Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 May 1999

Vol. 504 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill, 1999: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Ms Clune

I congratulate Deputy Seán Ryan on introducing the Bill because the problem it addresses is one from which I am sure every constituency suffers and from which I know mine does. There are many unfinished estates which are the bugbears of residents who find themselves living in them for three or four years – the longest of which I know in my constituency is 17 years, but I am sure there is longer – without roads, footpaths or lighting. They live in what they consider to be building sites and they are frustrated that the powers that be, the corporation, county council or whatever, cannot seem to ensure the work is completed. The Bill proposes that developers should not be given planning permission in respect of another housing estate or development until their previous development is completed to the satisfaction of the planning and regulatory authorities.

It is too easy to build another 40 or 50 houses and leave behind small problems which residents must face daily. A housing estate in my constituency had a problem with roads which had to be resurfaced. The developer did not contribute to the cost of that work. It was organised between local politicians, corporation representatives, the corporation engineer and residents. The developer was responsible for it in the first place, but he chose to move on and leave behind a mess for others to sort out. One way of dealing with such problems would be to build into planning laws a provision whereby developers will not be allowed carry out further developments until the first is satisfactorily completed. I commend Deputy Ryan on his proposal.

The Minister of State said he would not accept the Bill, and two of the reasons he advanced were that the problem mainly exists in old estates and there was a limit to the extent to which the Bill can apply retrospectively. I can see his point, but we must make a start. Surely we have learned from our mistakes and the Bill is worth accepting as a provision with which to progress. I do not understand why the Minister of State cannot accept it. If he is concerned about the estates which have not been satisfactorily completed and have been left unfinished for many years, let us see some provisions to solve the problem.

The Bill provides for the levying of financial contributions on developers to enable planning authorities develop facilities in the area. There is a similar commendable provision in the Cork County Council region where £500 per house is levied to contribute to roads and footpaths. I have some reservations about that in that I do not believe it is confined to a specific area. However, funds collected locally should be reinvested locally and that is important in the context of the Bill. If a developer plans to build 100 or 200 houses on a greenfield site, he should contribute to services in the area and to the development of roads, footpaths and lighting. Too often houses are built and people move into them to find they have neither a footpath on which to walk to the shop or public lighting at night. These are people who spent a great deal of money on their houses.

I commend Deputy Ryan on introducing the Bill. I am sorry the Minister is not prepared to accept it. I hope we will see some progress in this field which is difficult for many of us in this House.

Mr. S. Ryan

The Minister has more than an hour to change his mind.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand Deputy Power is sharing time with Deputies Pat Carey, O'Flynn, Kirk, John McGuinness and Johnny Brady.

Mr. Power

Yes. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Deputy Ryan's Bill deals with unfinished estates. To a large extent, his Bill is somewhat similar in that, as the Minister pointed out last night, it is unfinished. Deputy Ryan seems to have acted hastily. Perhaps he was anxious to have it debated here before the local elections but it is unfortunate that he did not think it through. As Deputies pointed out last night, there are a number of flaws in it. At the same time we must commend Deputy Ryan for tabling the Bill and giving us an opportunity to debate it. If it helps to speed up a response from the Government, that is all the better.

In recent years there has been a large increase in the demand for housing, particularly in areas bordering Dublin. For many years people had emigrated, but the reverse has been happening in recent years. Last year more than 40,000 people returned to Ireland. They all need housing and I suppose many of them make their way towards Dublin to try to find accommodation.

There is a big demand for housing and this results in problems, but people are in such a hurry to buy houses that they are buying them before they are built. They are buying them in good faith and are given promises and pictures of how estates will look when they are finished. We have all seen this happen in our constituencies, where promises were made and the houses were built but the estates remain unfinished.

It is a difficult matter for local authorities to address. For instance, for a number of years there has been a serious problem in Kildare where the council was forced to take the builder to court. As Deputy Clune stated earlier, some of these estates are like a building sites. Everything which is not used or which is left over is dumped in a big heap. There are mounds of rubble and the area becomes a health hazard. It also devalues the properties which the people have just purchased.

Last night the Minister mentioned bonding and that is where the solution lies. If the developers are forced to put down a deposit before building commences and then the conditions of the planning permission are properly enforced, there is an incentive for all builders to ensure that the job is completed as promised and according to the conditions of the planning permission.

The report of the strategy review of the construction industry was published in 1997. I know the forum is dealing with it at present but the problem is so serious that two years later we have made little or no progress. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the Bill is brought before the House as quickly as possible. In the interests of providing a better environment and a better country, it is important that this Bill comes before the House as quickly as possible.

Mr. P. Carey

I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate also. While, like Deputy Power, I would say that Deputy Ryan's Bill is seriously deficient, I welcome the opportunity of addressing the issues which he raised. The debate is timely. It will inform the debate on the planning and development consultation Bill which the Minister intends to introduce.

Every constituency has its share of unfinished housing estates, many of which are small. The larger builders, to their credit, do a reasonably good job of finishing estates but in my constituency there has been a number of cases where proceedings, up to and including those of the High Court, have had to be entered into in order to get satisfaction and redress.

Only a small number of builders are fly-by-night operators but they bring the building industry into disrepute. As I mentioned, there was a particularly intractable case in my constituency where a builder constructed about 20 houses at Patrickswell Parade. He did not finish the estate, he left the roads unfinished and did not construct footpaths. He did not undertake any open space treatment either. The company went into liquidation and left an inadequate bond to complete the work. Dublin Corporation had to find funds to do it. In the meantime it pursued him through the courts and it was only on the steps of the High Court that the matter was ultimately resolved to reasonable satisfaction. Then another development was undertaken about 300 yards up the road by a different company involving the same personnel. That is a matter which needs to be addressed in any review of the planning Acts. Manipulation of the companies legislation is rampant in some parts of the building industry. The Construction Industry Federation and the Irish Home Builders' Association have a role to play in that. There should be a registration scheme for contractors in the building industry to ensure consumer protection.

With regard to the bond scheme, the size of bonds set by local authorities is entirely unrealistic. In some cases they are cash bonds and in other cases they are insurance bonds. Often the bonds do not take into account the possible legal costs which may be incurred in trying to enforce the planning conditions.

I have always been critical of local authorities for the inadequate enforcement of planning conditions. Resources should be made available to local authorities to provide more staff to enforce planning conditions if necessary. The conditions of planning permission ought to be much more specific, more readily available and more widely understood. They should be written in clear and unambiguous language.

In Dublin I notice a trend, which I do not like, where management companies are being formed for small housing estates of ten or 15 houses. Often buyers of houses in such estates do not know and have not been informed by their solicitors that it is intended that a management company must be formed. This means that the estate will not be taken in charge by the local authority except in the case of an unfinished estate, such as one with which my colleagues and I are involved where Dublin Corporation must bail out the builder. It will have to put down new drains, bring the public lighting system up to a satisfactory standard, arrange for the grass-cutting and maintain the footpaths. This was not what the buyers thought they were purchasing.

Section 39 of the planning Act, where the roads, open spaces, public lighting, etc., are put in place before the building takes places, should be invoked more often.

Solicitors ought to make purchasers of houses aware of the detail of the planning permission for the estate. They should be aware of whether laneways will be closed off, the standard of footpaths to be made available and the extent of the open space to be provided. All of that needs to be teased out. That would pre-empt the situation where a shared ownership purchaser – one would have thought the local authority would have been a little more careful – of whom I am aware is stuck with a management company and cannot get out of it. The legal profession is answerable in that case.

No individual, group or local authority should have to end up on the steps of the courts to resolve the issues of unfinished estates.

Mr. O'Flynn

I propose that the Minister take the lead in this matter of unfinished estates. He should set aside money from the local authority fund currently being set up to allow local authorities to draw down funding which they should then match to enable them to take existing housing estates in charge. A time limit should be imposed to allow this work to be done. The Minister should also enter into discussions with the construction industry and ask its members to contribute to this fund as past difficulties were caused by some of its developers. I hope the departmental officials and the Minister of State will return to the Department with these proposals.

Notwithstanding that estates should come under the remit of local authorities, it should be a condition of sale that all house purchasers of private residential houses should be part of a management company in which they should have shares. If one considers the service charges which must be paid annually and the services provided for those charges, the time is fast approaching for the residents of new housing estates to contribute to their upkeep. More and more local authorities do not have the resources required for the normal maintenance of housing estates and less and less services will be provided.

I want to share a terrible experience I had with Cork Corporation and Cork County Council as a result of the inadequate controls and bonding put in place. I am happy to report that this is no longer the case. Two estates in my constituency, 21 and 15 years old respectively, have not been taken in charge.

Mr. S. Ryan

However, the Deputy will vote against the Bill this evening.

Mr. O'Flynn

Cork County Council has abdicated its responsibilities in regard to these estates. In 1994, Cork Corporation bit the bullet and put £250,000 into a fund to enable it to take in charge estates, which were not adequately bonded or policed by the local authorities. At long last, Cork County Council has engaged consultants to consider the number of estates which have not been taken in charge over a long period. I am very upset with the council and strongly criticise it for the way it has dragged its feet on this issue for many decades.

Mr. S. Ryan

What about the builders?

Mr. O'Flynn

The builders have either gone into liquidation, ceased trading or flown the coop. The local authority, when granting planning permission, set out a number of planning conditions including criteria to ensure adequate bonding. Until 1994, Cork County Council did not observe those. I hope the Minister will take on board my proposals when the new Bill is being introduced.

Mr. McGuinness

I wish to share time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. McGuinness

The matter of unfinished estates and planning must be dealt with in a more comprehensive manner than the one being advanced through this Bill. Much of this could be done through the current planning process if some adjustments were made to it.

There is currently a huge increase in the level of planning applications to local authorities. Contractors are providing houses but are failing to complete estates as they move along. Therefore, huge demands are being placed on local authority staff to police the various conditions attached to planning permissions. If we are to take these changes into consideration, comprehensive legislation is required and additional staff from a variety of disciplines is required within planning authorities. Most planning authorities are guided by engineers but there is a need for the involvement of architects and town planners in the process. I hope that change will be included in the new legislation.

I would also like to see An Bord Pleanála overhauled as there are inconsistencies in the manner in which appeals and inspectors' reports are dealt with. I have seen cases in Kilkenny where inspectors' reports recommend that planning applications be refused, refusals are approved by the local authority engineer but one member of the board overturns the report. That is wrong; it harms the planning process and causes serious public concern. The matter will have to be rectified by legislation. Recently, a 20 page report was produced in Kilkenny by a Bord Pleanála inspector recommending the refusal of a planning application. A one page report from a board member granted permission. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we can now access these documents. Such instances reveal inconsistency in the system and cause public disquiet. There is a need to police all of the conditions laid down by An Bord Pleanála and local authorities. That is not happening at the moment because sufficient staff are not available in local authorities to deal with breaches of planning permissions.

An Bord Pleanála must acknowledge county development plans where these exist. Until now, it has almost been able to ignore the wishes of local communities and authorities. Planning permissions have been granted which run contrary to county development plans. There is a need to overhaul the planning system to make it reflect new developments in local authorities and planning.

Mr. Kirk

This is a comprehensive subject and while the subject matter tonight is quite narrow in its focus, the debate affords us an opportunity to consider the broader issue of housing supply and demand. There is no arguing with the sentiments expressed by the majority of Members. There have been some very bad experiences in relation to unfinished estates throughout the country, some of which relate to the inadequacy of bonding arrangements. Many local authorities are endeavouring to find solutions to the problems created as a result of those.

House prices are escalating. There is a huge demand for houses because of the buoyancy in our economy, with people wishing to buy or build their own homes. Supply is inadequate to meet current demands.

In some older housing schemes, as few as one or two elderly people live in two storey, three bedroom houses. I came across a number of cases in my constituency in County Louth where people suffering from arthritis or various disabilities were simply unable to utilise upstairs facilities because of their conditions. If we evaluate those houses as part of the national housing stock, we discover they are being seriously under-utilised. Finding a formula to release these type of houses while at the same time providing more suitable accommodation for elderly people is a real challenge. It is a challenge the Minister and the officials in his Department should attempt to meet when there are such difficulties with supply and demand.

Care of the elderly is expensive for the Exchequer. If we can accommodate the elderly in suitable, custom built housing accommodation, the back-up services could support greater numbers of them. There would be a net saving to the economy and better services and care for the elderly involved.

With the culture of home ownership in this State, how can we release those houses in which one elderly person lives? There could be between 25,000 and 30,000 such houses across the State. If they could be made available for rehousing purposes, even for one or two years, perhaps for those who are in the priority category on local authority housing lists, and we were in a position to build suitable alternative accommodation for the elderly, it could have a significant impact on the problem.

I am not suggesting there are any ready made formulas we can bring to bear on the problem. The new planning and development Bill will be introduced later this year, giving an opportunity for innovative thinking on our housing strategy. Many of the tried and tested formulas of previous years may have to be looked at closely. We must ask ourselves if they are suitable to deal with significant increase in demand. The reality is that people on low and middle incomes will not be able to purchase houses.

Mr. J. Brady

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As a local public representative for the past 25 years, I am unfortunately very familiar with the problems which unfinished estates can present, not only to residents but to those providing services to them. I strongly condemn the actions of builders who leave estates unfinished.

I compliment my constituency colleague, Deputy Dempsey, on the new planning reform Bill which will soon come before the House. I am glad it will contain measures to deal with the problem in older estates. Deputy Ryan's Bill does not address this area and the worst problems are often encountered in these estates, although some of the newer estates also have serious problems.

Ireland has one of the highest levels of home ownership in Europe. This reflects the high value people place on owning their own homes. People who purchase houses in estates are entitled to have the necessary infrastructure of roads, footpaths, lighting, open spaces, sewerage and other services provided as part of their contract. In the past a minority of contractors failed to provide home owners with proper and safe surroundings. Unfinished areas have often become a nightmare for young people trying to raise a family or householders going about their daily duties.

The construction industry has always been an important part of the economy. As in every other sector, however, a small number of contractors reneged on their duties. They have done the industry no favours with their less than favourable actions. Any builder who fails to finish an estate properly should not be eligible to register with HomeBond.

The problem of unfinished estates requires a comprehensive review of the planning legislation. The necessary conditions and their enforcement must become part of the planning permission procurement process. The concerns addressed by Deputy Ryan are being addressed by Deputy Dempsey's Bill. It is at an advanced stage and will ensure planning systems will provide this State with effective solutions to problems related to unfinished estates.

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

When the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, spoke on this Bill last night, he explained to the House that this Government strongly condemns those builders who fail in their duty to customers to ensure that housing estates are fully completed in accordance with planning permission. I sympathise with Deputy Ryan's objective but, listening to the debate, I suspect the reintroduction of this Bill has more to do with political opportunism before the local elections than with the issue of unfinished estates.

Mr. S. Ryan

That is shameful. The Minister did not even come in last night.

Mr. Dempsey

The Deputy is aware that I will introduce a comprehensive planning and development Bill to the Dáil this summer which will contain major reforms to the planning system. The Bill will also consolidate all planning legislation in one enactment. Specifically the Bill will address the issues raised yesterday and today.

Deputy Hayes referred to a previous debate on an earlier version of Deputy Ryan's Bill which was introduced in the Seanad in November 1997 where I promised to bring forward new planning legislation. That legislation was promised in the context of the review which I had then initiated and the National Planning Convention, which was shortly to take place. My Department spent the months following that review appraising the issues raised before preparing draft legislation for the Government.

Deputy Hayes questioned the Government's commitment to the introduction of a Bill. Deputy Hayes is well aware that, following the review, the Government approved the drafting of a planning and development Bill in January, and I have promised on more than one occasion that the Bill will be before the House this summer. This Bill is not being left on the back burner it is a priority for the Government and has been accorded that status in its drafting. It will be a major Bill which will deal with complex issues. It is vital that we strike the right balance so the economy can continue to prosper and the environment and our quality of life is protected. It is a major achievement that I will bring forward such an important Bill so soon in the lifetime of a Government – within the second anniversary of coming to office. The Government does not propose to deal with planning or unfinished estates in a piecemeal fashion but to put forward comprehensive legislation which will last the test of time.

Deputy Hayes referred to the issue of constitutionality as "hogwash". It is not respectful for a Member of this House to refer to the Constitution as "hogwash". It was explained last night that there are serious issues to be considered. Deputy Ryan's Bill could result in the brother or sister of a rogue developer being held accountable for the developer's past failure. The Government cannot act irresponsibly in putting forward legislation.

Mr. Rabbitte

That will be the day, when someone is held accountable.

Mr. Dempsey

The Constitution is no laughing matter, although it appears some Opposition Deputies think it is.

A number of Deputies related stories of problem estates in their constituencies. I have seen them in my own constituency and I understand the concerns.

The question has to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. The bonding system was raised by some Deputies. I am glad that following the strategic review of the construction industry a comprehensive bonding system should be in place by the end of this year. I regret I have not more time to deal with some of the issues raised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call Deputy Stagg. I understand the Deputy is sharing time with Deputies Rabbitte, McManus, Burke and Olivia Mitchell.

Mr. Stagg

I congratulate Deputy Seán Ryan for introducing the Bill. The problem addressed in the Bill affects the standard and quality of life of tens of thousands of people throughout the country.

I have said previously that there is a long and unhealthy association between Fianna Fáil and builders.

Mr. Dempsey

The Deputy is starting it again.

Mr. Stagg

The Minister, who is not involved in any way in that association, should take the opportunity for the new beginning we heard so much about and break that connection. We are also now dealing with a new breed of builder who rides roughshod over the rights not only of their own workers – we are conscious of the high rate of deaths among workers in the building trade – but over the rights of residents in the area in which they operate and the residents who buy the houses from them. In one instance I know of in Kildare, the contractor, a new arrival from Dublin who is well known to the Minister's party, has insisted that the people buying his houses join a management company. They rip off about £70,000 per year from the residents for cutting the grass; that was part of their house contract. In that contract they were also obliged to sign an undertaking that they would not object to any future development. I would like to see that tested in the courts. These are people who take profits of approximately £50,000 per unit on the backs of young families. They can afford to build safely and without disruption and they can afford to complete their estates and still take a good profit.

Earlier in the debate colleagues mentioned that only a minority of builders were involved in this practice. My experience is that a majority of builders are involved in the problem of leaving estates unfinished. They ignore the rules and the law by dragging dirt onto the public roads from their sites when they should be prosecuted for doing so. They have no regard for trees, shrubs, hedges or adjoining property.

The planning section in my own council has been engaged in industrial action for the past six months because of the level of staffing. It is staffed at the same level as a county like Roscommon, where there is no major development. It has never caught up with the boom in development so all it can do is barely deal with the applications, so enforcement is non-existent. The builders have now realised that the level of bonds allowable by the planning appeals board is low and, arising from that, they leave work to be done to perhaps ten times the value.

In Kildare, there are 5,842 houses in 103 estates where the work has stopped, the houses are sold, the building is complete, the builders have made their profit but the houses are incomplete. Some of these housing estates are 25 years old and the builders are daily moving from one site to another and leaving the same type of mess behind. Another 2,738 houses in 54 estates are currently under construction and they can look forward to the same fate.

This is happening because it pays greedy developers not to finish estates. There is no sanction on them except the bond and the bond is regularly appealed to An Bord Pleanála which reduces it. It now pays builders to leave estates unfinished and move on to pastures new. One of the complications arising from that is that good builders cannot compete with these cowboys who are getting extra profits by not finishing estates.

We can put a stop to this widespread practice by accepting the Bill. The Bill is simple but it is effective.

Mr. Dempsey

Simplistic is a good word.

Mr. Stagg

The rubbish talked about the constitutional requirements was about the opinions being expressed, not about the Constitution. If there is a doubt about the constitutionality of the Bill, let the cowboy builders go to the High Court and the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality and we will see whether private property or the common good gets the upper hand. I congratulate Deputy Ryan for introducing the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

I join Deputy Stagg in commending the timely introduction of this Bill by Deputy Seán Ryan. I represent a new constituency. Until a few years ago, my constituency comprised a small number of fairly ancient villages. Now it has a burgeoning population of more than 100,000 people and it is pockmarked by unfinished estates from one end to the other. The Minister has been muttering under his breath since I came into the House and I do not want to weary him further—

Mr. S. Ryan

He is here only ten minutes.

Mr. Rabbitte

—but the fact is that the close affinity Deputy Stagg adverted to between Fianna Fáil, the builders' party, and some builders is the cause of this problem. The Minister should talk to his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Flood, about any of the estates in my constituency constructed by Brennan & McGowan. Twenty years later there are no footpaths or public lighting. If the market suffered a relapse houses were half-built, vandalised and left lying there. That is the pattern across my constituency. The county council tries to deal with the problem by creating an enormous backlog of estates to be taken in charge. The county manager contrives not to take them in charge because if he does, there is the imposition of additional cost to him that he cannot meet. The estates, therefore, are left in this half-finished condition.

The only reason this House has not passed a law to require and make builders amenable is because of the close relationship that has traditionally existed—

Mr. Dempsey

What did the Deputy's party do when it was in power? Labour was in power for 12 of the past 20 years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please allow Deputy Rabbitte to speak without interruption.

Mr. Rabbitte

We could not do everything at the one time.

Mr. Dempsey

Labour did not regard it as a high enough priority.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Minister, Deputy Rabbitte without interruption.

Mr. Rabbitte

We did a number of things.

Mr. Dempsey

Sanctimonious claptrap.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Minister knows well that what I am saying is true.

Mr. Dempsey

The Deputy will see when my Bill is brought forward in the middle of June.

Mr. Rabbitte

I will be the first to commend the Minister's Bill in the middle of June.

Mr. Dempsey

I doubt it.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am giving him a commitment now. What I want to know is the reason we did not see it before 11 June. That is the issue.

Mr. Dempsey

It is not 11 June yet.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Minister seems to think it is improper of Deputy Ryan to bring a Bill into this House because there are local elections pending. What else would he do? This is a local election issue. Tens of thousands of my constituents live in estates that have been pockmarked by builders who marched off, did a deal with the county manager to get planning permission for additional lands, constructed houses on them and did not go back to the original estates. We know in a dramatic fashion why that has been happening in certain parts of Dublin and, because the Minister is so irritable this evening, I will not dredge it all up again.

Mr. Dempsey

The Deputy can dredge away.

Mr. Rabbitte

I know the Minister and some of his colleagues of the newer generation, are wearied by the whole issue but that is the way it has been. I am happy to support Deputy Ryan's urgent and timely measure.

Ms McManus

We are entitled to ask questions as to why the Government has refused to accept the Bill. It is legitimate and it is certainly an issue the people will raise with us when we knock on their doors. Why has the Government refused to accept the Bill?

There have been complaints for a long time regarding unfinished estates. No councillors have been more vociferous than Fianna Fáil members for continually berating local authority officials for not dealing with the issue of estates which have not been taken in charge. Why is a Fianna Fáil Minister not doing something about this?

Having worked in the Department I have great confidence in the capability of officials to deal with deficiencies in the Bill. Why is the Bill not being accepted, particularly when the debate is taking place against a background of investigations into the most unsavoury links between Fianna Fáil and developers? If anything, this should galvanise a Fianna Fáil Minister, whose integrity I trust, to show by example that he will face down what is being done by developers.

The Minister said the consolidation planning Bill will be before the House soon. I have difficulty with terms such as "shortly", used by the Taoiseach, and "in the near future". It is clear that neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister can guarantee that they will be in Government in the near future, let alone that they can deliver a planning Bill, welcome as it would be.

This morning the Taoiseach was shamed into accepting a Labour Party Private Members' Bill from Deputy O'Sullivan with regard to statutes of limitations. It can be done – the Minister has a choice as to whether to deal with this issue seriously or whether to reject it and continue regardless.

This morning the Government was shamed because of recent revelations by excellent television programmes. However, there is a shamelessness concerning this Bill. The Minister is trying to browbeat and attack the Opposition for a failure on his part. Why is this Bill being rejected when elections are pending? Is it because Fianna Fáil candidates are expecting developers and builders to bankroll their campaigns? Reform on the never-never is very reassuring for developers who are making enormous profits out of housing.

It is not good enough for the Government to simply reject this Bill because it is deficient. Of course there are deficiencies. We are limited in what we can put forward but the Minister knows that the Bill is basically sound. It is a disgrace that he is adopting a cavalier approach when he has the option to take it on board at a time when voters are cynical about the power of the political system to deliver their needs.

Many people are still living in estates which have been unfinished for 18 or 20 years. It is not just that people are living in unfinished estates, they are also being denied basic infrastructural services such as gas because of difficulties with builders. An estate in Greystones is being denied gas because the builder has not given permission and the estate has not been taken in charge.

I have a litany of unfinished estates in County Wicklow, some of which have spectacularly awful histories. I will not go into that now but the rejection of the Bill will be noted by the public which is more aware of the nature of Fianna Fáil's connections with the building industry and rogue builders. People understand what is happening by the Government rejecting this Bill. We do not need to tell people what is happening, but when asked we will have to explain that the Labour Party put forward a Bill to deal with a long standing problem which has constantly been asked for by Fianna Fáil councillors who blame everyone but themselves.

Mr. Dempsey

The Bill is inadequate, unconstitutional and would let rogue builders carry on merrily.

Mr. U. Burke

I thank the Labour Party Deputies for sharing time with me and Deputy Mitchell. I congratulate Deputy Seán Ryan on this Bill. Every Member who has canvassed for the local elections in the past fortnight will have been lambasted in new and old estates about this problem. It was unfair of previous speakers to lambast local authorities for their failure to take over these estates. It is popular to say this because local authorities are the only people to whom people can turn their attention. However, it is an unfair accusation as local authorities should not have to bale out builders for their inadequacies and dishonesty.

Mr. Dempsey

They should enforce the planning regulations.

Mr. U. Burke

I agree and I will come to that point. Many builders set out to break every planning rule and regulation. Fifteen years ago in Loughrea a builder submitted a fine plan for an estate of 18 houses. He completed three quarters of the scheme. However, an opportunity had been lurking which he eventually took and he decided to move one or two houses, giving himself additional space. He reapplied for further planning permission on what was initially supposed to be an open space. Permission was refused so he pulled out and disappeared. This builder subsequently changed his name and continued on his merry way.

This practice has to be stopped. It has been highlighted by Deputy Ryan in the three elements he mentioned concerning builders' records. I welcome the Bill's proposal that builders who have not completed work according to the plan submitted should not receive further planning permission, under any name or disguise, unless they fulfil their obligations. I know of a man who tried to sell his house on the end site of the estate in Loughrea. He cannot do so because the house was not correctly sited. The building societies and lawyers will not allow him to sell the house. The man's heart is broken.

We must urgently tackle inconsistencies between local authorities with regard to certain categories of planning permission. In particular, we have to address the definition of high amenity – what is regarded as high amenity in one local authority area is not so in another. People living on one side of a county boundary, such as those on the banks of Lough Derg, look with envy on those who received planning permission in another county in an area which seems equal to their own in terms of high amenity. I am not being alarmist but it seems easier for non-nationals to obtain planning permission than for a resident or landowner who has a son, daughter or relative who wishes to settle in the area.

There may not be a reluctance on the part of the Minister, but the Government is reluctant to tackle this problem because of Fianna Fáil's traditional affinity with the building industry. Some builders will buy every patch of land possible when Fianna Fáil is in power because they know they can develop the land and go forward.

Mr. S. Ryan

They can get it rezoned.

Mr. U. Burke

If there is an alternative they will not build on the land but will wait until the time is favourable for them to proceed with their greed.

Ms O. Mitchell

I thank my Labour colleague for sharing his time. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill because is raises issues that anybody who has ever been a member of a local authority has to deal with on a regular basis.

The first issue it addresses is the notion of making future planning permissions conditional on past compliance which is intuitively a sensible one. I would not say that the Constitution is hogwash, but equally I would not say that just because something is unconstitutional it is not sensible.

Mr. S. Ryan

How many Bills has the Government put through that were found to be unconstitutional?

Mr. Dempsey

There were two from the Labour Party when it was last in government.

Ms O. Mitchell

The whole business of unfinished estates has caused grief to councillors and absolute misery to residents. I stress that a minority of builders and developers at fault. We all know who they are, and many councillors feel their hearts sink when they see some planning permissions going through because they know for sure that there will be trouble in the future. We have seen county councils over the years trying to follow up and ensure compliance and going through a tortuous legal process. Finally, if they have success in cashing in a bond, by the time it is cashed in it is wholly inadequate for the purpose.

Standards are rising. The problem of non-compliant builders is not as common as it was. That does not mean it will not present a real problem in the future, particularly in the context of the housing crisis and the rush to provide additional housing. The rush of builders to cash in on high prices at the moment may well result in a drop in standards in finishing off estates. The move to higher densities will, as the Minister has admitted, require higher and different standards of finish which will be critical to the success of implementing the strategic planning guidelines and the higher density planning guidelines. Developers may regard these as unimportant and there may be a real problem in enforcement.

Last night the Minister put his finger on the nub of the problem which is appropriate conditions which are properly enforced, and proper enforcement is the key aspect. It is critical to the success of solving the housing crisis. I want the Minister to listen very carefully to what I have to say. In Dublin the county councils do not have the staffing resources to enforce conditions, to follow them up or to take the tortuous legal road to getting bonds cashed in. There is a real bottleneck in economic progress occasioned by the inability of Dublin local authorities to keep or attract staff. Professional staff, engineers, planners, IT staff are all going to the higher-paid private sector or to local authorities outside Dublin where housing costs are much lower and there is much less work to do.

In my local authority we have the same number of staff in the planning department as we had four years ago, and the number of planning applications has gone up by 60 per cent. It is not just the number of planning applications. They are bigger, more complex, more time-consuming and more technical. That is before getting to the stage of enforcement. We had a complement of 70 engineers three years ago. Now we have 40 engineers, and there has been a huge explosion in the amount of work. There is one thing the Minister can do to solve this problem quickly and that is to change the system in the Local Appointments Commission whereby people who are offered a job have six months to decide whether or not to take it and on the last day may decide not to take the job which is then offered to the next person on the panel who has another six months to decide. One cannot run a business like that. Real money is being lost. Jobs are being lost in the private sector. Jobs are being done badly in the public sector or the wrong jobs are being done. We are not optimising value for money at the moment.

The final issue is that of contributions. If the Minister is not accepting this Bill I ask him to look at this in the context of his own Bill. Contributions for roads, water and sewerage are appropriate in certain circumstances. However, in some circumstances they are not, particularly in the context of the new guidelines whereby we are to consolidate the metropolitan area. We may not need capital investment, but we do need public transport and community facilities. Let the local authority request contributions as appropriate without necessarily raising the cost of houses.

Mr. Dempsey

On a point of information, 12 months ago I asked each of the local authorities to have a look at their staffing and planning offices and to make submissions to the Department for the extra staff they needed. I appreciate the problem the Deputy mentioned. There is a fairly open policy in relation to getting staff. I will have a look at the six months leeway as well.

Mr. Gilmore

I join in congratulating Deputy Seán Ryan on bringing this very important Bill before the House. It seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to deal effectively with builders who leave housing estates unfinished, and allow local authorities to take into account the track record of a builder or developer before future planning permission is granted. Second, it seeks to provide some protection for the home-buyer against the failure of builders to complete housing estates, a matter that is particularly important now, given the hugely escalated prices home-buyers have to pay for their homes. Third, it seeks to amend the planning law to widen the circumstances in which a local authority may require a developer to contribute to community facilities. This is a Bill which would be welcomed by home-buyers all over this country, by people who are living in housing estates that have not been properly finished, by residents' associations, and by the many people who have had to deal with this problem.

The Government's response to this Bill is pathetic. The response that the Minister of State gave yesterday and that the Minister gave again today is dripping with condemnation for builders who do not complete housing estates and full of sympathy for the people who have to live in them, but there is no sign of any effective action on the part of the Government to deal with the problem. We are told that this Bill cannot be accepted because there is a new planning and development Bill on the way. Incidentally, it is a Bill for which we have been waiting two years now and the Government still cannot meet the deadline of 11 June when that Bill would be tested by public opinion in the local elections. We are still promised it by mid-year. We are told that it will be a comprehensive Bill. Yesterday the Minister of State said "In that Bill we will bring forward the Government's proposals for dealing with the problems arising from unfinished housing estates". He did not, however, tell us, even in general terms, what measures the Bill would contain to deal with the problem. We are left to wonder what it is the Government has in mind for dealing with the problem of unfinished housing estates.

The truth of the Government's position is revealed in the way in which the Minister responded to the individual provisions in Deputy Ryan's Bill. For example, the Minister of State told us that section 3 could not be accepted. This is the provision which simply requires that in making a planning application the applicant would have to submit information relating to his previous track record in completing housing estates. He said that this needs to be carefully considered. If the Government is preparing a planning and development Bill which we are told is comprehensive and is about to be published in mid-year, has this not already been considered? If it has not, can we expect anything in the Bill to deal with this problem. On section 4, which provides that the local authority can take into account the track record of the planning applicant in granting planning permission, the Minister again tells us that there will be some measures in his Bill to deal with this but does not explain what exactly they will be. He dismisses section 5 on the grounds that there are complex legal and constitutional issues which will require further consideration.

If, as we are told, the Government has prepared a Planning and Development Bill, which the Minister says will address the issue of unfinished housing estates, has it not already considered the constitutional and legal issues?

Mr. Dempsey

In that Bill, yes.

Mr. Gilmore

If he is not prepared to accept what Deputy Ryan is proposing because he is afraid of legal or constitutional issues, it is quite clear he will not provide for it in the Planning and Development Bill which he will not publish until after the local elections. The Constitution is being repeatedly used by the Government to protect the builder friends of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Dempsey

The right to private property.

Mr. Gilmore

The right to private property is clearly qualified in the Constitution. There are two references to the right to private property in the Constitution. The first is that the right to private property, as expressed therein, does not prevent the Legislature from enacting legislation in the interests of social justice. Second, it explicitly states that the right to private property can be delimited in the interests of the common good. Is the Minister seriously saying that the right to private property or the right to ownership of a building site by a builder, who has already taken the money from some young house buyer but has not completed the estate, supersedes the common good? Which private property is the Minister defending? Is he defending private property that is owned by a builder who has not finished an estate or is he prepared to defend private property for which working couples spend their savings and borrow up to the hilt?

Mr. Dempsey

It is the poor innocent brother or sister of the builder.

Mr. Gilmore

Do the young couple who spend a lot of money on buying a house not have a constitutional right to have the private property they have just purchased protected?

Mr. Dempsey

They have a legal right as well, but the Deputy's Bill does nothing about that.

Mr. Gilmore

They should be protected against the avarice of the property developer, whose interests the Minister is protecting by his refusal to deal with this issue.

Mr. Dempsey

The Deputy's Bill does not address that.

Mr. Gilmore

I am not optimistic that the Government will deal with this issue in the Planning and Development Bill. It is clear from the Minister's replies to the details of the Bill proposed by Deputy Ryan that there is no intention to deal with such core issues. The question of the Constitution has been raised and the Minister also referred to legal issues. The question of submitting information about the track record of builders has clearly not been considered by the Government.

Mr. Dempsey

On a point of information, those matters and Deputy Ryan's Bill have been considered very carefully.

Mr. S. Ryan

And dismissed.

Mr. Gilmore

Will the Minister include it in his Bill?

Mr. Dempsey

We will produce our Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister is not taking it on board. He has dismissed it.

Mr. Dempsey

I cannot do so because it is unconstitutional.

Mr. S. Ryan

The Minister could if he wanted to.

An Ceann Comhairle

These kind of interruptions are not in order.

Mr. Dempsey

I will not take on a Bill that is unconstitutional just because it is the Labour Party's. I will bring in a Bill that is constitutional and that will deal with these matters. It will not be just a sham for local elections.

Mr. Gilmore

All these matters were dismissed yesterday by the Minister's colleague. It is quite clear that people who are buying houses are being told that the Government will see them right in the Planning and Development Bill after the local elections. The Government is saying: "Just wait and see, trust us".

Mrs. Owen

A nod and a wink.

Mr. Gilmore

Unfortunately, those people have been trusting the Government for far too long.

Mrs. Owen

The Minister should put this Bill before a committee to have it discussed there.

Mr. Dempsey

I have more respect for the committees of this House than to put rubbish before them. The Deputy's Bill is rubbish.

Mr. S. Ryan

I wish to thank everyone who contributed to the debate over the past two evenings, especially Members who spoke in support of this very important legislation. I am particularly pleased that the author of the pending planning legislation that we have heard so much about, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, has attended the debate for the past 45 minutes.

Yesterday, the Minister of State said the Government is in favour of the Bill, in principle. However, he went on to say that it is a complex issue which needs to be addressed by experts. Furthermore, he stated that the Bill does not address the problems in older estates throughout the country. This is a cop-out and is a typical ploy used by a discredited Government to justify avoiding the issues and addressing the problems that exist throughout the country.

The mechanism is available: accept the principle of the Bill, bring it to Committee Stage and make the necessary amendments, or incorporate it into the Minister's Planning and Development Bill, but let us deal with it. This would be the proper course of action and would be seen by the public, particularly at a time when politics is not held in high esteem, as politics at work, dealing with a festering problem on behalf of the people. The Minister has the opportunity of dealing with this matter.

The contributions to this debate from the Government benches were nothing more than crocodile tears. Perhaps I was expecting too much in hoping for a more imaginative and proactive approach from the Government on this occasion. Obviously, nothing has changed. The script read by the Minister of State yesterday had not changed one iota from that delivered by the Minister in the Seanad in November 1997. It was nearly the same, word for word.

Since the Bill was first published, I have received letters and telephone calls from different parts of the country wishing me well and supporting the Bill. Today, for example, I received a call from a resident in the Cartron Bay estate in Sligo. Those residents have had an ongoing problem with Cartron Bay Construction for the past 14 years. This is just one example. The builders in question have constructed five other estates but finished none of them.

Throughout the years, Fianna Fáil was known as the party that looked after builders at local level. That view has been reinforced by statements emanating from the Flood Tribunal concerning contributions by big business, builders and developers. Those contributions will continue to be made to Fianna Fáil councillors during the local election campaign for services rendered. Is it any wonder the Minister has refused to put a cap on expenditure for candidates in the local elections? Irrespective of what the Minister and his backbenchers are saying, it is pay back time once again for builders and developers.

Government Deputies, and especially the Independent Deputies who never bother to turn up here–

Mr. Gilmore

Except to vote.

Mr. S. Ryan

—should know that if they vote down this Bill, which they say they are in favour of, they will be on the side of the rogue cowboy builders and against thousands of householders, the majority of whom are mortgaged to the hilt buying their own homes. The same people are being abused and blackguarded day in and day out by cowboy developers.

My original Bill was published in 1997. The current one has been amended to take into account the benefit of community planning on a proactive basis. It has not been done under the counter as a carrot to provide rezonings, but on the basis of proper legislation to ensure that playing pitches and community buildings are provided for at the planning stage. At the time Mr. Michael O'Connor, a barrister, wrote in The Bar Review that despite the difficulties it is submitted that there is a good deal of merit in the proposed reforms, particularly in the present economic climate which has seen such high growth. He went on to say that the reforms proposed in the Bill may be a useful preventative measure to ensure that abandoned and incomplete developments are kept to a minimum. I rest my case and ask the Minister to take the brave decision at this late stage to accept this Bill in principle. Let us go forward together on behalf of the people.

Question put.

Tá

Ahearn, Theresa.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Finucane, Michael.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Pádraic.

McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.

Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Jacob, Joe.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom. Lawlor, Liam.

Níl–continued

Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Donnell, Liz.

O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Barrett; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Callely.

Question declared lost.