I call on the Minister to move amendment No. 178.
Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage (Resumed).
Are we grouping the amendments?
No, amendment No. 178 is on its own.
Are we debating amendments Nos. 178 to 208?
Yes, we are debating amendments Nos. 178 to 208 and there is a time limit of 10.15 p.m.
May we refer to any one of those amendments?
Yes. It is the choice of Deputies if they want to take them individually or discuss them together. Each one must then be proposed.
I think, Sir, this particular cocktail tastes better if it is all mixed up.
Amendments Nos. 178 to 208 are open to discussion with individual decisions on each amendment. I call on the Minister to move amendment No. 178:
I move amendment No. 178:
In page 104, line 2, to delete "section 95(7) or (8)” and substitute “section 95(8) or (9)”.
The group of amendments we are addressing covers Part V, which deals with social and affordable housing and the desire of the Government – I think it is a desire shared across the House. While we might differ on the methods or approaches we would adopt, we are all agreed on the necessity to try to facilitate, as much as possible, the provision of social and affordable housing.
In terms of the thrust and central part of this Bill, one of the core items is Part V which deals with social and affordable housing. We had a long discussion on this matter on Committee Stage and a long and lively discussion on it on the other Stages in this and the other House. Basically, the approach the Government decided to pursue, while mindful of constitutional and other difficulties which might arise, was to put in place a system where the local authority would draw up a housing strategy which would attempt to outline all the housing needs of the local authority area. Having done that, while mindful of the zoned land in the area, it would then make a decision as to the amount of land which should be made available for social and affordable housing and that it would be provided on the basis of the same percentage of existing land use value.
As Members will know, there has been much discussion on the section and on whether the section, as it stands, is constitutional. I note that most parties seem to have come around to the point of view that it is constitutional because some of the parties opposite are suggesting other remedies which are, to say the least, dubious constitutionally. We have, in this section, come up with a system for securing land at existing use value which is constitutional because it is fair and proportional to the needs and the common good.
A number of issues arose in respect of which we have tabled amendments and I will briefly refer to some of them. Amendment No. 184 to section 93 expands on section 93(3)(a) to provide that the housing strategy will have to take into account the existing need and future need for affordable housing as well as the existing and future need for social housing. While the other provision in the section might cover this, it was felt important to state it expressly. Deputy Gilmore, in particular, raised this on Committee Stage. He felt it might have to be clarified and, on reflection, we tabled this amendment to indicate clearly that it is social and affordable housing.
This is the most important section of the Bill, certainly from a housing point of view. Some Deputies have criticised the fact that we approached this in this way. Deputy Gilmore mentioned on more than one occasion that it will be three years before any of this affordable housing comes on the market because of the way we are doing this. I reiterate that we have already produced draft guidelines in relation to the housing strategy for each of the local authority areas. A number of local authorities – certainly most of the larger ones – are already doing draft housing strategies to fit in with this. I expect that within three to six months of the passing of this Bill and within the period of its commencement quite a few local authorities will have housing strategies in place and will be able to use the provisions contained in this Part to ensure land is obtained by the local authority at a reasonable level or price and that they will be able to reflect that in their housing prices.
As I said, we discussed this Part in great detail before and I do not intend to go into it in any further detail other than to state those general principles. When I get the opportunity to reply, I may be able to refer to a number of the specifics the Deputies may want to raise.
I do not like this Part of the Bill. It does not commend itself to me as, in any sense, a well thought out or well founded appraoch to the problems we have in the housing market today. It is worthwhile looking at some of the things giving rise to hype in the housing market today. I heard, for example, only a small part of a discussion on a radio programme the other evening on which various experts and pundits were arguing with each other about the situation in the housing market. One of them said – it is commonly said in this House today – that young people cannot afford to buy houses, which is true. We all know young people who cannot afford to buy a house these days, and even not so young people. I would hate to be out in the market looking to buy a house these days, and I say that in the knowledge that I am already in the race, so to speak, in that I own a house. Another one of the experts commented – he was quite right – that there are thousands of people buying houses and that they are not all speculators.
We have had quite a dose over the last year or so of comments about speculators in the housing market. Anybody who buys more than one house these days or who buys a house that he or she does not intend to live in is called a speculator. Many people, however, have a different view of them because they are landlords and are people from whom they are going to rent a house. All of a sudden, just because there is much tension in the housing market – this happens at times of tension in the housing market and of economic slump – those who own property and rent it out to others become people to be shunned, criticised and branded as speculators, and that is a bad thing to be unless one is betting on a horse, which is also speculation. People are branded as speculators or landlords and all these words suddenly have a sharper and more pejorative meaning.
In a normal market they are people who make property available for those who, for one of a variety of reasons, do not want to buy a house but want somewhere to live. I have been in that situation. I spent eight years as a tenant in two different houses, although not in this country, with two different rental agreements which protected my interest and that of the landlord perfectly well. I suppose those two landlords could have been called speculators. They would have been criticised if at the time I was renting there was the same tension in the Belgian market that we have witnessed in our market. If a few years later the bubble burst and there were many people on low incomes who could not afford to buy a house they would be glad to have such landlords to let property at reasonable rents.
At times like this we become almost like political caricaturists. We pick a feature of the market, exaggerate its importance and say that is to blame for this problem when it is only one of many factors. This Bill is designed to deal with almost everything except the real problem which is that we have high demand for housing because we have a rising population with relatively good incomes. In recent budgets, for reasons of which we are all aware, we encouraged people to get increases in real incomes. We have always had a culture that places a premium on private ownership and we have made it possible for people to get more into debt – I do not say afford more. We have a culture that says there is nothing wrong with being in debt. Financial institutions encourage people to get more and more into debt. One of them has weird, and supposedly humorous, advertisements stating it will give a loan and it does not matter what it is for, you can decide for yourself. That together with a great many other matters affects the housing market.
What is the normal reaction of a market to a boom in demand? It is expansion of supply. No matter how you do it or what political culture or ideology you espouse, it takes a considerable time to expand the supply of land that is available for housing. It does not matter if you are a Trotskyite, left-wing pinko, right-wing blueshirt or the greenest Green, it is still difficult to expand the supply of land for housing and it takes time to build houses and apartments. There is a series of measures that need to be taken but it all comes back to supply.
A suggestion that is becoming more fashionable and is part of our psychosis is that there is much land that is rezoned. Before land is rezoned it is politically acceptable across the spectrum but when it is about to the rezoned it becomes contentious. Recently we have found that people who rezone land must be evil, perverted and corrupted. There is a party in this House that held at one time that anyone who rezoned land must have an evil speculative motive and must be on the take. Yet they have supporters and are happy to have voters living in houses built on rezoned land. I remember canvassing in a town outside my constituency. A very pleasant young man opened the door to me and was going to support my party colleague. Just as I was leaving he said he was very worried about the zoning of land in the town. I asked him what the problem was and he said they were going to rezone the land behind where he was living and he did not like that because he had bought a house on the edge of the countryside. Being in the middle of an election campaign I decided to temper reality with a little political nous and I did not say what I thought of saying. What I should logically have said was if five years ago the people who lived a hundred yards away took the same view as he did he would not be living there now. Everyone wants to live on the edge of the countryside and see green fields at the back of their house on the edge of a town. Everyone objects to someone else coming into that position. That it will happen is inevitable. Any area in which I have lived or know of has had more housing built.
Our planning system requires us to go through a process of development plans, designating land and applying for planning permission. We have suddenly discovered a new breed of animal who is to be shunned, hanged, drawn and quartered. They are people who "hoard" land. It is populist to say that part of the housing market problem is that people are hoarding land. There is land that is rezoned and serviced but people are sitting on it waiting to make huge profits. I have heard it all and if I wanted to I could make a speech that would be replicated in this House in which there would be umpteen references to the small man and the ordinary PAYE taxpayer and so on. It would be great gas but it would not add anything to the sum total of human wisdom and, more importantly, it would not add anything to our housing supply. When you rezone land and get permission to build on it you must get the resources together to construct even when it is serviced. We should devote our resources to sorting out that part of the problem.
The Minister has amended the section that deals with special development zones to make them suitable for housing and I am delighted to see that. I hope I am right about it. He said he would do this on Committee Stage. That will be a far more important instrument in expanding housing supply than anything in Part V. The Minister will take it as a sincere and not at all gratuitous compliment when I say I am delighted he took up the suggestion I made on Second Stage.
I do not have anything against housing strategies as proposed in the Bill but we will need a better context for them than a series of county development plans. I am still waiting, agog, but more in hope than expectation, to see a Government statement on spatial strategy. I received a document on it the other day. It is the latest stage in the long and tortuous consultation that is taking place on this. I would like to see the spatial strategy, the special development zone measures and the local authorities' housing strategies put in place. We would then have the framework on which to build an active housing policy.
People say local authorities should be able to do this, that and the other, for example, acquire land compulsorily. They can do that already. They can acquire land and make it available to people who want to build their own houses by direct labour. They can acquire land and make it available at less than the normal market price to people who can build houses or have them built. They are doing it in voluntary housing schemes. It is not that this is not possible. The problem is we do not have sufficient direction in either Government or individual housing authority policies to put them together in an energetic way that would meet the problem. There is land available for building. Money is available to service land. Local authorities can be funded to enable them build houses and make land available for low cost affordable housing but we are not doing that. An important part of the Minister's efforts involves trying to get local authorities to accept the need for higher housing densities. In towns all over the country local authorities are waiting to buy substantial tracts of land to build eight or ten houses to the acre when they should be building at much higher densities near the towns using well designed apartment blocks. This would help take some of the steam out of the housing market but it is not being done. So long as we continue to go off on tangents, as is the case with much of this Bill, we will miss some of the measures which could make an important short-term contribution to deal with the housing problem.
I have tabled a series of amendments which deal with different aspects of the problem. I do not like the method proposed by the Minister but I am a realist and know that something like that will be legislated for. I am trying to remove the worst parts of that approach. It will be contentious to levy land on developers but it will be even more contentious to levy land on them and pay them for that land at a notional price which the Minister calls "present use value". However, it is nothing like the present use value for zoned land.
Amendment No. 190 and related amendments propose that, if we are to levy land on developers, we should do so at the zoning stage and not at the planning application stage. That would be far less contentious and would have the same effect in the future as the measure proposed by the Minister. In addition, it will not leave the system open to so many potential challenges. I do not know whether the constitutionality of the provision will be challenged. I would not encourage anyone to do so but some may mount a challenge. Even if the constitutionality of this contentious proposal is not challenged there is much scope in the argument and arbitration about prices to make it a slower rather than a faster mechanism for getting land into use for housing.
Amendment No. 193 seeks to rewrite the central section of this Part of the Bill. The amendment seeks to remove those parts of the Minister's proposal which are tangential and excessively intrusive and which will cause the greatest arguments about the price and value of land and so on. Amendments Nos. 196 to 198, inclusive, set out to encourage the provision of mixed housing, which the Minister is trying to bring about. The amendments seek to get away from the ghettoisation and separatism we see in so much housing development and which will continue as they are what most people in the private housing market want. I say so as a matter of fact and not because I approve of them. Such an approach would lead to much healthier developments such as can be seen in many European cities where there is a mix of developments that work together quite happily. However, every major European city has the kind of social segregation in housing that can be seen in Ireland. Such a situation is universally bad and we should do as much as we can to get away from it.
There seems to be some doubt so I am also proposing that we make it a specific provision in law that local authorities can require someone who makes an application to build dwellings to include a mixture of dwelling types aimed at different segments of the market. A Dublin planning authority tried to impose such a condition but it was appealed. An Bord Pleanála refused to make it a condition because it did not know what it meant. I am setting out to provide in law that such a condition can be legitimately required in a way which is understandable and usable by housing and planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála as a means of judging whether a development is in keeping with the proper planning and development of an area.
Deputy Hayes has proposed a measure to provide for a certificate of reasonable value. I will not go into that issue as the Deputy will deal with it himself. I have tried to round the edges of the more controversial and unworkable parts of the Minister's proposals. I would like to see us return to the reality of what can and should be done in the housing market. I will not use the dreadful phrase, "There is no quick fix". In one of yesterday's newspapers a prominent media person wrote that no decent speech should ever use the phrase. That is from the Carr school of communications so I will follow the advice and not use the phrase "quick fix". However, there is no slow fix either but a series of measures which respond to what the market is producing. It will not be achieved by hysteria or artificial measures such as those proposed by the Minister.
If these measures are in operation in four or five years, we will conclude that the market sorted itself out far better than the measures we put in place. That is far from a recipe for doing nothing, but is a recipe for doing the things we know can have an effect on the market.
The Minister's proposal, for example, will not increase the amount of land available but may reduce the amount of land as people will be in less of a hurry to get land zoned for housing. The Bill rightly provides for a system under which the zoning of land lasts only as long as a development plan. If land has not been developed by the end of that plan we start again with a new assessment of what the land should be used for. That is right and in keeping with the needs of a development. By the time we come to the end of the next development plans which will last for six years, we will look back and conclude that all the fire and thunder in 1999 and 2000 about the Minister's proposal to levy land on people was just eye wash.
People should look at what is happening in reality. Without the Minister's measure a number of developers are already offering to sell land to local authorities at very advantageous prices compared to the rest of the market. They are doing so to ensure they get permission for particular kinds of developments. They know that local authorities need land for social and affordable housing. They are not prepared to make a gift, as that is not the business in which they operate, but they are prepared to make land available to local authorities at very reasonable prices. These developers are anticipating and are intelligently taking control of an idea which is out of control in the Minister's mind and has turned into the land levy principle included in the Bill. In five or six years we will find this will have been a far more constructive response than that proposed in this Part of the Bill.
I support the general purpose of Part V of the Bill which seeks to make 20% of residential development land available for social and affordable housing. The Labour Party was the first party to call for the introduction of such a measure. I am pleased the Government has responded to it. My criticism of the measure before us is that in the Bill, as presented, the 20% land provision will not become available for a long time. Therefore, its impact on housing will be delayed for at least three or four years. I spoke at considerable length about that on Committee Stage and outlined the various stages that must be gone through, which I do not think are necessary. Effectively, that means it will be three years at least before there is house construction activity on land provided for under this mechanism. That is why I tabled amendment No. 180. It would make the 20% provision a condition of planning applications made from a current date rather than making it a condition attached to the making of a housing strategy and the inclusion of such housing strategy in a development plan and that only then a planning application could be made on it.
If the 20% provision is to have an effect on the housing crisis, it needs to be introduced immediately. The Minister argued on Committee Stage that to take that approach would pose a constitutional risk. He argued it would be necessary to put in place the housing strategy first to have a basis for the 20% land being made available. I suggested then and repeat now that there are a number of ways by which that can be dealt with. It can be dealt with by having a national housing strategy. Less than an hour ago the Government asked us to welcome its national housing strategy, whatever it is or wherever it will be implemented. If there is a national housing strategy, it ought to be capable of overcoming that difficulty.
There cannot be any great difficulty in justifying in the interests of the common good and of social justice the making available of 20% of land, which under the Bill as drafted is the maximum amount of land that can be made available for social and affordable housing – given the number of people who are unable to provide housing from their resources. When my party first made these proposals two years ago, the 20% provision at that time was probably a reasonable enough stab at what would be required under a measure of this kind to make land available for social and affordable housing, but given the way house prices have continued to increase and the additional number of people who have been frozen out of the house purchase market, the 20% provision is not sufficient. That is why I tabled a further amendment, which proposes to lift that 20% cap on the amount of land that can be made available under this formula.
The Bill, as drafted, states that the maximum amount of land that can be zoned for social housing under a development plan is 20%. I suggested that should be a minimum rather than a maximum figure, given the level of our housing need.
I also suggested that we need to amend the definition of persons who will be eligible for affordable housing. The provision included in the Bill is that it would be people whose housing payments would exceed 35% of their net annual income. A problem with the existing range of housing measures, social housing schemes and public housing schemes are the various income limits that apply. They create housing traps for people who are trying to access them. A net annual income limit of £12,000 applies to the voluntary housing sector and another eligibility limit applies to people seeking to get on to the council housing waiting lists. There is another formula for the shared ownership scheme. We will have a formula for the affordable housing scheme, and they are all different. What is happening in practice is that because those formulae are related to income, as a person's income or circumstances change, he or she can be eligible or ineligible for such schemes.
I am aware of a number of people who have been waiting ten years for local authority housing. They applied for houses in 1990 and in 1994 or whenever their incomes exceeded the limit and they were taken off the waiting list and remained off it for two or three years and when the income limit changed they got back on to the waiting list and may have to come off it at a future date.
I know of a young working mother who attempted to access the shared ownership scheme but was ineligible to participate in it because under formula that was then used she was £1,000 or thereabouts over the income limit that applied to the scheme. She could have afforded to buy a house at that time under that scheme. The formula changed and she was eligible to participate in the scheme, but by the time it changed the prices of houses had increased and she could not access it.
It would be preferable if income limits were not applied to such measures. If people are in a position to buy a private house, they will do so or if they want to rent privately, they will do so. If they want to apply to participate in the shared ownership scheme or the affordable housing scheme, they will do so. The income side can be dealt with by adjusting the repayments to meet it. I tabled an amendment to deal with that aspect.
A matter that needs to be taken into account in this area is the 20% formula. One of my criticisms of it is it is a stand-alone measure. It needs to be accompanied by mechanisms to control the price of houses. The Irish Home Builders Associ ation has threatened that if this measure is put through, it will increase the price of houses on the remaining 80% of the development land by as much as 25%. If that happens, the only way to deal with it is to attach a control mechanism to this measure.
I am aware that what I am saying does not find favour with Deputy Dukes. Although we have tended to find common cause throughout the rest of the Bill, we part company in our approach to this issue. I listened carefully to his contribution regarding the housing market on which I must make a number of points. It is not a question of those of us who are critics of the operation of the housing market at present finding caricatures or scapegoats or seeing the big bad wolf in the form of speculators, the reality is that there is speculation in building land, which is taking a number of forms. There are those who are buying agricultural land for which they pay £20,000, £30,000 or more per acre around cities and towns where they perceive development potential. That is speculation. It is driving up the price of land and is fueling a demand for that land to be rezoned not on the basis of what might be good planning but that the person who bought the land wants a return on it. That is not good for the housing market or for the way in which one plans for development.
Housing authorities buy land to save expense.
No. The essential point is that—
The market does not care.
—if the market comes to understand that development land and housing development land is in the main in the control or under the charge of a public authority, the element of speculation disappears. If land can be accessed by a builder at a reasonable price from a local authority the builder will not have to try to get it at a much higher price from a private developer. It is not that people are hoarding land in a sly way. What is happening is normal in the marketplace. There are hoarders of land, this is particularly the case in Dublin, who are holding on to their best sites in the anticipation, in the event of a downturn in the housing market, that those sites will always be capable of development. That is hoarding. There are owners of land who—
There are politicians who hold on to their best ideas until the election comes.
Yes, but that does not justify it. It may be the normal behaviour that one can expect. Where that is happening and if it miti gates against the common good there is an obligation on the Government to intervene in the interests of the common good. The Deputy mentioned that people buy second and third houses. People who have money to spare look at the ways in which to invest it and some invest it in second, third, fourth and whatever number of houses they can afford. They see it as a good investment, and there is a good return on that investment now, and they perceive a degree of capital appreciation on it. Some invest in properties in Spain, Portugal, Florida and so on, and good luck to them. The problem is—
There was a time when we were smothered in tax breaks.
Indeed, and the reason that was done was not in the interests of tenants, house buyers or whatever but to stimulate activity in the building industry, but no stimulants are required now. The problem is it is not a choice. One cannot say people are choosing to rent or to buy. That is an over-simplification of it. It reminds me a little of an esteemed former colleague, who has departed and for whom we all had a great deal of affection, who used to argue that people in the mid-1980s chose to emigrate when it was patently clear they emigrated because they could not find work here. Most persons who rent residential property do so because they cannot afford to buy it. In many cases the rents they pay for residential property are in excess of what they would pay in mortgage repayments for the purchase of the same property. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. Of the 46,000 houses built last year, which was a record housing output, a huge number were bought by people investing in them and letting them. The effect of that activity was that it was bidding up the price of the house on the potential buyer and then forcing the potential buyer to rent the property from the successful bidder, often at rents that are higher than the property could be bought for in the first place. That is wrong.
Deputy Dukes used the word "ideology" a number of times, this idea of the loyalty of Irish people to the concept of private ownership and private property. One of the things which has made Irish people loyal to the idea of private property is the ability to buy their own home. That is the fundamental item of private property that most people in the State own. What is happening at the moment is that the ability to buy one's own home is being denied to large numbers of people. In the long-term this may have an interesting impact on the loyalty to the concept of private property.
I live to see it. The Irish are now the champions of private property.
The right to buy their own homes has been a view that has been adhered to by people across the political spectrum. The only difference is that the operation of the housing market is denying people the right and the ability to buy their own home. Measures will have to be taken to correct that and to enable people to buy their own home. That is called intervention in the market. I know it is an idea that is alien to some colleagues—
No.
—but it has to be done. On the issue of land, it is clear that if one looks at social housing programmes there is a critical shortage of land in a number of local authorities which is preventing them from fulfilling their public housing programmes. The second problem is the site cost. The cost of building land is one of the major contributors to the rise in house prices. The Department's housing statistics show that the cost of building materials and labour has increased during the past five years in line with inflation or with average earnings. What has shot way off beam is the price of houses. The biggest element in that gap is the increasing cost and price of building land. This is one measure which will help that. My regret is that the way in which it is being done by the Minister is long-fingered and it needs to be accelerated.
I am conscious that Deputy Higgins wishes to get in – I know he supports everything I have said. The point is that two sets of amendments are being considered here. Deputy Dukes's amendments are designed, as I see it, to pull away from the 20% formula while my amendments are designed to accelerate the operation of the 20% formula and to add to it.
Mine do not depart from the 20% formula. They are just a more efficient and less contentious application of it. They require that land be rezoned which is something the left—
Deputy Gilmore without interruption.
Let me correct that point.
They like the result but not the action.
Deputy Gilmore in possession.
Deputy Dukes has tilted rezoning at us a couple of times. There is nothing wrong with rezoning land – land must be rezoned and zoned for development.
Write that down, it is a good one.
I have said that a number of times. If the Deputy cares to examine the record of my party on land zoning more closely—
I have.
—he will find we do not have any dogmatic opposition to the rezoning of land, as he appears to be suggesting.
In practice, no—
Deputy Gilmore without interruption.
What we are opposed to is the inappropriate zoning of land or the zoning of land driven not by the interests of good planning or the public good but exclusively by the interests of the landowner. That is entirely different. As Deputy Dukes said earlier, there may be people living happily in houses on land zoned some years ago. Whether the areas and communities in which they live have been properly planned is another day's work. The approach of my party to the reviews of development plans and the zoning of land would have provided for much better planning of those communities than—
Leixlip, Maynooth and Kilcock would be a great deal smaller today if the Deputy's party had been in power.
They might be a great deal better planned. Leixlip and Kilcock are hardly examples of good planning.
(Dublin West): If it comes down to it and it is all we are left with at the end of the night, I will support the 20% requirement of land to be devoted to social and affordable housing as the Government is proposing. However, it is a pathetically inadequate measure to deal with the extent of the housing crisis. It is lame of the Government to propose this measure when for the three years of its tenure it has allowed a crisis to develop apace to such an extent that ordinary people are suffering the most appalling hardship the length and breadth of this country, particularly in the main urban areas.
The amendments in the name of Deputy Gilmore are closest to my thinking. However, I am constantly fascinated by the one word thrown out against me in every assembly, whether it is in the county council or this House, by spokespeople for the Government and the Fine Gael Party who say the "market" is the cause of the housing crisis, as if it was some kind of a disembodied deity removed from and outside the terrestrial zone we occupy and over which we have no control. In the interest of clarification regarding these amendments, we need to understand what the market is. The market is simply this – ordinary people need homes. It is one of the basic needs and we have landowners, developers and house builders who can provide those homes. The meeting of those two categories of people constitutes the market.
Unfortunately, according to the laws of this land, supported by successive Governments, the latter group is given the upper hand in regard to whose interests come first. Therefore, we have the greedy minority who see a need in society and take the opportunity to profiteer outrageously. We have a Government which continually stands aside and allows them to do this which has created this major crisis. Land speculators, a tiny cabal, are allowed carte blanche and put at risk the lives and quality of life of tens and hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. Those moving into the new housing market to purchase houses to let them out as landlords form another category of speculator whose tenure has not been challenged. They have also been allowed a free rein by the Government. As a result we have rackrenting landlords whose activities would rival those of their landed counterparts in the 19th century, whom Michael Davitt took on in such exemplary fashion.
The problem is that we have a small cabal who hold the people to ransom. The Government, backed by Fine Gael, instead of being prepared to take these people on, bow down and pay homage to the god of the market, based on their conservative, capitalist dogma. That is the reality. Much of the basis of the housing policy of the Minister, the Government and Fianna Fáil is taken from conservative thinking. If one looks at the signatories of 1916, the thinking of the Government is dominated by the conservative element. Take the principles of James Connolly for a change, who would excoriate the profiteers and this Government for standing aside and allowing this cabal to create this crisis for working-class and young people.
We need to remove building land from the hands of the speculators. Unfortunately, this Bill and the Minister's provision does not do this to any significant degree. The speculators should be screwed to the wall. There should be at least an 80% windfall tax on the massive profits they are making. Instead of the 20% proposed by the Minister, there should be a land bank around every city, town and provincial centre, to be regulated by local authorities at agricultural prices and then let out as needed for development, whether it is housing or commercial. Every time this proposal is raised in the Dáil, the Taoiseach, presumably supported by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, quotes the Constitution. Judge Kenny, a High Court judge, did not think in the early 1970s that the Constitution was a problem in countering speculation. If his recommendations had been taken on board the situation would have been resolved long ago. Even if there is a constitutional problem, let us challenge the Government – go to the people. They will overwhelmingly support measures that will provide land at affordable prices so people can have homes at affordable prices.
Deputy Dukes referred to zoning and was having a go at the Labour Party and the Socialist Party because we opposed many speculative rezonings in Dublin County Council. How right we were to do that has been borne out by recent events. However, when one is in a county council and one is presented with zoning proposals, one cannot divorce one's mind from the fact that by raising one's hand in favour of residential zoning, one is playing into the hands of those who speculate outrageously. It will drive the price of that land up 50% or even 100%. That is what is wrong with zoning, it is not that land should not be set aside for various uses or that proper planning should not take place. We fought to protect the greenbelt because it is critical to have greenbelts between built up areas. However, we want to take the speculation out of zoning.
It is very unfortunate the Government did not take one simple measure that could have had a major impact, particularly in Dublin, on the question of housing availability, including private rented housing. Every third level college should have purpose built accommodation for all its students. That method alone, which would be quite simple to administer, would mean that thousands of houses and private rented units would be freed up. That would have been of huge assistance.
The local authority housing lists are in a terrible crisis. Public representatives, such as myself, have to deal with the suffering that causes on a weekly basis. We need major involvement there. The local authorities should not be dependent on construction companies. In many cases, they have difficulties in getting their tenders sent back and so on, which delays construction. We should return to direct labour by local authorities, with local authority construction companies and units, or even a semi-State construction company which could respond flexibly and quickly to the crisis, by building the homes and apartments needed for public housing, rather than being dependent on speculators. That is a socialist approach, rather than the free market, free booting approach adopted by the Government and supported by Fine Gael.
Mr. Hayes
Amendment No. 208, which I tabled originally on Committee Stage, deals with the issue of the introduction of a certificate of reasonable value. I was one of the first people to propose, in principle, the concept of setting aside land at reasonable levels for the purposes of affordable housing schemes. I said that, unapologetically, over 18 months ago. I support that prin ciple today as much as I did then. However, we have to introduce a system which actually works. I do not believe the proposals set out in Part V will work.
First, I was told by the local authority in my area the other day that it will be at least one year before the housing strategy will be in place. We will not be able to put in place this provision until that period of time. The housing crisis will grow in that time. Nothing will be done in, at least, the next one to two years about this proposal.
Second, as everyone will concede, having read the contents of Part V, there is no measure in the Minister's plan that will ensure that where the land has been set aside, the original price will be kept for the people who will buy houses in the ordinary course of events on the remaining 80% of this newly zoned land. There are no mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that 80% will not have to pay for the other 20%. As I predicted on Committee Stage, the 20% of land that is set aside will come out of the pockets of the people who purchase houses on the remaining 80% of the land in the ordinary course of events. There is no mechanism in Part V to deal with that, which is why I proposed in amendment No. 208 the introduction of a certificate of reasonable value. That would ensure the cost of sites and house building is kept to a minimum and that there is a fair profit in property transactions. That is all we are looking for.
The Minister said on Committee Stage that I would be embarrassed when I heard the reply to that amendment. I am not embarrassed at all and I am still not convinced by his proposals. I do not believe they will work. Deputy Dukes said earlier this could face a constitutional challenge. The right or wrong position on that challenge will be irrelevant, because what we need to see is houses being built as soon as possible. We do not want to be in a situation in 24 months' time where the fascinating debate we are having on Part V is not implemented. I do not believe mechanisms are in place to ensure the cost is borne by the landowner and not by the people who will buy houses on the remaining 80% of the land in those new residential areas.
There will be a huge amount of disenchantment among large numbers of young couples who will be buying houses in these new housing estates, subsidising the affordable housing schemes on the other 20% of the land, as a result of the inefficiency of this Bill. That is why the Bill is deficient. The Minister should look again at the implementation of his principle, which I believe to be right. We need a compensating mechanism to ensure it is implemented, but no such mechanism is in place in Part V.
Is the procedure that I will have two minutes and the other Deputies will have two minutes, and I will then have a chance to reply?
Due to the fact that the question must be put at 10.15 p.m. and the Mini ster moved amendment No. 178, I assume the Minister will reply to the debate that has taken place. The Minister has until 10.15 p.m.
That is agreed, unless the Minister says something that provokes us.
Mr. Hayes
I think he might.
I will try not to provoke Deputies at this stage. The discussion on the amendments before us has been very wide-ranging. I thank all the Deputies who are now claiming credit for the idea of the provision of 20% of land for social and affordable housing. It is nice to know that, despite the criticisms of some aspects of it, at least there is general consensus in the House that it is a step in the right direction. I emphasise it is only one element of a whole range of programmes and items the Government has put in place over the past two or three years to try to ensure the ready supply of housing.
Deputy Dukes correctly made the point at the outset that there is a distortion in the market. There was not a sufficient supply to meet the demand, which was the main focus of the first Bacon report which we initiated within weeks of coming into office. Supply factors and the existence of speculators were identified as the major items. Deputy Dukes seems to think that everybody uses the term "speculator" pejoratively. There were speculators and I cannot help that people have got it into their minds that that is a pejorative term. Large numbers of houses were being bought by people for rental and investment purposes. The first Bacon report indicated those were the two major problems. The high demand for housing was analysed as having been caused by the increase in the younger population. It was a wealthier population because people were earning more. In addition, tax reductions meant there was more money in people's pockets – the result of a policy pursued by the Government – and the interest rate levels had created a certain distortion in the market. As a result, demand exceeded supply.
At the time, the Government set about rectifying the problem on the basis of the recommendations and analysis then available. Contrary to the comments made by Deputy Higgins, the Government took a fair amount of flak from the speculators, construction industry, landlords and so forth. However, we had identified the problems and decided to tackle them. We also indicated at that time that we would continue to keep the housing market under review and adjust the measures as necessary. We did that again following the second Bacon report. Tomorrow the third Bacon report will be made available and the Government will have a response to it.
Deputy Dukes will describe it as interfering in the market and I agree. We will take a number of measures that will affect the market with the sole aim of trying to ensure that as many people as possible who want to get on the first rung of the ladder of home ownership will be able to do so. That is the sole focus of Government policy since it started tackling house prices when it took office.
Deputy Dukes mentioned that builders are now selling land to local authorities at favourable prices and are becoming more engaged with local authorities. That is true, particularly in Deputy Higgins's constituency in Fingal. They are agreeing with the local authorities about the provision of affordable housing even though the requirement is not yet law. I accept that point. However, if we had not embarked on the course of action provided for in this Bill and had not taken such action, I doubt that the builders would be talking to anybody about providing social and affordable housing in their developments.
I gave clear signals to the construction industry during my first year in office that I wanted its members to come forward with suggestions and solutions for the supply of affordable housing, given the way house prices were increasing. I did this publicly in venues where builders congregated, such as the CIF annual conference. The opening of an auctioneer's premises was another venue and there were many more. I met the Construction Industry Federation and the IHBA and made it clear that the Government's priority was the provision of the maximum amount of affordable housing for young people coming into the market.
After approximately 18 months, the IHBA came forward with a suggestion that it would con tribute approximately £6 million per year to a scheme it had put forward which would cost the taxpayer almost £94 million. That was unacceptable and that is why we have taken the route in this Bill.
I thank Deputy Dukes for acknowledging and welcoming the fact that the strategic development zones will be used for housing. I appeal to all Deputies to try to make this legislation work at local authority level. Deputy Gilmore accused me earlier of trying to shift the blame. I am not doing that but stating facts. At local authority level, some people continually say "no" and block area action plans, local area plans and so forth while at the same time crying about the price of houses and what is happening in the housing market. When this procedure comes into place, which I hope will be quickly, I urge Deputies to ensure that it is supported at local authority level.
The Minister will have my support in that.
It is now 10.15 p.m. and I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil this day, "That proceedings on Report in respect of amendments Nos. 178 to 208, inclusive, are hereby completed, that amendments Nos. 178, 182, 184, 186, 188, 189, 194, 199, 201, 202, 204, 206 and 207 are hereby agreed to and that amendments Nos. 179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 187, 190 to 193, inclusive, 195 to 198, inclusive, 200, 203, 205 and 208 are hereby negatived."
Question put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán. |
Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael. Ó Cuív, Éamon. |
Tá–continued
|
O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán. |
Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Cosgrave, Michael.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim. |
Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Reynolds, Gerard.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Spring, Dick.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Sheehan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Debate adjourned.