I welcome this progressive Bill, which is necessary in the current circumstances. As I listened to many of the speeches earlier today, I was struck by how easy it is for people in public life to delude themselves. The reality and mythology of housing are interesting in terms of their contrast. My constituency colleague from another party, who was once the Minister responsible for housing, did not last five years like this Government.
The last five years have seen a record level of house building. Over 52,000 houses were built last year, which constitutes a record. Since 1997, a staggering 215,700 new houses have been built, a record which has seldom, if ever, been surpassed. Over 5,000 local authority houses were completed or acquired last year, the highest number for 15 years and certainly a far better record than that of the previous Government. Over 1,200 new houses were completed under voluntary housing programmes last year, which, again, is the highest figure in the history of the State. It is a record I welcome as a huge amount should be done in the voluntary and co-operative housing sectors.
Having said that, however, there are still huge pressures on housing, particularly social housing. A Government Deputy would be foolhardy to say there is no such problem as it manifests itself daily in our clinics, constituency postbags and the queries and requests we receive from constituents. We have to remind ourselves, however, that we are still building at a rate of 13 houses per 1,000 population, the highest level in the European Union. The demand for social and affordable housing is growing at a rate which is unprecedented in our history or that of our neighbours. We have witnessed a remarkable increase in population over a short period of time and, more importantly in the current context, seen a dramatic growth in the number of family units. The reality is that housing policies have not been able to address these challenges and traditional approaches to housing have been inadequate. An extraordinary amount of the population increase in recent years has resulted from inward migration, which has not only boosted the number of people in the country as a whole, but also the number of family units seeking housing.
The system has been incapable of meeting the demands placed on it. Two factors have come together in recent years to dramatically change the face of the housing market and the profile of those looking for social and affordable housing. Deputies on all sides have made the valid point that those looking for social and affordable housing would not have been in that market five or ten years ago. The dramatic increases in house prices have been driven by a number of factors, including inward migration, dramatically improved income levels and higher levels of disposable income. Although the latter feature is specific to certain industries, it impacts right across the spectrum. We must not forget that the housing market in Ireland is relatively small. Movements which would be considered insignificant elsewhere have a dramatic impact here.
A number of Deputies, including one of the senior spokespersons opposite, made the point that an insufficient amount of land has been zoned for housing. It is an interesting observation that has been made before. There has certainly been an insufficiency in the supply of zoned and serviced land ready for house building. The Government has moved to correct the problem, however, especially by introducing the serviced land initiative. Its efforts in that regard have not always been welcomed, however, and have been heavily attacked by certain vested interests.
The Government's most dramatic intervention has been the section 5 requirement that up to 20% of housing to be built should be either social or affordable. The effects and objectives of this policy have been misrepresented to a great extent. Members on all sides are acutely aware of Irish housing trends in the recent past. There has been a degree of social isolation and segregation, even ghettoisation, which is an unhealthy development. There has been a propensity to build houses at the upper end of the market and ignore the middle and lower ends. It is right and proper that the Government should intervene to suggest that such an isolationist approach is not acceptable. Those who have gained vastly from rezoned land will not be allowed to operate on that land. It is right, proper and fitting that society should express in legislation its views as to how those who operate in the housing market should be allowed to do so. The idea that any type of house should be built in an untrammelled way, according to the demands of the market and without any social intervention, as long as the land is zoned, is anathema to me and all Members of the House with a social conscience.
I am proud to represent a constituency which has witnessed a huge surge in housing demand in recent years and which has had a vast increase in population. It is interesting to note, if one looks at housing movements and the construction of houses in recent years, that there has been an awful lot of cherry-picking by housing developers. I do not blame people, including house builders, for fighting their corner, but public representatives have a duty to fight on behalf of those less capable of exerting pressure within society.
The Bill centres on its provisions in relation to affordable and social housing, to which I will return after I have once more outlined the real measure of the Government's commitment to the housing programme, which has been brought into question in this debate. This Administration is spending three and a half times more on housing than was the case as recently as 1997, when a member of the Labour Party was in charge of housing during the rainbow coalition. Politicians and political parties must be judged on delivery rather than rhetoric. The truth is that the record of the last Government was far from exemplary and, equally, this Government faces grave difficulties at this time. The criticisms that have been made of our performance are valid, provided they are kept in perspective. Had past policies been retained, we would face a much worse situation.
In coming to the House tonight, it was not my intention to continuously refer back to the past, as I wanted to say something positive about the Bill, its aims and objectives, and to point to a few possible areas of improvement. The Bill seeks to add a range of legislative and policy instruments to those already in operation in the housing market, which we all would welcome. It will provide for a significant increase in the borrowing limit available to the Housing Finance Agency, which offers capital to local authorities for housing, among other matters. The funding available to the agency is, therefore, of considerable significance in combating the current housing difficulties.
A second feature of the Bill is that it places the affordable housing scheme on a statutory basis, which is very important. I am sure that Members of the House and members of local authorities will recognise that many local authorities are confused about how the affordable housing scheme should be administered. It certainly seems to be the case that there is no consistency of operation across the board.
The third feature of the Bill is that it provides for a claw-back mechanism which will apply to the shared ownership and affordable housing schemes. I am somewhat surprised that a number of Opposition Deputies have criticised this measure. I cannot believe that they have given the issue any real consideration as had they done so, they would have been less critical. A welcome element of the Bill is that it introduces greater flexibility to the administration of new house plans schemes. A fifth element of the Bill is that it makes available a statutory framework for assistance to organisations providing advice and research on housing issues.
It has been my view for some time that the affordable housing scheme has not, as yet, been fully exploited by local housing authorities and has been approached in a conservative manner in many, if not all, cases. In County Wicklow I have been more than a little frustrated by the failure of local councils to exploit the scheme to the full. The councils have moved too cautiously. There has, for example, been no creative use of the dual role of planning authority and housing authority. As with many local authorities, we have been discussing the county development plans and revisions of town development plans and we have not taken a proactive role. We have not approached people with land to tell them that the land will be considered for rezoning provided a creative use is found for it and that there is some element of social integration and a degree of equity in the houses which come from the zoning. Interestingly, the only radical proposition for the use of the affordable housing scheme which I have seen in my local authority area has come from a private developer. If I was to give the name in the House it would raise more than a smile.
Section 6 is particularly welcome in that it clearly defines the basis on which the affordable housing scheme can be employed by councils and voluntary bodies. Hopefully the clarification will engender a little more activity on the part of local authorities on the ground.
Will the Minister try to establish within the Department some idea of best practice in local authorities? One Opposition Deputy made the valid point that there is a variation in the application of policies. The Department should carry out an audit of best and worst practice and we should be aiming to ensure that the best practice becomes the norm rather than the exception. If there is some form of reporting mechanism brought into place, section 6 will allow this to happen.
The following sections of the Bill are of particular interest. I welcome the clarification in section 8 which provides the basis for the establishment of schemes to determine the priority to be given to persons availing of the scheme. In County Wicklow there has been a great degree of discontent regarding the allocation of the small number of affordable houses which have been made available to date. In Kilcoole, where the council's largest scheme to date is under way, there has been grave discontent regarding the small number of local people who have been awarded houses. In parts of Wicklow where there has been a huge influx of couples forced out of Dublin by escalating prices in the housing market, there has been a knock-on effect in that local people who are trying to enter the same market are being priced out. For example, someone living in Dublin 4 or 6 who decides to sell his or her house and to retire to Wicklow will outbid any young couple looking for a house which casually comes on the market. This is the case in north County Dublin, Meath, Louth, Kildare and all the surrounding areas. More attention has to be given in the affordable housing scheme to local need.
This influx of people is welcome. New people give life to an area. They also add a sense of vibrancy and bring new money. However, it causes problems. The affordable housing scheme must be geared in a way which pays attention to local housing needs. If friction is to be avoided, the allocation system should give more consideration than the Bill provides to people who have been born and reared in a particular area. Nothing but good can come from allowing young people to settle in their own area. Living in the community with members of the extended family provided young couples with the type of social support which has been a traditional part of life.
Sections 9 and 10 provide a degree of control on the resale of houses which have been bought under the scheme. However, this provision has attracted a degree of negative comment from Deputies opposite. A situation recently arose in Wicklow which should never be allowed to happen again. A highly subsidised site in one of the most desirable housing areas in the country, in which it is impossible to get a house on the market for under £250,000, was sold by the council for under £10,000. Along with other public representatives I made sure that young couples buying into the council scheme were given the opportunity to get a foothold on the housing ladder. This site was sold for less than £10,000, planning permission was granted and a contract was signed for the development of the house on the site. However, before the house was completed it was put on the market and sold for almost £250,000. This is a classic example of what can happen if a subsidised housing scheme is introduced without some form of clawback mechanism. I advise Members opposite to talk to their party colleagues in Wicklow following which they would be less critical of this section of the Bill.
The Bill refers to new housing grants and the framework for financial assistance for certain voluntary organisations. I welcome all the Bill is doing in this regard and there has been a general welcome for these provisions. This section excited Deputies on all sides to question and comment adversely on aspects of the grants schemes currently in operation, particularly those for emergency or essential repairs or repair work for the elderly or the handicapped. I wholeheartedly support Members on all sides who raised this issue. The comments made about these issues, particularly the essential repair grant scheme, must be taken on board by the Minister and the Department. The level of bureaucracy in this area in mind-blowing.
Members on all sides have pointed out that there are extraordinary examples of disgraceful and unforgivable delays in making grants available for essential repair work. If I wished I could regale the House with a remarkable number of examples of delay and costly, bureaucratic time wasting, but I will not do so because other Members have done so adequately. However, I wish to add my voice to those who have earnestly requested the Minister to take a harsh view, particularly of the level of bureaucracy involved in the administration of the essential repairs grant scheme. This situation must be brought to an end.
One final issue which is not dealt with in the Bill, but which comes within the broad parameters of housing policy, is housing estate design. There is a temptation on councils to build anywhere and everywhere they possibly can without giving any thought to the social consequences of building huge, amorphous and anonymous estates. We have gone down that road in the past. We all recall crash programmes of house building which created problems, ghettos and areas of social stigma. We should not allow this to happen again. When we build a housing estate it will last and have an effect which is intergenerational in terms of its impact.
There has recently been an extraordinary controversy in Wicklow because of the so-called part 10 provisions and the so-called consultation which goes on. A local authority decided to build adjacent to about 200 houses, to increase the number of houses in one estate to 330 and to then build 180 additional, mostly affordable, houses adjacent to that. This would have created one large mass of council housing in an area far removed from social services, shops, schools and public transport, yet this is called good policy. This situation has arisen simply as a panic reaction that we have to build houses because of the crisis. The attitude was that the council had this piece of land on which it would build because no one else would get planning permission to do so. What was amazing was that local residents lodged the most remarkably concise response to this proposal. They did not say, "Don't build the houses." They suggested that the council should address some of their social problems and build the houses. Another Member of this House, who is not a member of my party, and I decided to make representations on behalf of the residents. We were treated to an astonishing example of bureaucratic temper tantrums. Ultimately, the Department intervened and said it too had an interest in this issue. Rather than listening to the Department, the local authority has reacted very negatively. In the past when there were housing crises major mistakes were made. It would be astonishing if bureaucratic arrogance allowed us to ignore the past and fail to absorb its lessons. This is a good Bill. I compliment the Minister on its introduction and I commend it to the House.