I wish to share time with Deputies O'Connor, McEllistrim and Andrews.
Private Members' Business. - An Bille um an Seachtú Leasú is Fiche ar an mBunreacht (Uimh. 2) 2003: Dara Céim (Atógáil). Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).
Atairgeadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to make a short contribution on the important subject of housing. I compliment the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, on the detailed speech he made to the House last night. He outlined in detail the reason the constitutional amendment which has been suggested by Deputy Morgan is not acceptable to the Government. He also detailed the wide-ranging measures on the Statute Book which govern social housing.
The Housing Acts 1966 to 2002 are comprehensive. They establish the parameters within which Government and local authorities must make provision for housing. It is heartening for those of us who have been involved in public life for some time to see the great progress which has been made over the past number of years in local authority housing programmes. Particularly heartening has been the extent to which the programmes have been rolled out around the country and the welcome improvement of the quality of the housing provided. It is evident to everyone who travels around the country that local authorities are providing top-quality houses. It is also heartening for those of us representing predominantly rural constituencies that housing schemes are being constructed in our smaller towns and villages which would have had no hope of being provided with such schemes in the past. If there is any social or rural regeneration measure which can contribute handsomely to rural development, it is the provision of housing. As we all know, with additional families comes extra demand for school places. Larger populations are socially and economically important to rural areas, villages and small towns.
I compliment the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, and his predecessor, Deputy Noel Dempsey, on the great work they have done on the environment and in the provision of housing. For the eighth successive year, 2002 will see the highest ever output of housing. It is very welcome that some 60,000 housing units will be completed. This is obvious progress.
The highest ever number of people are on the housing list.
There are substantial numbers on the housing list, but I am sure Deputy Morgan will agree that we do not have the level of emigration we had in the past. Fortunately, people are returning to live here with the result that there is a greater demand for housing.
There are no houses for them.
That does not take away from the fact that this Government's housing construction programme and that of its predecessor have been extremely successful. It is delivering quality housing to all parts of this country. It is not simply that houses are being built, but that they are being built at an unprecedented rate and are of unprecedented quality. I hope Opposition Deputies recognise that fact. The quality and the quantity of housing is unprecedented in the history of the State. I have no doubt that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will continue in Government to implement the successful housing policies of the past few years.
I would like to see the streamlining of the disabled person's grant scheme and the essential repairs grant scheme. Not alone do we need to build additional houses and increase the housing stock, we should also protect and improve some of the existing housing.
I compliment my colleague, Deputy Morgan, and Sinn Féin on bringing this business forward. As someone who has availed of the opportunity to speak regularly on Private Members' business, I appreciate the work the party has done on this. I hate to say that does not mean I will support the Opposition at 8.30 p.m. It is important to understand, however, that there is a measure of agreement across the floor with regard to the business before us.
On a daily basis, I am privileged to represent with my colleague, Deputy Crowe, the constituency of Dublin South-West and the people of Tallaght, Greenhills, Firhouse and Templeogue. No one doubts that there is a problem as far as housing provision is concerned. From my experience of taking seven weekly constituency clinics and the majority of the calls which I get, housing issues are a significant concern to people.
It is not a problem, it is a crisis.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for protecting me.
Nobody is saying there is not a problem. I am certainly not doing so. The 7,155 people who sent me to the Dáil from Dublin South-West do not want me to stand here and say there is not a problem. My role as a Government backbencher is to bring reality to these debates and to acknowledge it. However, as Deputy Brendan Smith has said, significant efforts are being made by the Government which I compliment.
We all have to engage in politics and make party political broadcasts every now and again, but we are all trying to achieve the same goal. We are trying to create a situation where families have their own housing and people are allowed to live in peace without community problems arising from anti-social behaviour and rented housing. These are the issues we deal with all day, every day and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to debate them.
I listened carefully to the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, last night. While not every Member agreed with what he said, in a rather excellent address he outlined the actions the Government is taking. Our role in this debate is to highlight that fact, while being brave enough to acknowledge the problem which exists.
It is not a problem, it is a crisis.
If I followed the Deputy's wish and used the word "crisis", I would be accused by his party's spin doctors and press office of stealing his phrases. I am not doing that. I have already complimented Deputy Morgan and his colleagues for tabling this business and I did that genuinely. I am not saying it to get my name noticed. Where efforts have been made to highlight the problems we all have, they should be acknowledged.
I am not afraid to come to this House and admit there are housing problems. We need to deal with housing. I recall that when I was first married, my priority was to get a house. I now see my children being unable to do that. There is something wrong with society when these problems exist. Our role is to assist the process and to support the Government. I am not afraid to do that. I suspect that if I were sitting on the far benches, though I do not know if I will ever have that opportunity—
The Deputy will have it very soon.
It will be so long down the road that I do not know if I—
The Deputy should not be so cocksure.
Cocksure is one thing I am not.
We will manage the crisis much better when the Deputy's party is out of office.
If I were on the Opposition benches, I would still make the point that we all have to engage in party political broadcasts. I have said it about health and housing. Good policies are being brought forward and the Government is making a genuine effort to tackle the problem. If Deputies wish me to use the term "crisis", I will do so, however, we should support the Government rather than oppose it for opposition sake. The people I meet in clinics and on the street in Tallaght who raise these issues do not want us to engage in petty politics, although we have to do so some of the time. However, we must be reasonable and support the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his Department in their work. It is important we have this debate and continue to fight for more housing for young families, as well as the thousands of people who call South Dublin County Council every day looking for housing. This debate is about supporting such people and I look forward to exercising my right at 8.30 p.m.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill, since housing is one of the most basic social needs. The basic aim of the State's housing policy is to enable every household to have an affordable dwelling of good quality, suited to its needs, in a good environment and, as far as possible, at the tenure of its choice. I support the Government's view that it would be inappropriate to include a legal right to housing in the Constitution on the basis that funding commitments to the various housing programmes are leading to increased outputs and that decisions in regard to the allocation of financial resources are a matter for the democratically accountable Government rather than the courts.
This concurs with the 1996 report of the constitutional review group, which concluded that the Constitution should not confer personal rights to freedom from property or to other economic or social entitlements. Political matters should be the responsibility of elected Members to address and determine in a democracy. The Government's achievements in the area of housing are demonstrated by its success in increasing housing supply and reflected in the eighth year in a row of a record house completion achieved last year. It is a Government priority to ensure that output responds to projected housing demands.
Activity under the social and affordable and shared ownership schemes has played an increasing role in assisting low income households to purchase their own homes. The shared ownership scheme has also benefited a significant number of households since it came into being. The target of 2,000 units under the national development plan for both of these schemes should be met, which is important for the target groups in this area of concern. Kerry County Council has provided affordable housing for sale in Firies and Killarney. The demand for these houses highlights the significant affordability gap in the housing market, with the increasing cost of housing, particularly in the larger towns. The provision of low cost sites in Abbeydorney, Firies and Cahirciveen is important for people in small towns and villages in rural Ireland.
Accommodation for Travellers has become an important issue in recent years and will be a specific objective of Kerry County Council, of which I am a member, for the next six months at least. I am also a member of the SPC on the housing committee. Work is ongoing on the implementation of the Traveller accommodation programme 2000-04. In conjunction with the local Traveller accommodation consultative committee, a Traveller liaison officer has been appointed to assist members of the Traveller community to address their housing needs and problems. There are currently more than 200 families in local authority houses in Kerry and a further 24 families in serviced halting sites. The key objective of the plan is to cater for the present and projected Traveller accommodation needs in the county by providing 106 units over the next five years. For example, 15 families were accommodated in local authority houses and five on halting sites in 2002.
Meeting the special needs of the elderly and disabled must be a priority, which is reflected in the funding which has been made available for special aid for the elderly, administered through the Southern Health Board together with the disabled person's grant scheme, essential repairs grant scheme and the scheme for improvement works in lieu of council housing. The total number of grants paid by local authorities in 2002 was over 9,200, an increase of nearly 3,000, costing nearly €84 million. In 1996, fewer than 3,000 grants were issued at a value of under €13 million. The improvements the Government has made to the terms and conditions of these schemes have lead to a considerable increase in activity.
The issue of homelessness must be a priority for the Government and capital funding must continue to increase in this area. It is being doubled from €25 million to €50 million between 2001 and 2005. A total of 500 dwellings have been provided in the past two years under the voluntary housing assistance scheme, which shows the Government's determination and commitment to provide the funding necessary to address the issues of homelessness in a real and practical manner.
In 2002, Kerry County Council adopted the homeless action plan, developed by the homeless forum under the auspices of the housing and social support strategic policy committee. The plan identified the actions required to address the growing problem of homelessness in the county, particularly in Tralee and Killarney, and provide for a co-ordinated response to the accommodation, health and welfare needs of homeless persons.
The most appropriate way of addressing housing needs is to continue the various programmes which are in place by securing the necessary funding to support them, review their operation on an ongoing basis, ensure they are meeting their objectives and put in place the new programmes or measures if required. I oppose the Bill and support the Government's actions in regard to housing.
I share the view expressed by Deputies on both sides of the House that we have a major problem in this area. The price of houses has increased exponentially in the past few years. However, the Bill before the House is not the correct way to deal with the matter.
The All-Party Committee on the Constitution is examining the issue of property rights. I appreciate that this proposed amending legislation deals specifically with housing rather than property but there is a great overlap. Sinn Féin's submission to the committee was entitled Submission on Property Rights and Housing. Deputy Morgan is a member of that committee and has participated with its hearings since its inception. Therefore, it is surprising to note that he wants a referendum ahead of the conclusion of the committee's work.
The committee is a cul-de-sac.
If the Deputy does not wish to participate in the committee, he is fully entitled to resign his position. There is no point in his hedging his bets and trying to have it both ways by making submissions to the committee and, for political reasons, stating in the Dáil that it is a cul-de-sac.
That is all it is.
Some of the contributions made by Sinn Féin yesterday closely reflected the submissions the party made to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. It is disingenuous in the extreme for the Deputy to state that it is irrelevant and obsolete.
It is disingenuous of the Government not to deal with the issue.
It is an insult to the many groups which have made submissions, including the group to which the Deputy suggests he has a greater affinity, to state that they are irrelevant. The Deputy suggests that he has managed to see into the future to predict the outcome of the committee's work. As the Deputy knows, a great deal of work has gone into it. Although the Deputy was not present yesterday, further submissions were made to the committee by the county managers of Fingal and Galway County Councils.
My attendance record at the committee is better than the Deputy's.
It is the committee's intention to obtain the advice of Mr. Gerard Hogan SC, on what the committee can do in regard to its report and the submission it intends to make to the Government in the new year. It would be a simple courtesy for the Deputy to await the outcome of the committee, rather than grandstand in this fashion.
The Minister of State and Government Deputies have outlined the various achievements of the Government and local authority housing strategies. I will focus my attention this evening on the wording in this proposed amendment. The amendment proposes to create a right to housing. This is laudable and is included in some European constitutions, which is fine. The amendment then qualifies that right by saying that, where possible, this should be ensured by the initiative of each applicant. The present situation is that people are entitled to apply to a local authority for housing if they can show that their income is below a certain level.
This is in the first instance.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Deputy should be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.
The proposed amendment would require people to show that they had made an effort to obtain housing of their own or had taken some initiative rather than simply show that their income was lower than a certain average. Fianna Fáil favours an approach based on need with regard to local authority housing, rather than on efforts made to obtain housing or initiatives taken to obtain it.
I do not take lightly the proposals made here but look at them honestly to see if they can be teased out. We know this will not go to Committee Stage so it is worth figuring out Sinn Féin's thinking on the issue. Fianna Fáil thinks it would place an intolerable burden on citizens whose housing need was manifest to have to go further and show that they had made efforts and taken initiatives elsewhere, whether through housing agencies or mortgage applications. In other words, this would add a further raft of administrative requirements before they could seek local authority housing.
Fianna Fáil does not make the burden tolerable.
According to this amendment, the right to housing would only kick in when efforts to have oneself housed had been made by the citizen. The amendment proposes, effectively, a contingent right to housing. There is no absolute right to it. Sinn Féin recognises this, even if it does so in a ham-fisted manner.
Not only is the constitutional committee looking into this issue, but on 30 December 2003 the European Convention on Human Rights will become law in this country. It states in Protocol 1: ". . . State to enforce laws such as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties." This will become Irish law in just over a month's time and it is important that we wait to see what impact it will have. Although the Convention Protocol will not have precedence over the Constitution, it is important to see how it bears out in our law, particularly after some test cases are taken. We are putting the cart before the horse by suggesting a referendum now.
I also want to address the issue of the granting of justiciable rights for housing. There seems to be an urge to denude the Oireachtas of effective powers. The view seems to be that the Oireachtas is somehow unwilling or unable to deal with these issues. Recent Supreme Court decisions have shown that the Oireachtas can do a lot without the need for constitutional change.
Another question to be settled among those who argue in favour of rights concerns how they would deal with the piecemeal accretion of housing rights. It would only be those who are in a position to take a case under the new amendment who would be able to serve an injunction on a housing authority to provide them with housing. Only those with the resources and the wherewithal to initiate proceedings would have the opportunity to provide themselves with housing.
Previous housing Acts, from 1966 to 1988 in particular, have given rise to an obligation on housing authorities in terms of standards, particularly for Travellers. Section 56 of the Housing Act 1966 requires housing authorities to provide housing of a certain standard. Section 13 of the 1998 Act requires housing authorities to provide housing to members of the Traveller community. These two Acts, interpreted in the High Court on numerous occasions, have given significant rights to Travellers, which they can use against local authorities. This tends to suggest that there is no need for a constitutional amendment on this issue.
Furthermore, the 1999 decision, which became the Planning and Development Act 2000, also showed there was flexibility in the Constitution in favour of the common good which allows for changes to take place. We should not mess with the Constitution, particularly when we are going through a process which has the support of every party in the House except Sinn Féin.
We need to mess with a system that is not working.
The Minister referred to the vital centrality of the separation of powers in Irish law. He mentioned the three limbs of power, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. Sinn Féin wishes to delegate the right to determine resource allocation in this vital area to the Judiciary whose positions are neither elected nor easily replaceable. No judge in the Supreme Court can be fired or taken from office lightly. Judges must do something very grave to be removed from their position. If, therefore, these judges decide to interpret Sinn Féin's provisions in a certain way, they would not be accountable to this House. No committee of the Oireachtas would get the opportunity to call in members of the Judiciary to question the manner in which they would have interpreted the housing provisions Sinn Féin proposes to introduce with this amendment.
The Minister with responsibility for housing is not responsible in this House either.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
If the Judiciary, for example, chose not to order the disbursement of funds in a particular case, there is no way we could question that or second guess it. The courts may, for example, say that a person is not entitled to housing under this new amendment because a citizen has not made sufficient effort to find housing on his own initiative. Here I am quoting the words proposed in this amendment.
Sinn Féin's intentions in pushing this legislation may be pure but I object to the implication that the Oireachtas is unable to deal with these issues. The Minister has laid out at length some key achievements we can be proud of, and we are by no means finished. I hope Sinn Féin will be generous enough to acknowledge some of those. If it does, people may be more interested in what it has to say.
Yesterday Deputy Morgan stated in his contribution that a survey carried out on behalf of the Simon Community found that 71% of those surveyed support the inclusion of a right to housing in the Constitution, that this survey was carried out last year immediately prior to the general election and that the majority of people in this State reject the Government's position. That is the basis for his argument.
I always thought that it was a core principle of Sinn Féin that the majority did not have the right to be wrong. I also heard his leader, Mr. Adams, state last week that any survey can be arranged to arrive at any result, depending on the wording put into the survey.
The people believed Fianna Fáil's manifesto regarding housing and that is where they made a mistake. Where are the houses?
I agree with Mr. Adams on that although Deputy Morgan would be at odds with him. I am happy to see there is even a tiny bit of an independent voice within Sinn Féin. Deputy Morgan is convinced that this magical 71% somehow justifies a constitutional referendum.
I would be dishonest if I did not admit my agreement with the Opposition regarding the price limits on affordable housing. They are too low and do not take into account regional differences regarding ability to pay and income levels. For example, in my area of Dún Laoghaire, house prices are far in excess of other areas, yet the same income limits apply.
Sinn Féin yesterday spent some time deriding land speculation, and that is unfortunate. There may be a small number of people in possession of land in certain parts of Dublin, but there is no evidence of hoarding of land to influence price. The figures in the Fingal County Council area, which were provided for the constitutional committee yesterday, are a case in point. Under Fingal's housing strategy, it has an obligation to provide 10,000 houses by the end of this year. It has already provided over 12,000 houses, has a further 8,000 under construction and has a further 10,000 planning permissions outstanding. This would suggest that rather than an under-supply, which is the key to land hoarding, there is an over-supply. This is in a key suburban part of Dublin. All the comments made about land speculation are without foundation.
Can the Deputy explain the housing lists then?
One aspect of Sinn Féin's proposal which has not been referred to is its implication for one-off housing, particularly rural housing. Under these provisions, would it be possible for an applicant for one-off housing to appeal a refusal of planning permission on the basis that, in spite of making every effort and taking every initiative, one still fails to obtain housing?
This is not the correct time for this legislation. There has not been the appropriate consultation and it would be unfair on the many groups who have made submissions to the all-party committee.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Michael D. Higgins and Timmons.
The Labour Party supports the Bill presented by Deputy Morgan and his colleagues. I compliment Deputy Morgan on bringing it before the House and on the choice of wording for the proposed constitutional amendment, which is remarkably similar, if not almost identical, to the terms of the one brought to the House about two years by the Labour Party.
I have not seen that.
I congratulate Deputy Morgan. I regard it as a form of flattery.
I can assure Deputy Gilmore of Deputy Morgan's independent efforts.
It is pathetic that again tonight we have had a parade of Government Deputies, following the debate last night, who are in a state of delusion over the housing situation. Deputy O'Connor spoke of our condition as a society, and what was wrong with us as a society that so many people are in need of housing. The one thing wrong with this society is we have the wrong Government. That is the main thing which is wrong.
Society elected it.
Under false pretences.
House prices have more than doubled. Working people can no longer afford to buy, from two incomes, what they could have bought from one income ten or 15 years ago. There are twice as many people on local authority housing lists and, scandalously, twice as many homeless.
The aspect of this issue I want to deal with specifically is that which has arisen in the past couple of day in the public media on the proposed levies for housing development. This particular proposal for new development levies, which will add from €10,000 to perhaps €30,000 to the price of a new home, arises from section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. When that section was being introduced, the Government did not tell this House or the people that it planned to use the section to hike-up, by a factor of two or three, the size of the development levies which would be charged. It told us the section would be used to consolidate existing development levies, which had been in place for quite some time, and to widen the use of the levies to include community purposes, objectives with which I and the Labour Party would agree.
As with many good ideas, however, this Government has managed to convert that into a means of raising a new tax which, in this case, will be levied mainly on first-time buyers. What is wrong with the development regime being proposed throughout the country is not the principle, but the practice. First, there are managers of local authorities, which are short of money, who see an opportunity in the development levies for a new cash cow. Second, on the "Six One" television news on RTE, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government effectively announced that the Government will pull back from the funding of community facilities and leave them exclusively to local authorities which will mean that development levies will be hiked up.
Third, the Government has made no provision to prevent the levies being passed on to the house buyer. The Minister stated, in a statement he issued earlier today, that developers who gain from the housing boom must fund facilities to build better communities. We would all agree with that but that is not what the development levies are doing. If they were doing so, then we would be in agreement with them. In the absence of any form of control of house prices, however, the development levies to be charged by local authorities will inevitably be passed on to house purchasers, many of whom will be first-time buyers.
This is the third major whack from the Government for first-time buyers in the course of a 12-month period. This time last year it abolished the first-time buyer's grant and increased VAT on building materials by 1% which added significantly to the price of a house. Using the section 48 mechanism, it is introducing these increased development levies which will add to the price of a house.
The irony is that the same Government is taking no measures to levy tax on developers who, the Minister says, have gained from the housing boom. They have gained from it, but what has the Government done to convert that gain into the provision of facilities? It reduced their capital gains tax from 40% to 20%. A couple of weeks ago, the Government voted down—
It increased the take.
—a proposal from the Labour Party to cap the price of building land. Every time we raise the issue, Deputy Andrews or somebody else tells us to have respect for the all-party committee. Let us face it, the all-party committee—
The Deputy is cherry-picking.
—is being used as an excuse by the Government to delay taking action.
It reports in two months.
The problem with the development levy is not the principle, but the practice. It is the fact that cash-starved local authority managers are viewing the levies as a way of building up the capital fund of their authorities. If the Government used the levies as a means of converting part of the gains being made by developers on residential development into community facility development, that would be good. In the absence of some form of price control, however, that is impossible.
Earlier today the Minister, Deputy Cullen, claimed that the Labour Party and Fine Gael sought to increase the levies when the planning and development legislation was before the Dáil. Nothing could be further from the truth. As you well know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, we could not do so because such an amendment to increase the levy would be ruled out of order as in entailed a charge against the people. When that legislation was before the Dáil, the Labour Party attempted to broaden the use of development levies in the widest possible way to allow for the provision of community facilities; to ensure that there was democratic control over them rather than their being used as a fund by city and county managers; and to ensure that there was a system of appeals involving An Bord Pleanála. The latter was not provided for in the legislation and I correctly heard the Irish Home Builders' Association complaining about it today. There should be an appeal mechanism and, as that association correctly sought today, a regulator. There should be a regulator, not only to deal with the issue of development levies but to deal with all aspects of the housing market, including the regular gazumping of house prices. People go to look at a showhouse on a Friday thinking the price is at one level and go back the following Monday with their deposit to find that it has been increased by €15,000 or €20,000. Such practices in the housing market should also be overseen by a regulator.
I appreciate the opportunity of saying a few words again on the issue of housing and I thank my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, for allowing me that opportunity. I want to repeat some points I made only a few weeks ago when talking to people who had not voted for a long time or who were too young to vote. When they discuss housing with people like me, they have a much more straightforward view than that which we heard from the Minister of State last night. I will provide some examples.
I have considered the contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, in some detail. He referred to the total output of housing units last year. However, it is what he does not say which is of interest. For example, he did not say that half of the housing units which were finished last year were bought by speculators rather than first-time buyers. Is it not of significance that half of the total output goes to those who already own not one but several houses? The Minister of State did not advert to something that is significant, namely, that the Department of Finance's website's list of the top 400 earners shows that the total transfer, in tax benefits, to these people last year from the budget introduced by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, was €72.6 million.
Some of us have been looking at this matter in detail recently in respect of, for example, film relief which, as in previous years, attracted the wrath of officials of the Department of Finance. However, one of the most interesting facts about the €72.6 million given to those top earners by way of tax relief is that the greater proportion of it relates to bricks and mortar. In other words, the Minister for Finance has used the Finance Act to give, in respect of the housing market, more to those who already have housing, and that is scandalous.
What would be revolutionary – perhaps people on all sides of the House could agree and an amendment to the Constitution would not be required – would be to have a property survey carried out. I can only speak about Galway, the city in which I live. Those who owned four or five houses in Galway ten years ago now own closer to 20. They recycle rents, in respect of which they enjoy tax breaks, into the low interest economy in terms of purchasing ever more building units. As far as the Minister of State is concerned, that is good. He suggested that this is all supply-side activity. It does not matter who owns the houses, how many they own or that they pay no tax on their income from housing. Until the closing of a loophole in the recent Finance Act, one could write off all one's rental income against any other form of income. This is a regressive development. It is shifting resources from other parts of the housing market to those who already have housing. How can we in a republic suggest that there should be no limit to the abuse of the housing market while also suggesting that there is a curious difficulty about accepting either the right to shelter or the right to housing?
The argument about the Judiciary and the Legislature is extraordinary and a fantastic spin has been put on it, particularly by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. The Minister adopts not a democratic or liberal position but a deeply conservative one. It is based on a distortion of the norms of justice. The acceptance of rights, whether they be universal rights or those upheld by the European Convention on Human Rights, in no way automatically sets up tension between the Judiciary and the Legislature. It arises sometimes in the way one accepts the principle of justiciability, namely, how something is a justiciable right. If we suggest that these matters are entirely the responsibility of the Legislature, does that mean that the Judiciary must remain silent on rights, needs, the nature of the society and so forth? If that is what we mean, we are accepting a version of the Judiciary as being entirely non-innovative, deeply conservative and reactionary.
The truth lies elsewhere. The existence or acceptance of a right in no way automatically ties the Legislature, except to seek to vindicate and apply that right such as it may. The issue in the political system is the disposal of resources to the satisfaction of rights. However, the courts are free to call into question any Administration under which the existence of that right is not accepted. This is basic.
I listened to the debate last night and re-read the Minister of State's contribution earlier today. Perhaps the Minister of State opposite, Deputy Gallagher, who is a practical person, will answer a question for me. In the region of 70% of those on Galway city's housing list are on social welfare payments, while approximately 80% would not meet the criteria for affordable housing. How does it address their concerns to inform them that because affordable housing units are available to the local authority, their housing needs are being met?
People should begin to speak plainly about this matter. There will never be a time when that section of the Fianna Fáil Party which seems to believe that it owes something to a section of the construction industry that is deeply involved in speculation and hoarding will change its outlook. With respect to what Deputy Andrews just said, these people have sought planning permission, sat on land, took services supplied out of taxpayers' money and waited until the price escalated until their sites represent at least 50% of the finished value of the house. How can that be regarded as a social activity which the Constitution should be used to protect? Mr. Justice Kenny considered this matter almost 30 years ago and plainly suggested that those sections in the community that stressed the common good should take priority over that kind of thinking.
It is supposed to be a fundamental right in the Irish Republic that there is no limit on the number of houses a person may own. Let us consider then the concept that those who may own up to 20 or 30 houses should, if possible, not pay tax. Of the 400 top earners, because they were involved in all the different schemes and the fact that the more disposable income one has the more tax breaks one may take, 17 paid no tax. At the same time, there is an enormous slough of people on the housing list and people cannot qualify for affordable housing.
I wish to refer to a particular matter to which the Minister of State, Deputy Ahern, adverted at the beginning of his contribution but one which he did not follow through. What kind of country is this if two people must struggle and borrow money from their parents to pay a deposit and become mortgage slaves? This is an invitation to misery which involves enormous social consequences.
I will relate a story to the House which tells me how this malaise begun. As a former Minister, I attended the opening of a significant cultural institution at the invitation of the director. A former Secretary General of a Department said that he thought this is a great country and that he never thought that his son would buy a house for £250,000. I took one good look at him and realised what was wrong. The thinking that produces that kind of comment is so backward, regressive, reactionary and anti-social, it would make one cringe with shame to live in the same country as this senior adviser and decision-maker. On another occasion, I will be delighted to give him full credit for his comment.
I thank the Labour Party for affording me time to make some brief points. It was good to listen to my old college lecturer, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, in full flow.
I regret the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not present. He stated on the "Six One News" that people were engaging in scaremongering about levies on houses. I have in my possession the proposed draft levies from Wicklow. For a house on the services the levy will be €140 per square metre. Under the draft proposals, therefore, the levy for a 200,000 sq. m. house will be €28,000. That is a matter of record, it is not scaremongering. For a house of similar size in the countryside and not on the services, the levy will be €101 per square metre or €20,000 in total. The proposed cost for an average sized home on the services is €17,500. This is not scaremongering.
The draft proposals have been published because Government will not fund local authorities in terms of infrastructural needs. The Minister of State said that those who pay will benefit, which is untrue. Many people who never pay for services will benefit from the levies collected from the unfortunate few to improve services. This new system in inequitable for two reasons. First, if there has been an infrastructure deficit in a local authority area, the local authority will be penalised in future. Why will the levy only be €5,000 or €10,000 in Counties Kerry and Kilkenny while in County Wicklow it will be double or treble that amount? Second, a small number of people entering the housing market, primarily first-time buyers, will pick up the tab for services. My water supply is not in great order and the local authority intends to upgrade it. The new first-time buyer will pay for that, not me. That is inequitable, unfair and unsustainable. It is not correct that the Government is passing the buck to local authorities. The Government has been repeating the mantra of low taxation for some years. The downside is it has no money to do anything.
Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Gregory, Connolly agus Eamon Ryan. I am not surprised the Government is opposed to the Bill because, when the words the Government is adept at voicing must give way to definitive action and commitment, the shadow falls and we see the fundamental difference between how a democratic socialist, for example, or a person with social consciousness would approach the question of housing and how Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats approach it. We approach housing as a human need, a fundamental human right and a right that is necessary to have a life of reasonable comfort and dignity whereas the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats approach is to endorse the speculator, the profiteer and the large developer, who see primarily in the provision of housing a source to amass major profits relentlessly at the expense of ordinary working people.
The Government stands utterly condemned by the housing crisis. The average price of a second-hand semi-detached home in the modest suburb in which I live has quadrupled during the six and a half years Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have been in power. This is due to the naked outright profiteering that these parties have allowed to take place in the housing market. The Government sat on its hands and allowed a small cabal of major landowners, speculators and developers to massively increase the price of a home out of sheer greed. There was no rush to the High Court to stop this happening nor to the Garda to demand an explanation for the racketeering in the housing market, nor was anybody put behind the bars of Mountjoy Prison similar to decent taxpayers who are there tonight because they took on the Government on another issue on which it is guilty.
Naked profiteering was permitted to continue and it is creating major problems. These profiteers have funded Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, which have traditionally been in their pockets. We have witnessed a further glimpse of this at the tribunals over the past few days and we have seen what a mockery was made of the so-called internal investigations of the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil parties into donations their councillors accepted from developers and speculators. Amounts hidden from these investigations have emerged in the past few days.
Easy now.
Will there be a rush to conduct a new investigation within these parties into the fact that their councillors were in the pockets of developers?
On a point of order, while I do not mean to be offensive, I object to the phrase, "members were in the pockets of developers". I have never been in anybody's pocket.
I said "councillors".
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
That is not a point of order.
If we want to have a debate, we will have a debate but I do not wish to go down that road.
The country knows certain councillors have been in the pockets of speculators.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
There is no point of order. Deputy Joe Higgins, without interruption.
I object to the phrase and it is unbecoming of the Deputy to use it.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
That is not a point of order and the Deputy should resume his seat.
As far as my party is concerned, those who are deemed to be guilty will be found guilty by the proper authorities.
It has taken them bloody well long enough to find them guilty following a six year investigation.
The development levy came to the fore earlier and, although we have known about it for some time, it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. It is another massive levy on young people attempting to buy a home. It will take them 20 or 25 years to repay the levy, including interest. What kind of a way is that to make housing available to people?
Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don leasú bunreachtúil seo a cuireadh os ár gcomhair ag grúpa Shinn Féin: is é sin go mbeidh ceart tithíochta mar cheart soisialta sa Bhunreacht. Is cóir go mbeadh cearta soisialta mar seo mar chuid den mBunreacht.
I fully support the proposed Bill to establish the right to housing as a constitutional right. I applaud the Sinn Féin group for using Private Members' time to highlight this and to attempt to address this major issue in society, which is the social right to a home of one's own. I support the Bill principally because it serves to focus our attention again on a vitally important issue, the basic right of all our people to decent living accommodation, which successive Governments have failed to confront. The Government has refused to take radical action to address this fundamental issue.
Most Members will undoubtedly agree the breathtaking cost of houses and the massive price increases that have spiralled out of control in recent years are totally unjustifiable and demand action. The scandal of homelessness is a black mark on the State, as are the lengthy waiting lists for local authority housing. Profiteers and racketeers lurk in the background as they racketeer in new house prices and land values. A small number of multimillionaires control the bulk of development land in the Dublin region. This is unsustainable and unjustifiable and no amount of tinkering with the system will change it.
Even when a mildly progressive measure specifying that 20% of developments should be set aside for social and affordable housing was introduced, the same obsessively greedy developers and builders banded together to smash that attempt at reform and fairness. The Government capitulated to the developers' lobby and that progressive measure was abandoned, demonstrating the unseemly political influence of builder-developer interests in Ireland, regardless of the common good. While developers and builders manipulate and control the housing market in a manner that allows them to maximise their vast profits, the number of unfortunate people joining the local authority housing waiting lists steadily increases and it currently stands at almost 50,000 applicants, the bulk of which are families.
It is well documented that Ireland has one of the most unequal societies in the developed world, with an ever-increasing gap between rich and poor. This inequality is the direct result of the budgetary policies of successive Governments over the past decade, which deliberately favoured the better off in line with the philosophy of the Progressive Democrats and their like-minded friends in the leadership of Fianna Fáil. Nowhere is this glaring inequality more starkly visible than in the housing market.
The average price of a house in Dublin is now in excess of €300,000, which will increase dramatically when the builders add on the new levies announced today by the Government. The latest phenomenon is the increasing number of new housing schemes being advertised in the property supplements, such as Abbots Hill in Malahide, with prices starting at €1.35 million. The same property supplements advise investors of the merits of properties at locations from New Zealand to South Africa and Florida. At another level, parallel to this, increasing numbers of Irish people see the chance of getting a home of their own as being more and more beyond their reach. The political philosophy which produces this inequality is the most corrupting influence in Ireland today.
It is my firm belief that our Constitution must be amended to firmly enshrine the right to housing for every person. The basic human right to adequate housing has been recognised in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ireland has also signed up to the UN Convention on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, which also recognises the right to housing. Housing rights have also been recognised internationally in instruments which seek to address and protect the rights of particular groups, such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination.
Article 136 of the Treaty of the European Union, in instituting the European Economic Community, refers to the fundamental social rights set out in the European Social Charter, which includes the right to housing. However, zero progress has been made by Ireland in incorporating what we acknowledge to be a basic human right into our Constitution, a matter noted with regret by the UN convention. Currently, our EU partners Belgium, Spain and Portugal have incorporated the right to housing in their constitutions, while those of Greece, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden and Germany contain aspirations to promote people's rights. In law, France, Denmark, the UK, Italy and Luxembourg acknowledge the duty of the state to provide suitable housing for their citizens.
Ireland's Housing Act of 1988 obliges local authorities to assess the importance of housing needs, to make a census of homeless persons and to set housing priorities. While we like to feel that we live in a healthy democracy, with a Constitution which is second to none, people are still living in subhuman conditions on pavements, in doorways and on the streets of our major cities and towns. In the case of Traveller families throughout the country, they are compelled to exist on roadsides and in laneways in quite appalling conditions in all weathers. The right to adequate housing is an important component of the right to live with dignity and, accordingly, an obvious component of the right to equality.
The only way to ensure an end to Ireland's growing problem of homelessness is by way of a constitutional guarantee. Enshrining the right to housing in our Constitution would afford people the facility of recourse to justice through the courts if the State failed to provide for their housing needs.
In recent years, the lack of availability of land and property at reasonable cost has imposed major difficulties for agencies trying to deliver social housing. Housing associations are trying to compete on the open market against speculators and investors for much-needed and increasingly scarce land available from local authority landbanks. In the last national housing needs assessment, over 48,000 families were assessed as being in need of social housing.
I understand that the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution has recommended a number of issues, including the right to shelter, which will be considered in a review of property rights under the Constitution. Of particular interest is the right to shelter, since there is currently no right to housing included in the Constitution. It will be a new departure in Ireland for the right to housing to be considered against the backdrop of private property rights, something which must be led by Government.
Landowners, down the years, have creamed off windfall profits and benefits from ownership of land due to improvements paid for by the public, including waste services, transport, rezoning, etc. The right to private property would not be prejudiced by the inclusion in the Constitution of a right to housing. The failure of current housing policy becomes more apparent daily as the homelessness crisis continues to intensify. Although some 10,000 Irish people are homeless, local authorities are not obliged to provide accommodation for them. The constitutional amendment, incorporating the right to housing, should be accompanied by ratification of Article 31 of the European Social Charter which relates to housing rights. Go raibh maith agat.
In a similar effort by the Green Party to address the housing issue some months ago, we were disappointed that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government did not turn up to hear the arguments on the final night of the debate. I also commend the Labour Party on having introduced a Bill to try to address the present housing crisis. Tonight, I commend Sinn Féin for addressing this matter. However, although this is one of the most important issues in our society, once again the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has not turned up. I consider that disgraceful. It is indicative of an arrogant Government which has been in power too long.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government seems to have a disregard for proper planning. When he was asked recently how he would address the sprawl of Dublin and whether he would intervene with the surrounding counties, which are providing massive rezoning for further increases in housing, he said that was not his role. In my area, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, where a new development plan is currently in train, the Minister has intervened to tell the council it has not rezoned sufficient land and is not providing enough houses.
There is no rationale as to the location of those houses or whether there is proper planning, including links to public transport. That is central to the housing crisis which has been caused by the Government. The Taoiseach's only answer is to say, "We built 60,000 houses last year." However, there is no sense of understanding as to the ownership of those houses, where they are being provided and what kind of society we are developing with that housing market.
Almost half those houses are being bought by speculators who are availing of the tax breaks, interest-only mortgages and massive rent allowances the Government is providing, which go back directly to those with property to rent, rather than those seeking to rent. All of the benefits are going to property owners and speculators, but not helping those struggling to pay the rent. Another substantial sector of the housing market involves holiday homes. As the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, will be aware, in counties such as Donegal and throughout the west and south coasts, local people are being priced out of the market by people purchasing second homes and availing of the various tax breaks provided. There is fantastic activity, but it is not for the benefit of those who really need housing.
In the recent mid-term review, the ESRI recommended that the Government should introduce a levy to take account of the massive cost of servicing those houses. The Taoiseach immediately said that, having been down that road before, we could not possibly consider a levy on second-hand holiday homes. However, two weeks later, the Government brought in a development levy in which there is no sophistication and no cognisance is taken of whether the houses concerned are in urban or rural areas or the cost of providing services – it is simply a straight levy or stealth tax.
There is a lack of thinking and planning with regard to housing. There is an extraordinary emphasis on getting onto the property ladder, on the basis that one only has rights if one owns property. Perhaps one can visualise the situation in terms of a long castle wall, with people scrambling up various "property ladders" to get into the castle. In some cases, they have missed the boat, the ladder has just been lifted up and they are informed they cannot board the rich ship, Ireland. While other people may be on the ladder, the property market may change, prices may go down and their ladder will fall back into the moat.
At another point, people may have built a 100 foot extension to their property ladder, tilted at an angle. Their whole lives revolve around getting up that ladder. Meanwhile, from its vantage point on the parapet at the top of the castle, the Government congratulates itself on the tremendous level of activity which is in progress, while overlooking the misery, injustice and division which it is creating for generations to come. There is no planning. There is no environmental or social thinking and ultimately that will be a cost to our economy. People are desperately climbing up all those ladders and it is a terrible shame the Minister is not here to talk about it.
As Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I am pleased to speak on this Bill, which Sinn Féin has attempted unsuccessfully to talk up. Deputy Allen talked it down very effectively when he said: "The Bill as proposed is flawed." He rightly stated that the Bill would not go anywhere towards solving the housing challenges we face.
The Government does not shirk its responsibilities in relation to housing. We have a proud record of achievement in delivering housing across the broad spectrum of housing needs. My colleague the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, outlined last night the comprehensive range of housing measures the Government has implemented and, more importantly, he clearly demonstrated the positive effects of these measures.
They are not working.
Since 1997, our efforts have brought a substantial rise in output, with a consequent moderation in the increase in house prices. Almost 57,700 new houses were completed in 2002, the eighth successive record year of housing output, and 2003 will be another record year. The overall objective of the Government is to continue to maintain these record levels of output to satisfy the projected housing demand. By introducing this Bill, Sinn Féin, in effect, wants the Government to back-pedal on the clearly demonstrable progress we have made – it wants to remove from the Oireachtas and the Government the power to distribute resources which has been the cornerstone of the Government's success in delivering the highest level of social and affordable housing for over 15 years.
Ireland has a proud tradition of home ownership, and the Government feels strongly about maintaining and promoting this tradition. Increasing supply is and must remain the main objective of the Government's housing strategy. We must ensure that our young population can aspire to home ownership or seek rented accommodation whether in the private or social housing sector.
What about the speculators?
We also recognise that the affordability of the housing we provide must improve in line with increasing supply and our policy is focused on this.
The policies help the speculators.
We will hear from the Deputy later. The abolition of the new house grant was mentioned in the debate. While obviously of benefit to those who qualify, its economic impact had long since been absorbed into house prices. Its abolition demonstrates, however, that the Government will take difficult decisions when required. In making this decision we have made a commitment to focus the resources available on the range of better targeted programmes introduced in recent years to meet the needs of low income groups and those with social housing needs.
I acknowledge that for some people home ownership has become more difficult. This is why the Government places great emphasis on increasing output under the shared ownership and affordable housing measures. The Opposition forgets, in its blinkered view, that it was never easy to buy a first house.
It was never as hard as now.
It is harder now.
However, due to key factors such as increases in disposable incomes, low mortgage interest rates, favourable taxation rates and above all increased housing supply, a greater number of people than ever before are now buying their first home, week in, week out.
That is not true.
There are fewer people buying more homes.
During the debate the Opposition has accused the Government of signing up to international agreements but not enacting provisions for which we have signed up. It is true that a number of international agreements to which Ireland is a party incorporate some form of declaration of a right to housing. These include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social, Cultural and Political Rights, Agenda 21, and Habitat II. However, the declarations contained within are aspirational and do not confer a legal right to housing.
Make them legal.
Ireland's ratification of the Council of Europe's revised Social Charter did not include the provision on a right to housing in Article 31. The article was not included in our ratification pending clarification as to its interpretation – that is, whether the article seeks to confer a legal right to housing which would be justiciable in the Irish courts system. The Government's approach to the Social Charter recognises that conferring a right to housing on citizens would not of itself afford any greater access to them to the housing services necessary to meet their needs. The challenges we face require practical solutions and it is on this premise that the Government's housing strategy is founded.
The Government has a coherent and credible housing strategy—
Where?
—which is designed to increase housing supply—
To increase prices.
—improve access to housing for lower income groups and improve the housing conditions of local authority tenants and other key groups such as the elderly, the homeless and disabled persons. This clear strategy has been set out in this House over the course of the debate. The Government continues to deliver on housing; judge us on our record.
We are.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed. For this and the many reasons my colleagues and I have outlined, I am bound to oppose it.
I propose to share my time with Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the broad support from this side of the House for the Bill. I challenge Government backbenchers of both parties to take this opportunity to distance themselves from the war on a rights-based society declared by their Ministers. I urge all Members to vote this evening for the international consensus, for the United Nations and for the European Union. International instruments of both organisations confirm Sinn Féin's position that adequate and appropriate housing is an economic and social right.
I refute the assertions of the Minister of State, Deputy Ahern, that Sinn Féin's proposals are no more than theoretical playacting. On the contrary, our proposals have a basis in international law.
Absolutely.
The right to housing is recognised in a variety of international instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 25.1; the UN Convention on Economic and Social Rights, in Article 11.1; Protocol No. 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and Article 16 of the European Social Charter of 1961, which was strengthened by Article 31 of the Revised European Social Charter.
Send the Minister a copy.
I will. As far back as 1987 a UN General Assembly resolution called upon all states to pay special attention to the realisation of the right to housing. The European Parliament has adopted at least two resolutions on this issue, one in 1987 stating that the right to a home should be guaranteed by legislation and that member states should recognise it as a fundamental right. A resolution in 1996 stated that non-implementation of the right to housing on the part of states: ". . . is a breach of the principles and democratic values on which European society is based."
As a consequence of the instruments I have outlined, both Ministers of State, Deputies Ahern and Gallagher, must recognise that Ireland has international obligations in relation to the right to housing. We on this side of the House charge that those obligations have not been fulfilled.
The right to housing is more properly defined as the right to adequate and appropriate housing, which is reflected by the wording of the Sinn Féin amendment. No less than 12 different UN texts explicitly recognise the right to adequate housing, and as such this concept has joined the body of universally applicable and accepted human rights law. According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the right therefore includes: legal security of tenure, availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure, affordability, habitability, accessibility, location and cultural adequacy. Without constitutional protection the most marginalised in Irish society will continue to suffer from Government neglect. As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has observed, housing rights can be subject to violation by Governments, and we see such violations in this State.
We want constitutional protections that will ensure all sections of society can enjoy their equal rights to adequate and appropriate housing and to move beyond a situation where Travellers continue to be arrested and charged with an offence because the Government has failed to implement Traveller accommodation plans. I must contradict the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, who said last night that great progress had been made on this.
Yes.
He must not be aware of the position. The Minister stated in a reply to a parliamentary question last week that only a tiny fraction of the identified need of Traveller accommodation had been met by local authorities by the end of last year. Appallingly, four local authorities have created no new Traveller units—
Which is it?
—yet they will face no sanction from the Government for their inaction.
Leis an mBille seo, ba mhaith linn go mbogfaimid ar aghaidh ón áit ina bhfuilimid. Tá cearta diúltaithe ar lucht an éagumais, ar dhaoine aosta agus ar mhná agus páistí a bhfuil orthu fanacht le páirtnéirí dáinséaracha toisc nach bhfuil fáil acu ar mhalairt tithíochta. If we are serious about tackling the current crisis, we need all surplus State and Roman Catholic Church lands transferred immediately to local authorities for social housing provision. In my constituency the State has offloaded to an offshore property company a prime 13 acre site, Clancy Barracks, which could have provided social housing for almost 600 families. That is a classic example of Government's skewed priorities.
That is a fact.
Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le gach Teachta a ghlac páirt san díospóireacht. I thank all Deputies who participated in this debate but most particularly those who supported the proposition before the House. They are not all members of the Opposition parties. At least one of the Minister of State's colleagues voiced his support, but regrettably he probably will not follow through on that by pressing the green button in a vote at the end of this debate.
Where is the senior Minister with responsibility for housing? He has not participated in this debate.
Housing is my area.
The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, has not shown himself throughout the course of this debate. Where are the Minister of State's colleagues in Government? The members of one political party have not even had the good manners to present themselves throughout this debate on one the most urgent and pressing matters facing people today. The Progressive Democrats have clearly spoken on this issue by their absence.
Let there be no mistake, there are the necessary resources to meet the housing needs of the people. They have always been there. Regrettably, successive Governments have failed to utilise those resources to ensure adequate provision of housing for the people. Over decades hundreds of thousands of families have suffered from the failure of successive Governments adequately to address that need. That is a fact. No failure has been more glaring than that of the Government, the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition, which during the past six years has been blessed with one of the most vibrant economic situations that allowed it to address this issue as no previous Government could, but it has failed miserably. That is the reality.
One need only note the statistics. The Minister of State was happy to cite them last night. However, let us look at the real statistics. The Government has presided over a 177% increase in the cost of new housing over the period since 1998.
Look at the investment.
The position will be worse next year.
The corresponding figure for second-hand homes is an increase of 199%. On the local authority housing waiting list there are some 50,000 household units which, conservatively, must equate to at least in excess of 100,000 citizens waiting to be housed in this jurisdiction. They are in every county. This need is not confined only to people of Dublin, other large urban centres or Monaghan. I advise the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, there are also people from Donegal on the waiting list.
Some 85% of those households on the local authority waiting list are depending on an annual income of less than €15,000. Let us get real and recognise that there is a real housing crisis in this jurisdiction. The needs of these families are not being met.
Ministers have repeatedly boasted, as did the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, last night, about the raw figure for output of housing units. That figure tells us nothing about the affordability of each of those units, the proportion of them destined for the social housing market, or about what number of them are for second home use by speculators or for use in the rented property sector. That is the reality. The Minister of State can try to confuse the argument by citing statistics on new units developed or brought on to the market but until he addresses those critical issues he is only creating a smokescreen behind which he and his colleagues in Government have been hiding for far too long.
In whose interest have he and his colleagues in Government acted? Let there be no mistake that the Government has continually sought to aid only those who are involved in property speculation, those who have a direct interest in the rented sector, the landlord class – those who seek to exploit the opportunity of house provision. His cosy relationship with them is clearly evidenced by the continual influx of funding into the coffers of Fianna Fáil.
This relationship was evidenced even more by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, who this week took the opportunity to have lunch with the Construction Industry Federation. What advice did he seek in his address to that body? He asked its advice on housing policy. Is that credible? What influence has the CIF had on its fellow travellers but to demand and secure within the narrowest time the total reversal of Part 5 of the Planning Act, something it had demanded, yet its members are the people from whom the Minister of State seeks advice on housing policy. Would he think for one moment that he should ask the advice of a single mother struggling to bring up her child or children in expensive rented accommodation?
I do, through the representative bodies. I meet those people every day of the week.
The Minister of State would never think to go outside the gates of this House and ask homeless people on Kildare Street and other streets what their advice would be on addressing the housing need of the people of this city and country. He would deny their very existence, leaving blinkered from the gates of this institution and refusing to see the facts and evidence of the failure of this Government and successive Governments on the streets of this city. Shame on him.
Sinn Féin wants to see housing enshrined in the Constitution in order – let there be no mistake about it – to underpin a whole range of other necessary measures and legislation that needs to be introduced to tackle the inequalities in the housing sector. The Government has failed to take heed of the continual outcry of representative organisations, who have campaigned on behalf of the homeless and the sector that is depending on the provision of social housing, and voices in this Chamber who have continually argued, sought his attention and demanded that he heed them.
In this debate and elsewhere, Sinn Féin has spelt out in detail the other measures that will be necessary and will go in tandem with this proposed constitutional change. They include controls on the price of land for housing, controls over rents in the private sector, the freeing up of State lands, appropriate accommodation for Travellers.
Those are Government policies.
It also includes the resourcing and empowering of local authorities to provide homes in the quantity and the quality needed for the vast majority of those who remain on our waiting lists for years.
On this day, in my hometown of Monaghan, the county manager has signed off on housing allocations for the current year. There were over 300 applicants competing for 30 household units. There will be 30 happy and contented families, with 270 more left worrying in anguish and stress. What prospects have they got with no further housing starts signalled for that small community? That is magnified in larger communities throughout the length and breadth of this State.
At least the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, has participated in the debate. However, I say to him that under the Constitution as it currently stands, there is more protection for a block of luxury apartments in the ownership of a multimillionaire property developer than there is for the homeless in this State. That is a damning indictment of each of the Ministers of State. They and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, should vacate their portfolios because they are unsuited to them. They have demonstrated this time and again by their utterances and failure to act.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Cuireadh an cheist.
Question put.
Rinne an Dáil vótáil ar mhodh leictreonach.
The Dáil divided by electronic means.
As a teller, under Standing Order 69 I propose that the vote be taken by other than electronic means.
As Deputy Ó Snodaigh is a Whip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.
Cuireadh an cheist arís.
Question again put.
Rinne an Dáil vótáil: Tá, 50; Níl, 66.
Tá
|
Boyle, Dan.Broughan, Thomas P.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gregory, Tony.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian. |
McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Murphy, Gerard.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cregan, John.Curran, John.Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope. |
Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Malley, Fiona.Parlon, Tom. Power, Peter. |
Níl–continued
|
Power, Seán.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel. |
Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Stagg; Níl, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhtas tar éis diúltú don cheist.
Question declared lost.