Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and people in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones.

I bring to the attention of those present that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action arising out of anything said at a committee meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, within reason, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as do witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publications by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance regarding participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

The purpose of today's meeting is to undertake examination of revitalising derelict and vacant homes on farmland. In the first session, the committee will hear from representatives of the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers, IPAV, Mr. Patrick Davitt, CEO, and Mr. John Kennedy, senior vice president. I invite Mr. Davitt to make opening remarks of five minutes, before moving to questions and answers.

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

I thank the committee for its invitation, and we are delighted to be here to contribute to its discussions.

IPAV believes that the carbon advantages of utilising existing dwelling houses, including vacant farm homes, are as yet little appreciated, but hold huge potential. The current plan for solving housing demand by focusing on new builds has the added disadvantage of not being aligned with the national target to reduce carbon emissions. It comes at a significant carbon cost. While emissions created within Ireland are largely related to production of cement and aggregates, imported materials such as steel, iron and aluminium are significant drivers of carbon emissions from new builds. Our recent report, Vacant Properties: The Opportunity to Increase Housing Stock and Minimise Carbon Emissions, which members all have copies of and which was compiled by Eamonn Galvin, our sustainability adviser, sets out a series of nine separate recommendations for tackling the issue. These include realistic tax incentives to bring vacant homes back into use and a Government fund with low interest rates for purchasers of derelict or vacant homes until such time as the home reaches a state of repair where the purchaser is able to live in it and is in a position to re-mortgage it by getting a proper property loan. That is something we want to talk about a little more today.

One of the real difficulties is that potential buyers cannot draw down mortgages for these properties because banks and other institutions will not lend for such purposes. We very much welcome the improvements recently announced by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to increase the grants available to refurbish vacant and derelict properties, and to extend the scheme to include properties built up to 2007 and also for rent. We have no doubt that these changes will help bring more vacant and derelict houses back into use, but if these measures can be added to, yet more can be achieved. I am calling on the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to set up a Government-backed bridging fund, administered by and through the local credit union movement nationally, to facilitate bridging loans for purchasers who are unable to mortgage these properties because of a lack of services or the poor condition they are in. Such loans would afford these people the necessary funds to allow them to purchase vacant or derelict homes. When someone purchases a property, avails of the improved Government grants and modernises it, if they can mortgage it through the credit union, they can repay the bridging loan. I am asking the Minister to further amend the Credit Union (Amendment) Bill 2022, which is before the Houses at present, to allow this to happen. We believe measures should include an amnesty period in respect of capital gains tax. If owners are not encouraged and given incentives to sell their vacant homes, they simply will no do so.

If correctly incentivised and informed by the latest research from institutions such UCD, supported by the Irish Green Building Council, which are to the forefront on the issue, we could be really ambitious in increasing badly needed housing stock, and do so in a climate-friendly way that would sustain property values over decades. The research by UCD estimates that a new build results in carbon emissions of 580 kg per square metre compared with a retrofit estimate of just 165 kg per square metre. On average, 65 tonnes of CO2 is emitted when building a new house, compared with 15 to 17 tonnes for a retrofit. That is a huge amount of CO2. We propose that a target should be set for local authorities to bring back 25,000 vacant homes, including those on farmland, each year for the next three years. Achieving this would require the involvement of all stakeholders.

Due to the time constraints, I do not propose to go through all nine of IPAV’s recommendations. However, apart from the tax incentives and targets mentioned already, they include the setting up of a task force involving relevant stakeholders to bring together a workable set of policy measures and the appointment of at least one full-time vacant property officer in each local authority, who would be responsible for knowing the status of vacant properties and lead plans to bring them back into use. As our report points out, the utilisation of vacant houses is desirable socially and in terms of meeting climate change targets, and it is imminently achievable with the right set of policies. According to the most recent geometric report, there are almost 100,000 vacant houses. According to the census, there are 166,000 houses that are vacant. That is not to mention derelict houses or other types of houses, such as over-the-shop accommodation, that we see throughout the whole country, which nearly equates to 10% of our total stock of 2.25 million properties. It is a huge amount of buildings. If tackled properly, many of them could be brought back into use. I thank the members for listening.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending. Housing in rural Ireland has always been a major difficulty. All politicians know that there are issues with planning. What we find in west Cork is that young people are being refused planning permission in rural areas because of considerations relating to the scenic landscape and this, that and the other. It seems to us that the planning policies that are being put before councils today are very anti-rural in nature. They are pushing people from their farms and rural communities into bigger towns and villages, which is very unfair. However, the vacant and derelict properties grant is great. It is a step in the direction by all manner of means. With the price of building having gone the way it has, it still takes quite a lot of money between a person getting a €50,000 grant and the work costing perhaps €150,000 to €200,000. The idea of the credit unions giving bridging loans is certainly a way forward here. They should be allowed to compete in the bigger mortgage market. They have not been. I agree that there need to be further tax incentives also. Perhaps the witnesses can explain it, but I cannot understand why the banks are not giving loans or mortgages to people who are trying to do up vacant properties. Maybe they will answer that in a minute. I will try to finish here.

I understand that there are 12,000 vacant or derelict farmhouses. I do not think that includes farmhouses that are being used for other purposes. We all know farmers who use farmhouses to house cattle, for example. Perhaps they were too quick off the ball to put the cow and the calf in instead of saving it to use for humans, unfortunately. I still think some of those farmhouses could be restored. They might have part of a roof missing or a lot of inside damage, but they certainly could be restored. We have got to look at housing from every angle. As I said earlier, there are people who are finding it almost impossible to get planning permission in my community. They are pulling the hair out of their heads. I presume it is the same everywhere else. Young people in farming and rural communities are trying to get planning permission. As I have said many times, I know of one woman who has spent €10,000 trying to get planning permission. Her father came to me when she failed to get planning permission, and I told him he should have come to me a month before that. He said that after spending €10,000 they thought they had done everything to perfection, the way everybody wanted them to. They had paid for every report required. Imagine spending €10,000 and being refused planning permission. That tells a story of the challenges being presented to the young people of rural Ireland who are trying to get planning permission.

The Rural Independent Group brought forward a motion last week in the Dáil in respect of easing, not dismantling, the restrictions on planning. We have also said that the Government must also look at timber housing. I have seen it used quite successfully. At home on the farm, a couple might get married first, move into a timber house and move on from there when they get a few bob put together. That is an approach that we seem to have discouraged here. I hope that perhaps there can be a change in mindset on that. There is also the help-to-buy scheme. Perhaps the witnesses have some thoughts on that. I think the scheme should also include the renovation or purchase of a derelict property. I ask the witnesses to give us more of an idea of what the banks' thinking is in not participating so far.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Davitt or Mr. Kennedy want to respond?

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

Does the Deputy want to ask a question?

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did. I said that as far as I know, the help to buy scheme does not include the renovation or purchase of derelict properties. Also, the banks are not participating in issuing loans to people who want to do up derelict properties. Why is that the case?

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

For the past six years, we have been looking to get the help-to-buy scheme extended to second-hand homes, which would include vacant homes. For some reason, however, it has not been extended. Obviously, it is a tax that you pay that you get back when you go looking for it over the previous five years. We cannot see any reason why it cannot be extended to second-hand homes, even some of it.

It does not have to be 30,000. Even if it was only 10,000 or 15,000 it would be very helpful. We would support that 100%. We have looked for this in our previous six budget submissions. It has not taken place as yet. Whether it will or not, I do not know, but it would obviously be a great idea. I am delighted that the Deputy believes that would be a good idea. It would be very good from our point of view as well.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the banks participating in this?

Mr. John Kennedy:

The banks are risk averse. Anything that is actually unsecured and until they exit out of it, it creates a problem for them. We are not bankers and we cannot get into their shoes. I do not believe it is the first thing they think about when they wake up in the morning when they are considering where they are going to lend money. There is a deeper question around how one can incentivise them to do that, or force them.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Davitt and Mr. Kennedy. I thank them for the excellent presentation. I sit on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Clearly, all of the issues the witnesses are touching on we also have touched on. I draw the witnesses' attention to a report on town and village regeneration that was published earlier this year, on which we made 39 recommendations. I will send a copy of it to the witnesses. Many of those reoccurring issues, as raised by the witnesses, are on it. I will come back to that in a moment.

I am also a member the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, BIPA. Over the past few days we have been meeting in Jersey. One of the points that came up was the over-reliance on new builds and particularly in the context of rural communities, for example in Scotland and in Wales, and indeed in Jersey, which is one of the BIPA jurisdictions. It is very clear that there are a number of major challenges, one of which is around rural housing guidelines. The Government has promised repeatedly for the past two or three years that it would bring in regulations on this. Some of the witnesses may be familiar with the Flemish decree and the findings there about the movement of people, goods, and economy across the European Union, and the challenges around that in the movement of people into Ireland and the building of houses. We also have language restrictions in some sets of circumstances. I understand there is a reason for that but we must put everything on the table.

With regard to vernacular or rural housing, it is interesting that the institute embedded into its report the statistics for the vacancy rates across Ireland. At the very top of the spectrum and moving down we can see Leitrim at 15%; Roscommon at 13.4%; Mayo at 13%; Kerry at 11.4%; Monaghan at 10%; Waterford at 7%; and all the way down to Kildare, which is the lowest, at 5.3%. There are demands now with remote working and people want to work at home. In many cases they want to go back to their rural roots.

Coupled with this there is a recognition that families there are suffering, and especially in rural communities where parish life is coming to a standstill. GAA clubs are challenged to get members and communities are virtually locked up when their post offices and pubs are closing down all around them. Yet, there is great potential and a desire for people to live in rural communities. Wireless broadband is now being rolled out. There are many opportunities and good reasons people would want to live in rural Ireland. We also see and understand the necessity for some people to go to live back in rural communities to support their elderly parents or elderly members of the family.

There are also issues around succession. We do not see many people farming full time any more. People have worked out a living with part-time farming and other enterprises, agri-enterprises, or off-site enterprises to supplement their income. We are aware of all of that. It raises the issue of what we are doing about it and why are we not addressing it. The witnesses have made very valid points about living over the shop, which is important but we also see a lot of derelict former agricultural houses. We discussed this yesterday and the day before on the fringes of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, asking how can we somehow incentivise and encourage in that regard. Let us consider the Scottish model for a moment. They have housing trusts that have acquired ten, 15, or 20 houses in a cluster. They would not necessarily be next door to each other but perhaps would be within a five-mile radius. These houses would have been acquired with the assistance of the local authority or the housing authority, or very long leases have been put on them. The properties are then done up and leased back to people who wish to stay in the community. It is not about selling the houses because the trust would not like to lose total control, but people who wish to live in a community in a rural part can apply and if they fulfil certain criteria and conditions they could have up to a 30-year lease. We must look at more imaginative ways here. That could be through a public private partnership or a co-operative. It does not always have to be a local authority. It could also be a housing association. We must look more imaginatively at what we can put to use. It is ultimately in order that people can live there but it is all about sustainable communities, sustainable travel and environmental considerations, and a whole range of reasons. I am supportive of everything the witnesses have said. I thank them for articulating their recommendations and asks in nine concise points. I have no difficulty with any of them.

We will be talking to the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, later. They will have their own experience about their own membership and their own knowledge. I would encourage the IPAV to have greater synergy with them because they understand the lay of the land, as do members here in this committee, and the desire to support rural communities and keep people on the land that was given to them or handed down to them by their forebears. It is a generational thing and there are issues around that.

I have one simple question to ask about the capital gains tax. It is a very interesting point. Will Mr. Davitt flesh that out more and tell us what the IPAV has in mind? I support it. We need to keep the message simple on the requirements around that. Capital gains is a major challenge for everybody but especially for succession and passing on. If we are to be honest, a lot of our dereliction is problematic around that. If we had this sorted out, we could release a substantial amount - perhaps 100,000 - dwellings around the country. The IPAV engagement with us is very important. I support all of the proposals and I would urge the IPAV to collaborate with rural communities and look at other imaginative ideas for housing authorities for how we can collaborate, and how we could use them for co-operatives or collectives to support people in rural communities. I thank Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Davitt for coming to the committee today.

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

Many of our members in rural Ireland would deal with farmers every day of the week in letting land, buying land, selling land, renting houses, and selling of farmhouses and so on. The way we look at it today, in any of these transactions there are three different sides to it. There is the owner of the property, there is the purchaser of the property, and there are the new grants that the Minister is speaking about at the moment. If a property owner has a property and has had it for many years, at the particular time they got it, it could have been valued down as low as €10,000. If there was no valuation prior to 1984 - we go back as far as 1984 - we would just double that figure to €20,000. Today, however, that property is worth €100,000. There is €80,000 of a capital gain there, with 33% of that due to the Government, which is almost €30,000 due to the Government in tax for capital gains on the property if that owner sells the property. First, we must look at the owner and see the capital gains that we are talking about. I am considering a very simple transaction here to give the committee an example, the property could be worth more than that. We would look at something that would encourage the owner of that property to sell it. A lot of people have these properties but will not sell them because they are caught with the tax. We then must consider the person who is buying the property. The purchaser may want to buy the property but when he or she goes to the bank the bank will say "There are no services on this property". There may well be no bathroom or toilet, and there may not be various different things that other people would want in their houses. It is not about having a swanky house, it is about having the main services that they need. Until such time as the services are put in place, the bank will not mortgage the property. Then, let us consider the grants that are there at the moment. The grants are fine and are very good but they are not much good to somebody if they cannot buy the property. So we have a situation where we cannot get the owner to sell the property, and the person who wants to buy the property cannot get the money, then the grant is not achievable. What good is it if a person cannot get it? We do not need to look at the grants on their own. We need to look at the whole scenario and the whole picture. The picture we are trying to present is that capital gains is the first issue for most people because they do not want to pay that tax.

The second issue is the mortgage. That is why we are asking the Minister to amend the Credit Union (Amendment) Bill 2022 to allow credit unions to give a bridging loan to these people first so they can buy those properties. Then, when they get their grants and so on to do up the properties, they can turn that bridging loan into a mortgage of 25 or 30 years for that particular property. The Government could set up a fund of perhaps €1 million and all the credit unions in the country, of which there are more than 200, could give this money out to people who want to get a bridging loan because that is one of the most important steps.

Returning to capital gains, we are saying to the Government and the Minister that if they want to get the derelict figures down, the owners of these properties must be able to sell their properties. They must be encouraged. There is no point in just having a big stick and telling them they will be charged 3% a year if they do not do this or that. We need to get them to sell and therefore we need to incentivise them. We are saying there should be an amnesty from capital gains tax for one or two years to get these people into tune to enable them to sell their properties. If they do that, at least the property will be back in the marketplace. The other two scenarios, the purchaser and the grants, can then come into place. We read every day of the week how the credit unions are much cheaper than ordinary pillar banks for loans. They are involved in every town in the country and at least when people go into a credit union they can speak to a manager. In the case of the bank, it has probably closed and when we do go into one, where would we get a manager? At least the credit union is a friendly bank that is available to meet and talk to people. This is a perfect proposal and solution to the scenario at the moment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Kennedy is suggesting an amnesty of one year or possibly two years?

Mr. John Kennedy:

Yes, or three years at most.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would that apply in specific designated areas of the country? I happen to live in south County Dublin, in Dún Laoghaire. I would love a waiver on capital gains before I move on. Let us tease that out. People will not buy that so are we talking about areas of disadvantage? Leitrim has the highest levels of dereliction. Would it make a stronger argument to propose a concentrated package for specific rural areas that have a problem and are in difficulties? A waiver on capital gains will not secure political buy-in.

I am conscious that many county councillors are auctioneers, as it happens. A high percentage of auctioneers around the country are involved in local government. That is interesting in itself. The two professions complement each other. Without naming people, can the witnesses give examples they have come across which illustrate the fall-out from or the travesty where people have been stuck with properties that could be turned around but are falling into the ground because of capital gains?

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

Many auctioneers go into local government because they cannot live on the income they get from auctioneering.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a good point too. I will take that on board.

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

I imagine that is the first reason. I cannot share figures because I do not have figures and I do not believe there are any. What we are trying to do is to encourage these people to sell these properties. If we do not encourage them, what will happen? Dereliction will happen year after year. People are looking for housing and still there are houses registered that are vacant and they will be vacant for longer and eventually become derelict. At the moment, the vacancy figure for Dublin is about 4% or 4.5% but obviously there are a lot more houses in Dublin. We have to start some place. It would be up to a committee to look at this. We think an amnesty should be allowed for the whole country. The Government will look at it and say it will cost money but it will not cost money because the State would not get the money anyway. It is not going to cost anything.

What an amnesty would do is bring these houses back into use and bring people to the country areas we are speaking about, of which Leitrim is the worst with a vacancy rate of 18% or so. It will bring people into those areas who will join football clubs, be members of An Garda Síochána, bank managers, etc. It will bring people to live in rural Ireland and even Dublin where there are many such houses. We see these properties on the streets every day of the week. It will look like people are living in them and they are being used, instead of people passing by something that is derelict.

It will come at no cost to the Government because it will not get the money anyway until the person dies. In the meantime, however, those properties will be used. Why would the Government not want to do this? It seems like a no-brainer at a time when we have very scarce housing. To take the carbon aspect, we are using 65 tonnes of carbon to build one new house. One, two or three years down the line, Ireland will be penalised for the carbon we are using on building new houses. These houses are there and very little carbon is required to get them back into production. It could be 15 or 16 tonnes, which is one fifth of what is used in one new house. The carbon aspect, aesthetics and giving people a home are all reasons for this.

As the Senator said, we need to think outside the box. I know some people will be unhappy with this proposal but the Government could even cut capital gains from 33% down to 10%. We do not have to go the whole way. We are putting the proposal out there to see if there is anyone prepared to talk to us about it.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be very brief. I am from the Albert Reynolds school of thought and believe in putting everything on one page. The committee heard one of the most concise and precise opening statements in a long time. Every last word is common sense. We know that common sense does not always prevail. There is nothing on the page that I would not agree with. It makes good points on capital gains tax and, as Mr. Davitt just told Senator Boyhan, a reduction in capital gains rather than wiping it out completely could be achievable. Getting these things over the line is not simple but something has to be done.

Much of this is batting the ball back over to the committee. Nearly everything in this proposal belongs in our department and we will have to try to get it introduced. I live in rural Ireland and I drive by these houses every day of the week. The briars, broken windows and empty bottles outside them are getting worse. They started out as lovely houses and with very little work, they could become habitable again and make lovely family homes.

The advantage of doing up a second-hand house is that planning permission is guaranteed. I agree that some stipulations may be made but applicants will not be refused point blank because it is an existing house. The services are in place unless the house is really derelict or uninhabited. The three big issues for anyone who wants to build a house are getting planning permission, dealing with Irish Water to get a connection and dealing with the ESB if a few poles have to be erected. There are, therefore, a lot of advantages.

Given that auctioneers have boots on the ground, do the witnesses believe there are buyers? Is there an appetite out there? Many younger people – we have all been there – aspire to build a designer house like those they see in magazines or on television. There have been some very good programmes on television on refurbishing houses. When people see how well they turn out, it may be that the attitude is changing. I do not want to say that people have attitudes but any young couple will have a dream house of their own and no part of that dream involves doing up an almost derelict house. Would there be an appetite to buy these houses and do this type of a project if all the problems with capital gains and so on were solved and the current owners were prepared to sell these properties? Is there demand and would be people buy into that?

We got spoiled during the boom and the madness. People were able to get a mortgage for more than they should have got to build or buy their dream house. Those days are long gone and a lot of problems have come on the back of that. Would the generation that has grown up since then buy into this? Do auctioneers have people on their books or knocking on their doors asking for second-hand houses or houses they could get a grant to do up and live in?

That is my question to Mr. Davitt regarding his profession and where he is standing.

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

A European report issued only in recent weeks on building in Ireland and what people expect in Ireland as opposed to in many other parts of Europe. When I was growing up, ten of us lived in a four-roomed cottage with two rooms downstair, two rooms upstairs and no bathroom or services of any description. Now, when people go to look at houses with auctioneers, they ask whether there is no en suite in the main bedroom or this or that, which is fair enough because that is what we have come to expect. Because we got enough money to buy these properties in 2004, 2005 and 2006, everybody now wants the same types of property. As the Americans say, it is the American dream to own your own house, which I suppose is everybody's dream, but for this type of property we are speaking about, we believe there are many suitable clients provided they can get the money to buy the property. It is going to cost them a lot less, first, to get the property. Second, they can get a grant to carry out the renovation and, third, they can do it little by little. Many people will take on such a project, although it will not be for the faint-hearted, and they will love taking it on. They will think a lot more of the house at the end of the day than they would of buying a three-bedroomed, semi-detached house.

The answer to the Senator's question is "Yes". There are many customers out there to buy those properties. Even at a time - neither bust nor boom - when property prices fall, if that is to come at a future date, many people will still prefer to go down that route than buy new. Of course, there will always be a range of new houses, old houses, timber-framed houses and so on, and there will always be picky customers who want this, that or the other, but I have no doubt the purchasers will be there.

Mr. Kennedy might wish to add to that.

Mr. John Kennedy:

The rental market is really lacking in stock, so when it becomes available, that will be absorbed back into the rental market. Obviously, the number of people coming into the country to work is growing, as is the population in general, so demand is definitely there. A lot of people are working remotely, as the Senator pointed out, and that is not going to discontinue. The future will very much involve a mixed work week, with people both in the office and at home. I have two employees who travel from County Kildare to work two days a week. There is definitely demand.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there many people on IPAV's books who are in the downsizing market? I have been contacted by a couple of people asking about how these schemes work, saying there is a lovely cottage down the road and that if they could get a grant, they would do the property up, move into it with the wife and give their house to the next generation. Has Mr. Davitt come across that much? Is it a runner?

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

There is quite a bit of talk of that, not least because of the grants. At €70,000 now to do up a property, that is a lot of money. The grants are very generous and it is up to us to ensure people will use them, but for them to be able to do so, people have to have the property or be able to buy it.

The Senator is correct; for a lot of older people, it is a great opportunity. Instead of it happening the other way around whereby the young people would build a house, many older parents are now thinking that, because the house is 3,000 sq. ft, 4,000 sq. ft, 2,500 sq. ft. or whatever and is too big for them, they can take something smaller. That, again, is ideal. I looked at a property earlier on Wilton Place, which is not far from here, because an agent knew I was coming to Leinster House. It is a very old apartment, valued at €400,000. A 92-year-old lady owns it and she is in a nursing home at the moment. She thought the property was worth €200,000 but the agent who is selling it has it valued at €400,000. He will probably get that, or perhaps €370,000, €380,000 or something like that, but her capital gains tax on that property when she sells it, which she will have to pay herself, will be in the region of €140,000. She told the agent today that she will not sell the property because she does not want to pay the tax. That might be fair enough and, at the end of the day, it will be sold when she passes on, but that is the scenario. That property is in Dublin and there is approximately €100,000 to be spent on it to bring it up to a reasonable state. It just goes to show the value of properties in Dublin at the moment. They are the types of things we are speaking about.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both the witnesses for their presentations. On the target that IPAV has proposed would be set for local authorities to bring back into use 25,000 vacant homes, how did it come to that figure? In Mr. Davitt’s professional opinion, how achievable is that? Croí Cónaithe, a scheme that was referred to, has a very low target, of 2,000 properties to come back into use by 2025, and is not in any way ambitious, so that figure should be looked at. Will he speak to coming to that figure of 25,000?

In regard to IPAV's second recommendation for a full-time vacant properties officer for each local authority, vacant homes officers are in place in every local authority. Are they perhaps not doing the job they should be? Should their role be extended or is there a different role that IPAV foresees a vacant properties officer doing?

There is definitely an issue with access to finance, which is very important. The issue I have come across frequently, as someone who lives in a rural community, relates to where a young person who gets that funding under Croí Cónaithe is approved but does not have the money upfront, yet the grant is given afterwards. There may be local builders who are not in a position to take on that work ahead of time and to wait for the grant to come at the end. Access to finance is very important and credit unions are crying out to provide mortgages. Many of them have lots of money on their books and want to provide mortgages and so on. That is something we can follow up on and look to push. People trust the credit unions. They are in our communities and they can play a bigger role. We need to look at allowing them to play that bigger role in our rural communities. A lot of us are in a fortunate position in that in many rural towns and villages, we do not need to build homes given the homes are there, but we need to get them restored, and that will have a win-win in bringing life back to that rural community.

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

We have not carried out much research on the 25,000 target but we conducted a small survey a year and a half ago in one county and two small rural areas in that county. In one case, there were 74 houses in one rural area, yet 40 of them were not being lived in because they were either vacant or derelict. That figure is astonishing. At the moment, if we are to believe the census, there are 166,000 of these properties. The rate of vacancy in the UK is not even 1%, even though there are 28 million homes there. Some people might look at us and say we are in a terrible position but I think it is a great position because the stock is there and we can use it if we get our plans and everything right.

We are saying 25,000 because there is no target at the moment for county councils to get any of these properties back onto the market. I do not know what the relationship is between the county councils, whom they are responsible to and who does what, but when we started preparing this report, there were only four or six vacant homes officers among the 31 county council. I make presentations to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and these county councils on and off, and the most recent time I did one, I think there might have been 27 such officers. At the point we started preparing the report, however, there were very few of these officers, so we said we needed one in every county council.

The purpose of having one on every council would be to identify vacant homes. If I were to ask any county council, with the possible exception of that in Mayo, what vacant houses were in the area, they would not be able to say. Those vacant homes officers should put together a list of these houses. Such a list could be put together, as we say in our report, by estate agents or postmen who pass these houses every day of the week, so the councils could easily put lists together. They could then take the low-hanging fruit and decide whether to bring 5%, 2% or 1% of the houses back into use as long as certain steps were taken. They could identify the ones that would be easy to bring back and the ones that would be difficult, which might need a compulsory purchase order, CPO, or whatever, but there will be many low-hanging fruit to be taken before we even get to that point.

We are saying a target should be put on it. If it is not 25,000, then have a target of 5,000. At least if the target is there and it is hit then that is fine.

The Deputy was speaking about Croí Cónaithe. There is a target there and it is very low. The problem with Croí Cónaithe is the builder only gets the money when the property is built. That is a big problem for them because they must get the finance and interest rates have gone up 3.5% or 4% since the time the scheme began. Now we are in a situation where it is just not possible. By the time people get the Croí Cónaithe grant they have been paying interest in the meantime. That €125,000 or whatever it is - I think it has gone up a bit - is very little compared with then they started off building the house. The county councils must play a huge role in this, but have to be targets. Somebody has to get into a situation where we are going to move this on and get these houses back into production. If we do not, then we are all losing out.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the IPAV representatives for coming in. They have spoke about local knowledge being drawn down to develop a database and we are going to have the farming organisations before us at the next session. Can they assist with that database? Have any discussions taken place between them and the institute on this?

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

The organisations can help with advising farmers that if they are living in a new property, they can sell their old house or homestead. We have talked to the IFA about this. Many people do not want to sell those buildings because many of the ones we are speaking about are close to farm buildings and to the farmyard. A lot of the older houses from years ago were even built in the centre of the farmyard and there is a situation where it is difficult to get at due to rights of way and perhaps other things that go with it. We can help with the clientele who come to buy these properties, because they need to be of some of the same stock, of farming stock or something like that. The farming organisations could impress on owners of these properties that it is time to move on and sell them, maybe. It was said that many of these buildings were now being used to house cattle and the owners might have been a bit fast off the draw. I do not know which of the members said it, but somebody said it anyhow. That is correct and is a good point. However, there is a house there, even if it has been used for cattle. As Senator Daly says, the planning is the big problem here and if there is any part of a house there an applicant will get planning again. That is very good. The IFA and other farming organisations can encourage people to sell these properties. There are owners for them when they decide to do that.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Mr. Davitt is touching on what I want to ask him next. What are the planning obstacles farmers are likely to deal with to make these schemes work for them and their families? I am thinking especially of the revitalisation of the houses in the middle of farmyards Mr. Davitt has just described. There is family succession and even the issue of remediation. Then there is the purpose for which the structure on the land is to be refurbished. What kind of problems does IPAV envisage farmers in those situations coming across?

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

Rights of way are the first thing. Depending on where the house is located in the particular farmyard, a right of way to that house is the biggest thing. It is one of the main bogeys from a bank point of view when financing these properties. If you want to get at the property, you must be able to have roadway to get there. It cannot be a shared roadway as the banks do not like them. That is one of the first things. The second thing is access to farms from these buildings, whether they are far away from the farm buildings or not. The third thing is, we do not want to sell these properties to people who will wake on a Saturday morning after working all day in Dublin or another city, find somebody is putting slurry out next door and immediately think they should not have bought the property. We need to have particular clients, particular people, to buy these properties who are aware of what goes on in the country. If we are able to put all those things together we will be in a situation where many of those properties can be brought back into use.

Capital gains are important in this situation. Many of these farms were handed down to people when they were very young. They could have come down to them from their grandfather or father and been valued at very little at the time. The capital gains problems here are going to be much more than they are with many other people. If that was sorted out to some degree, the farming organisations could play a huge role in trying to make these people see the best thing is to sell their house or do it up. They could move some of their older people into these houses and have young people in the main farmhouse, or something to that effect. That is housing people who would otherwise be going out there looking for a house. Those three things are the most important with respect to the farmhouses of today.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does IPAV envisage major insurance problems with the sharing of farmyards? Let us say Mr. Davitt does up the house in the middle of his farmyard and I move in. What way is there around the insurance issues there? We have a claims culture and there could be serious issues there.

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

There could be serious issues, but there would more serious issues for the farmer who owned the farmyard than the house owner. I happen to live in one of these situations myself. I have an entrance going into my house which is quite long and there are three or four people using it. We got the roadway in tarred recently and the farmer who owns the land beside us has cattle that seem to love to walk on new tarmac. They did not seem to walk on it at all beforehand, but now they are mad to walk on it. There are all these sorts of issues. I was born in the country and I live there, so it is not really a big thing to me, but I can see it being a huge issue for other people. I do not think the insurance is a big problem from that point of view. If they sell such properties, farmers obviously need to be careful about fencing, kids straying into the farmyard and everything like that, so there are issues. However, we have to face it that some of these properties will probably be in a situation where they will not be saleable because of the closeness to farm activity and what is happening onsite. Many such properties are though. We spoke about 13,000 at the beginning and if five or six of them are saleable and can be sold, that is a huge plus to getting more housing stock.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the institute ever approached councils with the ideas laid out in the submission?

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

We sent out this vacant property report. We are updating it at the moment with examples of houses that can be done up. We have sent that to all the county councils.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see.

Mr. Patrick Davitt:

We also sent it to Senators, Deputies and everybody. We have sent it to anybody we think is important. Maybe we missed out somebody, but if we did we would be delighted to pass it onto anybody we can. When we update it, it will take into consideration the grants, the type of properties we are looking at, the type of properties that can be grant-aided and what they can look like when finished. We are going to update that report in the next five or six months, probably. At the moment, it is a report that really speaks about the vacant homes.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Davitt. As Senator Daly said, it is comprehensive and there are many good ideas in it. I wish the institute the best with it.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Davitt and Mr. Kennedy for, as has been said, coming in with a tight opening statement that has practical proposals in it. Some of the suggestions, if taken on board, would greatly expand the housing stock quickly, which is what we all want to achieve. I thank the IPAV representatives. We will suspend now to bring in the witnesses for the second session.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will read the note on privilege again. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action arising out of anything said at a committee meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue on the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publications by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

In the second session on the topic of revitalising derelict or vacant homes on farmland, the committee will hear from the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, from which we are joined by Mr. Brian Rushe, deputy president, Ms Alice Doyle, chair of the farm family and social affairs committee, and Ms Claire McGlynn, policy executive of the committee. Joining the meeting remotely from the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, are Mr. Pat McCormack, president, Mr. John Enright, general secretary, and Ms Alisha Ryan, policy officer. From Macra na Feirme, we have Ms Elaine Houlihan who I wish the very best in her new role, Mr. Michael Curran, CEO, and Ms Niamh Farrell, chairperson of the rural youth committee. Joining us from the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, is Mr. Eddie Punch.

The opening statements have been circulated to members and will be taken as read. I will now call on each group to make a five-minute opening remark and then we will go into questions and answers. I call Mr. Rushe.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I thank members for the invitation this evening. As stated, I am joined by Ms Alice Doyle, our farm family and social affairs chair and Ms Claire McGlynn, our policy executive in charge of that committee. To summarise our statement, during a time of such high housing need, revitalising derelict and vacant houses on farmland is a much-needed operation and it makes absolute sense. We need to ensure that houses that already exist are being fully used and a specific pathway is determined to tackle the blight of vacancy and dereliction which is a feature now of many villages and communities in rural Ireland. Compact development and rural regeneration are all key elements of how we make places better places to live.

The IFA sees the vacant property refurbishment grant as a step in the right direction. It can also be used to renovate properties that have not been used as residential properties before making it very relevant for farmland and farmyards. This is a major step in helping people utilise the existing stock that is already available to them. The refurbishment of these one-off vacant and derelict houses on farms can give family members an opportunity to live within their community. Allowing rental of these properties also gives an opportunity to revitalise rural populations that may be currently in a decline.

A further initiative here could see the possibility of these buildings being refurbished as accommodation for people wishing to work on farms which, as members know, will address some of the labour issues we are now seeing on farms, particularly in the past six to 12 months. There are barriers to smaller-scale existing refurbishment projects such as the uncertainty, costs and delays associated with having to obtain statutory permissions.

There is also the lack of skilled labour available to take on the work of refurbishments on these vacant and derelict homes. Revitalising vacant and derelict homes on farmland has the potential to create support for future generations of farmers, aiding farm succession and keeping farming communities alive. There must always be an option available to those who come from farms to live on the farm, be it in reuse of old buildings or new builds. Not only will this help to ease the housing pressures in the short term but will also help to secure the viability and vibrancy of the local communities, supporting schools, villages, soccer clubs and GAA clubs. We all know there are issues around that. The Chair travels the length and breadth of this country and one only needs to go into a farmyard to see potential. Supporting those farmers and their families to revitalise and renovate those buildings makes absolute sense given the current state of housing in this country. There is no drawback here. The key is to remove any friction in the system that is delaying works.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

We are delighted to have the opportunity to contribute because we are at a time of unprecedented pressure on housing in this country. Obviously, the war in Ukraine has exacerbated that and we have seen contentious issues because a lot of Irish people need accommodation. In February, it was estimated that 11,754 Irish people needed accommodation. The CSO figures also from spring indicate an excess of 12,000 vacant farm houses, either derelict of semi-derelict. The vacant property refurbishment grant could do a lot in this regard. These are houses that are part of our heritage. They are very much integrated within rural Ireland but the planning process is extremely frustrating for any individual or family who have done down the route of repairing and expanding a derelict or semi-derelict house. It is both expensive and cumbersome. It is very easy to spend €15,000 to €20,000 in the planning process before any works are done. As we move forward, vacant, derelict and semi-derelict houses can deliver a substantial housing in a short period.

These houses can be in excess of 100 years old and might not be the most efficient from a layout perspective with thick walls, etc. The 40 sq. m exemption needs to be increased on these houses to bring them practically up to standard for today's living. The 13 month deadline from approval should be changed. The ICMSA believes it should be doubled and be at least two years to get works done and have the work complete. Something that farm families we have liaised with over the past number of weeks and months have raised is the live or rent for a ten-year period is an extremely long period in any farm family or individual's life and we believe that should be the same as the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS, with a five-year compliance perspective.

The Heritage Council grant is available to those who are under the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, to do up farm buildings and we believe derelict farm houses should be part of that as well. There is huge potential to deliver in the short term form a tourism perspective. Mr. Rush referred to rural communities. The rural publican, the rural shop and the rural hotelier come under pressure every day. I heard this morning in the car on the radio that the Brennan brothers are moving out of tourism and I wish them well. It is a sign of what is out there - a shortage of people to come in, a shortage of infrastructure in rural Ireland for people to stay in, and indeed a shortage of housing for those who work in the hospitality and agricultural sectors that Mr. Rushe alluded to.

The first-time buyer's scheme is a noble scheme and that go further than where it currently is and be rolled out further for the purchase of old houses or, indeed, old houses to renovate as well if we are serious about utilising the existing infrastructure within the community and ultimately to house people in the community with minimum impact both physically and visually.

We look forward to questions and answers and interaction as the evening progresses.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

The ICSA welcomes this opportunity to discuss this issue. It is linked to the recent announcement of new terms and conditions, and grant ceiling under the vacant property refurbishment grant, the Croí Cónaithe fund. In principle, ICSA strongly recommends and welcomes the changes that came into place this month. There is a housing crisis, which has been the subject of much discussion. The background to this is a huge increase in population. In 2022, we had a population of 5.1 million, an increase of 1.2 million on 2002 and a 7.6% increase since 2016. The census also showed that the increase in housing stock since 2016 is 6% and, therefore, housing is not keeping pace with population growth. We have had some difficulties in providing enough housing over recent years. The financial crisis, the Covid-19 lockdown, the return of skilled builders to other EU countries and further afield all have posed challenges and there is also, of course, the escalating cost of materials. Nonetheless, there has been some improvement in housing delivery with 29,851 new homes completed in 2022. This is well below the boom years when 93,000 houses were completed in 2006, and while we do not necessarily want to return to the excess of those years, we need to build more houses than we are currently. There has also been a substantial influx of refugees and other immigrants in the past year or so, partially because of the horrendous Ukrainian war. All of this creates demand for housing and we need to be innovative in the way we try to do this.

For all of those reasons, it is good to consider how we can achieve this. What part can rural Ireland play? It is true that the housing crisis is most acute in the large urban centres. Let us consider some facts. According to last year's census, there is a housing stock of 2.1 million but 166,000 vacant homes. Of the latter figure, farm houses were estimated to comprise approximately 12,000 units. There is some potential to provide additional housing in rural areas and on farms. There is a question about how these figures were arrived at. They were achieved by census enumerators but there are probably a lot more derelict properties on farm units, in particular, that the enumerators would not have even come across. It is the case that not all of the 166,000 houses may have been vacant on the night of the census but maybe a more meaningful indicator is that there was approximately 48,000 houses vacant in 2016 that were also vacant in 2022. The number of houses that are vacant on farmland is significant but the question is whether they are in the right location. Certainly, Dublin and the large cities are where the need is greatest. On the other hand, according to the census, the biggest increase in population in 2022 was actually in County Longford at 14%. It might help their football team in the future. That was followed by County Meath, and again the same point, at 13%. County Leitrim's population increased by 10% but its housing stock only increased by 3%. Clearly, there is need for more housing in rural areas as well. Although lots of migrants want to live in the cities, we see lots of immigrants in rural areas.

There are Brazilians living in rural areas, for example. There is demand in rural areas and farmers with derelict farmland properties can be part of the solution.

Aside from that, the reality is that there are people who grew up in rural areas who want to live in the communities in which they grew up. That is evident from planning applications. We need to accommodate it as much as possible.

The new derelict property grant is welcome but there are many issues. The grant rate is reasonably large but the cost of renovating these properties is likely to substantially exceed the grant, particularly in the case of derelict properties. It could cost upwards of €150,000. The documents indicate that the maximum grant may be payable for three-bedroom properties but there is a lack of clarity in respect of two-bedroom properties. A condition of the scheme is that the properties can be owner-occupied or available for rent. That is positive and we welcome it but there is a lot of bureaucracy around this. The scheme states that the property must be occupied by the owner or rented out for ten years after the achievement of grant. It is understandable for that condition to be included but we need flexibility to deal with circumstances that may arise because the penalty for not achieving the terms and conditions is stark. For the first five years, the penalty is a 100% clawback of the grant, while for the next five years it is 75%. Some people may be deterred by the fact that a legal charge is put in place over the property.

That legal charge is relevant to the next problem, which is the issue of financing these renovations. It is next to impossible to achieve bank finance over an appropriate timeframe, that is, one of 15 years or more, for the renovation of a derelict property on farmland or anywhere else. We need the Government to engage with financial institutions to ensure lack of finance is not a problem. In reality, most people will not have this cash available. Tax takes in excess of 50% from small-scale landlords are likely to be a big barrier. There is a need to consider tax incentives in parallel with the grant aid.

In general, we need local authorities to take a pragmatic approach to ensuring there are minimum blockages to people building or renovating these properties. A small number of them may be listed properties but many of them may be traditional buildings with character. Some of them may have been repurposed for farming needs and we need to ensure there is a pragmatic approach to getting these houses into use. There is an issue relating to insurance in the case of people moving to live on a farm. It is an old issue but it may be a barrier. General rules relating to landlord-tenant arrangements are starting to come down strongly in favour of the tenant and that may be overkill in the context of incentivising people to do this. We need to ensure that people who move to the countryside understand there are aromas from silage and sounds from milking machines and that there are no objections to those kinds of things. That needs to be considered.

In general, we welcome the scheme. There are plenty of properties that can be repurposed on farmland. We need to make sure we minimise the bureaucracy and get rid of the unrealistic timeframe for completion. A period of 13 months is not realistic, given that problems will arise in renovation and there is reliance on a scarce building sector to do the work. I thank the Chairman.

Ms Elaine Houlihan:

As president of Macra na Feirme, I am joined by Ms Niamh Farrell, chairperson of the national rural youth committee, and Mr. Mick Curran, CEO of Macra na Feirme. I thank the committee for the invitation to speak on the topic of revitalising derelict and vacant houses on farmland.

Farm buildings and homesteads play a central role in the sustainability of the rural environment. Macra na Feirme supports, therefore, the motion to revitalise derelict and vacant houses on farmlands across Ireland. Historically, the rural landscape has been dominated by agriculture and the activities of rural inhabitants have strongly influenced the agricultural environment and the visual perception of the landscape. Thus, farm buildings and houses are a characteristic part of the landscape. Together with field patterns and boundaries, they provide an essential component of the built heritage and landscape. Farmhouses, designed through the decades to support farming families and their communities, provide a valuable link to our farming past and impart an understanding of historical agricultural settlement patterns and ownership structures.

However, changing farming practice and society needs of farming families have left many farmhouses and buildings unsuited to modern living and farming needs. As a consequence, many farmhouses dotted throughout the countryside now lie derelict. Through the revitalisation of farm buildings, together with their continued appreciation and reuse, there is opportunity to preserve the cultural heritage of our rural landscape while also addressing the current housing crises. This will also address the urgent need to make rural housing and living attractive to the younger rural generation. Macra na Feirme strongly emphasises that these dwellings continue to play a central role in the formation of the rural landscape. Representing the legacy of past generations, they provide us with the challenge of preserving this critical link to our heritage.

These derelict farmhouses also provide an opportunity for rural regeneration through the development of these key assets that are commonly found in prime locations across the landscape. As a result, they have potential to add value to existing farm economies and rural communities. Bringing derelict farmhouses into productive use presents a fast and cost-effective way to meet the current housing demands and the needs of rural communities. There are currently 150,000 vacant homes in Ireland. As these homes are not coming onto the market or being lived in, there is a requirement for additional housing. This additional housing need can be met either by building more houses or renovating existing homes. Renovation of property has a key role to play in addressing the housing shortfall and there are significant opportunities for renovation of housing that is currently vacant on farmland. Rural vacancy is commonly considered only in the context of towns and villages but the derelict farm housing across the agricultural landscape provides significant opportunities for addressing the housing shortfall and rural development. It is important to note that addressing rural vacancy across Irish farmland by renovating derelict properties will also support urban areas through alleviating pressure where housing densities are increasing, thus providing mutual benefits for urban and rural areas.

Local demand for vacant homes in rural areas is currently limited. A recent survey by the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland found that only 25% of derelict properties profiled were deemed to be financially viable. As only 25% of vacant properties may be financially viable, the current scheme available to commercial properties, under which grants of up to €70,000 are available to refurbish a commercial premises once the refurbished unit is passed to a local authority for social housing, cannot be directly applied to derelict houses on farmlands or in the wider rural setting.

Through addressing housing need from an Irish agricultural landscape perspective, the renovation of derelict farm buildings recognises the long-standing role of farmers and the wider rural community in preserving the built heritage left by previous farming generations. This legacy is at the heart of Irish farming families and the communities they support. It must be conserved and managed better so that the legacy is available for future generations.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements and the documentation they provided ahead of the meeting. This issue was discussed at the previous session today.

We have discussed a number of barriers to accessing finance, which have been highlighted here as well. There is obviously an issue where there are lots of vacant and derelict houses. We all know them; we can point to tens of them in our own areas. Typically, you cannot get a mortgage to renovate or restore a house and a proposal was put forward that we would consider a bridging loan provided by credit unions. What are our guests' views on bridging loans? I presume that they would all agree that access to finance is a huge issue.

Many of us have welcomed the Croí Cónaithe scheme as it provides financial support to people in rural areas who want to restore a rural property in order to live in the property. We all support that scheme but there are issues and some of them have been highlighted. I have some questions on the barrier created by the fact that the grant is not paid until the work has been completed. I know of several people in my own area who had hoped, and would have been approved to receive a Croí Cónaithe grant, but they did not have the money or the local builder who was going to do the job could not put up the money in the first instance, wait and go through the process, do all of the work and then wait again for the grant to be paid so clearly there is an issue.

The grant and its availability have been mentioned here but I am not sure that level of awareness exists. The organisations here have lots of members and great outreach. There is a job of work for them to do to raise awareness about a good scheme that provides important financial support to people who otherwise would not have such support. I would like to hear the views of our guests on all of these matters.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I will make a brief comment before handing over to my colleague, Mrs. Doyle.

On the bridging finance and the role of the credit union movement, when the credit unions entered the agricultural lending sector they put pressure on the banks and we have seen growth in the cultivate system. That has been spoken about all over the country and the scheme is now viewed by farmers as a key tool to finance farms. The credit unions could have a huge role to play by providing bridging finance and it is an opportunity for them.

Mrs. Alice Doyle:

Deputy Kerrane, I concur totally with what Mr. Rushe has said about the ability of credit unions to play a great role. We must be very careful because in many cases young people will look for these loans but they will not have security. That is always a worry down the line but credit unions do have a role to play. Young people also seek mortgages in order to buy these properties. It can be quite difficult to secure a mortgage on the grounds that you are buying a derelict house, and must have the work completed within 13 months. There are so many restrictions that a young person will find it very difficult to secure a mortgage. Even if people can secure a bridging loan but will still have to secure a mortgage, which is over a very long period, that is going to be quite a gap to bridge. The 13-month rule is a big problem because if the work is not completed within 13 months then any mortgage is in difficulty. If people are able to secure a mortgage in the first place, they will have been approved for a mortgage based on the fact of receiving a grant. All of that is assuming that the mortgage companies or the banks allow people to get a mortgage based on the fact they are going to get a grant, which is another supposition. We can only presume that that might happen. We cannot be sure that the banks will accept a mortgage application knowing that there is a condition attached to the scheme. We have noticed on a couple of occasions around the country that people have been told in advance of applying to buy these houses that if there is not an ESB or water connection to the old house, it could take quite a period for either or both to be connected, and that can be a difficulty. There is a long waiting list to get connected to the ESB in rural areas, unlike in city areas.

Another issue is the fact that septic tanks require planning permission. We all know of delays in planning permission being granted for new houses. We all know how long it takes for planning permission to be granted for very ordinary sites where straight plans have been submitted to the county council. The length of delay varies as counties have different things in their development plans as to why one cannot do certain things. I would be very worried, particularly for old houses, because planning permission is sought for what is an awkward house when compared with a straight build. In addition, as someone mentioned earlier, each area has certain characteristics which leads to restrictions. For example, there are huge restrictions in counties Wicklow, Kildare and Galway. If there are many restrictions on a new build then there will be huge restrictions associated with old builds and even access to getting in and out of these sites because many of them come out of farmyards. Some of them will even be coming out of sites where a fence may have been closed up as the access route led on to a main road so people are looking for planning permission to get back out on to a road and we all know how difficult it is to get those. I have outlined some of the issues that we need to look at.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We must suspend the meeting as there is a Vote in the Dáil Chamber.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I thank Deputy Kerrane for the question. As was alluded to by Mr. Rushe and Ms Doyle, there are two tedious issues for anyone developing or purchasing a house. One is planning permission and the other is acquiring financial security, unless you are fortunate enough to have it yourself. For either of those, by the time a loan is drawn down or planning permission is secured, it is a 13-month, or certainly 12-month, period. That is why in my opening statement I stated it needed to be 26 or definitely 24 months, rather than 13. My colleague, Mr. Enright, wants to come in with a couple of points on the various opportunities to draw down financial support.

Mr. John Enright:

We have seen in the past on the agricultural side that the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, has provided low-interest loans which have had a huge impact on the farming sector and other business sectors. This may be another opportunity for the SBCI to look at a structured loan. We had a Brexit loan scheme, a Ukrainian loan scheme and a future growth loan scheme. There is a huge opportunity here but people who have access to these houses need access to funding as well. The SBCI possibly has a role.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

The bridging loan idea is one of the potential answers but will only deal with the grant element of the cost of this project. The project is likely to cost €150,000 and upwards so it is not the solution on its own. The issue fundamentally is banks will not lend for the renovation of derelict properties, by and large. In the terms and conditions for this scheme there is a discussion about the charge on the property that will be put in place. That is to ensure that if he or she does not comply with the terms, the local authority in question can get the grant back off him or her at any time in the next ten years: 100% in the first five, 75% thereafter. This is probably also a barrier to lending. It accepts, and the wording is clear, that where the applicant has taken a mortgage to purchase the property, the bank’s charge will take priority. This is ambiguous because in many cases there is not the purchase of property in question. These are derelict buildings on a farm which are likely to be renovated by the existing farm family. Whether it is the older or young generation does not matter. We go back to the fact that there is a finance issue that will cause a huge problem.

Every source of funding needs to be looked at but many of the other options tend to be for shorter terms. We have solved these problems relating to agricultural and farm buildings but in these cases there is the profitability of the farm to pay for, for example, a new milking parlour, combined with a capital allowances provision in the tax code that make the whole piece work together in tandem. We have to think of the tax code combined with the repayment issue because there is a cash flow issue in question. In a rural area, he or she will not get Dublin rents but he or she might get €1,000 per month to rent out a property. That is €12,000 per year. Those who do that would most likely be in the taxable bracket where any additional income is taxed at 50 cent in the euro. It is completely different tax treatment to that given to large institutional investors in large property developments. This has to be looked at because the cash flow issue is hugely problematic for those trying to make repayments over too short of a timeframe and faced with an ever-increasing tax bill. In the first couple of years, there is a large component of interest in the repayments that may mitigate the tax bill, but quickly, at a 50% tax rate, people start running out of road and the tax bill is too severe. Of the €12,000 annual rental income, €6,000 goes to the taxman. The amount of interest that can be offset against that is likely to be small. There are no capital allowances allowed for in this so far, which needs to be looked at. We have the living city initiative, where there are capital allowances to write off the cost of capital investment over seven years, but that is for prescribed areas in the major cities. We should look at something similar here. As a general comment from the financial point of view, people need to be able to access money to be repaid over something realistic. That, in our view, would be 15 to 20 years plus because we are talking about huge investments.

Ms Elaine Houlihan:

Access to finance is one of the biggest hurdles for any young person and one of the biggest reasons we all head to Australia. There is no future, unfortunately. It is fitting the Deputy asked the question because I was talking to a constituent of hers who is fully aware of and has availed of the grant, completed the works within the 13 months but waited another 13 months for the financial support. Let us imagine the stress put on that couple, a young family. That is not acceptable and needs to be looked at. These are all factors that play into the mental health side of things as well. It is our future in rural Ireland. We need the support to do it and that is not viable.

As many members will know, we made the Steps for our Future march from Athy to Dublin, but we always have a solution. Our solution to access to finance is this. As houses need to be owned by the grant applicant at the time of application, the introduction of a State-backed guarantee to assist people buying vacant properties is required. This assistance is in the form of a guarantee. Very few people will have the means to purchase a property and sufficient funds to renovate it. If the State acts as guarantor, individuals may borrow against the future value of their property, as opposed to the current derelict value.

Mr. Michael Curran:

We will come at this from a slightly different perspective. We can talk about a house as an investment, which Mr. Punch did. For many people, it is.

We would rather speak about homes. We would rather speak about an Ireland, and parts of Ireland which are represented by people sitting here, where 40% of homes in that area are holiday homes. What we want to see for our members, having talked to them, is for them to have a realistic opportunity to own a home. That is all it is. We are not talking about having four or five houses out to rent, or one house out to rent. We just want people to be able to live, work and raise a family in a place which they call home, and a place where they have roots. We have no end of members, as Ms Houlihan said, who are going to Australia.

One of our vice presidents, Rob, tells a story which sounds too sad to be true, but it is true. He was one of a group of 12 friends. Rob is 25. Of the 12 friends, he is the only one left in Ireland. We can talk about there being no jobs. There are jobs. We are at full employment, and yet, we still see Rob's friends all leaving, but Rob thankfully staying. We are coming at it from a human perspective and a homes perspective. What we are calling for is support for young people, who we represent, and for young people to be able to live and work where they want. I thank the Deputy.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lots of my friends have gone too, so I get what Mr. Curran means.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to be very brief. I want to thank all of the people for their submissions, and I want to particularly single out the IFA. It put it quite succinctly in a presentation to us when it summed it up in five key messages. It is about farmhouse revitalisation. That is really essential, and that is what we are talking about. I am conscious of not going beyond the remit of the bigger housing issue in terms of urban places. We have a Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, but our focus here is on agriculture and rural communities, and sustaining those rural communities. That is the focus to which I want to pay some sort of attention this evening.

The real focus, in terms of the IFA's submission, is where it talks about farmhouse revitalisation. In summary, it makes five points: housing for the farm family; support the next generation of farmers and their families; allow for farm diversification; contribute to the local economy; and promote environmental sustainability. That is it, in a nutshell. I always say to people when they make a presentation to joint Oireachtas committees to keep it simple and keep the ask simple, and one will get more out of it. I want to acknowledge that, and all the submissions which were made today.

I am conscious of two things. We had IPAV in here earlier on. We discussed a league table in its presentation, which was from the Central Statistics Office. It talked about the vacancy rates across the country. It is extraordinary to look at this map we have in front of us, and we can make this available to the witnesses. We see that at the top of the scale in terms of percentages is Leitrim, with 15.5%. Roscommon has 13.4%, and Mayo has 13.5%. Moving down the scale, Cavan has 11.8%, Sligo has around 11%, Donegal has 11.4%, and Monaghan has around 10%. One comes right down, and believe it or not, Kildare has the lowest, which is surprising. It is lower than even Dublin, at 5.3%. That identifies the issues.

There was a suggestion by IPAV. It touched on a very good issue, which I teased out with them. Everything is down to money at the end of the day, or most things are down to money. One of two things I want to touch on with the witnesses is capital gains tax. I am very familiar with rural Ireland and the agricultural community, and my family farm in Kildare and in Grangecon and Dunlavin in west Wicklow, a part of the world which many of the witnesses may be familiar with. They are quite affluent areas, so they are not good examples of the issues, because they are on the border of Dublin and are highly sought-after for a whole range of reasons. We all know the impact of capital gains tax, and there was a suggestion by the auctioneers who were before us that we could have an amnesty for two or three years. That is not going to happen. Let us not be codding ourselves. There is a case for a reduction in capital gains tax, and I would like to see even a lower rate, or an amnesty for a period. However, I believe it does not need to be a national scheme. It needs to be a targeted scheme.

We have the figures here, which tell us about the rates across the country where there are high levels of vacancies, so we could have a more measured thing. Many farming people tell me they may have a piece of property on the edges of a farm. Now I understand that family farms do not like selling anything, and many see themselves as having a legacy to pass on to generations. That is the history of farming in Ireland anyway. It is a good thing I think, and a nice thing to be able to do. It is not always practical, but it is a nice thing to do.

We could address some of the vacancies in that way, and I would be interested to hear what the witnesses think. They will all know of very significant problems around people being forced to dispose of, or having to sell, split or divide up family farms, and there are also issues around capital gains. There is an issue there, and Mr. Punch touched on it when he talked about the rental sector. Remember, when one is doing up houses to rent, there are landlord and tenancy regulations. It is very difficult to get someone out after a while. There are issues then around rental income, and how much one can offset all of that. It is not an attractive option for a lot of people, and it comes with a lot of constraint. The landlord and tenant issue is clearly a challenge, as are our rural housing guidelines. I call again on the Government to proceed and honour its commitment with regard to the rural housing guidelines. They need to be published. We need some degree of certainty.

I want to share with the witnesses two things before I ask them one question. I was in Jersey for the last few days at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, and the witnesses might ask what that is all about, but it concerns the jurisdictions of Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and the Crown dependencies, so we are talking about Guernsey, Jersey and other places. What was interesting was that at one of our discussions at the fringe committee I am on - committee D - we talked about rural housing. This is a huge problem in Scotland and Wales. We need to look at jurisdictions, and we also need to look outside the box on this issue. It was interesting that in Scotland, the housing authorities there are buying up clusters in a five-mile radius, which is, we might say, ten to 15 houses, doing them up, and putting them into a trust. I am not in the business of saying it should all be for the local authorities. It could be a public private partnership, or a synergy with a co-operative movement, where they would buy up these vernacular stone buildings, restore them, and enter into up to 30-year leases for some people on very favourable terms. This is addressing the issue which the IFA and others have touched on today about supporting rural communities.

We have a situation in parts of rural Ireland, which the witnesses well know and do not need me to tell them, where GAA clubs are closing down. Schools are empty, families are abandoned, and older members of families really want their families to come back to them. At the same time, we can now work from home two or three days a week. It is now becoming an attractive proposition to work two days a week in our places and come to Dublin. We also know that many rural farmers are farming part-time. They cannot make a living out of it, so they are farming part-time, and they are involved in agri-related enterprise and business, or are totally in town doing something else. It could be finance, selling insurance, or doing anything. Wi-Fi connectivity and all of that offers opportunities to stay partially on the farm.

The bottom line is that we know we have thousands of empty properties, and we need to embrace it. The witnesses are pushing an open door with me, and with most members of this committee. We have addressed this issue.

I draw the witnesses' attention to a report on town and, in particular, village regeneration, which was compiled and published earlier this year by the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, of which I am a member. It had 39 recommendations, and I am going to circulate this to the witnesses tomorrow. Out of that, and co-operating and working with each other, we could drive this agenda. I always say it, and I say it more so in this committee than I do at other committees, it is about driving the political agenda. We have had a lot of debate in recent weeks and a certain amount of talk about discourse within rural communities, and the need for rural communities, particularly agricultural communities in rural Ireland, to mobilise and combine their efforts and energies with regard to more political engagement. We are discussing this matter in Dublin, and we know that politics is very Dublin-centric, and we need to address that and get back out to the communities. That is something I would encourage.

I hear and understand what the witnesses are saying. There are real opportunities here to revitalise communities, address issues around sustainability, get houses renovated and lived in, and support the farming communities and the older people who live in the villages around those communities and infrastructures. I will go back to the question around capital gains. What are the witnesses' personal experiences of it, what do they think about some amnesty or a major reduction? I would only favour it in a targeted way for particular rural communities which are in crisis, and which, as we have identified through the Central Statistics Office, have these very high empty residential units.

I thank the witnesses for engaging. This is an especially interesting session on agriculture. It is important. We live in a community, an economy and we live in rural Ireland and an agricultural community. We need to support all that together. The witnesses might briefly address what they think about the issues of capital gains tax and its implications.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I will pass the question on to Ms Doyle in a second, but I will make a comment on the piece around vacancy and dereliction rates. The Senator mentioned counties Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo and Donegal. Then we come down to County Kildare where there are low dereliction rates. There is a similar problem in Leitrim and Kildare as regards availability. People cannot live on derelict and vacant sites. It takes a lot of money and time to do them up. In Kildare, nothing is available. There is an issue in both of those extremes. People cannot buy them because they cannot get the finance. They cannot rent them because they are either not available for rent or not fit to be rented. They cannot do them up or build on them. That is an issue. People in those counties, whether it is Roscommon or Kildare, are looking for homes. Our colleagues in Macra na Feirme are quite right that we are talking about homes. They want to live in their communities but there are roadblocks and friction in the system that delay everything. In my period as county chairman in Kildare and west Wicklow, I often met farmers whose son or daughter wanted to come home to farm and live on the farm and they were refused planning permission on the basis of local need. I do not know what more local need there is than for people to live in and contribute to the community they were born in. In many cases they were coming home to live close to elderly parents and provide the care that was required. That is a service to the State. It is the same issue between both things. We must remove the friction. It goes back to our submission. We must make this process easier as regards finance and planning permission. We must remove the friction for genuine cases. I am not talking about speculation. I am talking about people who are looking to build homes and live in the areas in which they were born.

Mrs. Alice Doyle:

The Senator mentioned a couple of the points. I will come back to capital gains tax in a minute. He made a few points about houses on the edge of a farm or belonging to a farm. In many cases they would be used for family members if they could be done up. He also alluded to the fact that many family members are working part-time on the farm or are working in the local community. As we have emphasised on numerous occasions, the contribution to the local community is important. We have just come through a session of four major meetings on inheritance and succession. The biggest question we were asked was around how we will provide for the next generation. We spoke about houses that are on the edge of the farm or in the farmyard on numerous occasions. Many of the houses are in the middle of the farmyard and not suitable for sale, but they are suitable to be given to a family member. It would be cost-effective to give them to a family member because they would be well under the inheritance tax threshold. They would easily be under the €335,000 even when people are doing up an old house. The value of houses in the middle of a farmyard is less than if it on the outskirts of a farm. Those houses could be done up and given to family members, perhaps even to some who are not working on the farm. That has become a big question for us, when it comes to inheritance. Farmers have to provide for more than the person who will inherit the farm. Other family members need to be considered. In that case, a house being done up on the farm is a viable proposition, as Mr. Rushe mentioned, as long as they do not have to jump through hoops to get there. Sometimes it is easier to get planning permission on a one acre site that can be given to a son or daughter, free grass. No inheritance tax has to be paid on it. It does not have to be included in the €335,000. It might be easier to build a house if there will be too many restrictions on doing one up.

As regards capital gains tax and doing up buildings, most of these buildings will not necessarily be for sale if they are on farms. They will come back to the family, so capital gains tax will not be an issue. The sale would be an issue if it comes to capital gains. Many of them would not be for sale. Many of them would remain on the farm. In the event of them being put up for sale, the value of a house could be raised quickly. A house that is valued at a low rate and is then sold after being done up can have a serious increase in value. That can have serious implications down the line. We must be careful about that. The other thing the Senator mentioned in his comments were the English plans such as group developments around the edges of towns or groups buying up a small number of houses. Many of the development plans talk about building nodes of four or five houses in an area. In parts of the country, along certain parts of the road there are strings of old houses. If they could be sold to companies that would take them on and do the building, that would be a viable proposition. Companies can get grants that farmers cannot get to do it. Even if grants can be obtained for the development of a derelict house, companies would be quite interested in doing it and it would add greatly to our local community. Local development nodes are important to the survival of rural communities.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I will be very brief because the question was targeted to our view on capital gains tax. Mrs. Doyle touched on it. It only becomes an issue if someone is selling the property. My understanding is that the spirit of the scheme is to create a home for a member of the family, a member of the community or someone who comes to work in the community. We alluded to the timeframe and cost earlier. It would be far more prudent if there was some initiative under capital allowances for the people doing up the houses to get relief in the perhaps two years during which they were doing up the house. Capital gains tax is really only an issue for those selling a house. In many cases, on a farm the house will not be sold because people want an idea of who will be in it in the future and their view of agriculture. On any country road this evening tractors will be moving at a late hour and at an early hour again tomorrow morning. That will go on for the next three weeks with the silage harvest. Therefore, people want agriculture friendly citizens in the rural area. To reiterate, capital allowances would be a far more prudent way of giving people an incentive and support while they build their homes in their communities.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

As the previous speakers stated, not many people will want to sell the property, especially if it is located somewhere in the middle of the farm. However, there may be some cases in which it is on the edge of the farm and it may be sold as a proposition to pay for the new milking shed or slatted house. There are examples of this because people are borrowing a lot of money for these projects. If they can alleviate the cost by selling something out of the edge of the farm, in such cases it might be relevant. In general, as I said earlier, the issue is the relationship between finance, making the repayments and the taxation treatment of same. There are different scenarios. In some cases we are talking about refurbishing a derelict property to rent it out. In some cases we are talking about farm families refurbishing properties for their sons or daughters. In the end it does not really matter what the ownership model is. They are all homes. The question is how we ensure we have a financial proposition that works for everyone. If we do not have the finance right and reasonable taxation treatment, it will not happen and the opportunity will have been missed. The real potential scenario is that there may well be someone farming at home who will get planning permission to build a new house on the farm because they have a right to do that if they are farming. There are difficulties and every county is different.

The potential here, in my view, is that there are second and third members of the family who have to be catered for in the overall inheritance settlement and who could very much benefit from renovating a derelict property on the family farm. In that scenario, as the Senator noted, they could commute from the farm to work in one of the cities or towns rather than trying to buy or compete for rental property in the town. In the end, every house that is renovated is of some benefit, direct or indirect, not just to the farm family in question but given the fact another house is freed up somewhere else.

We have to go back to the key issues here. A €70,000 grant sounds great but how do we turn this into reality in terms of finance as well as in terms of planning permission and bureaucracy?

Ms Elaine Houlihan:

I thank the Senator for the question. I am sure he is not going to enjoy our answer as it is not in bullet points and is not nice and concise. First, I concur with the IFA on the comments on local needs. I would question the statistics in regard to dereliction in Ireland because people themselves have to register the building as derelict in some areas. I would not stand over those figures. The big take-home here is that we want homes, and I think everybody is now saying “homes” rather than “houses” or “properties”. I am going to hand over to Ms Farrell and Mr. Curran. Ms Farrell has a few bullet points, so the Senator might be happy with that.

Ms Niamh Farrell:

I echo what our colleagues in the IFA said in terms of local needs and what is relevant to those in local communities. We have had members who wanted to build on their farms. These are farmers who were born and reared in areas but who were told they were of no local need to that area, but their partner, who was not born, bred or reared there, because they had a different profession, would actually get them planning. We need to look at the rural planning guidelines.

In regard to capital gains tax, I do not think that would be very relevant. There are many people in rural Ireland who want to live on their rural land, and if we can get them sorted first, it would be a great job. I have two points to make on that, namely, it is an increase in wealth for those people with the most and nothing for the young people who are already living hand to mouth. Those are my two points on that.

Mr. Michael Curran:

I agree with my two colleagues. We have tried tax breaks for years in Ireland in regard to property, and if we have learned one thing at this stage, it is that they do not work. If we are looking at young people who want to be able to afford a home, then we have to allow them to be in a position to buy the home or refurbish the home. What Ms Houlihan floated earlier was a State-backed guarantee, but let us go further with that. There is a grant of up to €70,000 available to do up a house, and that is inclusive of VAT. Why not be a small bit imaginative here? Why do we not say that is exclusive of VAT if people get to a B1 rating, and thereby incentivise people to be sustainable? We cannot argue with that. When it comes to tax breaks, we would say a strong “No”.

We hear a lot about capital allowances and we have heard it today once again. As Ms Farrell said, many of our members are living hand to mouth. Increasing capital allowances for people is a nice idea but it is not going to solve the issues our members and young people in general are facing throughout Ireland.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one point. Not all vacant houses are on farmland in rural Ireland. We will find a lot of cases where there was a house on an acre of land and, when the older generation died out, the house was left empty. Some of those houses might be done up and sold if there was a tax incentive for the next generation. With regard to capital gains in a farm family situation, I fully accept that very few of them would be sold, but if anyone travels a parish in rural Ireland, they will see there are a good few of those empty houses that are not attached to a farm.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I thank the Deputy for his questions. I will hit off one or two points before passing on to Ms Doyle. He made some valid points. The situation can be summed up in one word, which is inconsistency, whether in relation to the banking sector or the county councils. There are some major inconsistencies among the councils. I will again go back to an issue that we came up against in Kildare when I was chairman. We had someone who was looking for planning permission to build on family land. The person was coming home to the area and wanted to come out onto the existing driveway to get out onto the main road but was refused planning permission on that basis. The person resubmitted the application and put in a new entrance onto the main road but was refused permission again because of the line of sight. That is what people are faced with. That person went through an awful time trying to get planning permission, trying to work things out and bent over backwards for the council. That is a major inconsistency, which made no sense. It was just because words on paper were interpreted in a certain way.

One of the other major inconsistencies the Deputy did not mention relates to development levies. This is particularly problematic in Border counties.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

They can be appealed but in counties such as Wicklow, Meath and Kildare, the levies are very high. I am based on the Kildare-Offaly border and the development levy in Kildare is four times that in Offaly but the services-----

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I am not sure. I think people can appeal it down.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no allowance in Kerry.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

That is a huge inconsistency. Furthermore----

Mr. Brian Rushe:

People are applying for a mortgage and a big chunk of that mortgage is being used to pay a development levy, even though they are sinking their own well, they have their own septic tank and they will not be getting any street lights or other services. It is very hard to see how they are getting value for their money and that is something that sticks in the craw of a lot of people who want to build on family land.

Mrs. Alice Doyle:

I have personal experience in this area. My daughter applied for planning permission to build on the farm. She will take over the farm. She has not built the house yet. She decided to buy rather than build, even though we had given her the site, because the levies were more than €3,000. That was for street lighting, sewerage and water connection. The nearest one to us is probably 7 km away. We were told that the soonest they will have room to build houses in that village is seven years. She wisely decided to hold onto the site for the next five years and maybe do something with it then, but would buy a house in the meantime where she can get all of those things.

I live in County Wexford where there is a huge number of holiday homes and I want to address the Deputy's point on that. Trying to get those houses used for accommodation would be absolutely impossible. Most people who own those holiday homes use them for three months of the year but they are not open to having them used for anything else during the rest of the year. Unfortunately, I cannot see holiday homes being a way to free up housing. The owners see them as their private property and believe they have their right to their holiday time and so on.

Mrs. Alice Doyle:

Yes and just to finish on that point, the Deputy is absolutely right. There are inconsistencies everywhere. There are inconsistencies in planning. In some counties, it takes forever to get planning permission to do even the simplest thing like build an extension. People can apply and reapply and it costs every time they go back to do that because they are changing the plans, for example. They have to go back to their architect and pay to have changes made. It becomes very costly. There is inconsistency in how different councils approach what one is doing. It depends on the planner. In our county, it depends which planner they go for. They try to find out which one of the planners is going to be taking their case when they apply for planning permission because they know some of them will be a little bit more lenient than others, particularly if they are in a rural area. Some are a little more lenient in rural areas while others just have notions and do not make one ounce of sense.

The other point I absolutely agree on is that there are a number of one-off houses, as the Chairman said earlier, that do not belong to farms. Many of those are in parts of Ireland where the bloodline has died out. There may be a fair bit of bureaucracy involved in trying to find out the folio for those, who owns them and going back far enough to get them registered into somebody's name. In many cases, those houses have gone through a couple of generations now and to get them registered on a folio can be quite difficult.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I thank the Deputy for his comments and questions. Certainly for the one-off rural dweller, whether in a new house or a revamped one, the service charges for footpaths and street lighting are hugely frustrating, regardless of whether they are young or middle aged.

He mentioned that HomeBond is an issue and it is certainly is a problem for people buying houses that were partially completed at an earlier time. He talked about a number of inconsistencies in regard to building an extension out the back. Such work is looked on differently in different counties. The same is true with TII in respect of roads.

One of the challenges with regard to derelict houses is the council's interpretations. There can be questions around retaining a wall. There can be health and safety issues with retaining a wall, as well as issues with energy ratings and so on. The Deputy alluded to the fact that in 5% of septic tank inspections there was a problem which had to be remedied in order for people to be able to draw down the grant aid.

We need to be very sure that we do not overburden the people that are building. The availability and feasibility of finance is a real issue in the context of bridging the gap while waiting for the €70,000 grant. For the drawdown of a mortgage, there are four different drawdown periods, or five with some financial institutions. It would help builders if the grant aid could be drawn down in four or five tranches as well, rather than having to wait until the very end to get all of the grant aid.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

Inconsistency is a problem but I would be a bit nervous that it would be solved by going to the worst possible level of consistency.

I do not say that lightly. There is a lot of ideology coming into this around one-off houses, aesthetics and energy ratings. There is a whole list of things that are fundamentally going to act as a barrier to progress, to be blunt about it. We need to have a reasonable and pragmatic approach to what is needed. At the end of the day, people need a home at a reasonably affordable price.

Many people as they grow older find themselves living in a house that is too big for their needs. That issue is relevant to this discussion. It reminds me of a family of four I know who are living in a rented house while the family farmhouse is being used by the remaining parent. The family is now renovating an old stone farm building for the mother to move into. There is a lot of potential for good succession plans here. One of the issues with family farms and succession is that the farm will not provide enough income for two houses. Part of that is linked to the cost of living. The cost of living is really about the younger family and how they pay the mortgage. In some cases, they may end up building a new house or renting or buying a house in the nearest town while the solution is there in front of them. The younger family with the kids should move into the old farmhouse and the parents should downsize into what could be a renovated shed or other building on the farm. There are many possibilities for practical solutions but the potential barriers are bureaucracy, ideology and planning officials who have a "can't do" rather than a "can do" attitude.

Ms Elaine Houlihan:

Everyone here has noted the issue of inconsistency. There is inconsistency from the banks, infrastructure and planning, and even regarding septic tank grants. Inconsistency is what is driving us out of rural Ireland, the place where we want to have a home, and I emphasise the word "home". I know of a brother and sister who both applied for planning permission on the family farm at the same time. The brother is working the farm and the sister is not. They intended to build identical houses in order to piggy-back and get things done a bit cheaper. The brother got his planning but the sister was refused because the planner said the building did not fit with the landscape despite the intention to have the houses built only 300 m apart in the same field. That is simply baffling.

In the past couple of weeks, I have spoken about the housing issue with many people who have moved abroad to countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Of the 50 people I spoke to, 34 of them told me they had moved abroad because they could not obtain planning permission or could not renovate an old farmhouse and they could not see a future here. Red tape is preventing many people from staying in rural Ireland.

Regarding planning objections, the fee to lodge an objection is only €20. This facilitates serial objectors. For a mere €100 they can lodge five objections. A person could put that amount of money aside in a week. I know that people are finding things tough financially but this fee needs to be raised. People applying for planning permission spend thousands but someone spending only €20 can stall the ball for them. How can that be right? Why something is not being done about it is simply baffling.

Mr. Michael Curran:

We keep talking about homes. There are 60,000 holiday homes in Ireland. That is according to Google so how true that is I do not know. Last weekend, we had our AGM in Bantry on the lovely Beara Peninsula. We discovered that 40% of the houses on the peninsula are holiday homes. I am lucky in that I come from close enough to where Deputy Healy-Rae comes from. I come from the Iveragh Peninsula where about 50% of the houses are holiday homes. Mrs. Doyle said that people stay in holiday homes for three months of the year in her experience. In our area it is closer to six to seven weeks of the year. We have approximately 60,000 houses that would, if not fix, go a hell of a long way towards fixing the housing issues we have. They are all houses in good condition, requiring nothing to be done to them. Yet, for the princely sum of €200 a year with non-principal primary residence tax, people can keep those houses. At the same time, we have over 11,000 people homeless and the figure is growing. Perhaps we have to get a small bit real and stop talking about tax incentives such as capital gains taxes that were referred to earlier. Let us go the other way. Why do we not fund a social housing building programme on the back of holiday homes that exist right now? It is not politically palatable - I know that - but we just want homes for our members. It is too late for my friends. They left years ago but we want to stop people like Ms Houlihan and Ms Farrell, smart, educated people who are contributing to society, from having to leave because they do not have a future here. We want a future for our young people. There should be no sacred cows when it comes to securing a future for our young people.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the president of Macra na Feirme and wish her the best in her term. It is a great honour to be president of that great organisation and I congratulate her. I also thank the other farming organisations for attending. I will start with the young farmer profile. Young farmers up to the age of 35 are incentivised to apply for targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, grants. They are also incentivised to renew the family farm as best they can. This is around the same age bracket as when many people apply for planning permission to build a family house in anticipation of starting a family. At that stage in life, people have enormous expenses and pressures. A young farmer may have the pressure of the deadline for the TAMS grant because of the age profile required for it, coupled with the pressure of building a house and starting a family. Those issues are very intense during that period. This can also often involve two families living off the holding during that time. The younger generation is under huge pressures and we need to offer various supports. The idea of renewal, be it of family farms or rural Ireland in general, is really important. We need to figure out how we can work with the relevant entities to ensure the taxation and grant issues are addressed. This will help the younger people through the intense ten-year period I referred to. What does the Ms Houlihan think can be done to help that generation of farmers?

Regarding the grants that are available for housing, this forum is very important. Information needs to be got out there because I am always amazed at the number of people who listen to these debates. The grants being made available for derelict housing are amazing. There is up to €70,000 available, plus another €28,000 in SEAI grants. To renovate a house someone can obtain almost €100,000. In my clinic in Bandon two weeks ago, I had a couple who were intending to build a one-off rural house, something similar to what was described earlier. They were in their 30s and getting married in Clonakilty at the end of the month. They had a derelict house on the farm which now has the potential to draw down €100,000. They have actually withdrawn their planning permission application because it is more financially viable to look at the other options. Is there a need for the farming organisations to start talking about these grants and what this positive development could mean for rural Ireland? It could be the game changer.

Instead of going for a long drawn-out planning process, the principle of a house and a site is already set out. A structure with a roof is exempt from planning, as is a structure at the back of the house of less than 40 sq. m in area. All of these are part of the planning process. Is education through the farming organisations required to look at these issues?

In my part of the world in Cork development charges are paid on wastewater, water, public lighting, public footpaths and rail. They are only paid if they are applicable. There are scenarios where people have been charged for services that are not there but it does not happen in my county. People pay for public amenities and roads for a one-off rural house but the other payments are not applicable. This information needs to be put out there so those who are listening in know exactly what is required.

The €100,000 that has been thrown on the table for a person to look at the possibility of renovating a property, whether they want to let it out or have it as a principal private residence, is significant. There is €28,000 for the energy grant. This is the added bonus. Those going for one-off rural houses do not get this.

The CEO of Macra na Feirme mentioned holiday homes. We had a wonderful opportunity to welcome Macra na Feirme to Bantry at the weekend. There was a wonderful AGM and I thank Macra na Feirme for coming to Cork to show off that wonderful occasion. We need a debate on holiday homes. They need to be discussed. It is not very popular to look at what holiday homes give to rural communities. I have previously mentioned a village in west Cork that has Saturday night fever whereby people go for a Saturday night and then leave again. They bring their shopping with them. They are of benefit to only one pub for one night and then they go home. This happens over three or four months of the year. We have an issue in how we address this. To get planning permission in rural areas of Cork people need to be from the area, they must have a housing need and they need a suitable site.

Being from the area is defined by the school catchment area. This is a debate we need to have. Someone suggested leaving it wide open. If we had a planning system that was wide open then everyone from Blackrock in Dublin or another location would be coming down to buy a house as a summer home. That would do nothing for the local area. They would displace Macra na Feirme members who wanted to buy a site and who would be outgunned by a professional with finance behind them. This is a very difficult debate about trying to work out where we will go forward. There is a lot of work for younger farmers and younger people given the time limit for grants and how they manage in that period of time. I am 46 years of age and I have come out of it a little bit but I know where I was a decade ago when there were two families on the holding, one a young family with a mortgage. We need to do work to make sure it is right. We have to look at the holiday homes scenario. It is unpopular to do so but it needs to be worked on.

Another issue is the grant. In my time in public life, I have never seen a grant of €100,000. This is a real driver for people to get moving on these properties. I believe the dereliction figures are correct. Innishannon is a lovely little village outside of Cork. There were 18 empty houses there last Saturday. That is nuts. There are issues with inheritance and title deeds. Until the local authority steps into the remit regarding how to clean up these sites we will have issues with dereliction. There is a real challenge here. The money is on the table and we just need to make sure we get movement on it.

Something I did not mention is the issue relating to labour. All of the money in the world is worth nothing unless we can get tradesmen to deliver it on the ground. I have seen it in my parish where very good plumbers and electricians, who are probably in their 30s, have been soaked up by multinationals. They are headhunted because they are competent and capable. We lose these guys who have worked in the trade for ten years and who now, at the age of 31 and 32, are working in Ringaskiddy. That is also nuts. All of the money in the world will not deliver housing if we do not have tradesmen on the ground. This is a global issue. Housing is not only an issue in west Cork. It is also in London and all over the world. There is not a city, province or area in the world that is not affected by the housing issue. How we deal with the shortage of labour will be a big issue for global society.

Ms Elaine Houlihan:

I thank Senator Lombard. It was difficult for a Limerick woman to go down to Cork last weekend. I will make a few comments and Ms Farrell will tell her story. She is a prime example of someone affected by the issues. She is expecting her first child and is farming at home. What can we do to keep young people?

Senator Lombard touched on the issue of labour. Everyone is going to Australia. Relocation offers are ridiculous. I am a physiotherapist and the €100,000 would not touch the relocation package I was offered to go to Australia. There is something I want to correct. Senator Lombard referred to tradesmen. He should have used the word "tradespersons".

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies.

Ms Elaine Houlihan:

We are very inclusive in Macra na Feirme. I will hand over to Ms Farrell to let her tell her story and the worries they are facing. I can tell other people's stories but when we have somebody in the room we might as well hear it first hand.

Ms Niamh Farrell:

Senator Lombard mentioned pressure. I am definitely feeling the pressure with six weeks left in the pregnancy. It is well there at this stage. Senator Lombard mentioned generational renewal. I was one of the members of Macra na Feirme who went to agricultural colleges to speak about the Make the Moove project. There are young lads and ladies in this room who, when they were in their final year in agricultural college, did not know what succession meant. This is a major issue because there is no investment in succession plans or in young persons taking over the homestead.

In our case we not too bad. There was an understanding of what would happen and that it would happen fairly lively whether we liked it or not. My partner has taken over the farm. We are supposed to be moving into the farmhouse and a smaller house is supposed to be built for the person living there at present to suit his needs. However, he cannot get planning permission for that smaller house. We are renting a house ten minutes down the road. We are stuck in a small house with a newborn on the way while someone has to go over and back the road to milk cows twice at day. It is not ideal.

We put the plans in place ourselves. We have spoken about succession. It was all well and done but the Government and the local authority put roadblocks in our way. What more does the State want us, as younger people, to do? We have had these conversations and the holding has been passed over but we are not living on it because a lack of planning permission is stopping us from doing so. I am not sure what more we can bring to the table. We have ticked all of the boxes in terms of the conversation about succession and generation renewal. We have done our best but we are still being stopped.

I do not know what the Government or the local authority wants from us in this sense. We cannot go anywhere because it is our livelihood. I am working on the farm and he is working on the farm. We need to live there. We might have to sleep in the cubicles if the worst comes to the worst. We have tried to put all the plans in place and follow what is required but it is not going our way. I am not sure whether anybody else wants to take up the point.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

Senator Lombard has made some very good points. I will make a comment on the pressure on young people setting up. It is only ten years since I had to do it. We built a house and developed a farm and threw a couple of children in there too. Whatever could be proposed in terms of easing the pressure on young people would be well worth it.

Would I do it again? Not a hope. I wish Ms Farrell the best of luck.

Ms Niamh Farrell:

Should I run now?

Mr. Brian Rushe:

No. It is all worth it in the end.

The point the Senator made about development levies in Cork is really important because it shows the inconsistency. The county council in Cork has very clear criteria for how development levies are charged. That is not the same throughout the country. It is off the wall in some parts-----

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is bunched up in local authorities-----

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I completely understand the Senator's point on that. We have had issues relating to housing and agricultural developments in that the development levies were so out of kilter that they would make the agricultural developments unviable before even starting. That just highlights the level of inconsistency. In considering these cases, we regard Cork County Council as fair in how it deals with agricultural developments, sheds and rural housing.

I do not believe in wide-open planning in the context of doing up a derelict house or farm building, including for a family member coming home or another member of the family. We are not talking about speculation but about providing homes for people. If an opportunity arose down the road to rent out a building to supplement income and diversify farm activity, that would be acceptable too. We are not talking about leaving it wide open.

The Senator is quite right about highlighting the opportunity the scheme presents. We state in our submission that there is definitely a role for local authorities in making people aware that there is an opportunity for people. Of course, there is also a role for us, which, I am sure, Ms Doyle will mention

Mrs. Alice Doyle:

I wish to address a couple of the points the Senator raised, starting with the grant of €100,000. It would be generous if there were no inconsistencies in applying for it or using it. As we have discovered, however, the number of inconsistencies around the country, depending on the county council being dealt with, makes the grant a lot less attractive. Financially, it does look attractive. If we could get rid of the bureaucracy, I am sure many more people would take it up.

I cannot see how to get around the issue of holiday homes whose owners use them for a couple of months of the year. However, some derelict houses could be done up, and we could have farm tourism. In the past, we had farm guest houses and that kind of thing. Derelict houses could be done up on farms in some areas for renting out as holiday homes. People say they will be left vacant for part of the year, including in the winter, because people in Ireland tend to holiday very much in the late spring, summer and early autumn. Even where renting out in the non-holiday period is concerned, there are so many restrictions that people are very slow to rent. If they do put a tenant into a house from September, they want him or her out again in May because, perhaps, they want to rent the house for holiday accommodation on the farm. To put somebody out of accommodation after six months is not very easy.

The taxation of holiday-home income is very severe, which makes rental less attractive. I am not suggesting one should not pay any tax but saying there could be a preferential tax based on the fact that the rental would keep employment in the community. As has been said, if people come to an area on holiday they will contribute to that area. They contribute in that they buy their groceries there and spend their money in the local nightclub, pub and so on.

I absolutely agree that the information campaign of the rural organisations could be stepped up. From the perspective of the IFA, including the farm family committee, we believe, now that we are becoming more familiar with the concept in question, that we could promote it more in our communities. We do a lot of work on inheritance and succession. This could be linked in on the basis that it could be an alternative for supplying a second or third member of the family with a home, in addition to being a viable proposition that would add to the revitalisation of the rural community.

The problem with village and town dereliction is much worse than that of one-off houses. There are streets in small villages all around Ireland that are derelict. The sooner county councils face up to this and take some action to force people to use the buildings, the better. It would be a very big move.

The Senator talked about the lack of qualified labour. I recently had the opportunity to visit the new university in Waterford, South East Technological University. We were considering various apprenticeships and in this regard the university showed us its fantastic facilities for training builders and plasterers. It cannot fill the training positions. In the context of most of these, there is very poor supply. We will have to adopt an attitude to encouraging people to take up apprenticeships again, and we will need some labour because qualified labour is scarce. The scarcity makes it very difficult, particularly when subcontracting the building of houses. There is a period of 13 months in which to get the work done. A builder might get you as far as roof level in the first month, but then you will be left waiting for three months for a roofer to come and another two or three months for a plumber to come, meaning the 13 months will be used up.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

As someone who is just about younger than Senator Lombard, I regard the years in question as very challenging. The Senator asked what we can do to make life easier for those between 25 and 35. Although it is a while since I was that age, it is not that long ago. The Senator mentioned TAMS grants. These are certainly a bone of contention for many who take over farms at a young age. The five-year rule is very penal as regards qualifying as a young farmer. It should apply up to the age of 35, or indeed to a period of ten years after taking over the farm. There are farmers who are 25 or 26 years of age and who find themselves no longer eligible.

The Senator talked about supporting two farm families. To refer to the TAMS again, particularly the dairy part, the limits of 160 cows for a partnership and 120 cows for an individual prevent the opportunity to secure the economic sustainability of two households. The Senator is right that a grant of €70,000, with the €28,000 energy grant on top of it, is quite substantial. We will not be found wanting in highlighting the opportunity that exists to revitalise old structures. However, it is critical that the message get through to planning consultants because they are usually the first port of call for individuals and young couples who want to move to a place they call home. Awareness among consultants that there may be opportunities associated with existing infrastructure on farms is needed. Ms Ryan wants to join in and give a younger person's perspective on the questions.

Ms Alisha Ryan:

I thank Senator Lombard for his questions on grants. There are numerous grants and they are good, but they need to be improved drastically. We spoke about the issues in getting tradespeople and builders. From my perspective as a young person, I am aware that many of them have emigrated. In addition to people finding it difficult to obtain planning permission, there are many tradespeople emigrating.

The terms and conditions of the vacant property refurbishment grant, whereby the work must be completed within 13 months, are not realistic. To relieve the pressure on builders and tradespeople, the period needs to be expanded to at least 24 months. If a person does not live in the house or rent it out for more than ten years, he or she has to pay back 75% of the grant. This frightens people away from the grant. Ten years is quite a long period. The circumstances of individuals and families change and 75% is a lot of money to have to pay back.

Our president mentioned the grant from the Heritage Council, in partnership with the Department, for doing up traditional farm buildings. There is considerable potential to expand that grant to have traditional farm buildings done up and turned into new units or homes.

However, we feel there is a drawback with that as it is limited, and you have to be in certain schemes like ACRES, freshwater pearl mussel and the hen harrier. It should not matter what scheme a farmer is participating in when it comes to do up these buildings to make them new homes and new units. Another thing mentioned in our opening statement was the help-to-buy scheme. We think this is a great scheme, and we have help-to-buy for new units. We think it should be expanded for purchasing and doing up derelict houses. Once you do this, they will become new homes available for people, which is very important. Planning issues were also mentioned. There are certain issues with the specifications of listed houses that are derelict. We have heard from people across the country and from younger people who have wanted to do up derelict houses on their land or in their area. The specifications have made it unrealistic and uneconomical to do up these homes. They have left it and decided to build a house instead. We are going to see those derelict houses just collapsing. The specifications really need to be looked when it comes to planning permission for doing up derelict homes.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

Some excellent points have been made. The labour issue cannot be understated. If we do not solve the labour issue this is pie in the sky. It has to be looked at from two angles. It would be ideal if we could train more people. The issue is that they simply do not want these jobs now. There were lots of references to the great opportunities in Australia. We have to consider this in the context of our immigration policy. If you look at Australia they were blunt about giving priority to the immigration of people who could bring skills that were needed in Australia. We need to think about that in the context of our own immigration policy. In the early part of the 21st century we were building up to 95,000 houses per year. I know people might say we went too far and overheated, but that would not have been feasible had it not been for the immigration of, for example, the Polish plasterer. They went home after the crisis and they are probably not coming back. We have to seriously think about how we get the skilled, and indeed the unskilled people. Unskilled people are really important in building too, if you want to use that term. I do not necessarily like it, but these are real issues.

On the potential for almost €100,000 in grants, I think that is a positive move by the Government, and we have said that. However, it would be tragic if we failed to realise the potential because of continuous pernickety difficulties around the planning process. We really have to look at ways we can send out a signal for consistency that is in favour of pragmatism. On consistency, Clare County Council, with which I am familiar, has a similar approach to Cork in terms of development charges. Hopefully, we will have even more consistency at the weekend on the hurling field as well.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief because time is ticking by and we have to go round a group of different people for answers. This is more a statement, so that may not be necessary. People may want to comment when they answer other contributors. I apologise for the voting scenario earlier. I hate having to leave a meeting. I had my hand up and I was probably first in. I do not know a lot of what has been discussed. I am not making a party political broadcast or a statement on behalf of the Government. Far be it from me to do so, and I think everyone knows me at this stage. Like Senator Lombard, I welcome this grant. It is a positive move and a step in the right direction. To be brutally honest, the agenda item is the revitalisation of derelict and vacant houses on farmland. We will leave one-off planning, and development levies and all of that aside. If I had walked in off the street without reading the presentations or being so up to speed, I would say that no vacant or derelict houses will be developed on farmland. We have the representative bodies of farmers here, and the farmers who own that farmland and those derelict houses. From what I am picking up, they are not buying into this. I get it. I know my scenario at home. It is very hard to sell a farmhouse. The farmhouse is probably in the middle of the farm because that is how they were built. In my situation, the farmhouse is in the middle of the farm. When I was a chap, my grandparents were in it. My father moved out to the hill beside the house. He built a house and we were reared in it. By the time I was ready to put down my anchor the grandparents had died. Neither I, nor the lady I was bringing in, was ever going to look at the old house. Without a grant, even with the younger siblings, the old house was still not a runner. If there had been a grant of €100,000, maybe my parents would consider moving back to where my father was born. It would not need planning permission. It might not even need an extension. It would have taken very little of the €100,000 to make it liveable for them, if you were to leave A, B, C ratings and all of that out of it. I could possibly have moved into their house. I see this more as a succession advantage. I do not see the logistics of it with the geography of farms. I accept not many farmers can sell a house. There are not many people who would buy a house where they are on farms, and move into the middle of a working farm.

With that in mind, this grant is not going to be a major success, unless it is from a succession point of view. As Senator Lombard said, the witnesses here have a role to play in selling it as succession and downsizing. There may be potential for people of my age, who are still the children of the house and might want to come home and be a carer. We have to look at it from every angle. I am not being critical, but I was a bit taken aback to see that it was all negativity. I know a lot of negativity was around issues that are not on the agenda. We will talk about the vacant and derelict houses on the farmland. Can the witnesses see any positives or potential in what is being offered here, or is it a non-runner? I would almost say, from the message I am getting this evening, that I could go back to the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, in the morning and tell him that this money may be better spent somewhere else. There does not seem to be an appetite.

Carol Nolan (Laois-Offaly, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and observations. It is important that we hear, from their perspectives, what needs to be tightened up or what needs to change or improve with these schemes. I regard that as constructive and welcome. I take the point that the help-to-buy scheme needs to be extended to cover derelict property. That would be a major help. I know that the programme for Government mentions depopulation and revitalising rural Ireland. As one of the most rural Deputies, I look out at a bog at one end and a forest at the other in rural County Offaly. I welcome and support anything that helps rural Ireland. I feel there are a lot of positives with the scheme and I have had calls about the different grants. I welcome the involvement of county councils around the country, including my own in Offaly and the other one in Laois, in terms of rollout and assistance. Certainly that is all welcome, but this is only part of the solution to rural housing.

Every year I, along with other midlands Deputies and Senators, like Senator Daly and others who were here earlier, meet IBEC. It tells us that housing is holding back rural regions. If we are ever to achieve rural or regional balance, housing is where we are falling down. We are failing farm families where they want a son or daughter to help out on the farm. The bigger picture is also regional balance, and we are losing out there because there is not enough housing.

I welcome any measure that is going to help. These schemes could be improved if we were to take on some of the constructive comments made here today. It is only part of the solution because in County Offaly the vacancy rate is 8.3%.

County Laois is less again at 7.6%. There is a bigger picture and more solutions are needed. The rural planning guidelines need to be published. It is something I have called for. We in the Rural Independent Group had a motion that was voted only on last Wednesday night and that was part of it. I would hope the rural planning guidelines will bring consistency. Our guests have mentioned that. It is very hard to separate this issue from the bigger picture that everybody is coming back with here tonight. The planning issues and An Bord Pleanála not meeting statutory timeframes are all related because it is the bigger picture in terms of rural housing. That certainly needs to improve but we do need to see the rural planning guidelines published. We need to see consistency and fair play. We cannot have a wide open and reckless planning system. We have to have a robust but fair planning system. All we want is fairness in helping future generations of farming families and achieving regional balance. Some very good points have been made here and they need to be worked on.

This scheme and these grants can be improved. It is a little bit of tweaking. They are certainly welcome and will help but they are not the overall solution. In terms of what we can do, would our guests feel that tweaking the grants would improve take-up? We do not know yet but I am receiving calls about the grants and it is positive that people are inquiring. Would a bit of tweaking solve the issues and lead to greater take-up?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome all the groups here, especially the Macra group, and I wish the new president all the best in her tenure. Macra is a great organisation. We saw it in action in Kenmare last Sunday morning organising the tractor run from Kenmare to Kilgarvan with a team of youngsters involved. It gives the likes of me hope to see that set-up and to see them so active. It is great. There are a lot of days when I am in here or in the Chamber listening to other Oireachtas Members and it is like I come from a different world altogether. As small as the country is, the difference in views between the people representing the urban areas and the likes of us representing the rural areas is vast.

Just to take the issue of rental value alone, I have been highlighting in the Chamber for a number of weeks now the number of vacant houses that are along the road from Kenmare to Kilgarvan, almost to Killarney. We will say seven miles out from Killarney. They may not be all farmhouses or on farms but they are certainly attractive as far as I am concerned. There may be work to be done to some of them. There are two problems. Why are the houses idle? It is a shame when we think of people and all the noise about homelessness and that. However, the first thing is the rental value in those places is €500 or €600 a month. It would be taxed at 52% or 56%, which is often the case. All a person would have left out of that would be maybe €250 or €300 to pay the insurance and all the other things. The other big problem is when landlords want the house back, they cannot get it back because the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, is insisting on regulations that are favouring the people who are in the houses. They just cannot get their house back. That is one thing.

I think the girls are right here when they say they do not believe the figures. The figures that are being given for vacant houses are not true at all. Many of the houses that are counted, I fear, are inside in the middle of the farmyard. When the house was left idle first, the next thing was perhaps a shed was built up against the back of it. We cannot count that as an option for someone to live in that house, even family members. It is no good to count them out of the sky or from a satellite. We need to go on the ground and see what is happening there. The vacant house grant is great. We have been looking to tweak it since it came in last October. It only applied to someone if that person going to live in the house and it was going to be their permanent place of residence. Now the house can be rented out.

There is another problem. I spoke to a fella the other day who put in for planning permission to knock a lot of the house and rebuild it. He was refused the planning permission because he already got planning permission for his own new house and this house was there in a farmyard that he wanted to restore to life. He would have rented it out. He had to withdraw the planning because when it was not going to be his permanent place of residence, the grant was no good to anything that he would get. We have to see what is happening with the planning that is required for derelict or vacant houses. I fear the planners are going to reject it so the grant will be null and void. If people have to have planning permission, maybe to what the council standards are and maybe with a septic tank or whatever, when it comes to the thing and they are asked if they have had another house before, I do not think many of them would qualify in Kerry anyway. I blame the Planning Regulator.

We have another scenario now in Kerry as well. So much of Kerry, especially the Killarney area, is considered to be under strong urban pressure. Senator Lombard was saying that people need to be from the area. I know several fellas that are from the area but they are not farmers. They can buy a site from the farmer but they will not get permission for it. I had a case last week of a woman is not even a mile or a kilometre from her mother and father. She can buy a site. She is ten miles out from Killarney but it is still considered an area under strong urban pressure and she will not get permission for it. I blame the Planning Regulator for that. When the county development plan was being put together last year, the council fought hard but failed. Management had to go by the Planning Regulator's guidelines and they had to conform. That is where that is.

Then we have another scenario like that raised by Deputy Fitzmaurice. Since 2012, it is not Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, that is to blame but when the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, was Minister for Transport at that time, his Department insisted that TII adopt these regulations. I do not think it is hurting any other county like it is hurting Kerry. There is up to 500 miles of national road in Kerry between primary and secondary roads. It is possible to come in east at Rathmore and go all the way to Cahersiveen, all the way around the Ring of Kerry, up to the tunnel at Moll's Gap, and go from Kenmare down in over the tunnels up in Bunane and come back down into Kenmare, into Moll's Gap, back into Killarney again and up to Listowel and Castleisland, and all those roads people cannot come out anywhere.

Then we have another story where, for the past 20 years since 2004, there is a bypass proposed for Killarney. There are four different routes and all that land is sterilised from Farranfore to Killarney, from Lissyviggeen to Muckross. Planning is nearly a no-no now. I welcome that farmers' sons and daughters can get it but no one else can. We are told to go into towns and villages and there is no sewerage plant in Currow or in Scartaglin where our great friend Tom Fleming comes from. There is no treatment plant. There are so many places looking for extensions for sewerage. We cannot build a housing scheme in Kenmare because the treatment plant is not up to scratch. We can get permission for one house but not for a scheme of houses. There has not been permission got there for a scheme of houses for 15 years. That is where we are.

On the objectives, I can go back to 2004 which is nearly 19 years ago.

I put a motion before Kerry County Council at that time asking the objection fee be raised to €2,000. Almighty God, I was bellowed out of the place. If it was feasible to put €2,000 on it at that time, it should be €20,000 now. In all fairness, it should be a hundred times more than it is. On the levies, Senator Lombard said there are no levies for things you do not get in Cork. Maybe that is so, but his comrades in Kerry voted to put a levy for playgrounds, whether you were from a farm in Gneevgullia, Beaufort, Killorglin or wherever it is.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are over time.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am nearly finished. Those people were not going to benefit at all from those playgrounds at all. On top of that, if there was a local road - and people had to be on a local road, nearly, to get permission - that road will not be done up, regardless. People will have to pay the €2,500 or €3,000 levy for the roads. It may not be going to their house at all, because more than likely, if their road needs to be done up and it is a class 3 road they will have to pay into a community involvement scheme in order to get the road tarred. It might not have been done in 40 years. People are getting nothing and are still being charged levies. I think I have nearly everything covered.

There is a lady there who mentioned nodes. We had a man in Faha in the last month. He put in a planning application for 12 houses. Faha is supposed to be in a node, but he was turned down. They were going to be-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have to stop.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----affordable houses. He was going to sell them for €245,000.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not talking about planning here tonight, Deputy. We are talking about revitalisation.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking about rural Ireland, Chairman-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking about revitalisation of houses-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and where I am from and you are from.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----we are not over planning in this committee, Deputy.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or tourism.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You missed the part where I gave yourself a rub, a bhuachaill.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Take that back. I am here to defend myself.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go back to the organisations. I want one speaker per organisation.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other very important thing is-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, we are way out of time.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the size of the houses will have to come back.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would say the boundary commission is after making a ruling there.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going back to the organisations. It must be one speaker per organisation because we are over time. There have been three contributors, so I ask the organisations to address what they brought up. Mr. Rushe may begin.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I thank the Chairman. Senator Paul Daly made a point on this scheme in particular. We are clear in our submission this is a positive scheme. The money is badly wanted for these kinds of developments and for revitalisation.

One of the key elements of this is the awareness piece around it. We said that we as a farm organisation are becoming more au fait with it. This is something we will be telling our membership about and I suppose the word will spread about it. Local authorities have a key role to play around this. They are very good at doing information campaigns on different issues around counties, and this is something that is positive for the local authorities and is something they need to take on board.

There is a big challenge with the financing of it. If a person borrows a lump of money to do up a derelict building on his or her farm, the bank will ask the person if he or she is getting grant-aided and it will not finance the person the grant aid. However, he or she is not getting the grant aid on this until it is completed, so there is a cash flow pressure on it. There needs to be a workaround or something to address that. Mr. McCormack mentioned, and he is quite right, that when one draws down a mortgage it is in five or six tranches and whether there is a possibility of doing that with this grant aid. Maybe the finance could be broken into tranches and made available at certain stages of the development to ease the cash flow. That is just a thought. We recognise this is a positive scheme. While it might not be used massively or in a widespread way, it will be very welcome for the people who avail of it.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

The three contributors are rural Members of the Houses. On what Senator Dolan said, if we came across as negative it certainly was not the intention. The intention was to highlight the challenges associated with the scheme as it is. I think it was Deputy Nolan who talked about working to tweak issues. The 13-month period is certainly a huge issue, because for anyone who went to build, it always ran over time and it is hard to get the builder in and it is impossible to get him out. That is the reality of it and why we submitted that it should be 26 months rather than 24 months, because it is absolutely necessary. Mr. Rushe touched on the drawdown of the grant aid and how, rather than having to wait for the entire €70,000, people could get €12,000, €14,000 or €15,000 on a number of occasions. We also need to be careful about the fact that if people sign up for this grant there is, as Mr. Punch alluded, a lien on the holding of a title. That in itself prohibits the opportunity to draw down financial support or loans independently on that particular site or folio.

Deputy Healy-Rae raised the real issues that are out there in rural Ireland, such as the sterilisation of land with bypasses and the opportunity for ring roads etc. That is a huge challenge, but overall it is up to us as farm organisations and rural public representatives to drive home the message there is an alternative out there. Maybe it is a ruin someone's grandparents or indeed great-grandparents lived in at one time that could be done up and made habitable to afford a farm family the opportunity to be grandparents or downsize. It is not confined to farm households, and I think it was the Chairman who alluded to that. It could be any rural derelict or semi-derelict house. There are streets not too far away from me and other main streets in rural towns that are pretty derelict. I hope we will see life brought back into rural Ireland as a result of this. It is about creating homes and letting everyone have the opportunity to have a home.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

To reply to Senator Daly, we are positive about this but it is also important to highlight the difficulties.

On what Deputy Nolan said about tweaks, the 13-month period is definitely an issue but the significant tweaking is needed in the areas of finance and planning. The Government needs to talk to financial institutions about this. This is about planning and pragmatism around planning, so this is not blocked by ludicrous overkill on the planning side. Cash flow is hugely important and must be looked at.

To finish on a positive note, one of the great things about farm families is there is a lot of emphasis on helping each other out. Family disputes are what get highlighted sometimes, but on the other side of the equation are families getting on well living in close proximity to each other as the result of succession settlements. That can bring benefits in the form of shared childminding. There are examples of the next generation looking after the older generation, which can take the elder care burden off the State. There may also be cases of children with special needs growing into adulthood who could not easily live independently if far away in a city, but could do so if they were near siblings. In such a scenario, that kind of housing could be ideal.

As a general comment on Deputy Healy-Rae's remarks, I agree with almost everything he said. There are many problems around pragmatism at county planning level.

Ms Elaine Houlihan:

I thank Senator Daly. We are positive about the grant but we are here to pick out the flaws as well, as well as to relay the concerns our membership have with it. On buy-in for the grant, it goes back to awareness once again. We are doing what we can by sending this out to our members.

It is great sending us out to the young farmers but if the house is not in their name, it is hard to get the older generation to buy into this grant as well. That is one thing. I firmly agree that it needs to be built into succession.

Most farmhouses are in the middle of the farm. It is just what happened back in the day. We own one and it is bang in the middle of a farm. I rented it out a couple of years ago and the lady moved out because she could not leave the front door open because the neighbour’s cows were passing by and she had a visit to her window.

Deputy Nolan touched on the help to buy scheme. This is the buzzword for the younger generation. Every single young person is talking about the help to buy scheme. Now, we need them to talk about this grant that is available. We want a future in rural Ireland and I think members saw that from what we have done. We need the buy-in here. The concerns raised by every farming organisation here need to be taken on board to get the buy-in to this. We are happy to renovate houses at our age. I would prefer to renovate a house than build a house. It would be an easier option. As we say, it is to do with the labour shortage.

The rural planning guidelines were mentioned. How can we as young people have faith in the Government when the delivery of these guidelines is taking months?

Ms Elaine Houlihan:

I am trying to be nice here. It is very hard to see it. One of our members already has experience with the grant. They got the work done in the 13 months and it took 13 months to get the money. The financial burden alone on that young couple was ridiculous.

I concur with everything Deputy Healy-Rae said. What he said is what we stood up for. We want a future in rural areas and this is something that we need every representative to realise and see. I thank those who came out the day we arrived in Dublin and I thank those who have reached out to us since.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for their contributions. As we can see, it is something hugely important and there has been a good exchange of views.

The joint committee will meet next in public on Wednesday, 24 May at 5.30 p.m. The committee will undertake an examination of the new school of veterinary medicine in Ireland and the farm partnerships with Coillte. As there is no further business, the meeting stands adjourned.