Vol. 568 No. 5
83 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government if the Government is considering the possibility of stronger powers to compulsorily acquire development land for infrastructure and housing projects; if it is envisaged that a constitutional amendment will be required to facilitate this process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16516/03]
The Government has indicated its intention to address the issue of the cost of land required for development, including the impact on the affordability of housing. In that context, the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution has been asked by the Taoiseach to assess the possibility of placing a cap on the value of development land. In doing so, the committee will have to consider the constitutional and practical issues involved. The Government will give due consideration to any recommendations made by that committee, including recommendations for change to the Constitution.
As part of the overall examination of land costs for housing and other major infrastructure, my Department is looking at identifying other necessary measures aimed at moderating land costs for housing and other essential public infrastructure.
I remind the Minister of State of an article in The Irish Times on 15 May 2003 by Carl O'Brien in which he was quoted as stating that the Government is examining the possibility of “enhanced compulsory purchase orders”. In the same article, the Minister of State is quoted as stating that “new land could become available for affordable houses under the Government's plans for enhanced compulsory purchase orders.” Are there Government plans to strengthen compulsory purchase orders for the purchase of land for housing or for other infrastructural purposes? Can the Minister of State tell the House the Government's plans for enhanced compulsory purchase orders to which he referred in the article I mentioned in The Irish Times?
There are no plans as of now.
Is the article wrong?
It depends on what the Deputy means. He placed emphasis on the word "plans".
That is what the article states.
All issues, including compulsory purchase orders, are being examined. It is early days in the process. The All-Party Committee on the Constitution will have a major role to play in that regard.
This is an interesting revelation by the Minister of State. For six months the Taoiseach said he would do this, that and the other about building land. The issue was referred to the all-party committee and there was great beating of the drum. For the first time in six months, the Minister of State has admitted it is all spoof.
It is always spoof.
There are no plans to enhance compulsory purchase orders for the acquisition of land. If the Government does not have any intention of doing anything about it, if there are no plans to strengthen compulsory purchase orders and if it is the Government's responsibility to come up with some proposals in this area, what has the all-party committee been asked to do? There is no point in the all-party committee looking at the Constitution and scratching its head about this issue if the Government does not have any intention of doing anything about it. The Minister of State's admission today, which contradicts a statement he made in The Irish Times on 15 May, is an acknowledgement that the Government does not have any intention of doing anything about it.
I can tell the Deputy what the all-party committee is doing.
I want to know what the Minister of State will do. The all-party committee is a camouflage for doing nothing.
I am sorry the Deputy has such a negative view on the matter.
I have respect for the all-party committee. I want to know what the Government will do.
The Government is looking at issues on several fronts, of which the all-party committee is one.
Tell us about the other fronts.
They are all being examined.
What does that mean?
The Deputy should allow the Minister of State to continue.
The Deputy keeps throwing questions at me without allowing me to explain the position. The compulsory purchase order system is being examined. We must see what is and is not possible under that. A fairly well established system of work is being carried out at present. No matter what the Deputy and I think, the protection of property is enshrined in the Constitution and in international law.
Not exclusively.
I am trying to see how we can move forward in a proportionate and balanced way. The approval of the Supreme Court is significant.
The Government is not doing anything about it and does not have any intention of doing anything.
The Minister's time has concluded.
We were happy with the ruling of the Supreme Court on Part 5, but we must proceed cautiously and carefully and we are doing that.
Does the Minister of State agree that the 50,000 families on the housing lists and the tens of thousands of people who are trying to buy their own homes would regard the proposal to which the Minister referred, as well as the promise in the social programme that 10,000 affordable houses would be built in the next 18 months, as two con jobs? If the Minister of State is sincere about dealing with this issue, what is his attitude to the Kenny report? Does he accept the findings of that report regarding building land?
Is the Minister of State aware that the evidence from the meetings of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, in which I partook, suggests that it is not a matter of a constitutional amendment but of political will because there is no absolute right to private property in the Constitution as it is conditional on the common good? Will the Minister of State take this into account and stop expecting the committee to come up with a miraculous face-saving exercise? An amendment will not solve the problem unless there is political will to deal with the housing crisis.
I am aware of Members' frustrations. The system would have been put right years ago if that had been possible.
In 1973.
Deputy Allen mentioned the 50,000 families on the housing lists. They are being looked after by the social housing programme.
How are they being looked after? Some of them have been waiting for ten years.
Which question should I answer? I ask the Deputy to give me a moment.
The Minister of State should answer the two questions I asked him.
The Deputy mentioned the 10,000 affordable houses. That is one of the aspects we want to examine. That is being pursued with the partners to the national agreement, Sustaining Progress.
How will they be built in 18 months?
Allow the Minister of State to continue without interruption.
Some 10,000 houses will not necessarily be built within 18 months, but we hope to start the process. The possibility of using some State lands is being considered. We are not only talking about the Kenny report. If it is that simple, why did previous Governments not accept it years ago? Other Oireachtas committees examined the issue since then and walked away from it.
The Government has been compromised by its supporters.
The issue is complex and detailed. We cannot walk away from previous Supreme Court rulings on the matter. However, we are heartened by the judgment on Part V. As Deputy Sargent said, the common good and the good of society must be taken into account. However, our actions must be necessary and proportionate to the objective in hand.
It is a U-turn.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
