. Within the Planning and Development Act, 2000, there were three choices available to developers with regard to the provision of social and affordable housing. They could give land, sites or houses. The Minister is now allowing two huge cop-outs in this Bill – land elsewhere or moneys. That is not visible. How are local councillors expected to know what is happening behind closed doors—

By doing their job as local councillors.

—between developers and a county manager? The public is not privy to such deals and that is a retrograde step.

The Deputy is factually incorrect.

The Minister will have an opportunity to reply.

As I understand it, one has to file a Freedom of Information Act request to find out what goes on behind closed doors with regard to deals between managers and developers. That is not a good approach. If I am wrong, I stand corrected but that is my reading of the Bill.

The Deputy is wrong.

With regard to the withering of planning permissions, I am appalled by the backward step which is being taken. Instead of a 20% commitment to social housing there will now be a derisory 0.5% or 1% levy.

There was nothing to prevent them from building.

I agree, but the planning permissions withered. There are 80,000 permissions in respect of which a derisory levy will be paid at one twentieth or one fortieth of what will apply to new planning permissions. That is a climb-down of appalling proportions by the Minister. I am ashamed that he is considering it on behalf of the people of Ireland. The Act of 2000 was accompanied by a pact. In return for social housing, certain commitments were given. The Minister is now rowing back on that.

There are othe provisions which give cause for considerable concern. With regard to consultation, the previous Act provided grounds for judicial review in relation to amendment of a development plan. I am concerned that the Minister is now rowing back on that. The process of consultation and public display is very important and must be fully complied with. A development plan should be questioned if those provisions are not complied with in full. Section 14 refers to development by State authorities. There was full provision for consultation in that regard, for example, if there was a proposal for a large car park in front of Leinster House. It now appears that those provisions are being clawed back completely.

The opposite is the case.

I look forward to clarification from the Minister. With regard to the new provision on zoning of land within local area plans, I agree that is a positive step. We will have our own developments on that. Local area plans have the potential to be a very powerful instrument. I welcome that provision but I believe it could go further. However, I regard the Bill as a slap in the face for those seeking affordable housing and I reiterate that the Minister has given in to his friends in the building industry.

When I was informed the Dáil was going to sit on Friday and that very important legislation was being rushed through both Houses before the new year, I was intrigued. Having been here only a short while and seeing a Government loath to turn up on Thursday, never mind Friday, I wondered what great force was bringing this coalition Government to heel. With so many pressing matters in the environment and local government portfolio needing urgent attention, I wondered what could it be. Was it to do with the waste issue and did the Minister finally intend to implement a zero waste management strategy or bring in new environmental taxes? Was it something to do with local government reform? Given that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, told The Irish Times last summer that he thought the State was “over democratised,” that seemed unlikely. Like his predecessor, the Minister wants to dilute and disempower local democracy.

Finally, the word came through that the urgent business involved a housing Bill. What are the important issues in that regard? Where would a Government that really wanted to solve the housing crisis in Ireland direct its efforts? I thought it must relate to the issue of homelessness and that, with over 6,000 people homeless, the Government was going to take some real action to fulfil its pre-election commitment to set a target for reducing homelessness. Perhaps it would take up the proposals of the National Economic and Social Forum that we should have a target of taking 70% of housing applicants off local authority waiting lists within two years. That would have been a worthwhile way to spend a Friday, rather than teeing up on the golf course or having a lie-in. Given that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, is a man who sees the big picture, I wondered if he was about to introduce a Bill, not just with commitments and timescales for housing all of our citizens but to make housing in affordable, decent accommodation a constitutional right for all our citizens. The sad truth was that he was going to do none of these things. The Minister was, in fact, introducing a developers' charter.

People's individual rights under the Constitution never bothered Sinn Féin.

The Minister and Fianna Fáil with their Progressive Democrat mud-flaps were back in bed with their good friends – the property developers and speculators.

Who is the Deputy's party in bed with?

September's edition of the construction industry's magazine has an article entitled "Is Part V Driving You Crazy?". I now know I should read the trade magazines to ascertain Fianna Fáil policy.

There has been a chronic housing crisis in the last ten years, not just in terms of house prices, but also affecting such crucial issues as homelessness, rent increases, evictions and a near doubling of local authority waiting lists. Yet, on each of these issues, there is no political will or resolve and, ultimately, no legislation. The Government knew there was a crisis. It commissioned three expert reports and has patently ignored most of their findings. For example, one recommendation was the withdrawal of mortgage relief for owners of second homes who are investing in the housing market. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats lifted it for one year and house price rises slowed hugely for the first time in seven years. Last year, the Minister for Finance gave investors back their tax break and price rises have once again hit double digits and are now double the rate of inflation.

The Planning and Development Act, 2000, promised that 20% of any new land zoned for housing had to be kept for social housing. Two years later, less than 300 units have been built and the property sections of papers are filled with ads from developers selling new sites with the promise there will be no affordable or social housing attached. New legislation is now being rushed through the House to amend this failing Bill. It should actually be gutted rather than amended. Let there be no illusion about what is happening here today. The 20% rule is to be deleted and developers can either offer local authorities alternative sites or money in order to avoid having social housing in their developments.

That is utterly incorrect. Is that a Sinn Féin Bill the Deputy is reading?

The already leafy suburbs and estates of the wealthy are to be ring-fenced, with local authority and social housing being pushed back to the ghetto.

That is absolute rubbish.

The Deputy did not read the Bill.

When the Minister admitted two weeks ago that only 300 units were built under Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, it was clear that no serious efforts had been made by the Government to ensure this vital element of the Act was implemented. Last week, the Minister admitted in a written reply to a parliamentary question that local authority house building will fall by 1,000 units in 2003 because of budget cutbacks. We are now legislating for the ghettoisation of housing, deliberately building inequality into our housing legislation.

What we should be doing is acting on the NESC proposals and seeking to implement a development land tax. We should be ending mortgage relief for speculators who own multiple homes and we should be increasing capital gains tax for property developers and speculators. We should be addressing the issue of the private rented sector where rack-renting is prevalent, tenants have little or no protection under law with no right to long leases and eviction is only ever a month away. We should be legislating for rent control and tenants' rights.

We need real social housing provisions now more than ever. This new Bill is another backward step. Fianna Fáil is back in bed with the builders and it is the ordinary people, the average wage earners, who will lose most from this strategy. I can already see areas where speculators are beginning to buy run down former local authority houses which they can renovate and hand back to the local authority to meet their obligations under the Bill as currently proposed. It is unfortunate this Bill was not used to hold developers to account or ensure that people on housing waiting lists, some for six or seven years, would at last be provided with a home of their own or at least decent housing with some security of tenure. Unfortunately, this Bill is wide of the mark. It meets none of these criteria and is letting speculators, builders and developers off the hook to go back to doing what they do best.

I wish to share time with Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

In case it is considered a possible conflict of interest, I must state that I own a development site on the Commons Road in Cork. It has had planning permission for two years for the construction of 22 apartments. No development has taken place to date and the two year rule will affect the planning permission in March 2003. I advised the Clerk of the Dáil of this matter in writing yesterday and I seek the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's guidance as to whether I can continue to speak on the Bill. I intend to vote with my party in favour of the Bill.

The Deputy has put his position on the record and may continue in that context.

I particularly welcome parts of the Bill such as the increased role provided for the voluntary housing sector. Voluntary housing bodies already provide social rented accommodation throughout the country and have contributed significantly to housing families on the local authority waiting lists. Housing provided by voluntary bodies with funding under the subsidy scheme is an addition to housing provided under the local authorities' own programme funded under the multi-annual programme and, as such, represents a welcome addition to the social housing output.

Local community-based bodies also provide much needed sheltered housing in their areas for special needs categories such as the elderly, disabled, homeless and elderly returning emigrants with funding under the capital assistance scheme. Many of these bodies also provide an element of care and support services for the residents of special needs housing. Much credit is due to all involved in the planning and provision of such housing and the follow-up service so selflessly provided through voluntary effort.

I am particularly pleased that this Bill will enable voluntary housing bodies to provide affordable and shared ownership housing. The proposed form of shared ownership scheme for the voluntary sector will ensure that the voluntary body retains an equity stake of at least 50% in the value of the house, so it will be retained in the affordable and social use area indefinitely, even when the original lessee sells his or her stake. This will ensure stability in these housing projects over the years and will facilitate the task of managing such housing, particularly where apartments are involved. It is logical that, as provided for in this Bill, the energy an commitment of the voluntary housing sector should be harnessed further by their involvement in affordable and shared ownership housing both on Part V developments and lands that do not come within Part V. I have no doubt the contribution of the voluntary sector to these forms of affordable housing will increase the total output overall.

The previous Government identified the potential contribution the voluntary and co-operative housing sector could make in tackling the growing demand for social housing. The Government indicated its commitment to developing and expanding the sector and giving it the necessary resources and support for it to become an important and significant force in housing. This commitment was reflected in the national development plan which included ambitious targets for output by the sector for each tier of the plan. In 1999, institutional and structural changes suggested by the sector were implemented which included the establishment of a dedicated unit within the Department to deal with voluntary and co-operative housing and the setting up of a working group comprising representatives of the sector and local authority and departmental officials. In 2000, the financial support by the Department for the sector was increased significantly through increased grant aid to the Irish Council for Social Housing, the umbrella group which is the main vehicle for developing the sector. An increased level of funding has continued to be made available and output in the sector hasincreased from 485 units in 1998 to 1,523 in 2001, which was a record. Indications are that output in the current year will set another record for the sector with output coming close to the national development plan's target of 1,500 units.

The national development plan established voluntary housing targets as follows: 1,000 units in 2000; 1,520 in 2001; 1,500 in 2002; 1,750 in 2003; 2,750 in 2004; 3,250 in 2005; and 4,000 in 2006. Some 950 units were provided in 2000 and last year's output at 1,523 exceeds the target set in the plan. I understand that by the end of September 2002 some 940 units had been completed for the sector, compared to 864 in the same period last year, which represents an increase of over 8%. On the basis of completion dates for schemes and progress at the end of September, it is estimated that the sector will exceed last year's record level of 1,523 units and will come close to achieving its NDP target of 1,500 completions for this year.

A further 2,188 units were under construction at the end of the third quarter and, in addition, a further 7,000 units are in the pipeline at various stages at local level. It is anticipated that expenditure on the voluntary housing programme this year will be in the order of €170 million compared to last year's out-turn of just over €143 million.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Cullen, on providing more flexibility in the short Bill he has introduced for affordable social housing in the voluntary sector. The sector is doing a superb job of managing the construction of housing developments. I would like to mention, in particular, a new development that is starting in Blackpool in my own constituency of Cork North-Central. One block of local authority flats there is to be demolished, while two others will be restored by the Respond organisation for the accommodation of elderly tenants. Day care and other facilities will be provided in an enclosed and secure complex. I thank the Minister for having provided funding for that project earlier this year.

Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil mé buíoch don Teachta O'Flynn as ucht a chuid ama a roinnt liom inniu. Táim thar a bheith sásta an deis seo a fháil páirt a ghlacadh san díospóireacht fíor-thábhachtach atá ar siúl.

There are three principal aspects to this important legislation before the House. First, it seeks to introduce a greater degree of flexibility to the operation of Part V of the principal Act, while at the same time confirming its continued operation. Second, it broadens the areas of potential activity of the voluntary housing sector to include affordable housing provision. Third, it addresses the fallout from the principal Act, whereby permission for approximately 80,000 units would wither over the coming months.

I congratulate the Minister for the fast and firm action he is taking in this regard. It would be unforgivable to do nothing and, thus, allow these permissions to wither at a time of unprecedented demand. In County Kildare alone, approximately 2,500 units would be affected if nothing was done.

The Minister has been criticised in certain quarters for not applying the 20% take to these permissions. However, I fully accept his explanation, as outlined to Seanad Éireann, that it would not be possible to do this legally and that the imposition of a levy as proposed is the best option in the circumstances. If the levy can achieve an additional ring-fenced income of more than €80 million for local authority housing purposes, as suggested by the Minister, such an achievement is worthy of support rather than criticism.

The levy in itself is modest and should not act as a disincentive, but should stimulate further affordable housing provision. It is also worth pointing out that local authorities, through their planning departments, have invested significant time and resources in these housing developments which, but for this amending legislation, would wither. Should these developments require new permission the planning system would be needlessly clogged up with a consequential delay for other new applications coming on stream.

The Bill provides an expanded role for the voluntary housing sector. In amending sections of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, entry will be provided to the voluntary sector to a revised shared ownership scheme, and these associations will also be able to engage in the construction and sale of affordable housing. As someone who has been deeply involved in building up a local voluntary housing system in County Kildare over the last ten years, I welcome this development.

The voluntary sector is playing an ever increasing role in social housing provision, and I am quite certain that the legislation proposed will enable it make a major contribution in the area of affordable housing also. In County Kildare, a number of local voluntary housing associations, led by prospective tenants working with local community leaders, have shown that they can fast-track the delivery of social housing schemes in an integrated and cost-effective manner.

What has been done throughout County Kildare, where communities have come together to form approved housing bodies to address their own local social housing needs, can be replicated throughout the country. These bodies can, in turn, make a significant contribution to meeting the local demand for affordable housing through housing associations or the co-operative model.

I congratulate the Minister on the fact that we will reach an unprecedented output of 55,000 units this year. At a time of unprecedented housing demand it is to be expected that policy will focus on the supply side. Voluntary housing associations are making a positive contribution to the supply of houses. Indeed, they are doing more than that because their focus is on building communities rather than just building estates – a weakness that existed in the local authority system for many years.

That is not to say, however, that there are not aspects of the growth of the voluntary housing sector that need to be carefully scrutinised, not least in how they approach the issue of rent and the question of eventual tenant purchase and home ownership. The legislation before the House provides for approved bodies entering the shared ownership market but, interestingly, it also provides for a revised shared ownership scheme, which would allow the approved bodies to retain their equity in the property in perpetuity, if I understand the Bill's provisions correctly.

This creates a clear disparity between the situation of the citizen who acquires a house under the local authority scheme and another citizen using a similar scheme to be operated by the approved bodies. While both may aspire to outright home ownership, this will not be achievable under this Bill for a citizen availing of the approved body option.

This reflects a similar situation that exists in the area of social housing. The drive towards integration, and the positive co-operation that exists between voluntary organisations and local authorities throughout the country has given rise to a situation whereby council and voluntary developments exist cheek by jowl. Both types of house are 100% Exchequer funded, save in the instance of capital assist schemes, mentioned by Deputy Cowley and others, and aim to meet the same demand. Despite the origin of the funding, the similarity of need and the shared aspiration of home ownership, the clients of approved bodies do not generally enjoy a rent scheme wherein a maximum rent applies. In addition, they have no right to purchase, unlike their neighbours in accommodation provided by a local authority.

This situation was brought into sharp focus for me recently when a new group was set up in County Kildare to lobby for the introduction of a maximum rent and a purchase option for tenants of properties built under the old rental subsidy scheme, now known as the capital loan and subsidy scheme. I went along to their inaugural meeting expecting to meet 20 or 30 people but, in fact, upwards of 100 people attended. They had a shared determination to press for legislative change in the areas I have mentioned. Such change has no support with some of the larger voluntary associations, and their influence on sections 16 to 19, inclusive, of the Bill is clear. They profess to holding a philosophical position on the issue of maximising rental provision and are opposed, therefore, to the very concept of a tenant purchase scheme or outright ownership of a property, as covered by the relevant section of the Bill.

It has even been suggested in some quarters that some approved bodies would withdraw from continued social housing provision if a purchase option was introduced for their tenants. This situation, which is fine in theory, would be all right in practice if the associations' philosophy was shared by their clients or tenants. Given the aspiration shared by the vast majority of people to own their own homes and the manner in which people in rental subsidy properties have been, and will be, assimilated into their local communities, we will face an ever-growing demand to revisit this matter and make legislative changes, sooner rather than later, in a manner that will provide for equality of opportunity in the social and, under the terms of this Bill, shared ownership housing schemes.

Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, has proved controversial since it was first mooted. It is the most positive and revolutionary legislation ever brought forward in the housing area, addressing not just the ongoing issue of social and affordable housing supply, but also the important issue of social integration. A lack of active commitment to social integration in the housing area in the past has given rise to major social problems that are perhaps most evident in major cities and towns, but that have also affected smaller towns and villages to a greater or lesser extent. There is no denying the linkage that exists between the failed housing policies of the past and the harvest of social difficulties that we are reaping today in such areas as early school leaving, delinquency and substance abuse, to mention just a few. The enactment of Part V has heralded the beginning of a new era of social integration and inclusion. I am particularly proud that a Fianna Fáil Minister introduced this measure. I welcome the fact that in this legislation the Minister is confirming that Part V is here to stay.

In reviewing the debate that took place at the initial Stages of the 2000 Act, I noted that my predecessor from Kildare South, former Deputy Alan Dukes, predicted that the Part V device as proposed would not work because it lacked the support of the construction industry. If it has not worked as originally intended, to the extent intended, the blame rests not just with the construction industry but on the shoulders of those Members of this House and local authorities who have failed to actively support its provisions in their local areas, councils and in their contacts with developers, and who chose instead to engage in a whispering campaign against the legislation, speculating as to when it might be repealed.

In that regard, I must treat with some scepticism the negative remarks of some on the proposed changes envisaged in the legislation given their lack of public support on an ongoing basis for the Act's original provisions. Despite the merits of the principal Act, its provisions in practice have proved to be too inflexible. My experience in Kildare to date is that just one Part V affordable house has been handed over to Kildare County Council. In circumstances where we have 48,000 applicants nation-wide seeking housing accommodation, the Minister is right and courageous to bring forward the measures included in the Bill to expedite the delivery of social and affordable houses while maintaining a firm commitment to social integration.

As this is my first contribution in this Chamber, I wish to thank the people of Kildare South for sending me here and express the hope that this and the future contributions I will make will serve their interests and the interests of the country as a whole.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Perry. While I compliment the last speaker on his maiden speech, I am surprised he used the opportunity to question the right of the former spokesperson, Alan Dukes, to question how a Bill should be dealt with. Our job in opposition, as was Fianna Fáil's job in opposition, is to question whether legislation is workable and whether it can deliver. Unfortunately, the changes made to Part V mean former Deputy Dukes has been proved correct. That is our job in opposition for which I do not apologise. I spent many happy years in this House with Alan Dukes and before that I was involved with him in a farming organisation. He was a man of great calibre who was not afraid to criticise or give a commitment, such as the Tallaght strategy, when he felt a certain direction was the correct one to take. That is what politics is all about.

I welcome the change in the two year rule, which some have said happened as a result of the construction lobby. I make no apology for saying that I am one of the people who lobbied in this regard because it did not affect just big builders, it had an even more serious effect on small builders in rural areas.

It is mainly on the rural issue that I want to speak because that is my role in opposition. For instance, in the case of a small 20 house development in a small town or village, the houses might not be sold quickly. It is important, therefore, that an overall plan is put in place at the beginning of the development, but this cannot be done if there is a rule which insists that all houses must be built within two years. I welcome the Bill in that context because it is a practical admission that the measure in the previous Bill has proved unworkable and wrong. I admire any Government or Minister who is prepared to admit that a proposal was wrong. It may be a U-turn, but at least it is an admission that the change is necessary.

Part V has also proved to be unworkable. I admire the Minister who admitted in his speech that his aim is to remove obstacles. In order to rectify a measure, it is important to realise that obstacles exist. He referred also to the moderation in the increase in house prices which the Government has brought about. He should try telling that to a young couple trying to buy a house today given the escalation in house prices in the past five years. To add insult to injury, he removed the first-time buyer's grant and increased VAT by 1%. In two days the Minister added approximately €5,800 to the price of a house and, while that might not seem a lot to someone on a reasonable salary, it is a serious issue for young couples trying to buy their first house.

I hope the changes in Part V will make the measure more workable. I understand this has been introduced because of issues in more affluent housing estates in Dublin and elsewhere. However, the measure had not worked so I hope this change will be an improvement and those in need of houses will get a better chance. It seems strange that four unit houses will be exempt. If one moves outside a town, one is not allowed to build four houses. Within a town the number is likely to be a lot more. I cannot help mentioning at this stage the need to reconsider county council development plans in respect of individual houses.

I declare my interest as a county councillor and landowner, even though my land is not intended for development. I am committed to ensuring that parishes remain alive. There are parishes like my parish of Aghabog where there is no village. Small holders in long lanes are literally dying out and if we do not allow development to take place along minor and not so minor roads, we will not retain our parish structure. It is important to remove laws where this is necessary and I admire the fact that obstacles have been removed in the legislation. Obstacles to people living in rural Ireland must also be removed. There seems to be a blanket proposal that all types of rural development is wrong. I accept this measure is necessary in counties such as Kildare, Meath, Wicklow and Louth, which are adjacent to Dublin city, and where there is an extension of the city out into the country. It does not make sense that such blanket laws apply to counties like Cavan, Monaghan and Mayo.

When Monaghan County Council was compiling its most recent development plan, I pointed out certain legislative flaws. The then county manager agreed with me and said he would use his common sense, although he had to comply with the development guidelines of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I thought his approach was great – I fell for it hook, line and sinker – and the manager never broke his word. Management can change, of course, but the development plan was in black and white. The new manager was forced into a corner about a particular matter on his first day, but he told a meeting of the council that he had read the development plan, accepted every word of it and would ensure that it was administered entirely. If anybody goes to An Bord Pleanála, the plan will be used as part of the argument.

The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, is a party colleague of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and a parliamentary colleague of all Deputies. He is committed to a realistic rural housing policy, an issue that has to be re-examined in the same way as we have changed the two-year withering rule and the Part V planning regulations. If legislation is not working and is unrealistic, we have to modify the laws this House imposes on local authorities to ensure the law works for the benefit of all.

Official figures I obtained in response to a recent question suggest that the cost of local authority housing has doubled in the last five years. There have been even greater increases in the private sector. A house in Monaghan town that cost £86,000 when it was built in 1997 was sold for £140,000 in 1999 and resold for £260,000 in 2001. Such price increases have occurred because the level of availability of sites has led to a lack of house construction. The fact that local authorities and voluntary groups are not building enough houses is another factor. We face a major task to ensure there are proper water and sewerage facilities in places like Monaghan, to help builders to develop their lands. If we do not take this vital measure, we will not be able to keep house prices at their present level.

I welcome the steps taken in this Bill to assist the voluntary housing sector. Unfortunately, for all sorts of reasons there has not been a major uptake of voluntary housing schemes in County Monaghan, compared to County Carlow, for example. There was a plan to build 70 voluntary houses in Clones, but an outside person objected and the scheme was rejected by An Bord Pleanála. A subsequent effort was made to restore the scheme but it was turned down again in recent days. It seems unreal that somebody from outside the area can destroy the housing prospects of 70 people. This issue needs to be examined in a serious manner.

I welcome the two main aspects of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2002, in principle, and I urge that the other issues I have mentioned be considered in the near future. It is right that we should be able to consult the Minister for the Environment and Local Government when new county development plans are being drawn up and that the social strata of a particular area should be taken into account. We should not have to work within a blanket system that may be suited to the counties I mentioned earlier, but is not relevant to County Monaghan and the west.

I thank Deputy Crawford for sharing time with me and, like the Deputy, I welcome this sensible Bill. It is right that the two-year withering period should be extended so that builders will have more opportunities to construct new houses. The amendment to the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 2000, will also eliminate the cost of reapplying for planning permission, which in many cases may be refused, and consulting architects again. An Taisce is playing a dangerous role in the regions and is causing huge concerns in rural areas that have been deemed worthy of investment. It often happens that although a county council has granted permission for a house, An Taisce objects on some unknown grounds. In one instance, a commercial development in an area that badly needs it was turned down, which was a huge loss to the business community of the region. It is important that An Taisce performs its functions, but it should retain a sense of balance. I am not sure what the Minister's role is in relation to An Taisce, but it is amazing that it has such power.

An Taisce is totally independent.

An Taisce seems to have a veto and it receives State funding.

It receives an insignificant amount. I have already looked into the matter.

I appreciate the Minister's concern, but it is important for the survival of the west that we examine An Taisce's role. The fact that county development plans can be amended and decisions can be vetoed does not assist the renewal of rural areas. There appears to be a link between An Taisce and An Bord Pleanála; it seems that there is an agreement between the organisations to challenge planning decisions. We need to check what can be done about this issue.

It is right that we encourage people to build homes in the manner outlined in this Bill, but it is understandable that people in rural areas want to use their land for housing. Not everyone wants to live in a city or town, as many people are happier to live near their families. Parents may wish to provide a site or some money to help their children to build a home. If we are to talk about the renewal of rural areas, it is important that houses are built in areas other then villages and towns. This will assist the commercial development of nearby urban areas. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, has advocated the CLÁR programme and I would like the programme to engage with the huge need for housing.

It is impossible to house everyone in an urban environment and it is difficult for county councils to meet their obligations to upgrade water and sewerage services. There is a huge demand for affordable housing and it is important that the Government provides funding to housing agencies to build houses that are affordable. It is regrettable that local authorities have not shown the level of commitment we hoped for when we passed the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 2000.

I am concerned about the design of houses. I recently examined a large mixed development of local authority and affordable housing that had received substantial State funding. I was astonished and disappointed to see that different designs had been used for the different classes of housing, making it easy to identify them. There was barbed wire fencing on the back of the estate and the aesthetics of the development did not look right. It is particularly difficult to understand when one considers that the same stacked up costs were involved for all houses. Architects employed to design mixed schemes that include affordable housing should ensure that all the houses in a scheme are comparable and do not have distinctive differences that invite people to notice that one house is an affordable house and another is not. Local authorities also have responsibilities in this regard and should ensure that areas do not get labelled.

There has been a significant increase in the cost of houses and some people are locked into the special savings scheme. There is tremendous pressure to pay a mortgage and the level of profit to builders is hard to control. It depends on demand. A large number of houses have been repossessed due to the amounts advanced by financial institutions and borrowers' capacity to repay. In these cases the ownership changes and although people do not have to leave their houses, they become tenants. The level of borrowing is huge and people have other commitments. Social housing is the important issue which the Minister has to deal with. Those who can afford housing will always obtain the money. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and Local Government to ensure that social housing is provided.

The social housing already provided has been of a high standard. Can a local authority still purchase finished houses from a developer? Have all houses to be built by local authorities themselves?

I will find out and reply.

The timescale involved in a development, acquiring land, getting agreement and going to tender will need to be accelerated. There are large numbers of people on rent allowance. In Sligo alone there are up to 500 people waiting on housing. They dream of a house but it is impossible to accommodate that need.

I congratulate the Minister on the amendment. It is an excellent amendment which will facilitate people who have current planning permissions. Part V of the Act was not working. The Minister saw this and changed it. I congratulate him on so doing.

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Connor. There is probably nothing as important in the life of a Government as the education, and the provision of medical care and housing, for its people. It is for that reason that I congratulate the Minister on his initiative in addressing what has become a difficult situation, the provision of housing. The change to the withering provision, where planning permission expired after two years and now reverts to the normal five years, will, according to the Minister's speech to the Seanad, make available about 80,000 houses at a cost to the developers. It will give the local authorities approximately €80 million and, hopefully, more.

I was rather amused to hear Deputy Sargent refer to this as a "builder's Bill." To use the well-worn cliché of turkeys voting for Christmas, I do not think that builders would vote to give €80 million back to local authorities. Nor would they vote to provide the 20% social housing if they had their way. I have an association with the building industry and it is certainly not a builder's Bill. It is, however, a bill which shows that the Minister is prepared to react to a situation which has developed, where there was a shortage of planning permissions because developers were not taking up the invitation to provide the 20% social housing. I can see why this was so.

It was particularly due to the bureaucracy and inflexibility which pertained to that section of the Act. Social and affordable housing is an enlightened attempt by the former Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to make available to people houses of good quality generally, rather than in specific ghettos. Fortunately, the Minister has seen that the supply did not fit the demand. A fundamental law in economics is that where supply is exceeded by demand then prices go up. I believe that because of his initiative the supply will now go up and prices will stabilise. The Minister estimates that 80,000 houses will come on the market.

The 20% provision is laudable because it addresses the area which had become problematic as house prices have increased to an extent that puts housing outside the reach of too many people on average income. I am happy to recommend the Bill because it decreases the bureaucracy, addresses the inflexibility and brings in what is most important in the political process, consultation. The developer now has an opportunity to consult with the local authorities. The two main players come into focus. It is quite possible that a developer has a site which would be totally unsuited for the requirements of the local authority. An instance would be if a developer was building a retirement village and the main need of the local authority was facilities for school-going children. It would be obvious that the needs of the local authority would not be suited to the possibilities or potential of the developer. In that situation he or she would be able to negotiate an alternative location or a contribution to the local authority. I am sure that the Minster will ring-fence this and ensure that it goes to provide social housing. That was a difficulty with the Act. The Bill increases supply. This is an important aspect of it because it addresses the fundamental law of economics.

Social housing was probably used as a criteria for the first time around 1997 when the Dublin Docklands Development Authority provided 20% of housing in the Sheriff Street area. People of every social background are living there happily side by side and an area that was unpleasant to live in because of crime rates has become an acceptable place for everyone to live in.

The Bill, above all else, has a sense of realism about it. It shows the Minister's ability to respond to a situation in a realistic way. Developers benefit when planning permission is conferred on a site. It is only right that they share some of that benefit with people less fortunate in that area. The land belongs to everyone although different people own it. I am delighted with the realism which the Bill shows. I can see that the Minister will insist on the benefits of planning being shared generally. One can cite statistics forever.

Ba mhaith liom an Bille a mholadh, toisc go dtugann sé faoi ndeara cúpla rudaí speisialta a bhí ag cur isteach ar thithe a chur ar fáil dár muintir. I recommend the Bill because it specifically retains the 20% provision for social and affordable housing. Fianna Fáil is committed to furthering social integration, although I object fundamentally to social engineering. Social integration is about making available what is acceptable to all sectors of society rather than forcing people to accept social or affordable housing in an area they might not want to. The consultative process means that all of us will have a role to play. The changes are designed to make the operation of the system more flexible and to remove the obstacles that were interrupting the supply of housing and thereby contributing to increasing costs.

I am glad that the Minister said in his speech to the Seanad that Part V is here to stay. There has not been any question of the Minister setting aside the requirement that housing developers make a contribution to the provision of social and affordable housing and he should be commended for retaining that section. He is aiming to remove rigidity to ensure a more efficient and effective system and thereby deliver a greater amount of social and affordable housing. The Minister announced that he was removing the provision under which many planning permissions would wither on 31 December 2002 and during 2003. This move was decided in the interests of ensuring a continuous supply of housing and I compliment the Minister on that.

The Minister is making it illegal, a point that might be missed by many, for the social and affordable housing levy to be passed on by the developer to the purchaser. Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire toisc go ndearna sé é sin. This is very important because in the past developers passed on costs, including the firsttime buyer's grant, and increased the price of the house. The Minister is ensuring that this cannot happen. By introducing the levy he is ensuring that the developer makes a contribution to social and affordable housing because if he wants to wait for five years rather than two he must pay the price. Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire agus tá súil agam go mbainfidh gach duine rud éifeachtúil agus rud speisialta as an mBille seo.

I welcome Deputy Stanton's presence in the Chair as he is a much more formidable and skilful opponent on the far side. I am happy to be safe for ten minutes. I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Tony Dempsey, on his excellent maiden speech. It strikes me, as someone who does not know a lot about hurling, that hurling's loss is politics gain.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Some Deputies will know by now that I represent Dublin South West and am also a member of the local authority in Tallaght, which is a major population centre. I do not know how long more I will be on the local authority but I have enjoyed my time there. I am happy to be in the Dáil, however, so the Minister will not get any trouble from me on that score.

The clock is ticking.

At a local authority meeting a week ago, I pleaded with the county manager to speed up progress on the affordable housing scheme in my county. Colleagues will know the reply I got, which was the usual one. He did say, however, that he was only now bringing to the council a scheme which would be presented to the members for their consideration. He has asked the appropriate strategic policy committee to consider the legislation. I am using that example to demonstrate my view on this legislation. I am supportive of what the Minister is doing and I find it timely. South Dublin County Council is one of the more progressive councils because last Monday we struck our rate and accepted our Estimates, and were probably the first in the country to do so. We were happy to continue the great work that was going on before the arrival of our new county manager from Meath, Mr. Joe Horan, whom some of the Deputies will know.

In my county, as in every other county, many people are looking for homes, over 4,500 in our case. Fortunately, the housing programme of the county council is making progress. The four-year cycle programme gives the councils an opportunity to plan over a cycle, which is very good idea. Almost 15,000 houses have been approved. That will help to ease the pressure. On other aspects of housing our county is second only to Dublin City Council, for example in the number of people availing of the shared ownership scheme. We are very proud of that. I am told that over the past couple of years we have helped more than 2,000 families to find a home. There is also an active and progressive voluntary housing scheme in our administrative area.

When the subject of housing is raised, there is unanimous agreement in this House that the increased cost of houses over the past six years has made, and will continue to make, the purchase of the traditional family home difficult and, for many, impossible. As all Members are aware, the local authority housing lists are lengthy and despite our wish to reduce them we should remember that demand continues to outstrip supply. The Government, during its periods of office from 1997 to date, has made the need for social and affordable housing a priority. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Noel Dempsey, introduced an innovative scheme which made a progressive and genuine effort to increase the availability of affordable housing. Regrettably, the practicalities of the housing sector ensured that the measure did not live up to our expectations with regard to homes transferred and sites made available.

For that reason the current Minister, Deputy Cullen, rather than allowing the issue to be parked, has taken a practical view and tabled this amendment. The additional measures contained in the Bill are in the spirit of what the Government seeks to achieve yet are capable of meeting the commercial demands of the construction sector. Members opposite may be wringing their hands at some of these changes, but if something is not working as required it must be fixed. The importance of homes for our constituents far outweighs the value of the usual political points scoring. As Members are no doubt aware, my constituency contains a wide mix of housing and the need for new homes is vital as the current generation of young adults prepare to leave their parental homes.

Since being elected in May, I have, like all my colleagues, had huge numbers of visitors, almost 1,500, to my advice clinics in Tallaght, Firhouse, Templeogue and Greenhills. My office tells me that almost 60% of the people calling, which is more than 800 if my maths is correct, have made representations about housing. As their representative in the Dáil, all I can say is that we must get on with it and continue to be as proactive as the Minister has been in ensuring that this national issue is not only a political priority but a personal, cross-party priority that garners support from all Members of the House. Here is an opportunity for Members to show their constituents that we do more than seeking to score points over the Government and can support good measures.

I have deliberately avoided detailing the contents of the Bill, knowing that other Members will want to do so. Similarly, I have not shared the anguish I have heard at all my advice clinics, stemming from the need for housing, because as elected public representatives we have all experienced it. I support this Bill wholeheartedly. I admire the Minister's positive and early action to improve the operation of the original legislation and his recognition of the need for affordable and social housing. I have made clear many times my support for what this Minister is doing. Deputy Cullen is a particularly progressive Member of the Government and is contributing many measures of benefit to our communities. All 166 of us come from different backgrounds and age groups and have had very different experiences. Sometimes people ask whether I am sorry I was not a Deputy 30 years ago. I am not because one develops into a job. I was not born into politics. I moved to Tallaght 30 years ago and became involved in the community. At stake in this Bill and this debate are things I see and feel every day. That is the experience I want to bring to this House, and I will say it as it is.

People sometimes believe one has different attitudes if one is a Government backbencher but I do not. I am not afraid to represent my constituency and speak out on the issues. I will always support my Government because that is what we enter politics for. I believe strongly in the party system as a means of getting things done, influencing decisions and making one's views clear to Ministers so that they can bring legislation forward. I support what the Minister is doing in this Bill and wish him well. He should stick to what he is doing because it is the right, and I am delighted to commend the Bill to the House.

I congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, on this legislation. It is a common sense measure to try to resolve the unwieldy situation left by his predecessor, Deputy Noel Dempsey. If ever a Minister for the Environment and Local Government was politically mangled it was Deputy Dempsey. He has nothing to show for his five years running the Department. Most of the measures he proposed, whether they emanated from Dr. Bacon's reports or from his own philosophy, have been reversed.

The new Minister, Deputy Cullen, has indicated in his short-term so far a willingness to listen to common sense on the ground. He understands much better than his predecessor what happens on the ground in relation to the construction industry and planning and development. He understands that one cannot impose social engineering on any local authority or on the will of the people. Deputy Dempsey set out to impose his view on how an area should be laid out. In real life, no matter what social class from which one comes, one cannot impose a decision against the will of the people.

Deputy Dempsey's principle of social integration is a good one, I think the Deputy will agree.

The manner in which Deputy Dempsey tried to implement the principle was impractical and it failed. The Minister would not be bringing forward this legislation had his predecessor succeeded. The Minister is going well but should not try to defend his predecessor because it will not help him. The Minister is familiar with his own territory and also with what the planning authority of Kilkenny County Council is doing in south Kilkenny. The action area plans implemented by local authorities, after much consultation with local people and with the goodwill of councillors, have been the most successful means of bringing about social integration. I recall in Kilkenny city about 25 years ago – one may not think I could recall it but I can—

The Deputy is getting as old as me.

The then county manager, Paddy Donnelly, who came from the Department of the Environment originally, understood human nature and the manner in which people made decisions about investing in private sites or constructing new homes. He brought a master plan to the council regarding the south-western environs of Kilkenny city, an area presently known as Lough Boy. He bought about 100 acres of land and sought interest from builders and other potential developers. He held back a segment of the property, however, for affordable housing for young couples starting out in life and seeking a loan. People knew where they stood with the old county council annuity loan, unlike the shared ownership scheme. Local authority houses were built on another segment of the property, and then Mr. Donnelly was able to get developers to build starter homes for young married couples trying to get on in life.

That is the way things should be done at action area level. Local authorities and councillors should get together before a sod is turned and devise a plan for a particular property. Deputy Dempsey tried to impose his vision for 20% of a development in the hope that somebody would come along and take the other 80% with the expectation of making an enormous sum of money from it. Developers have to make money to reinvest. If there is no profit they will not build, that is the way the free market works, and good luck to them. It reached a situation where builders and developers were sitting on property and refusing to develop it until the Government came along and did something like what Deputy Cullen proposes in this Bill. Realism has caught on, and I welcome that.

People are frustrated by the planning process, and there are more things the Minister could do in a short space of time that would help our lives a lot. In the planning system, I deeply resent public representatives having to pay for representations made on behalf of people. I urge a detailed review in the shortest possible time scale of the regulations Deputy Dempsey introduced in the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Deputy Cullen would get much support in this House for amendments he may wish to bring forward in that regard. It is unacceptable that a public representative should have to pay €20 under the regulations. We all accept there is a lot of nuisance value in what happens in relation to the planning process at local authority level, but public representatives are in a different category and are there to represent the people.

Another problem is the lack of consistency in planning. I am not blaming the Minister or his Department, it is up to local authority members to get their act together in this regard. There is no consistency in the implementation of planning decisions. The Government is spending a lot of money on achieving better local government. I urge the Minister, however, to bring the heads of the various planning departments to Dublin and ask them to implement national criteria at local level.

I intend to do that early in the new year.

I am delighted to hear that. The Minister should have the full support of all local authorities in ensuring they are properly represented by the people at the coal face of planning. They should be educated about how to implement development plans in order to achieve greater consistency. Service provision is what local government is supposed to be about. Over the past number of years I have seen a lot of money emanating from the Minister's Department down to local government, but it is being gobbled up in wages, salaries and pensions. This leaves little for improved services. The whole point of the drive for better local government was to improve services to the community, but payroll increases have cost local authorities a fortune. The additional cost of the Estimates for Kilkenny County Council in a full year is €1.2 million. We must find that money every year, but we must find more of it this year.

How much?

The payroll cost for Kilkenny County Council in 2001 was an additional €1.2 million. That is a great deal of money. There are many things we would like to do, but we cannot do them. We are now expected in the latest Estimates to pay for benchmarking and for better local government. That will put an enormous burden on all local authorities. Deputy Murphy told me that Cork County Council is in great difficulty because better local government will cost approximately €10 million. It is a big county and it is difficult to find extra money to improve services.

A review of better local government is under way. I hope to conclude it shortly and I hope we will get some answers.

I am delighted a review is being done. We have seen many improvements in the promotional prospects of local government officials, but we have not seen similar improvements in the provision of services for the community.

It is a little early to judge it.

We are trying to head off problems before they develop. I know the Minister likes to take our advice on the matter.

There is a penalty of €1,500 for demolishing protected structures. Perhaps the Minister could examine that. We must do something to protect heritage areas, such as Kilkenny city and Lismore in the Minister's constituency. We did a great deal over the years to improve the appearance of places, by introducing legislation to deal with national monuments and derelict sites. However, a penalty of €1,500 is too small to impose on someone who demolishes a protected structure.

I agree.

That should be reviewed. If the Minister introduced an amendment on Committee Stage, I am sure he would get the support of all sides of the House.

I welcome the orderly development under the national spatial strategy. We always expected that we would get unanimity on the spatial strategy. However, that is not possible when hard choices must be made. Every corner of the country expects that it is an appropriate location for development under a national spatial strategy. I welcome the publication of the national spatial strategy.

It is not good enough that people experience difficulties travelling around the country. I recall when I was first elected to the House in 1987 I could drive from Kilkenny to Dublin in 90 minutes without breaking any speed limits. However, it now takes at least another 40 minutes to get to the centre of Dublin. That is caused by a lack of planning in recent years when we had huge resources. The stop-go approach adopted by the Minister for Public Enterprise, now Senator O'Rourke, in relation to Luas and other plans to deal with Dublin traffic is costing us in terms of employment and the frustration suffered by drivers.

We must fast track the bypasses and the projects which are essential to sustain development in many areas. A ring road extension was proposed for Kilkenny city, but there is no sign of it being built. Although all the planning was done, the Department of Public Enterprise decided that Iarnród Éireann needed to carry out a study on a line diversion and it imposed some of the conditions related to railway safety which were included in legislation that was enacted in 2000. The Railway Works Order, which is not necessary to commence the work on the ring road extension in Kilkenny, is now an impediment to progress on this essential infrastructural development. It is holding up the planning and development process for the eastern environs of Kilkenny city. I resent the manner in which one Department has put a spoke in the wheel of this project in my constituency. I ask the Minister to fast track this proposal and to take a personal interest in it to ensure that the work on the ring road extension will commence in 2003.

There are many problems relating to planning and development. The former Minister, Deputy Dempsey, had the most abysmal record in that Department. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, has introduced legislation which is contrary to that introduced by Deputy Dempsey. He had all the answers about how to cater for the housing needs of our social classes. That has failed. Otherwise, we would not be debating this legislation today. The former Minister, Deputy Dempsey, wanted to give more power to local elected representatives, but he has ensured we have considerably less power. He took away our powers and gave them to the council managers, whom he criticised when he first became Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Local authority managers reign supreme, while councillors wait for the crumbs from the table. The only power we have relates to the Estimates or the development plan. That is testament to the failure of the former Minister to understand anything about planning and development.

Councillors are not using their power. They are letting managers away with murder.

We heard the same waffle from the former Minister, Deputy Dempsey. The Minister of State should not go down the same unwieldy road. The former Minister wanted to give more power to the elected members, but we now have less power. That is better local government, Dempsey style.

I am delighted the Minister, Deputy Cullen, has listened to local authorities and to the people and has introduced common sense legislation early in his term of office. It will speed up the process by which sites will become available and more people in the construction industry will be prepared to release and develop land for the benefit of the people. I hope the Minister will, in conjunction with the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, fast track many of the road developments which are essential to open up many areas of the country. Otherwise, we will not be able to implement the national spatial strategy, which is an ambitious plan and which needs to be implemented as quickly as possible.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Devins.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I listened carefully to Deputy Hogan and to many other speakers on all sides of the House.

The Deputy does not always listen to me.

If we wanted an argument for flexibility in terms of the dual mandate, we got it when this debate started. It is wonderful that many Members of the Oireachtas understand local government and the problems people face. I listened with great interest to Deputies who said that 60% to 80% of their work relates to local authorities and issues such as housing. That is a strong argument for this House to continue to engage with members of local authorities. There is a need for flexibility in terms of the dual mandate. That fact has been stated time and again by speakers from every party during the debate on this issue. I urge the Minister to introduce the flexibility evident in this Bill into his approach to dealing with the dual mandate.

Does Deputy McGuinness mean that the Minister is not flexible?

Deputy Hogan gives me the opportunity to agree with what is being said. There is a further need to ensure greater understanding nationally of county development plans. There is a need to set down criteria which lets counties know that they are working to the same set of guidelines. Within counties, there is a need for planners to understand that we are the policy makers. We have set out the policy and they must understand the way in which we believe they should pursue it. I ask the Minister to be proactive in this area and to bring together all parties in each county to ensure that policy is spelled out. He must ask those parties to fast-track the applications before them and to deal with them in an efficient way on the understanding that it is in the best interests of every county's development.

I am delighted to hear the Minister say he is to review local government and its implementation since the legislation was introduced. In Kilkenny €1.2 million in extra salaries has to be met in the current Estimate because another tier of senior management has been created. A new layer of bureaucracy has been put in place, but no effort or extra money has been made to ensure the delivery of houses, roads and maintenance in every county. In terms of local government, the problem is that the Estimates this year will have to meet all of these costs while attempts are made to maintain the level of service that has been provided over the past few years. That is proving to be extremely costly in terms of the commercial rate.

It pleases me that the Minister has taken the time to revisit this issue in the Bill. I am delighted by the changes he has made and the initiatives he has taken. We are dealing with one of the biggest issues of our time. Release of land for roads infrastructure is a significant matter and the completion of another leg of the Kilkenny ring road exercises us greatly in the city and county. By releasing the land, the Minister is enabling the development of roads and housing, which I welcome. It makes good sense to create flexibility around the provision of social housing. The introduction of the 0.5% levy on the cost of a house up to €270,000 and of 1% on the cost thereafter, the money from which will go into an affordable and social housing fund, will be welcomed by local public representatives, local authorities and builders. It will make it possible for builders to get on with their work while serving the purpose of the original legislation. The two years withering rule is an obstacle to the delivery of houses to the market and its removal will ensure the provision of 80,000 new homes over the next two years. That is essential to ensure price control because without those units the cost of housing would soar. Prices would be out of the reach of young couples and young people starting out in the housing market.

The Minister needs to discuss the operation of the shared ownership and affordable housing schemes with each local authority. There is a need for greater flexibility in the shared ownership scheme to provide those willing to take the chance with every opportunity to purchase a house. The cost of houses in the market, which these people have to meet, must be understood and the limits of the scheme must be set at a reasonable level. The affordable housing scheme is a success. We should revisit it in the context of the provision of land, the cost of housing and the type of structure we are delivering. In most local authorities the profile of the housing applicant has changed dramatically. In the past, demand was for three bedroom houses for families with perhaps two children. The lists have grown over the years and they now contain quite a number of single people, lone parents and large families. The initiative in the Bill is essential to free up the market and to get people off the lists by creating a ladder for them in terms of shared ownership and affordable housing.

There are people on local authority lists who will not be able to get off them. They will not be able to afford to buy a house through the shared ownership or affordable housing schemes. I look back over the years to a time when local authorities used to deliver such schemes and I realise that at some stage we must revert to that practice. We must have a change in policy in terms of the voluntary housing organisations and the provision of straightforward local authority houses. Until we reintroduce schemes of that sort we will continue to have growing numbers on our lists who see no way out of the housing problem other than to stay in flats or houses which are paid for through rental subsidy. I would like us to get the infill land from builders, as outlined in section 3, and, under the leadership of local authorities, deliver larger housing schemes for those who will never gain access to a shared ownership house or to the affordable housing scheme. That will have to be addressed in a radical move which involves every local authority. As is the case with the meetings the Minister has indicated he may have with county managers relative to planning and to making his scheme work, the area I have outlined is also one that must be given attention. I remember asking the then Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs about the cost of the rental subsidy. It began at a level of £5 million per annum and it has now become a very substantial figure. Perhaps if that were revisited in line with this legislation, a move could be made in the right direction. I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on the Bill. I warmly welcome this very important addition to our legislation. Its purpose is to amend Part V of the Planning and Development Bill, 2000, and it is particularly courageous of the Minister to introduce it given that the original legislation was introduced only two years ago. To recognise after that short time that the Bill needs to be amended is brave and the Minister is to be commended.

It has been scuttled by the builders.

The history of this Bill is that developers have held back from developing their holdings in conjunction with local authorities due to the escalating cost of land. We do not need reminding of cases in which developers have held on to the 20% and offered it to local authorities at market value. Local authorities have not been able to meet those prices and avail of those offers. The opportunity for local authorities to exchange the land for land in a different location or to obtain monetary compensation which – and this is ring-fenced in the legislation – they have to spend on the provision of social and affordable housing, is necessary. Despite the fact that in my own county of Sligo there has been a 300% increase in the provision of local authority housing there is still a pressing need for more housing. We all recognise this need. The Bill goes a long way to ensuring the housing crisis is not allowed develop into a major crisis.

I welcome Part II, section 4, which deals with a change in planning permissions. When this provision was first introduced, permissions were granted for a period of two years. That the Minister has changed it to five years is a positive move. It is interesting to note he has applied a levy of less than 0.5% on houses with a market value of less than €270,000 and 1% on houses exceeding that value. That levy will go straight into the coffers of the local authority. Those of us who are members of local authorities will be well aware of how pressed they are for cash. I listened carefully to the debate last evening and, if I recall correctly, Deputy Gilmore made the point that there were about 16,000 permissions that would fall within this category. According to my calculations, if all those permissions were for houses valued at less than €270,000, that would result in a windfall to the local authority of at least €16 million. In this time of financial crisis for many local authorities this is something that must be warmly welcome.

I welcome the fact that we can now proceed with local area plans. These can be zoned for housing and will be allowed back to the public display process for a further eight weeks before being adopted. In my own area the local authority has produced three development plans – a county development plan, a Sligo and environs development plan, which is currently going through, and we are in the process of developing a plan for Ballinode and Strandhill. That all these plans are being developed concurrently is good but in many ways it puts the cart before the horse. I would like to see each area developing its plan in conjunction with the overall master plan. Sligo, in common with other urban centres, is expanding and it is important that the expansion is controlled in a logical fashion.

The final section of the Bill deals with some miscellaneous factors but it all deals with the approved housing authorities. I welcome the fact that approved housing authorities are allowed participate in the shared ownership scheme and in the housing sector in general and not just in the social housing area. An interesting aspect is that approved housing authorities, particularly under the shared ownership scheme, will be allowed retain their equity in the house at the end of the 25 year period. A problem I have come across in respect of the shared ownership scheme is that many participants are worried that at the end of the 20 or 25 years they may have to take out a second mortgage to pay off the local authority share. Obviously the scheme is designed to help them and, as their position improves over the period of the loan, they will be able to purchase that share outright. Although we have not reached the end of the first lot, some are in a situation where that may not be possible.

The Minister, recognising that difficulty in relation to the approved housing authorities such as Cluid and Respond, is allowing them the facility at the end of the 25 years to rent their section of the property that the housing authority owns. That facility should also be extended to the local authority housing sector. A considerable number of the constituents who come to me about this problem are somewhat scared of taking out shared ownership on the basis that, at the end of the 20 years, they will not be in a position to purchase the remaining equity in the house. They would like to avail of the facility to continue to rent the local authority section of the house for some time.

I spent a long time reading the Bill and I found its language convoluted and difficult. Section 19(1B)(a) reads:

References to a housing authority in this Part, other than in sections 7, 8, 10(3)(a)(i), 10(3)(d)(ii)(II) and 10(4)(a), include a body standing approved of for the purposes of section 6 of the Act of 1992.

That section is incredibly convoluted. I make a plea to the parliamentary counsel to engage in plain English rather than that type of convoluted language.

That is a model of clarity.

That is the new language.

I wish to share time with Deputy Michael D. Higgins.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am appalled at the Government's proposals to guillotine this Bill with a view to pushing it through with so little debate especially for a Bill that will fundamentally alter the concept of social and affordable housing.

One of the most radical changes introduced by the Planning and Development Act, 2000, was the infusion of social housing policy into the concept of proper planning and sustainable development. Under previous planning legislation there was little or no scope for using the grant or refusal of a planning permission by a planning authority as a tool of social policy. For example, the planning authority could not condition a builder or developer to implement part of a housing authority's duties at his own expense. Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, was the vehicle whereby a developer was required to cede land or housing at its existing use value via the planning department for social and affordable housing. That was passed by the House and copper-fastened by the Supreme Court.

From the outset the building industry was opposed to this legislation. To placate builders, the Minister decided to provide a way out for his party's friends and supporters. For example, matters of detail including units designated for social and affordable housing, or land to be transferred, were never identified by way of a condition to a planning permission. In effect it was left to a gentleman's agreement to be entered into between the housing department of the local authority in question and the developer-builder. The Act did not apply until such time as a housing strategy was passed and incorporated into the county development plan and this was to be completed within nine months of the passing of the Act.

This significant timescale enabled the builders-developers to submit planning application after planning application well above their requirements so that they would not be liable for social and affordable housing as part of their planning permissions provided for in the Act. This is the primary reason there are outstanding permissions for nearly 74,000 houses at present. In a recent article in The Irish Times the Minister, Deputy Cullen, stated that one of the reasons for bringing in this Bill was the fact that the planning authorities and the builders are experiencing difficulties in drawing up agreements, thus holding up supply. It is obvious that the builders were deliberately dragging their feet in the expectation that the Minister would capitulate and amend the existing legislation. Given the record number of applicants seeking social and affordable housing, it was not planning authorities that were holding it up.

What will be the net effect of the cave-in by the Minister? He stated that if he does nothing, planning permission for almost 74,000 houses will lapse within the next two years. The builders or developers could re-apply for an extension to their permission with a reduced rate for the cost of such an application. He acknowledged that because many of the permissions in question were not covered by Part V requirements, in any event he could have extended the period of the permissions as he proposes in the Bill and included a lesser percentage requirement of some 10% instead of 20% for social and affordable houses. He has bowed to the pressure of his friends and is accepting a payment deal in lieu of the earlier requirements.

One of the more harmful elements of the Bill is that it will allow builders the option of building houses elsewhere and not necessarily in the housing area of the development. The Minister's stated commitment for social integration seems very hollow. In light of the proposed legislation and from my own experience I am convinced the builders will purchase land in the so-called less desirable areas where land is less expensive and provide that to the local authorities as part of the requirements of the Bill.

The effect of the Bill is that the director of housing in local authorities will have even less negotiating powers than at present in endeavouring to reach agreements with the builder or his agents. This will result in high density, high-rise housing estates of up to 600 or 700 social and affordable houses becoming the norm. This could well be a social disaster. Have we not learned from the experiences of the past? We are still living with the social consequences of those mistakes.

In my constituency, local applicants for affordable housing, particularly in areas such as Malahide, Portmarnock and Skerries can forget about the prospect of securing a house of their own in their own areas. We have to contend with the abolition of the €3,800 first-time buyer's grant, the increase of 1% in VAT and the 5% cut in local authority housing provisions at a time when building inflation is running at 10% and rent allowance for private rented accommodation has been capped. This is the so-called commitment of the Government to social housing provision.

The social and affordable provisions in the Part V process offered hope to young people on modest incomes and an expectation of a home of their own. This scandalous legislation puts paid to their hopes. The needs of young people for affordable housing have been sacrificed in favour of the builders and developers who have a special relationship with Fianna Fáil TDs and councillors who have dictated policy in their favour. The Minister is aware that many of these builders give significant contributions to his party and frequently visit the Fianna Fáil marquee at the Galway races.

Oh, Minister.

I will have to go there myself.

Notwithstanding this, they should not be allowed to veto the legislation passed by the Oireachtas and the Supreme Court. Once again, Fianna Fáil has caved in.

That is where they wrote the Bill.

That so few houses have been provided, to date, under the Part V process has been raised on a number of occasions during this debate. This has been solely due to the attitude of the builders. Where builders have reached agreements with the housing authorities under the existing legislation, they have, in most cases, demanded and secured the approval of the housing managers for social and affordable houses to come on-stream in the final stage of their developments. These agreements have resulted in very few houses being built.

In the past year, at least six applicants who are known to me, who have been on the social and affordable housing lists for up to three or four years have recently gone over the €32,000 income limit – some of them by as little as €100. They have been informed that they are ineligible for affordable housing, some of which is due for allocation within the next three months. This is a matter of grave concern. It is up to the Government to immediately resolve this totally unacceptable situation, especially for applicants who are unable to secure a mortgage for private housing from a building society or financial institution. I have submitted a parliamentary question on this issue to the Minister.

To be considered eligible for social housing under the terms of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, a person must be in need of accommodation and his or her income must not be adequate to meet a payment on a mortgage for a house to meet his or her accommodation needs because the payments calculated over the course of a year would exceed 35% of annual income, net of income tax and PRSI. Fingal County Council applies this criteria for eligibility for social housing.

It is illegal.

I appeal to the Minister to seek legal opinion as to whether this criteria should also apply to people in need of housing and wishing to apply for shared ownership and affordable housing. What is to be done in the case of a person whose income is over the limit but who is ineligible for a loan from a standard mortgage lender? We cannot discriminate against people whose income has gone over the limit. Such people are in limbo, as they are ineligible for social and affordable housing or shared ownership as well as for a standard mortgage. This is a major issue of concern for many people and I would appreciate if the Minister would give it his attention.

Since 1999 there has, in effect, been a strike by the Construction Industry Federation, which has said it will not implement social and affordable housing guidelines.

The 20% of the 80,000 applications to which there has been reference constitutes 16,000 applications. Of the possible 16,000 houses that could have been built, only 75 have been built. The Minister suggested that some 300 might be completed by the end of the year. In other words, 15,700 people might have had houses if it was not for the Construction Industry Federation.

If the scheme as envisaged in the 1999 legislation required amendment there are many ways of amending it. The Supreme Court gave a favourable decision which mitigated the absolute rights of property. The Construction Industry Federation argued in the Supreme Court that it had the right to make the maximum market value from sites which its members owned. This significant decision was preceded historically by the decision of Mr. Justice Kenny in another court. These legal decisions could have been built on, in order to call the bluff of the Construction Industry Federation. It could have been proposed that as the end of a period of planning permission loomed, one could choose between losing out on the permission altogether or of participating in the Government scheme.

This is scandalous in a country where the housing shortage has torn the heart out of the economy. The Construction Industry Federation strike has had a complete success at all levels. This legislation is a capitulation and an acceptance of a general market model in housing. At the top end of the market one can have an escalation in housing values but this quickly spreads down through the entire stock of available housing. When that happens different categories of people are pushed into further misery.

Two and a half years ago a report on the private rented sector, both landlord and tenant, was published. Landlords got what they wanted but we wait until next year for any concession to tenant rights. If we look at those who are waiting for a site to build a house we see the Construction Industry Federation has got its legislation. The 16,000 sites that might have come within the concept of social housing are to be surrendered back to the market with local authorities forced to pursue the cost of replacing them, at an escalated site cost. This is madness. One must look at the local authority estimates of what will be needed by way of capital provision for this concession to see how it will work out. I take the point that the sites were never free but I am talking about the escalated cost as they are returned to market.

The acceptance of such an extreme version of the market model also accepts the principle of speculation. Anyone reading the statistics of those entering the market will notice the fall in the proportion of first time buyers and the increase of multiple home owners. People are buying property as a speculative investment and this has a knock on effect on every sector.

When I was starting out in politics the concept of wealth tax was much discussed. This was never opposed for what it would yield but was opposed strongly for what it would reveal. In the same way, we there will never be an attempt to publish who owns what in the country or the number of people who own ten, 20 or 30 houses. There are many such people. I challenge the Government to facilitate such a property survey. It is the only way to compare capital accumulation at escalated speculative values with the incomes of those who rely on wages.

With regard to the rented sector, although landlords have got their legislation there has been no attempt to cap rents. There has, of course, been an attempt to cap what is available to tenants. In the Western Health Board area rent allowance of €115 is allowed for a single person. Many people could rent a bedsitter for €120 or €125 and could provide the balance out of their own resources. As of 22 November anyone who rents a bedsitter at €120 loses the entire rent allowance. The burden of capping rents must fall on tenants, who already must look at advertisements in local papers which specify, "professional couple" or whatever. People who are relying on rent allowance and who are already having an incredibly difficult time are now pushed out altogether and lose their rent allowance. The argument will be made, from the most crude kind of economics, that this is a way of dealing with inflation in rents but that is not the reality.

I am not making an emotive argument but simply looking at the facts and the published figures on rents. The reduction in rents is taking place in the top sector. There is not any significant reduction at the lower end and in the areas of which I speak.

And there never will be while the social welfare system lashes out money.

I can deal with that point. I agree with the Minister of State who is suddenly scandalised at how much the State is paying private landlords. I ask him to look at what is being paid out every year and at what it would have facilitated by way of capital borrowing. Why did the Government not facilitate that capital borrowing and take up the challenge of the Supreme Court to establish land banks? There has been a clear hint from the Supreme Court not once but twice. The Government could have established land banks which would have given it control over the servicing of land, the right to borrow all the capital which is going to the private sector and released land for co-operative housing or different models of integrated housing. However, the net effect of this legislation is to say goodbye to the concept of mixed integrated housing with proper services.

More and more people from all sectors of society are looking back to the kind of analysis done in the 1970s at the time of the Kenny judgment. Many of the people who want to bully the system are not builders but hoarders of planning permissions on land whose value is escalating out of control. This is an important distinction. If one looks at the figures for house completions in any year and subtracts the combined cost of building materials and wages from the escalation in the price of houses one will see where the money is going.

The choice was to address the issue of speculation which was not just killing the families waiting for housing but tearing the heart out of the economy. It moved up from the homeless through those needing public and social housing to the point where, once again when the hard challenge had to be met the people lost and that small, greedy and sometimes very corrupt section – some of the people who speculate in building land – won again. It is a scandal.

Well done.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

With your agreement, I will share my time with Deputy Power.

I must declare an interest. I am probably one of the few Members who do not own any property. I am renting. This puts me in an unusual position. I do not care about the niceties of how the Bill came about. Like everyone who does not own a house and is trying to get into the market I want to see an increase in supply.

Deputy Higgins referred to the Construction Industry Federation being on strike. If that is the case this Bill is a strike breaker because it will put the strike to an end.

On their conditions. They have won the strike.

I am sure the CIF had nothing to do with the writing of Part V of the previous Bill and it was certainly not at the Minister's shoulder when this legislation was drafted. Ministers and Deputies on this side of the House conduct regular clinics in their constituencies and they listen to local authorities, their constituents and developers. This Bill has its source in discussions with developers, constituents experiencing genuine housing problems and local authorities struggling to implement housing strategies which have been gathering dust.

My own area of Dún Laoghaire has the fewest greenfield sites and the most expensive housing of any local authority area in the country.

Because developers are hoarding land.

We are more concerned with facilitating an increase in supply than in such niceties as the timing of the Bill or the manner in which it originated. These are not of concern to people who are in need of housing.

This Bill was flagged in the programme for Government, which stated that the Government intended to review the procedure from day one. That is what it has done. We listened to all the parties who were concerned about this issue and the Bill represents a reasonable response to their problems.

In Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown we have a need for 1,750 house completions every year and we have achieved 800.

Because they are hoarding land.

Deputy Ryan knows that land is not available in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. We need a spark to get matters moving. The best way to do this is to amend Part V. The problem is there are many knock on effects to this, in particular the population drain in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. We need to address that. There is no point in dancing around the arguments and looking for excuses and blaming people. We need solutions. We are regulating and not controlling the free market. That is how Government should run. The free market is not supplying us with houses so we need to change how it is run. We have done that.

Another problem we face is the earlier transfer of wealth from parents to their children in an attempt to subvent their entry to the housing market. The issue has caused so many problems that it is necessary to introduce remedial legislation to make Part V work. Part V is not diluted. Its main principle, which is to supply social and affordable housing, is undiluted by the changes proposed in this Bill.

Deputies, particularly those who represent Dún Laoghaire, are aware there is a conflict between those who have houses and those who want them. Many residents' meetings are taken up by this typical social suburban conflict. People do not want social housing near them. They want to pull up the rope ladder after they have had their own houses built. That is as far as development goes for them. These problems will continue.

Some Opposition speakers remind me of Cassandra. They predict doom and gloom but nobody listens to them. Some of the language used is over the top. I am used to hearing the Opposition bathe themselves in self-righteousness and building themselves up into pious figures. They can work up indignation and talk about scandal and apartheid.

There is a housing scandal.

The word "apartheid" is a reckless one to use in this sense. I know the Deputy does not mean to use it to suggest that it means something like what would occur in South Africa. In section 3 and the new section 96 there is specific reference to a housing authority considering the need to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social background in the area of the authority. I am not sure this has ever been in legislation before. Is there an affirmative duty on a planning authority to have such regard in other housing legislation? This proves the Minister is serious in his desire to encourage integration.

It proves what the Bill is all about. That is exactly what will happen.

The Deputy is predicting doom and gloom but the facts stand. We are proposing legislation that for the first time ever will give an affirmative duty to a local authority to provide for integration—

It is a reverse of the social integration of the original Bill.

That is the Deputy's interpretation. Criticism has also focused on the issue of the timing of this Bill. That is strange. We said we would do it in the programme for Government. We have had Committee Stage of Bills in the House before it works well. Perhaps we could have given more time to it but, as we know, with applications withering at the end of December, there is a problem with time. There is need for this to be expedited. The Opposition wants matters brought forward quickly, it wants speed and direct action. Then when we do bring something in to address a particular problem it says we have not given enough time to it. It exposes the usual conflict here.

Another reckless comment was that it would cost €1 billion to buy back the 16,000 sites. If that was meant it must have been tongue in cheek. I do not think the person who made the comment meant that the Government would have to foot the bill. The reality is €350 million will be levied on those permissions that will be renewed as a result of the legislation if it is passed by the House. To continue the mathematics on the basis of the Opposition method of dealing with the figures, if all 16,000 would have been built it would come to €1 billion. Assuming the 16,000 will be built now or that their monetary equivalent will be given to local authorities amounts to €350 million per year levied against developers. The Opposition is trying to persuade the House that developers were at the shoulders of the draftsmen when they put this together. That is just not possible. I recommend the Bill to the House.

I thank Deputy Andrews for sharing his time with me. When the Planning Development Act, 2000, was introduced it was hailed as one of the most revolutionary and radical pieces of legislation brought before this House in years. Aspects of the Bill were so revolutionary at the time that the President, an eminent and distinguished international lawyer herself, referred the Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. This is at the heart of today's debate. Many questioned whether the State had the right to be engaged in this sort of social engineering while others agreed that this was what we should do. Involvement in this area signalled a major departure for Fianna Fáil.

The Supreme Court said clearly, and in this regard I correct Deputy Michael D. Higgins who asserted that all property rights were absolute, they are not absolute.

No, the Supreme Court held they were not and this—

The Deputy said that they curbed absolute rights in the Constitution. There are no absolute property rights in the Constitution because it is subject at all times to the exigencies of the common good. The Supreme Court said that the common good is served by this kind of social legislation.

The Supreme Court gave the CIF a slap in the face, and quite rightly.

I agree. However, history has shown that just because the intention of legislation is laudable it does not mean it will work. Deputy Crawford made the point earlier that the essential element of legislation is that it works on the ground and achieves its desired intention. We are debating the Bill because it is recognised by all sides here and practically every local authority member and official that the drafting of the legislation was so rigid that it was inoperable from the start. The provisions of Part V, the housing strategies introduced in local authority areas on foot of it, and the intentions remain in place but we must make them work. This Bill is a reasonable attempt to do that.

The rigid insertion in legislation of a blanket 20% social affordable housing dictat to local authorities may work in some local authorities but not others. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill. The intention of the Bill was good and laudable but one cannot get involved in the dynamic of a sophisticated property market by using a blunt instrument such as this. We need to retain the legislation but to make sure that it works. I believe it will work.

The Minister, legislator or Department are not the people to decide the proper mix of social housing in a particular area. The people who should decide are the local authority members, local councillors, the officials of the local authority and their expert advisers. I have every confidence in the officials of my local authority to do that. For example, about 18 months ago my local authority, Limerick Corporation as it then was, decided to embark on a mix of social and affordable housing. Because the proposed development was adjacent to existing social and affordable housing, some people described it as "ghettoisation" and continuing sprawl of sub-standard housing. In fact, the local authority invited local developers to engage with it in a development involving one-third social housing built by the local authority, one-third to be released for affordable housing and one-third for private sector building. That development was built within 18 months and has provided one of the best social housing mixes to be found in this country. That illustrates that local officials on the ground, who know their areas, are the best people to decide how to achieve the proper social mix in any given area. This Bill gives the officials that flexibility.

There was a suggestion this morning from the Opposition side of the House that this Bill is a builders' charter. I acknowledge that most contributions to the debate were constructive and well-intentioned. However, there was one exception in that Deputy Cuffe said this was a builders' charter and that developers had specifically paid Fianna Fáil for this Bill. He made the accusation that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government was bribed. That is a disgraceful accusation by Deputy Cuffe and the Green Party. Even at this late stage, I invite him to retract.

The reference was to Fianna Fáil and the findings of tribunals.

Deputy Cuffe was simply looking for cheap publicity off the back of what were, undoubtedly, terrible revelations from the tribunal proceedings. To suggest that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, introduced this Bill at the behest of builders is simply not true.

(Interruptions).

If Deputies will bear with me, I will explain. Part V of the existing Act would not have been introduced if builders had any say in the matter. In the event, it proved unworkable and, subsequently, we decided to amend Part V. If the builders had their say, they would get rid of Part V completely. That illustrates the point I am trying to make. I totally reject Deputy Cuffe's allegations. He and others may be surprised by legislative and other measures coming from this side of the House over the next 12 months. On looking back, he will be more than a little embarrassed by his comments in this debate.

As other speakers have said, Part V is here to stay. The Minister has made that very clear. However, the devil is in the detail and once Part V is amended, the key issue is to ensure that all local authorities are policed in relation to its implementation. I have in mind in particular the provisions for land swaps and contributions by developers.

How can it be policed if it is not a public process?

It will be very easy to measure the situation empirically. Instead of looking at the percentage of social housing set aside in particular estates, it will be possible to see how many land swaps there have been and how much developers have paid. I am glad the developers' contribution will be ring-fenced. However, the developer's contribution should be the very last option. I would go much further and I regret that Deputy Cuffe is not present to hear this. Our entire planning legislation needs to be amended much more significantly. Builders are making enormous windfall profits, many times the original cost of their sites, in terms of millions of euros. They are building thousands of houses—

Nobody can afford them.

—but no community halls or playing pitches are being provided.

(Interruptions).

We need to introduce legislation, in future, whereby a substantial proportion of the profit on any large scale development is set aside for the provision of social and community facilities. Unfortunately, however, that is an argument for another day.

The time for arguments is past.

This Bill is a fair and reasonable attempt to face the reality—

Of the Government's mistakes.

The intention at the time was perfectly laudable. The Deputy's party colleague said earlier that the essence of any legislation is that it works. This Bill is a fair and reasonable effort—

The whole concept is a total failure.

—to make the planning legislation work, with particular reference to Part V. Now that the Minister has just returned to the Chamber, I reiterate that the devil is in the detail. Policing of the housing strategies in the light of the amended Part V is the most important aspect of this Bill.

The previous speaker said that Part V is still in existence, in essence, but he also said it was fundamentally flawed and that the proper course was to ditch it. That contradiction ran through all the arguments from the Government side of the House in this debate.

I said it needed to be fine-tuned.

In relation to Deputy Andrews' comments, my constituency of Dublin South has somewhat similar characteristics. Over the past 30 years, we have experienced an outward sprawl of new housing estates in the Dublin area, without any concern for educational, social, sporting or transport facilities. That was for the benefit of the building industry, using land which had been hoarded, as Deputy Higgins said, to build huge estates with minimal planning or organisation from a social perspective. This Bill represents a return to that situation. It panders to the developers by providing for urban planning to be designed around their requirements.

It will be interesting to see how many of the 80,000 houses will be provided immediately by the developers. They will continue to hoard the land as the price increases. They will do very nicely by just sitting on it, waiting to develop it their own way, in their own time. They will not be concerned about other facilities and will certainly not want any social housing mix because that is not in line with market demand. "Ghettoisation" of our society will continue under the provisions of this Bill, contrary to the expressed ambitions of the previous Minister for the Environment and Local Government who has now forgotten his good intentions.

The Deputy is indulging in nice catch-phrases.

The Government has no housing strategy.

Deputy Andrews rightly referred to the rented sector and the neglect of tenants' rights to security of tenure. If this Government had shown similar urgency in that regard, our housing situation would be far better. The fact is being overlooked that population is declining dramatically in areas of my constituency and that of Deputy Andrews, as development continues to sprawl outwards. We should introduce measures to encourage people back into developed areas in which there are facilities, schools and public transport. If the Minister showed as much interest in that area as in looking after builders and developers, as this Bill does, we would have a much better situation.

While previous speakers have referred to this Bill as a builders' charter, I regard it as more of a wreckers' charter. It has certainly wrecked the aspirations and dreams of thousands of people in this State. According to the Minister's figures, there are 49,000 applicants on the housing lists, including 3,817 in the area I represent. The actual figures are probably higher. The Minister calls himself a man of action. He is a man of action on behalf of the speculators and land robbers this Bill represents. How many tribunals will follow from this legislation? There is no mechanism for public discourse on how land swapping and offers of money for land will be agreed.

The Deputy obviously has no faith in his local authority.

The Government's legislative programme in the past few weeks has been about ruining people's Christmas and their dreams. Every Member of this House knows the heartbreaking stories that are told in our clinics every week. The Minister has stopped these people's chances.

That is not true. It is the opposite.

It is not the opposite. The Minister has introduced this legislation to try to stop the dreams of people, young and old.

This is typical Sinn Féin grandstanding.

The Minister is a man of action on behalf of builders and speculators – the same speculators who make a profit on one in every three houses. The Government is once again siding with people who have money and has dashed the dreams of those who do not have it.

It is the opposite. It is interesting to note that the social housing people have welcomed this.

When the social and affordable housing provision was introduced in the Planning and Development Bill, 2000, I regarded it as one of the most socially progressive measures I had witnessed in this House in all the time I had been here. I was amazed that a Fianna Fáil Minister and Government introduced it. I thought at the time that perhaps Fianna Fáil was turning over a new leaf, standing up at last to its old paymasters in the building construction industry and the links that have been there all along. Perhaps it was, I thought, an attempt to make up for what I consider to be a fairly murky past. The perception was that the Government would do something significant and effective for the thousands of young people who had been put out of the market simply because houses had become unaffordable. The builders refused to co-operate. They stockpiled 80,000 sites and lobbied the Government intensively as is obvious from their comments in the newspapers' property supplements.

Now, as soon as the general election is out of the way, the measure that would have introduced social integration to house building is being abandoned. Other Members have used the term social apartheid because it is the only way to describe this. The motivation for this amendment is to get rid of the social integration proposal so the builders go ahead and develop their sites.

Some developers appear to have had advance notification about what was going to be in this Bill. In my own area of the docklands, Treasury Holdings – which I believe is one of Fianna Fáil's contributors – sought planning permission for the Spencer Dock apartment development. It was refused because it would not negotiate the 20% under the docklands master plan for social and affordable housing content. Just a few weeks ago, the company put the apartments on the market and sold them. Having done so, the company approached the Dublin Docklands Development Authority offering to build a ten-storey block of social and affordable housing, on another site well away from the luxury development. That proposal is still before the authority and will be raised at the council meeting next week. This social apartheid will be the direct result of this amending legislation because it is being inspired by the likes of Treasury Holdings, the people who pay Fianna Fáil. I am sure money will again roll into the Fianna Fáil coffers as a result. I hope the docklands council does not capitulate to Treasury Holdings even though it is linked to Fianna Fáil and is the richest development company in the State.

I thank all Deputies for contributing to this important debate. It is my experience that in any debate, particularly on a planning Bill, it is reasonable to expect a wide range of opinions on a cross-section of topics. I have listened carefully to the views expressed and wish to respond to the main points that have been made.

This Bill is about housing supply and removing obstacles so we can ensure a high level of output of all types of housing. While there may be different views on what is proposed, I welcome the general support for the principle of increasing the supply of social and affordable housing thereby securing greater social integration.

Deputies have questioned the urgency of the Bill. I agree this is not normally the way I would wish to discuss legislation. However, the Bill is urgently required. If it is not passed, permission for about 40,000 houses will expire on 31 December – this is real rather than notional – and a further 36,000 will expire next year. I could not introduce the Bill earlier because the review of Part V, signalled six months ago, and which commenced in September, was only completed in the past few weeks. That review identified two areas in which change was needed and there was general agreement from all of the stakeholders on this. They wanted more flexibility in the way Part V operated and emphasised the need to remove withering and this is what the Bill does.

I have had extensive discussions and heard proposals from local authorities all over the country who have all said they want to remove the rigidities in the way we approach the social and affordable housing measure. They urged us to look at the UK model to see what is happening. A 30% provision is in place there and the volume being created in the marketplace and social integration is being delivered on a basis that is far less rigid than that contained in the previous Bill. However, my predecessor was right to insist on a 20% provision for social and affordable housing as part and parcel of what should be the contribution to developing and assisting those who are most in need – those at the lower end of the income scale who are trying to get into housing.

In an ideal world, there would be no need for this legislation in the first place because we would all aspire to it and carry it out. However, it was not happening, we were getting a small return and there were blockages in the system. I listened to everyone – not just the developers, and they were chasing me – but I did not meet all of them. I met a representative group and asked them to submit proposals. That is what I took on board. The two basic tenets of all the groups, mainly the local authorities, were to remove the rigidities and remove withering.

Deputy Gregory is an experienced Member of this House and a local authority. The one local authority that would seem to have grasped this better than any other is Fingal and, as we go into next year, the figures will prove it. It implemented what I am putting into the legislation.

I am a member of Dublin City Council.

I know that and I did not mean to imply otherwise. I am just using an example in the context of Dublin. Local authorities have made the point that there can be high-cost facilities in some areas, whereas if we got the 20% we would have to buy it out. There seems to be some notion among Members that the 20% is handed over free gratis. I was not here when Deputy Michael D. Higgins contributed, but I was trying to listen to him on the monitor while working in my office. Some of his colleagues also suggested this yesterday evening, taking the notional 80,000 houses that are on the withering.

I corrected it by the escalation.

I did not hear the end of the Deputy's contribution and I was not making a criticism, it was a point of information. People have presumed that figure and correlated it to claim that 16,000 sites would have been available, but they were not. They never would have been even under the 20% provision. Local authorities have to buy the difference between existing land use value and market value. The difficulty for local authorities is that in many cases there is no difference between both values and, of course, it is very expensive. Taking that scenario, the point has been made forcibly to me that even if we can do it in some of these areas, we may get one or two units. If, however, we could use some of our properties or some other imaginative ways concerning different sites that are available, based on our own housing strategies, which are predicated on social integration, we might get ten or 15 people housed in the social and affordable housing area. That is logical. Deputy Gregory is right, in an ideal world in some of the most expensive areas in this city, or anywhere else in the country, perhaps one could obtain a social mix and have people from completely different spectrums living side by side, but that is not the reality. Many people from different backgrounds do not want to live like that.

Look at New York, Paris or London.

The ESRI has stated that social integration does not work. The institute dislikes "pepper-potting", to use its own phrase, whereby people are integrated through different estates. Social integration is based on the principle of people from different backgrounds and communities residing in the same area. One can see it working in rural Ireland where everyone uses the same supermarket, sits in the same pub, goes to the same local theatre or dance-hall, and uses the same schools and churches. That is what social integration is about. Social segregation is where people do not become involved in using all these facilities. It is too simplistic to suggest that social integration is based only on the principle that everybody, no matter what their social background or desires in life, should all live together. As we know, people from all walks of life do not want to do this, although in a Utopian society the possibility might exist.

Having listened to Members of the House from all parties, local authority members, and executives from all over the country, and given what is happening in the construction industry, I have had to face the realities of the situation and make some decisions. I had a simple choice to make. I could have done nothing and allowed all these sites to wither. That would have suited me fine because nobody would be in here arguing with me – they would say "Well, that's it". From my own experience of local authorities, however, I know that in six months' time every Member of the House would be telling me that the housing supply had diminished dramatically. They would ask how I could have sat on my hands in the Department and done nothing.

The Labour Party representatives, both in the Seanad and in this House, have asked me, rightly, why I could not have applied Part V's 20% provision to these sites because they were not covered by the legislation. Of course, that was my first option and it is what I wanted to do, but legally I could not. Experienced legislators know that it is almost impossible to apply legislation retrospectively to anything. I put a number of different options to the Attorney General and his staff. I asked whether I could do this but grave doubt was placed on my ability to do it. I was told that if I went down that road the likelihood was that I would never succeed.

The Attorney General is much more conservative than the Supreme Court.

Even supposing I did do it and it was tested in the courts, and we all accept it would have been, I do not know how long that would have taken. If we were successful in doing that, the second consequence would be that the local authorities and all these particular developments around the country would have to go back into the planning system. One might say that is fair enough, but how far down the road would I get with regard to the housing supply? It would probably mean an additional delay of two years, having taken all these planning permissions out of the system. That was not an option for me. Neither was I prepared simply to restore the full life to these sites and do nothing else. I wanted to see a really serious community gain in social and affordable housing, so I put that to the people with whom I discussed the matter to see if I could get value out of this. I thought the most robust way of doing it was to take a direct levy from all these sites, which will bring €80 million directly into the local authorities. I am being extraordinarily conservative in estimating that figure which will not go into the central Exchequer. I have used a figure of only €1,000 per site based on 80,000 sites. The average cost of a house in Dublin is €266,000 and that is why I based the price at €270,000. Therefore, we will have a serious gain. Maybe there is a more idealistic way of doing things but I am driven by the criterion of whether I can deliver this volume of social and affordable housing.

Every contributor to the debate seems to have ignored the fact that we are already delivering over 12,000 units this year, without the 20% provision, to those on housing lists who are trying to get into accommodation. That is phenomenally different from what we were managing to do five or six years ago. When the difficulties began then, we were only delivering 16,000 houses, yet we have now raised that to 55,000. Any reasonable assessment of the difficulties people face in trying to purchase houses is based on supply. If the supply is increased we will have some chance of controlling the market and achieving a balance. That is because the buyer will have a better choice and can be more discerning instead of chasing prices every day of the week. The evidence is clear from the latest figures, as everyone can see, that price inflation has dropped dramatically in the construction industry. That is largely based on the fact that we have increased supply. It is not enough, however, that we have increased the supply to 55,000 houses, we need at least 50,000 plus every year for the next ten years to meet demand.

The other side of the argument is based on the feasibility of Part V of the Bill. I have listened to Members on all sides of the House who, consistently, held the same view.

The Bill is crazy.

The basic principle of social integration is correct, I have no doubt about that. It surprises me that some Deputies who contributed, particularly those who are members of local authorities, seem to negate entirely their role in their own social housing policies. When speaking in this House they ignore the fact that the direct responsibility for that implementation rests with local authorities. When constructing the changes in Part V, I was careful not to allow a situation whereby people, including builders, could get together to buy 300 or 400 acres somewhere and then come back to the local authority and say, "there's our 20% contribution. You can do what you like with it, and we'll build away over here". That will not be allowed to happen because the provision is predicated on zoned land in the development plans of local authority housing strategies.

It is the same 300 acres.

The most successful type of social and affordable housing developments are in urban areas where a lot of the small infills of ten, 12, 15 or 20 units are put back into the heartland of cities, and are being managed extremely well. They are not subject to the social problems created by large estates comprising hundreds of houses. We all want to get away from those days which are history. They were a disaster and although they were done for what appeared to be a good reason at the time, to remove people from slums, we can now see the social consequences.

While I accept there are different points of view and that people may take a critical stance on this matter, a balance must be struck when seeking a solution. The only solution that will make a difference to people who need social and affordable housing is the provision of houses and facilities, which was my criterion and which drove me to introduce the Bill. The test will be whether there is adequate volume in the market over the next year or two. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put.

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Finneran, Michael.Fleming, Seán.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.

Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Kirk, Séamus.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, CharlieMcDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Michael.Wallace, Dan.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G.V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Costello, Joe.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Kehoe, Paul.

Kenny, Enda.McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Shea, Brian.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Sean.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Wednesday, 18 December 2002.

Will Committee Stage be taken by a committee of the entire Dáil?

Top
Share