Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies for their engagement. For my period in the Chamber, I have listened very carefully and with interest to many of the contributions made. It has been useful to have an opportunity to explain the Government position to the Members of the House and to hear their views on the long-standing question of how best we can ensure a share of increased land value arising from public policy decisions and investment, for the wider public benefit. This is a matter of significant concern not just to Members of this House but to the wider public and cuts deep into the heart of the challenges we face today regarding housing and related issues.

I hope the debate has clarified why the Government is seeking to defer the reading of this Bill for 12 months. I want to acknowledge that the points raised during the debate may be very well intentioned. However, I am still convinced that this Private Member’s Bill will have many unintended consequences and will only serve to undermine what the Government is working to achieve. As explained by the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, the Bill is premature when we take account of work currently under way, and the extra time will be well used to achieve a better outcome. While there is some common ground on the need to address these issues, this Bill would be premature to both the final report of the Law Reform Commission on the reform and consolidation of compulsory purchase order laws, which is expected before the end of 2021, and proposals on the issue of community gain currently being advanced by my Department, in line with the programme for Government. This will take the form of a key flagship measure arising from the forthcoming Housing for All strategy and directly-related legislative proposals being concurrently formulated as a general scheme for a new legislative proposal.

Like the Deputy, the Government is committed to dealing with this complex and thorny issue, underlined by the fact it has not been addressed to the extent now proposed since the Kenny report was published in 1973.

It is to some extent a legacy issue but also remains relevant to the challenges we face today. Therefore, how we address the matter needs to be comprehensive but it also needs to be fair, equitable and proportionate, in line with the principles of social justice, espoused in the Deputy’s Bill. The key difference between the Deputy’s Bill and the Government’s position is the approach.

As previously referenced, the provisions of Deputy Kelly’s Bill are based on the 1973 Kenny report, which proposed a land value capture mechanism, whereby designated development lands at the edge of built-up areas could be acquired by the State at existing use value generally envisaged as agricultural land at agricultural value plus 25%, to facilitate the development of housing. Although adopted by Government at the time, the provisions of the Kenny report were not implemented but have remained a point of reference. The issue of community gain and a more equitable distribution of increases in land value as a result of the planning decisions in respect of zoning and public investment in infrastructure must now be addressed. I know Deputies from all parties and none agree with that commitment.

The proposals in the Bill have been well aired at this stage. However, it is important to recap on the implications of the Bill, if enacted, and to reiterate the potential adverse consequences which are a key concern for the Government. In summary, if enacted, this Bill would be a disincentive to buy or sell development land and for the delivery of residential development that could impact housing supply in the short-medium term, create uncertainty in the development sector, be disproportionate and discriminate against new entrants to the market, not provide a mechanism for fair or equitable application and be impractical to apply. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, explained the finer detail of these points in his opening address if Deputies need to refer to it.

It is also worth noting that while the Kenny report has remained a reference point, it is vital we acknowledge the critical differences between now and when the Kenny report was completed. There are now 2 million more people living in Ireland, our cities and towns are much larger and society has change immeasurably. The Kenny report was of its time, a point of reference, but we need to treat it with caution given the changes in the intervening period, almost half a century later. The principles of land value capture as set out in the Kenny report and informing this Bill remain important considerations, but need to be applied in a manner that is appropriate to 21st century societal and environmental priorities.

The extra 12 months being sought by the Government will allow us to treat this matter with the utmost care and consideration. I think it is a reasonable request given all the complexities involved and outlined. It is really important we to use the time to achieve the best possible outcome and to address this properly and in a manner that can withstand any future challenge rather than just get it done. This needs to be robust and enduring. I want that to be the legacy that we leave to future generations and I am confident that all Members are genuinely committed to that principle.

The emerging measures being developed by my Department, in the context of Housing for All, are intended to be more practical, equitable and proportionate proposals for community gain related to planning and public investment that seek to balance the need for land, infrastructure and affordable housing, while at the same time taking into account the rights of private landowners, having regard to the overall benefit to society.

The proposals that will be brought forward by my Department will ultimately achieve the goal the Deputy intended, without having the potential negative consequences. While I cannot be definitive on the specifics at this stage, myself and my officials will be happy to engage with this House, or indeed the joint committee or other fora, once the proposals are approved by the Government and published. While the general intention behind the Bill is acknowledged, the Government proposes to defer the reading of the Bill, as outlined earlier, for 12 months.

I want to refer to one or two points made by various Deputies. One of those points relates to an area of my responsibility, namely, rural planning. I never hear it acknowledged in this House that rural planning has consistently represented 25% of housing output in recent years and it has remained at that level despite many of the charges we hear that it is impossible to get rural planning permission. I also point to the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, report, which gives a clear line and detail of planning in every county and the planning decisions that have been made. As referenced earlier, 87% of all one-off planning applications were granted in Limerick county during the past five years; 7% were refused and 6% were withdrawn. Members need to take a proportionate approach when making charges about rural planning in this House. We need to be consistent in what we say.

In terms of zoning, taking account of housing demands and needs into the future, ten local authorities in this State will have to increase their housing output by 250% over the next five years and more than ten will have to increase it by 100%. That gives us a clear line in terms of zoning. We hear people say that not enough land is zoned but there was a time when we had enough land zoned to accommodate 10 million people. At that time infrastructure was not aligned with the key potential for development. We did not have key wastewater and sewerage services and all the infrastructure needed to make communities more sustainable. When people are making these charges they need to make reference to those important facts and check the reports and decisions that have been made. Sometimes when one listens to people speak in this House one would think there was not one one-off housing application granted in this State when that could not be further from the truth. It represents by far the majority of applications. In some counties it represents well above 87%. While there are counties that are in difficulty in terms of environmental issues, such as Leitrim with which we are working, in the main the facts speak for themselves. As I have said previously, we are updating the rural planning guidelines in that regard. In terms of our rural debate, we need honesty and a bit of truth to reflect some of the facts that are spoken about.

I welcome this opportunity to respond to the Labour Party’s Private Members’ Bill. It is very well intentioned and I acknowledge we want to work with it to bring many of the points in the Bill to fruition.

See this speech in context