Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is urgent legislation. It is unusual that such a Bill would go through all Stages so quickly, but there is a compelling reason for it. In the town of Drogheda where I reside, there are existing planning permissions. Many of them have not been acted on because the builders either commenced or would have intended to commence before the bust and now they wish to be in a position to start as soon as possible. I am particularly interested in social housing as it is very important. It is certainly badly needed in Drogheda. If this legislation will facilitate the construction of social housing under permissions that were properly given and are extended under serious and clear decision-making processes which are transparent and open in every respect, I do not have a problem with it. That is what is important now. If this legislation will put more of my constituents into social housing for which planning permission was given, I am happy with that and welcome it.

I wish to respond on a few issues I will not fight with my colleague, Deputy Clare Daly, but I wish to make a point about NAMA. I always make this point because it is true. Much of what the Deputy said is true in many respects but it is also true, and this is at the heart of the housing problem in this country, that NAMA offered 6,200 homes to local authorities throughout the country. Fewer than 2,500 of those 6,200 homes were taken up by local authorities, notwithstanding the fact that NAMA repeatedly gave commitments in writing that if the units needed to be refurbished or if they had been vandalised as a result of the recession and so forth, it would spend its budget of up to €200 million to ensure Deputy Daly's and my constituents who needed social housing would get it. I am very concerned that this did not happen. NAMA made a genuine offer. I went through it in detail. The local authorities seriously erred in their lack of commitment and in the lack of interest in the offers made to them. This is especially the case in major cities such as Dublin and Cork where they were not accepted. On the other hand, Galway took every home it was offered. The local authorities have serious questions to answer.

I am somewhat cynical or jaundiced in my view of their commitment to social housing. There was a hidden bias against increasing the proportion of social housing beyond 10% in some areas. In fact, I understand that all those houses are now occupied by people who are social housing applicants. Most of them are on the housing assistance payment, HAP. They are living in estates that the local authorities would not and did not take over, and now they are all on their housing lists. The landlords are making a supreme killing in all this.

The other issue I wish to address is serviced land. I welcome the commitment in the budget to allocate €200 million to facilitate the opening of lands for development. I wish to draw attention to the Army camp in Gormanstown, County Meath, which is beside my constituency. It is a massive 250 acre site that is owned by the State. There was a proposal some years ago to put housing on it, but that disappeared. According to replies to parliamentary questions, the Department of Defence appears to have great plans to develop it. However, I see no need for increased military occupation of the 250 acres of land, so perhaps we could see what we could get from it. The initial proposal was for 60 acres or even less. The land is owned by the State and can be serviced by the State. Builders or developers could be encouraged to build a suite of specifically designed houses there at a fixed price. I believe that is the way we must proceed. It will be possible to cut through the red tape because there are no issues with ownership or with access. There is a motorway right beside it and there is a railway station in the village. I accept that it would be a new community and would require supports, but places such as Stamullen are nearby. They were significantly developed during the boom.

There is an inventory of State-owned lands in the Department, and I believe quick wins can be achieved in this regard. One can get around the bureaucracy and fast-track the planning. It makes sense to use this and other planning legislation to the advantage of social and affordable housing.

This is the first time in many generations that young people aged in their 20s and 30s cannot buy a home on their income or joint income in the case of a couple. It is a disgrace that a fundamental need for family formation and rearing children for those lucky enough to have children, namely, to have a home of one's own, is no longer possible for the vast majority of people. The Government, in its future budgets, must pursue policies aimed at allowing people to fulfil this aspiration. In my generation, anyone who worked had an opportunity to buy a home. A more radical approach is needed to addressing this issue.

In terms of planning, we must focus on our city and town centres. I acknowledge the opportunities provided by the Living City initiative have not been grasped, particularly in the areas at which it is directed. I hope officials in the Department of Finance will fine tune the initiative to make it more attractive for developers to build in derelict parts of town and city centres, for example, dockside sites, abandoned areas near railway stations and the business districts of the 19th century and early 20th century where activity no longer takes place because communities have moved away. Moving into these parts of our towns and cities offers significant advantages because infrastructure such as roads, footpaths, lighting and water and sewerage systems is already in place. While I acknowledge that the Government is examining the cost of construction, it should be an advantage to builders to build where such services are already in place. People who wish to build or restore a property in these areas are currently at a disadvantage, however. It does not make sense from an environmental, community or climate change point of view that it is cheaper to build on a greenfield site than in derelict urban areas. New initiatives are needed.

Under one such initiative in County Louth, legislation is being used to take over abandoned and boarded up properties in housing estates and town centres. Approximately 50 derelict properties, which were taken over and refurbished, are about to be occupied. They are all being sold at less than €100,000 and families will gain significantly as a result of this initiative.

I welcome the Government's intention to introduce a property tax on dwellings that are not principal private residences and have been vacant for a considerable period. This measure presents a quick win. I and many others would not have a problem with a measure that imposes a significant property tax within a certain period of registering a property, provided it is not the principal private residence.

I welcome the legislation as it will benefit a limited number of developments - a figure of 70 developments was mentioned. It will make a significant difference in my home town if planning applications do not have to be resubmitted for developments that have already secured planning permission. I appreciate Deputy Eamon Ryan's point that the planning permission will have been granted at a different time when different conditions applied and more stringent conditions could apply if the process were to commence ab initio. However, this provision could result in an additional 3,000 or 4,000 houses being built in Drogheda in the next couple of years. I support the legislation for this reason.

I acknowledge the difficulties and concerns that always arise when legislation proceeds quickly at the end of a session. However, this occurs during all Administrations, including the Government of which Deputy Ryan was a member. I agree, however, that it is difficult to engage in maximum scrutiny in the minimum amount of time. Deputy Ryan's questions are, therefore, germane and appropriate. I support the Bill because it will lead to families in my constituency securing a home sooner rather than later.

See this speech in context