Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan.

Even though we are talking specifically about the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, the responsibility for which is moving back to the city council, this Bill is about development, which includes housing, and there are probably more plans to put more of the high-end business element in the area than housing. It is interesting that NAMA is going to get involved in the area. Normally, it bundles the assets together and sells them to foreign funds at a cheap price, but now it is going to start investing in developments. It seems to be driven towards partnerships with the private sector to provide office space for some of these large American companies that are moving in of late to the residential and office markets in particular.

There is no doubt housing is a serious problem. Obviously, no one is separating this from what has happened in Longboat Quay. We have been here before with Priory Hall and other developments and I reckon we will be here again. It is not going to go away all of a sudden. A lot of stuff was put together over a number of years that left a lot to be desired.

There are a few main problems with housing at present and I have been disappointed that some serious problems have not been addressed in the housing area. Deputy McDonald referred to the fact a builder could build badly and seem to have no problem in getting planning permission to do the same again, and that is something that is worth looking at. The builder in question has obviously gone bankrupt, he has come out of the system and he is a new individual now. I understand how bankruptcy works and I understand that it is not possible for the Taoiseach to ring Bernard McNamara because Mr. McNamara is not the entity he was before he got bankruptcy and the system allowed him back into the fold with a clean slate. However, the Government needs to look at the idea that if a builder does not carry out his work in a manner that meets the building regulations and the planning rules, there has to be a mechanism - legislation needs to be brought in - to stop that from happening again. If a builder or developer fails to fulfil his or her obligations in this area, while I am not saying one should lock him or her up and throw away the key, he or she should never get a project of that nature and size again. That is a flaw in the system.

Right now, there is no obligation on a developer to retain competent design professionals to design a building or a competent contractor to build it. This is something that could be looked at as well. Having a system so loose is not a good idea and it should be tightened up. There should be an onus on a developer to retain persons of a certain proven professional standard who have not blotted their copybook.

One of our biggest problems, to which I heard the Taoiseach refer a couple of times in the past fortnight, is the idea that developments should have been inspected.

Sadly, the Government has refrained from reintroducing proper inspection. We all know that if we want everybody to do good work, we need to inspect it, and we need independent inspection, not self-certification. In the past, this was performed by the clerk of works, who insisted on inspecting work at all levels. The clerk of works was on site, was deemed competent enough to inspect the work and could monitor everything that was done. The system was worth its weight in gold. While it was a cost to the State, it was very valuable and worth the money. If the State argues that it does not have the money to do it, the money for the clerk of works should be incorporated into the levy. The clerk of works should be on site from the start of the job to the finish and should reach a certain level of competence. This could all be done. If it must be done, the Government should implement the levy in order to cover the cost. It is not rocket science.

The new regulations the Government has implemented place all the responsibility on the architect. It does not make sense on a building site. I have made the point several times that the architect cannot possibly be there all the time and will not be paid to have somebody there all the time on his or her behalf. An architect does not know everything about building and is not trained to. There are many different aspects to it. The clerk of works had a good general background in different aspects of construction. Independent, local authority inspection is a must if the Government wants good building work to be done.

I disagree with the idea of relying on the architect and his or her insurance to cover everything. It makes no sense. The engineer designs the structure of pillars, beams and columns that holds the building together. The architect makes decisions about space, environmental impact, image and the final look while the engineer ensures the building keeps together. The engineer takes the architect's drawings, determines how to make the building stand up and stay up and ensures it does not cause problems. One cannot expect the architect to know everything about engineering, no more than one could expect an engineer to know everything about architecture. It is unfair.

Subcontractors come in. Many of the buildings built during the past 20 years have a structural steel frame, and how it is put together is vital. The person who puts it there must sign off and certify that he or she has done it properly and must have the insurance to cover the work in case anything goes wrong. If he or she does not have the insurance before starting, he or she should not get the job. He or she must be able to stand over the work and have the insurance to pay for problems in case the work is not right. This applies to other areas. If I go to a site and put a roof on a building, I should have to sign a certificate to state I have done it right and in accordance with regulation, I have not broken any rules and my workmanship is up to standard. I must also have insurance. If I were to go bankrupt or out of business the following week, my insurance must remain in place for approximately ten years after I leave the site and get the completion notice. If this means a bond process, I should have to pay for a bond before putting the roof on. If a roof leaks because I did not do it right, it causes major problems throughout the building for other subcontractors involved. If there is no insurance or bond to ensure the roofer pays for his or her responsibility for not doing the work properly, where is the logic? It does not make sense. The architect does not know whether a roof was put on properly. The architect has a roof in the drawings and can examine it at the end to ensure it is the roof he or she designed. While the architect can certify that it is the roof he or she designed, there are other questions. Was it done right? Will it keep the water out? Could the wind lift it? Is it held down properly? Wind is a major factor; roofs have blown off. The roofer must have insurance in place to cover any possible problems.

There is a major debate over Longboat Quay and who should pay for remediation of the problems there. Had the local authority done its job properly, it would have found out that things were not done right. In defence of the local authority, it is not getting paid and does not have the personnel or capability to inspect everything. The local authority admits it inspects approximately 15% of built work. However, all built work should be inspected. The new regulation has improved the manner in which drawings and designs are inspected in the early stages and at the start, and this is good. However, it ignores the built work to a great degree, and the Government should address this. It is a major problem and it is possible to address it. It is not rocket science. The Government must listen to the people in the industry. While all the problems are soluble, we have been ignoring them for too long because certain people have had vested interests in neglecting to address them. I am not saying the Government had a vested interest in not addressing them. I am not sure where the advice on the new building regulations came from. However, they are not good and they must be revisited.

We are talking about housing quality. I will move on to the lack of housing and the difficulty so many people on low incomes have accessing housing. They are not disconnected. Until some Government allows the local authorities to start building State housing again, the problems will prevail. We allowed much of our social housing to be sold to the occupants. After living in them for a certain time, many of these people sold the houses to private bodies which rented them out to people who could not afford a house but received rent supplement. We have paid €15 billion in rent supplement over ten or 15 years. It is a frightening figure. It does not make sense. The lack of social housing is driving up the demand for other houses and in the past, the fact that we built social housing helped in this area. We must build social housing again, and in far greater numbers than the Government is planning. The Government's plans are too reliant on the private sector. While not everybody likes the idea of returning to building State housing, it is a must. We will continue to have a housing crisis until we change our attitude towards it. We have to do it; it is imperative.

We have an added problem now with people who do not own their houses and cannot get on the property ladder. I am not saying everyone should be able to get on the property ladder, as I do not believe they should. I think it is just too expensive for some people. It is a stone around their necks. It is too burdensome.

Rent is now becoming a serious problem because we have seen so much rental property moving into investment funds. NAMA and the banks have sold huge tracts of apartments, houses and development lands to US investment funds that are actually forming a cartel in the rental market. I know rents. I have spoken about this issue a couple of times now. Rent keeps going up. I know apartments that were getting €900 a month. I built the apartments in question, which are in Dominick Street. The foreign investment funds that own them are now looking for €1,500 a month. I believe they will get such rents because there is such a scarcity of rental property. It is a massive problem. A small group of players now have significant control of the rental market.

There is an idea that the problems in the rental market and the need to provide homes to people can be dealt with through the rent supplement system, but that is not really workable because it is too expensive for the State in the absence of regulations to deal with rent. I have not seen much of an appetite in the Government for rent control. I am a bit puzzled by its failure to look at the European models. It keeps getting worse and it will be difficult to backtrack on it. There is an absolute need for some control or regulation to be brought into this whole area. Some people say that landlords will leave the business if rent controls are introduced. That did not happen in Europe, however. When rent control settles down, it actually leads to certainty for the landlord as well. Landlords are entitled to rights. We should probably look at cases in which landlords are not being fairly treated by troublesome tenants. Landlords have to be given reasonable powers to deal with such cases. I am not anti-landlord. I have been a landlord.

There is a serious lack of regulation in this whole area. The Minister of State does not need me to tell him that a lack of regulation has been problematic in many areas. The current housing crisis is strongly linked to the lack of regulation in many areas. The whole construction industry is highly problematic. I do not see those problems being addressed. The Government needs to sit down with stakeholders and the different people who work in this problematic industry, which has substantial problems. Those problems will continue until they are addressed. They need to be addressed in here by means of legislation. They are capable of being addressed. It is bordering on a kind of free-for-all.

We had arguments about land banking when we discussed a previous Bill. The legislation that has been introduced has not really dealt with land banking, which is absolutely at the root of all of this. The legislation in question is not going to deal with land banking. Who has bought up the big tracts of land that went into NAMA after the banks went into receivership? Most of them have been bought by big US investment funds. These guys are going to control most of what is built in this town over the next couple of years. If one looks at the applications that are being made for planning permission, and who is making those applications, one will learn that most of the entities that are applying are vulture funds. These guys are interested in rent in Dublin because it is so lucrative that it is hard to beat. It is amazing that a two-bedroom apartment could cost between €1,200 and €1,500 a month. I have made the point in this House previously that a two-bedroom apartment in Turin makes between €300 and €400 a month. There is not much point in the vulture funds going there. They will come here because we are unregulated and it is a free-for-all.

See this speech in context