Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Renua Ireland) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. Sometimes, legislation goes through the House and the general perception is that it is very welcome and positive. Such legislation goes through the House relatively unnoticed but can come back to cause many difficulties. Profound changes can be put through of which people are not aware. The way the Bill is being quietly put through just before Christmas reminds me of the legislation on Irish Water two years ago. There are very few in the Chamber, nobody in the Press Gallery and probably nobody watching the debate. However, there is a measure in section 2 of the Bill which amends section 28 of the principal Act, as follows:

Section 28 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following after subsection (1B):“(1C) Guidelines to which subsection (1) relates may contain specific planning policy requirements to be applied by planning authorities and the Board in the performance of their functions.”.

If I understand it correctly, the section empowers the Minister to issue directions to An Bord Pleanála as to what the planning policy should be. It is a reversion to the situation in which the Minister for local government was the final arbitrator in planning matters. While the motivation seems to be good, given that we want to get through various housing projects due to the housing shortage, there may be implications from the legislation which may come back to haunt the House. In his summation, maybe the Minister can give me some assurance that it is not the case.

In general, I am a strong supporter of political responsibility and I disagree with farming out the Government's responsibilities to State agencies and non-elected and, in many respects, unaccountable bodies such as An Bord Pleanála, Fáilte Ireland, the NRA or the HSE. I am not sure whether the HSE still exists. The board is gone. An Bord Pleanála is a very contentious body. When decisions go our way, we praise it and are delighted to have it, whereas when they do not go our way, we are suspicious and concerned about it. In my political dealings with An Bord Pleanála it has been contentious. Last week, I welcomed a decision it made to grant permission for an entrance for a secondary school construction in Bray which had been refused by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. In this case, I say "well done" to An Bord Pleanála.

An Bord Pleanála comprises nine members, eight of whom are appointed by the Minister following recommendations from four independent groupings, and the chairperson is appointed by the Government. I am conscious that we should not criticise organisations or groups that often do not represent themselves, and I will not name any individuals. I have not been able to find a forum in which I can articulate my concerns about An Bord Pleanála. I have had calls to meet representative bodies in my constituency who are concerned about serial objectors to one-off rural housing in the parts of County Wicklow. They expressed serious concern that a number of people were submitting serial planning objections. We sent several deputations to the Minister at the time who gave an assurance that An Bord Pleanála was always constructed in a fair and equitable manner in order that people got fair play. To my surprise and that of others, one of the serial objectors was appointed to An Bord Pleanála. This does not instil public confidence in a body that is supposed to be independent. I am not questioning the individual integrity of any member of the board. While An Bord Pleanála must act in a fair and equitable manner, perception is also very important. How can I tell my community An Bord Pleanála is an independent body if a person who has been a serial objector against rural planning is a member of the board? It raises serious questions and perhaps the Minister would examine it.

Regarding housing and the Government's decision to ask NAMA to build 20,000 houses over the coming years, I assume NAMA will not build the houses itself but will disburse the money to various developers. I have contacted the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and everything seems to be okay. A number of developers may take an action against the decision to give NAMA this head start on others. Concern is expressed about NAMA and it is difficult to get to the bottom of it. Maybe in time we will find NAMA has done a wonderful job and everything is fine. In my limited dealings I have always found it to be very positive and progressive. I do not have access to any information other than that associated with my dealings with it.

A well-respected sporting journalist, Colm O'Rourke, recently wrote an article in the Sunday Independentin which he questioned the ability of the political system to fight on behalf of communities that are looking for sporting facilities. Part of the remit of NAMA is to give consideration, if not necessarily preference, to local organisations or groups that are seeking to purchase land for community benefit. The most high-profile case in this regard was the attempt by the Dublin GAA county board to purchase the Spawell lands in south Dublin. I am given to understand that it basically came in at the asking price but was outbid by somebody else. That does not instil public confidence in the work of NAMA. I ask the Minister to ensure that NAMA's dealings should involve a fair hearing to those concerned, should be reflective of due diligence and should pay high regard to the organisation's remit to assist in the provision of facilities to communities.

I support any measure that would assist in meeting the demand for public and private housing and alleviating the general housing shortage. In my view, the main difficulty in the areas of housing and homelessness is the shortage of supply. For a number of years during the economic downturn, I advocated a policy of "workfare" rather than welfare. I said that a scheme equivalent to JobBridge should be pursued to allow unemployed architects and engineers, etc., to be seconded to local authorities. Many of them would have been quite happy to get involved in such a scheme if it enabled them to keep their skills up to date, to upskill if necessary and to participate in the planning of future housing and infrastructure projects. One of the difficulties now being experienced by many local authorities is that money has been allocated to them, but they do not have schemes prepared because the necessary staff or expertise has not been available to them. That should not be allowed to happen in the future. If this means hiring private groups to plan and organise for the local authority, so be it.

I think there are too many layers in the system. When we give money to local authorities, surely we should let them be responsible for spending it, for choosing the sites and for building the houses. In my own county of Wicklow, it was recommended that 30 new houses should be built in Dunlavin. One might think that was a good idea. However, there were two problems with it. First, there were just 20 people on the housing waiting list in the town. In other areas that did not have allocations, there were several hundred people on the waiting list. Second, the water supply in Dunlavin was not adequate. Indeed, a proposal to build a private development had been turned down a few months previously. This shows a lack of joined-up thinking. In smaller towns and villages, there is not a great inter-movement of population. Those who grow up in such areas generally like to remain in them. While it is fine to cater for large numbers in bigger towns with wider hinterlands, the social houses that are built in smaller areas that do not have such a critical mass should be just for people who are living in those areas.

I often think the Minister should take a proactive approach by bringing in the directors of service in the housing and planning sections of local authorities and asking them to take a correspondingly proactive approach to private development in particular. Perhaps the Minister has already done this. Those who are involved in the provision of private housing have told me they cannot get a return on their developments at the moment. By the time they purchase land, it is impossible for them to get a fair return or profit from the development of houses on that land. Those who already own land might be sitting on it and waiting for the price to increase, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Many small-time developers were severely burned during the good times after getting caught for planning and development fees of several hundred thousand euro as they prepared developments which ultimately came to naught. They are now left with the land and they are afraid to revisit the entire process. In many cases, they do not have the money. If they have the money to invest, they might be worried about getting burned again. In such circumstances, directors of planning in local authorities should be identifying these lands and sites, adopting a proactive approach with those who own them and trying to come to a mutual agreement on what would be an acceptable application at these locations. I know these matters cannot be prejudged, but I suggest that some kind of souped-up pre-planning meeting would encourage people to start building houses in locations where housing is needed.

The issue of homelessness is close to my heart. I had to agree with the Taoiseach a few weeks ago when he said that the provision of funding is not the actual problem with regard to homelessness. I have said on a number of occasions that funding is not the issue. If it is not the issue, however, what is the issue? In the late 1990s, some €14 million or €15 million was allocated each year to deal with the issue of homelessness. Over the following seven or eight years, the annual allocation increased to €65 million or €70 million but the situation did not seem to improve. When I speak about homelessness in this context, I am referring to rough sleepers. We need a dedicated multidisciplinary unit to deal with this problem. I would support the establishment of a pilot scheme in Dublin along the lines of that which operated in London. It is not simply a case of getting a house in a certain location and putting someone into it. We had started to move in this direction, albeit indirectly, when we provided the night bus that used to operate in Dublin. I am sure many Deputies have received correspondence from a former employee of Dublin City Council who operated this bus. I have had a long conversation with this individual. He told me that when they went around the city at night to pick people up, they know what was the most suitable hostel or other form of accommodation for him or her. The rough sleeper or homeless person was able to put a face on the social provider, and the social provider was able to put a face on the individual who needed assistance. That scheme was cut back due to a lack of resources but I suggest it could be revisited in the short term. We know that homelessness is an issue in Dublin but I met someone recently who told me it is an issue in Newbridge. I know it is no longer in Deputy Durkan's constituency-----

See this speech in context