Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The year 2018 is too far away in the context of the introduction of this levy. There is also scope to include properties outside of those zoned residential as developers sitting on commercial property is also not in the interests of communities and the economy. The exclusion of all properties in negative equity, particularly larger properties or ones in areas of high housing demand, is also a problem. If the property is of low market value then the levy rate may not work but some form of charge should be in place in areas where there is a need for housing. Developers would be better off using this land and potentially increasing its value. Currently, they do not have to do anything on these lands, which in many cases they bought for speculative purposes. The owner may have lost out on a gamble but he or she should not be given a get-out clause in terms of his or her social responsibility. Some may say this is unfair but what is really unfair is the family without a home while speculative developers leave land idle in the hope of a return to the days of high sale prices.

At a time when people are living in hotel rooms and hostels because of a lack of housing and ever increasing rents we cannot allow this to continue. Properties that have no market value are also excluded, the reason for which may be that the land is not safe or suitable for development. If this is not the case, these properties if left idle should be also subject to some form of a levy. Market demand for a site is not important when there is a social demand for it in respect of housing need. This is paramount. The public must come before the market. Provision should be made for councils to take in charge or buy lands that could be developed but remain idle following the introduction of this levy. There should be an increase in the annual levy in respect of properties which remain idle. This will further encourage development or force speculators to sell land to people interested in making use of it.

Grounds for appeal should be strict given the notice to be provided in respect of which developers must use land or prove it is already in use. On failure of an appeal the site levy should be applied retrospectively. Appeals should not be used to hold off as long as possible the payment of levies which are justified. Following closure of the initial appeals window any further appeal should not lead to a freezing or suspension of the levy for any period until the appeal has been concluded.

The Government proposes to take water charges payments from the social welfare benefits of those who refuse to pay. I believe such a move would be more appropriate in the case of a developer who refuses to pay the levy. Prolonged failure to pay the levy in an area of high need should lead to councils taking a property in charge. The levy should also not apply in respect of any planned development but on the basis of actual work being carried out, which work has been approved by the board as legitimate development on the site in question for the purposes of housing provision. Erection of a shed or the breaking of ground to no end should not justify an end to the levy in respect of a site. On removal from the register, a probationary period within which a site can be returned to the register should apply, with the levy being retrospectively applied if satisfactory development has not been followed through. Proceeds from the levy must be ring-fenced for the provision of housing, as well as covering the costs of administration of the levy. While the levy could be used to provide housing on a vacant site it must not be tied to that site and should be available for the provision of housing in areas where the council sees fit. The levy should not be used to improve the properties of inactive developers at no further expense to them.

Sinn Féin cannot support this Bill in the context of the proposed changes to Part V, which will reduce it to a mechanism to provide social leasing and provide more get-out clauses for developers. We will seek to amend this Bill substantially on Committee Stage, by seeking changes to the vacant site levy and a strengthening of the approach to Part V to ensure delivery of the maximum number of council houses by private developers.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt but that social housing in Ireland has improved over the decades. It is self-evident that the quality of houses now being built by the local authorities has improved immeasurably in comparison with those constructed over 30 or 40 years ago. This step-change was needed. However, we are a long way from what all of us would like to see, namely, as in the case of access to health and education, that access to housing would be a right rather than a privilege accessible only to the wealthy or a privilege to be granted or withheld by any national or local government. It should be a fundamental right that people have access to comfortable, safe, secure homes at the point at which they need them.

We are currently faced with a housing crisis in Ireland. For a while, we were all blinded by the dejection which homeless people were experiencing and, quite rightly, we had to react to that by way of emergency measure. We cannot have people lying and dying on our streets because they are unable to access a home when they need it. Homelessness was an emergency that had to be tackled and steps were taken to tackle it. Beyond homelessness, there are tens of thousands of people who are at their wits end trying to pay for their homes or to find homes they can afford. In many cases, people are living in overcrowded conditions. Many have moved in with families, friends and neighbours while trying to find accommodation that they can afford and, in particular, accommodation that they can afford based on their rent supplement. Because of a lack of funding, housing waiting lists are ever growing and so putting one's name on the housing list does no good.

Many private landlords are reluctant to take on tenants who are recipients of rent supplement allowance. Some landlords actually refuse to take them on. Those who do so, force those tenants to tell lies. Tenants are also being forced to top-up rent supplement to meet the level of rents that landlords are demanding, information which is not being recorded on social welfare forms. Many tenants are unwillingly giving wrong information. Local authorities know this, as do community welfare officers.

Local authorities and community welfare officers also know that if these people want a home, this is what they must do. They must continue this dance of pretence in regard to the rent supplement. It is a fallacy that the cost of renting is reducing.

The problem is that we as a nation are not providing enough houses to accommodate all those who need homes. In some counties, like that in which I live, houses lie vacant because there is no demand for them. This happened because developers thought they could make a quick buck. Having brought this nation to the brink of ruin through greed, property speculators are now setting their sights on zoned land, until an opportunity for even greater profits presents itself again. In the meantime, people are being bled dry for private rental accommodation they can barely afford.

The holding of vacant land by property speculators is not just bad for the economy but, at a time when there is a dire need for housing, is immoral. I welcome that the Bill will seek to put pressure on owners of vacant land zoned for housing. However, the legislation should go further to ensure vacant plots become homes for families who need homes. The levy could be much stronger, especially in areas where there is a dire need for housing. The levy should also be increased incrementally each year if a plot remains vacant. It should be high enough that developers are encouraged to build rather than hold on to vacant sites. This measure is not recommended to punish those who build houses, but to punish those who are speculating on empty sites and hedging their bets in the hope the value of these sites will increase in the future.

Like Deputy Ellis, I disagree with the new Part V the Bill seeks to introduce. The original Part V provision provided that in any development of five homes or more, 10% of the development had to be made available for social housing and 10% for affordable housing. This well-intentioned provision was welcome. However, a significant clause within the legislation led to the abuse of that provision. Developers could buy off the council and pay it rather than providing houses. This meant that new developments lacked the number of social housing units needed to develop mixed communities, which led to the further ghettoisation of social housing. The scheme for affordable housing ended in 2012.

The new Part V proposal in this legislation provides for a 10% social housing provision, but this includes social leasing. Social leasing involves the council leasing houses from the developer, but the homes remain in the ownership of the developer. This is like the residential accommodation scheme, which I have described as the residential accommodation scam. Instead of a 10% provision, Sinn Féin would like to see a 20% commitment on social housing. Social leasing should remain a possibility, but it should not be included in Part V and should not involve a trade-off.

We need a root and branch review of all the legislation governing housing needed for homes for individuals and families. This review should incorporate private rental accommodation, local authority and voluntary organisation housing. It must incorporate minimum standards of accommodation in every sphere of the market. As I speak, I am aware of a young woman, her mother and some of her siblings who are occupying Sligo County Council offices because she has had to leave her private rented house because it is unsafe. Neither the tenant, her family, the council nor I have yet been able to locate a private rental house in the area that will accept a rent supplement tenant. I have tried hard to find accommodation for her, as have others. How and why are landlords permitted to put a house on the rental market and obtain State funding, by way of rent supplement when their houses are unfit and dangerous for occupation? Who checks these houses and the standard of the accommodation before they are rented out? Who checks this accommodation before public money goes into it? Who checks accommodation before families and individuals are put into dangerous and unsafe housing? How many more are there like this young lady?

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Bill is another example of the Government bringing forward legislation to deal with an issue it has by and large ignored and neglected over the past four years. It has made a big play out of addressing the issue of social housing and the lack of housing in general since the beginning of the year, while well aware that little practical provision will be made in terms of housing provision prior to the next general election. It is clear from the figures we have seen that only a tiny percentage of those on the waiting list will benefit from new local authority housing before the Government's term of office ends.

In regard to the four-year programme, the number of households waiting to be housed in Laois stands at 1,800, while the figure for Kildare is heading towards 8,000. Under the new housing programme announced, only 49 housing units will be provided in Laois over the three years. This will not even make a small dent in the housing waiting list, with new people joining the waiting list daily. A whole section of the population in Laois and south Kildare earn just over €25,000 gross and any legislation that does not deal with this issue is flawed. These people earn just over €25,000 gross, with an add-on of €500 per child or dependant allowed. However, those who earn between €25,000 and €27,000 are out of the loop for social housing and are disqualified from applying for a Clúid or Respond house or a Laois or Kildare County Council house.

These people are not earning as much as €45,000 or €50,000. Generally, they would need to earn that gross amount to have any hope of ever been able to get a local authority loan, never mind a loan from a bank or building society. We go from one extreme to the other in this country. In the boom time, I used to get two or three letters a week inviting me to come in to the bank as it had a loan available for me. Now we cannot beat money out of the financial institutions. The Minister of State has often mentioned the squeezed middle. These are the people who are earning just above €25,000, which disqualifies them from social housing, and those who are earning below €45,000. These people are caught and will be renting until kingdom come, but unfortunately for them, there is no control over rents. The Government has failed to introduce rent controls and has failed to deal with the rental sector thus far. These people, many of whom have young families and children, are caught in an awful predicament. I know many such people throughout counties Laois and Kildare who are caught in this predicament.

Several points need to be made about this Bill. Just four years or so ago, the Government parties were very critical of Fianna Fáil for cutting the minimum wage. Why in the name of God has the Government now cut the social housing provision under Part V to 10%? It has halved what it was under the previous Government. Who lobbied for this? Did Tom Parlon and the Construction Industry Federation lobby for that change or was it IBEC? Who lobbied for it? The 20% provision was working quite well.

It was 18% in County Laois. That was composed of 9% rented housing and 9% affordable housing, which was a very good scheme. Some discretion was available to local authorities to vary the percentage down if they wished, which worked very well.

I wish to highlight another issue relating to Part V which does not concern the Bill. Part V housing provision must be dispersed throughout a housing estate. The Fairgreen housing estate in Portlaoise has approximately 450 units. Another estate is The Bellingham, called after a British terrorist, Lord Bellingham. That will tell one the type of developer who built the estate. In those two housing estates the developer got away with lumping all of the social housing into one corner. In the case of The Bellingham, the houses were built face to face with just a footpath, not a roadway, between the houses. It is appalling and an example of very bad planning. Social housing legislation must ensure housing is dispersed or peppered, as is the more usual term, throughout the estate.

In the estate in which I live, Cloonlusk Abbey, my neighbours are council tenants. One cannot tell the difference between the social housing and private houses in the estate. Many of those who live in the estate do not even realise the four neighbours to my left are council tenants. They are very good tenants and we are very lucky to have them in the estate. They look after their houses very well. It shows that social housing works when it is properly dispersed in a housing estate.

I question the proposal in section 15 that the levy of 3% on vacant sites will not come into force until 2019. What is it about 2019? We face the problem currently. Developers and banks are sitting on sites since the collapse in property values, which is causing a huge impediment to the construction of houses. These sites are an eyesore and the cause of problems for people who live in those neighbourhoods.

I drafted and published a Derelict Sites (Amendment) Bill that sought to address the problem of developers and banks sitting on abandoned sites. There are 123 such sites in County Laois alone. They are a particular problem in Mountrath, Rathdowney and Ballinakill where in some of those towns a number of such sites are grouped together. Tackling the issue by imposing meaningful penalties on those who are deliberately sitting on such sites would contribute greatly to freeing up land for housing in addition to tidying up towns and villages and helping the tidy towns committees that look after them. Some banks and financial institutions do not register the sites in their names because they do not wish to pay the derelict sites levy. They are trying to hide and leave the question of the site ownership cloudy so that local authorities cannot go after them.

I also question the provision to enable developers to avail of lower development contributions on planning permissions that have yet to be activated and where houses have yet to be sold. If houses were built and planning permissions included a provision that development levies would be paid - in most cases they were modest – they should be paid. To do otherwise would constitute a write-down for the developers, bankers and financial institutions that own many such properties.

Section 31, in effect, does away with the need to provide affordable housing. Affordable housing was one of the great successes of housing policy in the past decade or so. Affordable housing is needed as the cost of housing is increasing and it must be provided for in the Bill. In order to have proper social integration one must have a mix of social, affordable and private housing in the one estate. There are great examples of where such a mix works, where it has been done properly. Affordable housing must be revisited. Otherwise, people will be priced out of the market again. Affordable housing acted as a great leveller and ensured prices did not become excessively high in some areas. It is regrettable that such a measure has been left out of the Bill and I urge the Minister of State to revisit the issue.

I welcome some aspects of the Bill, including the provision in section 33 to remove the provision by which developers could make a cash payment or provide sites elsewhere rather than provide the required number of social housing units. However, I do not welcome the Part V provision in section 33 that can be met through social leasing. Where in the name of God is the Minister of State going with such an approach? Previous speakers outlined the problems involved in renting and leasing. The Bill allows developers to provide a long-term lease on a property in order for it to be leased to local authorities for a defined period. At the end of the ten, 15 or 20 years the local authority would not have anything to show for the expenditure. It would not have a house and the people living there would not have a home. They would have to move on somewhere else or the local authority would have to start the process again. If a house were owned by a local authority, the local authority would get rent and it could sell the house under a tenant purchase scheme, if it so wished in order to get another pot of money, but most importantly, a family would get a permanent home. Leasing is madness. It is like what the Tories are doing in London. I do not know from where the Minister of State got the idea. Perhaps it was from the Construction Industry Federation, IBEC or the Tories, but for God’s sake he should return to the drawing board and delete the leasing option from the Bill. That is the most reprehensible part of the Bill and I could not support it for that reason.

I regret that the Minister of State has missed the opportunity to tighten up the legislation on social housing, in particular the measures relating to social and affordable housing, an area that badly needs to be addressed. I look forward to the Bill being improved but we could not support it in its current form.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Catherine Murphy and Mattie McGrath are sharing time. They have ten minutes each.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know where to start given the mess we are in. Unless we grasp how bad the situation is, we cannot even judge the legislation in any meaningful way. We must grasp the scale of the problem we face and the absolute certainty that if things remain the same, the situation will be much worse next year and in the coming years. Nothing in the legislation or in what the Government has announced in the past year, since it finally admitted there is a crisis, will address the fact that the situation will be worse in a year's time and even worse still in four or five years’ time. That seems difficult to imagine when one considers how bad the situation is now, even with all the Government’s trumpeting of the great plans, proposals and new legislation in the past year or so.

I do not know where to start, but let me outline a few facts which bear out what I have said. There are 96,000 people on the housing list. In 2008 a total of 4,900 council houses were built. In 2013 the total number of council houses built was 293. The year 2008 was a disaster in terms of social housing. The lists were getting longer and had been getting longer in the years prior to 2008. Even when we had a boom in the construction industry and record levels of private sector construction, the housing lists were getting longer and longer. That puts to bed the utterly insane notion behind this Bill, namely, that if we stimulate, induce, cajole or bribe the private developers to build again, that it will solve the problem. It will not. How do we know that? We know that because it did not solve the problem during the greatest private sector construction boom in the history of the State. The housing crisis got worse during that time.

Prices increased, rents increased, housing lists got longer and the number of homeless people increased. The legislation is built on a fundamentally misguided notion that stimulating the private sector will solve the problem. Sorry, it will not even begin to. The Government is asking people who built houses to make profits to provide housing for people who do not have enough money to make profits for private landlords or developers. This is the point of social and affordable housing. They do not have the money to make someone in the private sector rich. They need subsidised housing, given that their income is not sufficient to make some landlord or developer a profit. If the Minister of State is asking the same landlords and developers to deal with a crisis in which hundreds of thousands of families do not have enough income to put a roof over their heads by buying it or by paying inflated private sector rents which have gone through the stratosphere, he is deluding himself. It is absolute and utter nonsense.

I slightly disagree with Deputy Stanley's argument that the Part V affordable and social housing scheme worked for us. It did not work. The affordable housing scheme was a disaster. Given that people who bought so-called affordable housing ended up in negative equity after the crash, it turned out not to be affordable at all. It was a massive albatross around their necks. The Part V scheme did not deliver anything like enough housing to make any impact on lists that continued to grow longer.

It was estimated that we needed 18,000 housing units per year between 2011 and 2021. Given that we are already four years behind on this target, we need approximately 30,000 units per year to make any impact on an absolute disaster. In Dublin, 8,000 houses have been needed per year since 2011, whereas only 1,360 were delivered in 2013. Figures that came out this week showed that 10,000 extra people per month are entering the private rented sector. The numbers of people in private rented accommodation have doubled since 2013, which means people on higher incomes are crowding out those on lower incomes in so far as some of them can afford the inflated prices. A catastrophe is unfolding. How will we address it?

Given that the private sector did not address the housing problem during the boom period, the idea that they will do it now, when banks are afraid to lend money and the developers are interested only in making profits, is nonsense. The Government, in the Bill, is attempting to induce the landlords and developers further by cutting down the obligation to provide social housing. Even during the boom they fought to get out of their obligations by giving over cash and even argued about the amount of cash and housing and where they would give it. They fought it at every hand's turn, and our answer is to get down on our knees even further by reducing their obligation to deliver social housing.

There will be very concrete consequences. In my area, there is a second phase of a NAMA development in which the same private developers who got us into the mess are back running it under the auspices of NAMA. Under the legislation, in a situation in which our housing list is growing by 1,200 per year, a development will happen in which we would have got 20% but will now get only 10%. The development contribution the developers must give to the council will be reduced. The very developers who got us into the mess will be put back in business and what they will deliver in terms of a social dividend for social housing for the huge numbers on the list will be even less and the contribution in development levies will be less. It is a flipping disgrace. There is constant pandering to and reliance on the private sector.

The Clerys debacle is linked to this. The person who has just bought Clerys was in NAMA. I refer to Deirdre Foley of D2 Private. D2 Private was given a massive write-down on money it owed to NAMA, and the same people have been resurrected and have managed to scrabble together money to buy Clerys and put all those workers, some of whom had been there for 30 or 40 years, out of work. This is urban regeneration. People whose massive loans were discounted by NAMA – in other words by the public – are back in business, have bought Clerys and workers have been shoved out the door with nothing.

We need a major emergency, State-led housing programme and we need the State to build tens of thousands of houses. We cannot hope or wait for the private sector to do it. It will not, no matter how much the Minister tries to induce it. This means we must get the capital investment to do it. It is a priority. Even today’s macro-financial review by the Central Bank says rising rents and property prices and what is happening in the residential and commercial property sectors constitutes a major macroeconomic domestic threat to the entire economy. If we cannot house people, the economy cannot function. The cost for families, children, the economy and the future is dire. I am sorry to say it, and I wish I could say otherwise, but the Bill is rubbish. It is the sort of rubbish that got us into the mess before and we need to shift policy radically towards a State-led emergency public housing programme and the immediate introduction of rent controls.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The legislation arises from the planning and development (No. 1) Bill that was debated at pre-legislation stage at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht last December. Amid a full legislative schedule in the Department, we are seeing a hiving off of certain policy aims into vehicles such as this Bill. I acknowledge the hard work by the Department officials that goes into framing legislation, and I appreciate they are doing this towards tackling the housing crisis. However, I question the Government's methods. The Government came to power in the midst of an economic crisis, which was partly caused by a defective planning system that was led by developers and the construction sector. The planning system was dominated by builders and developers, and I have been speaking about that for the past 20 years. The system has not served the citizen very well. What I really want to say is, here we go again.

The Labour Party campaigned on ending developer-led planning. The party's 2011 manifesto said it wanted to "link planning permission for residential developments to the provision of public transport, healthcare, recreational areas, shops and facilities". I totally agree with this approach. Instead, there will be more short-termism, a lack of a strategic approach, the big, 11th hour approach to deal with a crisis that some of us have been talking about for the past couple of years. Yesterday, the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Kelly, wrote to each of the four Dublin local authorities to tell them the "viability of new development and therefore supply will be placed at risk by insertion of unreasonable or excessive requirements in relation to the standard of housing or ancillary services”. The Ministers criticised facilities that "impact adversely on the economic viability of commercial investment". We need to know what the Government means by this.

When I was involved with the Dublin Transport Initiative in the early 1990s, we discussed the potential for higher densities in urban areas. High density developments were envisaged to include family housing as well as small apartments aimed at single people. That mix never materialised in areas where public transport and other facilities already exist. I ask the Minister of State to indicate what kind of changes he envisages. The last thing we need is the bare minimum of standards. If we compromise we will have to pay for retrofitting later.

Some developers are responsible and forward thinking. I have seen a number of good quality developments. We need to learn from these people rather than reward the bad behaviour of rogue developers. I have made several suggestions in this regard which I had hoped would be included in the legislation by this stage. I also introduced a Bill which was not opposed but that did not mean it got onto the Statute Book. That is disappointing because some of us have several decades of experience in this area. As this is my second crash, I have a bit of a head-start on some of the issues arising.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The third one is coming soon.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important that we do not jettison standards for the short-term approach of increasing supply at any cost. I recognise that we need to increase the supply of housing and I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett on the emergency in our public housing stock and the need to fast track social housing construction. There are regular announcements of large sums of money but the delivery of housing units is limited. We have faced a crisis for the last couple of years. I presented the Minister, Deputy Kelly, with five sample cases of families in my areas who were told to find a solution for themselves. There is no emergency short-term accommodation if one happens to live in County Kildare.

In regard to the changes to Part V, I made a proposal on a sunset clause which appears unlikely to make its way into the Bill. The sunset clause would set a time limit of three years on the reduced requirement for social housing, after which point the measure would be reviewed. It should not last indefinitely if it is being used as an incentive in the context of the present environment. The mere fact of a review in three years' time may be sufficient incentive for developers to increase supply. The Bill closes off the option of a cash alternative to constructing housing under Part V. Can the Minister of State indicate whether large-scale developers will be able to negotiate rental accommodation agreements with long leases instead of permanently handing over houses that can be purchased? We need to be assured that there will be permanency in housing provision. The construction industry is very good at negotiating but local authorities are often at a huge disadvantage because they do not have the same skill-sets, which can result in poor deals. How many houses does the Minister of State expect to be delivered under these arrangements?

I welcome the vacant site levy even though it is limited to certain areas and I would like it to have wider application. However, we have had a bad experience with the Derelict Sites Act 1990. I would like more assurances that the levy will work. Perhaps an impact analysis on the impact of the levy would be helpful. I expected the Bill to include provisions on co-responsibility with voluntary housing associations to allow them to leverage funds from the European Investment Bank. This appears to fall far behind what the construction sector wants. I also proposed that a register of developers be established against whom enforcement notices were issued. We have seen bad examples of developers going from one county to another and leaving a trail of destruction behind them. If an enforcement notice issues against a persistent offender, a house purchaser should be able to find that information on a public register. This would put the purchaser into a better position. We need to start seeing this kind of openness.

I hope section 180 will be amended in the planning and development (No. 2) Bill. We are paying a significant price because the timeframe was too long and bonds expired. People are stuck with houses that are in negative equity while also finding it impossible to get their estates taken in charge because of issues with management companies. They end up incurring additional financial burdens which make it even more difficult to pay off their mortgages. I hope the planning and development (No. 2) Bill will deal with some of those issues.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, although I would prefer to be addressing the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, rather than the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, on the crisis in housing. We are only tinkering at the edges of the crisis with this Bill, which we are ramming through at this hour of the night. It is like a fellow getting a blow-out and having someone come along with a bicycle pump to inflate the tyre. It is nonsense.

I commend the Minister of State on his work as a councillor over the years. However, his colleague, the Minister, arrived from on high and is still on high. He is slowly coming down to the ground but he will crash one of these days. It is clear that he does not know the first thing about how county councils operate or the different bits and pieces of local authorities. He arrived in Clonmel recently in the company of the good Minister of State, Deputy Coffey. He did not tell the chairman of the county council or the mayor of the town that he was announcing €3.8 million for housing in Tipperary. It was manna from Alan the superman. The county council is still waiting to get in writing the amount of money being provided. It is all spin. From the time that man gets up in the morning until he goes to bed at night, he is in a spin but he will fly off the spinning top one of these days because he will be found out. That is the fact of the matter. I was surprised that he brought the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, along to drub him into it. The Minister of State has a proud record that stands much better than the Minister's.

The Minister stated that the Government published a comprehensive Construction 2020 strategy for a renewed construction sector. The strategy is supposed to encompass 75 specific actions. If somebody does not want to do something, he or she will announce 75 specific actions. Five actions would have been enough but, of course, this is a case of confuse, mix up and make up. The Minister will not have written down the 75 actions before he gets thrown out of Government in the next election, never mind implement them.

That is the kind of poppycock we are getting from this Minister. We thought the last one was bad, but come back Big Phil, all is forgiven. Look what he left us, in the name of God.

I know of good building and construction companies that operated Part V and it was successful. Cutting the social and affordable housing provision from 20% to 10% is a non-runner and is stupid. I know who sought that reduction. It was the big business people in the Construction Federation of Ireland and NAMA, which is another acronym but we know where their interests are. When NAMA was established I said it was like a wild animal in the woods and no one knew where it would end up. We now know where it has ended up, with property portfolios in every town and village with weeds growing out of them. It has caused anguish, pain and trauma for many people, but is a gravy train for developers who are the chosen ones. They are picked to work with NAMA and are paid handsomely. They are getting side deals and cushy deals, which is nothing short of an outrage.

There is no point in doing anything here if we do not deal with rent control, so the Minister of State should also be working with the Department of Social Protection in this regard.

The 3% levy on vacant sites will not be paid until 2019, but God knows where the Minister, Deputy Kelly, will be at that stage. He certainly will not be in this Parliament anyway. We will be waiting until 2019, which is such a flippant way of dealing with people. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, will be around because he is a practical man, but the Minister, Deputy Kelly, will certainly not be here. We may as well be talking to Mars in 2019 and that is the sad fact of it.

There is plenty of legislation involving local authorities, including that for dealing with derelict sites. Local authorities can be proactive in dealing with such sites in rural towns and villages. There are derelict sites in my county and every other county, but local authorities should be proactive in that regard. They should be supported by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government but they are not getting a cent to regenerate these places and get businesses reopened. Rent reliefs and other schemes are required to support struggling businesses.

The Government got it in the teeth this week when it was boasting about the economy. We are tired of reports saying the economy is booming, while under the Government's nose came a bolt from the blue when Clerys, a long-established business, went belly-up. As the Minister of State knows, other businesses are hanging on by their fingernails in Portlaw, Dungarvan and Tramore. I know it is happening in other counties and anyone here who is honest also knows it. Businesses are hanging on but they cannot continue to do so because banks are not giving them a shilling. Meanwhile, they are trying to compete with NAMA-run properties, including hotels, which are running at below cost price. It is not a fair trading pitch therefore.

The Bill considers 75 specific actions but ignores the elephant in the room, which is NAMA. It is much bigger than an elephant now and one cannot even get up on it. What is NAMA? It is something that is out of control. The Minister could deal with this practically in many ways if he wanted to. However, this legislation was stuck in because there is an election coming up and perhaps the Labour Party was prodding the Minister to make it look good, as if he was interested and might do something.

I welcome the Bill's provision for a review of development charges which are very high in many counties. If there is to be a downward review, I would welcome it if it is retrospective for those who have obtained planning permission.

I want to talk about rural regeneration and the voluntary housing sector. The Minister, Deputy Kelly, made a pure bags of this as well. He announced a review of the legislation that was passed here last year, despite us all appealing that no one should pass it. The architects wanted it of course. With one stroke of a pen, he put an extra charge of €1,600 or €2,000 on people building their own houses in the country. It was voted through the lobbies but when the Minister, Deputy Kelly, took over the reins he got up on his horse and stopped the pony. He said he would have a review of this and change it because it was unacceptable.

Five people in my own area have planning and builders and designers waiting to go but they are waiting for Alan the great, Alan the mighty.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please Deputy, he is the Minister.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. Of course, he is the Minister. They might as well go out to Mount Melleray and pray to a statue out there because there is no review. Building activity has ceased in every county because of this phoney promise made by a phoney Minister. He is a man who got to know everything in a very short time. He should have crawled before he walked and walked before he ran, but he came in at a gallop and he will go out at a canter. That is as sure as I am sitting here because that is what people in Tipperary are telling me every day. There is not much point in going to Portroe to announce something, to Bansha to announce a bus shelter, and Carrick-on-Suir to announce something that someone else has already announced, or which the Minister of State was supposed to open. It was a housing development that was done in the time of the previous Government, but no one has opened it yet because the Minister will not let the Minister of State do so. He has to do everything. He was down in Cork last week because he wants to announce and open everything. If an envelope was already open, he would put gum on it and re-open it. Those are the instructions he is giving. He is only interested in self gratification, self proclamation and to hell with the ordinary people.

We are in a housing crisis but Tipperary County Council does not have a shilling for emergency accommodation. All it has are phone numbers for social welfare, a housing agency in Waterford City, and two shelters in Carlow and Kilkenny. Unfortunate homeless people do not even have a bus fare to go to Waterford, Carlow or Kilkenny. They have to send them down to the social welfare office to get the price of a bus fare.

The Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, announces millions for Tipperary but it is the greatest con job. It is time that the officials in South Tipperary County Council stood up to this blunder, bluff and baloney because they do not have a penny or a shilling. We discussed this recently at a meeting between the county manager and local Oireachtas Members. I salute the housing officers who do tremendous work under difficult conditions, but because the Government has diminished local democracy, there are no local housing authorities. South Tipperary County Council has now had to look for places as far as Portumna. Some of them do not even know where these places are and I do not blame them.

We now have less money than we had for half the county before now. It is farcical and has gone beyond the extreme. It is despicable. It is not good enough to put patches on a bicycle tyre to repair a blow-out.

I worked in the voluntary housing sector and was on the board of the Irish Council for Social Housing or ICSH. It has a huge capacity to build, develop and deliver houses quickly. There were no quick bucks, big developers, NAMAs or architects. The ICSH could deliver turn-key projects, while the Minister did diddly-squat, but the big friends of Fine Gael would not be supported then.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will be announcing those shortly.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister of State told me the sun was shining I would go out to see if it was raining. l would not have to go out because I would be wet before I came in. No one believes him. He should not fall into the same old trick as the Minister, Deputy Kelly, because that is not like him or his family before him. He should not fall into that old trick of making announcements that no one believes.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will be welcoming the announcement for Tipperary.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When? The election is coming so will it be announced the week before that? Will they spell it out to the people? Unless there is maize in the field in which they are seeking votes, they will be found out because they cannot hide and the long grass will not be long enough to hide them.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Kyne is sharing with Deputy Mulherin. They will have ten minutes each.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an airgead a chuir an Roinn ar fáil do Chomhairle Cathrach na Gaillimhe agus do Chomhairle Contae na Gaillimhe.

It was announced recently that up to 2017 some €30 million will be made available to Galway County Council and €28 million to Galway City Council. That is to build 608 houses in the county and 518 houses in the city. It is a welcome allocation but more is needed. Nonetheless I commend the Minister of State and the Department for making that welcome start on social housing. I also understand that the capital assistance scheme will be announced in the very near future.

I welcome the Bill. One of the signs of the economy recovery is its impact on housing. A few years ago, in 2010 and 2011, many people thought we would never have to build housing again because we had an over-supply nationwide. Now, however, we do not have enough housing units. Added to the complexity is the regional imbalance. We continue to have an oversupply of houses in certain parts of the country, including ghost estates, while in other areas there is little demand.

This Bill started as the Planning and Development Bill, but has since been changed to the Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill 2015. Presumably this is to reflect supply-related issues in the Dublin area, which we all acknowledge, and where they are especially acute. However, a Dublin focus would overlook other areas, as would a city focus. There are places in close proximity to cities and urban areas within our large rural towns that we also need to examine concerning housing.

In Galway, like other cities, in the last decade there was never an over-supply of housing.

Local authority officials and councillors did not facilitate the unnecessary building of houses. However, with a growing population, an increase in the number of jobs and falling unemployment, there is an increased demand for housing in Galway. As figures from the Department show, the number of new homes built in 2013 was half that built in 1990, that is, 25 years ago when the country was in recession.

The second issue which is a major factor in the housing shortage in Dublin is the absence of a realistic and workable regional development plan. For several decades successive Governments have not afforded proper attention to balanced regional development. There has been much talk and many initiatives, but these have not succeeded. The population and migration trends are indisputable and have been moving in the same direction for decades. We now have a situation where one in three people live in the greater Dublin area. One in two or 50% of the population live in Leinster. This is not sustainable or in the best interests of the country at large. Unbalanced growth can have negative effects on these areas, as well as negative impacts on living standards. These impacts include pressure on housing places, leading to housing shortages; unattainable and unrealistic house prices for home purchase or even renting; pressure on infrastructure, requiring substantial investment in roads, electricity, water supply infranstructure, etc.; and pressure on hospitals, schools and recreation areas. These are evident in places in Dublin and the high population areas in the east. The surge in population growth in the east is having a negative impact on everyone's living standards. However, there are other areas, whether in the west, north west, south west or midlands, where there is capacity to expand substantially, enhance existing communities and provide for a better quality of life for people in these areas. While certain people will make remarks about certain parts of the west and may want to turn them into theme parks or a giant national park, it is important that we have continued regional development, with clear actions and clear points of responsibility to achieve this end. We have an opportunity to secure our economic recovery and rebuild society on a sustainable and balanced basis.

The provisions in the Bill include a vacant site levy and reform of planning legislation. They represent a start and positive steps in the right direction. Sections 3 to 26, inclusive, introduce a vacant site levy. This is significant and welcome. At a time of great housing need, it is scandalous that over 60 ha of land in Dublin lie vacant and unused. This is a personal view and obviously an issue for Dublin elected officials. In certain parts of Dublin there is need for a move upwards in terms of high quality housing in certain areas, something we see in other cities.

I realise the creation of a vacant site register is a significant undertaking. This is apparent in sections 6 to 12, inclusive, which set out how each local authority should create a register. However, the operational date of 1 January 2019 seems to be some distance away. I realise the idea of the Bill is to incentivise developers to use land and that the date is so far out that they might not incur penalties. The idea is that this will encourage them to build on the land and provide housing. I have concerns that it is a late start date for enforcement and might not bring about the change needed now. We need this housing now.

I welcome the provision in section 16 whereby the vacant site levy will not apply in cases of negative equity. It would be unfair to impose a levy in cases where the value of the mortgage used to acquire the land ended up, through no fault of the buyer, exceeding the market value of the land.

Does the definition of a vacant site include a house or an upstairs apartment or is it simply a vacant site? Should there be an inventory of the available housing that perhaps, subject to investment, could be made habitable or fit for living within town centres? Many town centres are dying, while at the same time we have housing shortages. We need to examine why certain units, whether upstairs flats above shop fronts etc., are not being made available. It is time to revitalise town centres. What incentives are needed? For example, let us consider parking. Many people may choose not to rent or buy because there is no parking availab;e. What can be done in respect of underground or back-land car parking? Local authorities will levy a developer for a parking space if he or she cannot provide it, yet the same local authoritiesd may not even provide parking either. Sometimes paid-for parking in town centres can have a negative impact on the town because of overzealous enforcement of parking charges. This is a disincentive to people living in centres, as well as a disincentive to job creation and retention within cities.

Another positive element of the Bill is the abolition of the system of contributions in lieu of social housing obligations, as is the case under section 96 of the original 2000 Act. I am certain that during the first decade of this century this mechanism was used to fund far more than housing provision within local authorities and that the funding provided under the original scheme was ring-fenced for housing but with substantially less housing demand and higher levels of home ownership. I recognise that the Minister of State, Deputy Paudie Coffey, has stated this policy had been in place since 2000. He has estimated that, had it not been in place, there would be an additional 15,000 social housing units in Ireland today, which would have represented a major addition to the housing stock available.

The Bill also removes the ability of developers to build to meet their social housing requirements in an area away from the main development, rightly so. This meant that developers in the more prosperous areas and with the better sites and higher quality housing in these areas were building housing to meet their social housing requirements in other towns miles away, creating ghettoisation. It is welcome that this will be discontinued.

Section 29 deals with a development contributions initiative. I welcome the initiative whereby a new development contribution scheme will be adopted in a county. I know that local authorities had the ability to reduce the incentive because many of the development contribution schemes that might have been put in place during the Celtic tiger years were no longer valid or reasonable for developers. Therefore, where contributions are reduced, under section 29 a developer will be able to retrospectively avail of the reduced development contributions. Where there is planning and where developers intend to build or purchase a given site, we need them to build the houses as quickly as possible to provide the much needed construction jobs within the sector. I certainly also welcome this initiative.

There may be some developers, including small developers, who were in the game in the past and who are now trying to fund new developments. Not everyone can turn his or her hand to become a housing developer and build 25, 50, 100 or 150 houses. There is a risk. People need experience, funding and finance. I know that under Construction 2020 the Department of Finance set about examining the issues regarding access to debt and equity finance for construction development. A report was produced in March or April this year. There are still issues in terms of developers who receive a certain amount of funding or equity from a bank but do not have the balance because they have been out of the building game for a given period or there may be other reasons they are simply not in a position to build. They may be in a position where they cannot proceed with their plans.

It is clear that the Bill contains many positive measures which will ensure the sensible use of land, increase the number of houses available and remove the opt-out clause which has contributed to housing shortages in the past. I have to qualify this by saying there is a shortage in certain places because of an absence of a sensible workable spatial strategy to encourage regional balance. If we continue with a move towards Dublin and Leinster, it will have an even greater knock-on impact and we will never be able to solve the housing shortage problem in the greater Dublin area. I commend the Bill to the House. Certainly, there is more to do, but it is an important first step to boost construction and provide the much needed supply of houses.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Bill which is part of the response to the housing shortage, an issue that has been well aired in this Chamber and the media. We know that we need a multifaceted approach. I consider this to be emergency-type legislation in the sense that we are proposing to introduce a vacant site levy, which is a penalty on people who own property. In the normal course we protect property rights, except when it is a matter of public interest. I understand there are qualifications on the protection of property rights and that the case is being made that it is in the greater good for certain steps to be taken.

I note that the legislation seeks to address issues of supply and land-holding, where land will be freed up where people are holding onto it and that it will be made available for housing, with the effect of boosting the construction sector, which in the process will be a double win, so to speak. However - I have spoken about this matter before - I am concerned about the operation of the vacant site levy in rural constituencies such as mine - Mayo. I would like to think such a vacant site levy would not apply. There is a reason for saying this.

Based on the general case I intend to set before him, the Minister of State might offer a view as to how he sees the vacant-site levy operating. There is nobody homeless in my home county of Mayo at this time, but there is a substantial local authority housing list of more than 3,000 people. Fortunately, all of those people are currently housed in private rented accommodation. Some people in the county are in housing that requires improvement and others need a change of housing to better suit their needs. At the same time, new housing estates in some towns contain empty properties. The idea that there is a housing need in Mayo and other rural counties in the same way that there such a need in Dublin, Cork, Galway or any of the main cities is not correct. As such, a vacant-site levy would be unduly onerous for private property owners in rural counties where a local authority decides to indicate a housing need in its development plan. I am not saying there will not be that need in the future but, for now, the main issue is a social housing need, which is somewhat different from a general housing shortage.

My concern is that the owners of these vacant or under-utilised sites are not major property owners. There is no real market in many of the towns in my county for these properties and it would not be commercially viable to refurbish them for letting, whether for commercial or housing purposes. In many cases, moreover, owners would be unable to obtain the financing to do that. Considering the market conditions that are prevailing in rural Ireland, the proposed levy is unfair and inequitable. In short, the problem it seeks to address is a city-based one. The situation is simply not the same as between rural Ireland and urban Ireland, as other speakers have acknowledged. I would describe even the towns in my county as rural. The people who will be impacted are ordinary citizens, not property speculators or developers. They will be penalised for having a property they probably cannot sell and cannot afford to refurbish. That is not right. In such situations, where there is not the same housing need as exists in Dublin and other cities, is it the expectation that local authorities will introduce a vacant-site levy?

The definition of "vacant site" refers to regeneration land which has an adverse effect on the existing amenities or character of the area. In a county like Mayo, that is covered by the Derelict Sites Act. People may improve the visual appearance of their home or property such that it is not detracting unduly from the surrounding properties, which is covered under that Act. Will the Minister of State comment on that issue?

This legislation needs to include provision in respect of local authorities and housing authorities. As it stands, it contains a specific exclusion whereby councils will not have the same duties and responsibilities as private property owners. In Mayo and many other counties, a large number of the landbanks are owned by the local authority. Indeed, many of the rundown and inhabitable properties which have fallen into dereliction are owned by the council. It might temper the actions of local authorities in drawing up a plan to zone areas in which the vacant-site levy would apply if they had to subscribe to the same law as will apply to the private citizens who have to produce the money needed to bring properties up to standard. The provision should be amended to effect that change.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Local authorities are included in the provision.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, they are covered by an exception under section 2. Local authorities are not treated the same as private property owners.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will clarify that matter for the Deputy.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Another issue of concern is the position of the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA. Will the Minister of State clarify whether it will be penalised in the same way as everybody else and challenged to deliver on housing? I refer here not to the property developers over which NAMA has a stranglehold but to the agency itself. I received a reply to a parliamentary question last week which contained some rather disturbing information in the context of our current housing shortage. The reply noted that a stability programme update was published by the Department of Finance in December 2009. As we know, NAMA was established in February of that year. It was projected at that stage, the reply notes, that we would need approximately 30,000 houses per annum to meet requirements. After seven years in existence, however, we have NAMA clapping itself on the bank for its plans to have 4,500 houses built in the greater Dublin area by 2016 and possibly an additional 20,000 around the country in the next five years or so. That is incredible. Is it any wonder we have a housing shortage? With all the property it controls, including development sites, NAMA should be playing a major role in addressing the housing shortage. It should be working with and funding developers towards this end. As Deputy Kyne said, not everybody has the wherewithal to undertake the scale of development that is required to meet our housing need. NAMA's failure in this regard is a major cause of the housing shortage in this country.

Going back to urban regeneration, different market conditions prevail across the country, as I have outlined, and property hoarding is not occurring in Mayo and other rural counties. At the same time, however, we do have dilapidated market towns in these counties, and we must come up with a plan to bring them back to life. While we can seek to ensure the towns recover, it will never be the case that they will have multiple retail units on the scale there was before the recession. These towns require basic services and basic shops. In the past, small market towns had many shops selling the same types of goods, but we must face up to the reality that this is no longer sustainable. Some of the derelict commercial properties in the centres of these towns will never come back into commercial use. They are an eyesore and a reminder not only of the decline that has taken place but also of the changes in the way in which people now spend their money. Many consumers go to larger stores or make their purchases online. That does not mean there is not a place or a need for certain services in these towns, but the reality is that not all of those commercial premises will be returned to use.

Rather than penalising the owners of such properties with vacant-site levies, we need well-designed tax incentive schemes which would make changing them to residential use affordable for their owners. Mayo County Council is working on a study to explore the repopulation of these towns from commercially zoned to residentially zoned where appropriate. This approach has already been undertaken to great effect in the town of Louisburgh, which has been transformed from commercial dereliction to a site of vibrant town housing. That initiative should set an example for other local authorities. An approach based on incentivising property owners rather than beating with them a stick will facilitate older people, for instance, in moving from the countryside into a safer environment. This might be part of the solution to dealing with the problems we are seeing in small towns throughout the country and could be tied in with efforts to address the social housing shortage. I hope the Minister of State will give this proposal serious consideration. Otherwise, these small market towns will be nothing but monuments. We must take the bull by the horns and allow some recognition that the situation is rural counties like Mayo is different from that in Dublin and other cities.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá tábhacht faoi leith ag baint le tithíocht. Caithfidh chuile dhuine bheith ina chónaí i dteach agus tá go leor daoine anois atá á fháil rite leo teach a aimsiú. Caithim a rá nach dtagaim leis an gcineál tuairimíocht ata sa Bhille seo nó le tuairmíocht an Rialtais maidir le tithíocht.

The lack of analysis and a broader view on the part of the Government, not only towards housing but also in respect of settlement policy, is quite frightening. If we do not have a big picture of what the country should like in ten, 20 or 30 years time, we are likely to repeat the mistakes of the past.

We have a housing crisis, especially in our cities. In particular, we have a housing crisis in this city and it is being exacerbated every day by the Minister of State's Government because his Government has a policy of centralisation of everything into Dublin. The Government cannot seem to see that there is cause and effect. If it insists on all the jobs being in Dublin, all the people will be in the so-called GDA or greater Dublin area. For example, the Government cancelled any programme of decentralisation. Instead of having a policy that all new agencies, where it controls the jobs, would be set up outside the metropolitan area, it decided they would go to Dublin. Week in, week out, the Government consolidates all development here. Then it wonders why there is no housing in this city.

Another thing we have to examine is the ability of all in our society to go in the one direction at the one time. This does not just apply to the Government. When there was a demand for housing, people in the private sector seemed to lose all reason and started building houses everywhere - from Donegal to Leitrim, Galway to Dublin, and Louth right down to Mizen Head. They kept building, without in any way doing a proper analysis on whether their investment would make them a return. Much of this was driven by a number of factors, including the media, which, week in, week out, in the Irish Farmer's Journal, national newspapers and everywhere, had property sections feeding into the frenzy.

The amazing thing that also is true is that when certain parts of the country got into oversupply, everyone presumed all the country was in oversupply. No analysis seems to have taken place since this Government came into office. As my colleague, Deputy Kyne, said, in Galway we ensured we did not get into an oversupply situation. I remember campaigning, year in, year out, to try to ensure, as best I, as one person, could, that we did not get into this myopic building. Dublin never had a significant oversupply. It was easy to work out the supply situation. All one had to do was work out the average requirement of houses for the population. We knew that. I have those figures going back 40 and 50 years. Those figures could have been sub-segmented because one knew how many houses were being built in each area. Therefore, it was easily forecast by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government that we were going to run out of houses in the metropolitan areas.

We are going to start building again, but this time let us try to do it a little better. When I was a member of Galway County Council back in 1997, one of the last things I did on the council before I left it was argue that we needed to zone enough land around Oranmore to ensure a small number of property owners did not have inordinate control over the land supply. On the other hand, I was worried that if we zoned a reasonably significant amount of land, we would get a building explosion that would cause huge social difficulties around Oranmore. I suggested at the time, and lots of people threw cold water on it, that we should zone adequate land but we should put a codicil in the planning development plan providing that only a fixed number of houses could be built every year. This was something we introduced subsequently into county plans in Galway. That way one did not get caught with this tight parcel of land where the owner could say it was his land or no land. On the other hand, a huge amount of land was not zoned such that one would get a huge explosion of planning applications and lose control over the amount of houses provided. This time we need to ensure in our planning mechanisms that the number of houses we provide for meets the expected demand.

The next issue we need to stand back and look at is the wider vision for ownership and ownership and renting structures and so on of houses. I was listening to Deputy Boyd Barrett, who seems to want us to go back into a crash programme like the Ballymun flats where the State would build enormous numbers of houses in massive, socially segregated estates. I know he does not like the private sector, but to see the private sector as one amorphous totality is, in my view, not to understand that the private sector is as varied as our society. I do not believe in building huge, monolithic, socially segregated estates. We can look to the past. All one has to do is look at the RAPID areas which the Department has neglected totally since this Government got into office. The common factor in the RAPID areas is massive local authority housing estates and social segregation of an obnoxious kind. I do not believe in that type of development.

I also believe that as many people as possible should be enabled to own their own homes. There is a big difference between an individual family owning its own home and a small number of massive developers in the private sector controlling the development market. If given a choice between living in a house designed, controlled, built and everything else by a local authority and having the pride of owning one's own home, most people would rather own their own home. It is amazing that there seems to be a consensus on the idea that it is better for the State to fully build or fund the houses or pay rent to landlords than assist private home ownership. This goes against decisions we made in Government, but I have to say that I am not convinced that the elimination of the first-time buyer's grant was the great idea it was cracked up to be. I am not convinced that reducing mortgage interest relief, without which a lot of us would not have been able to build our own homes, was or is a good idea, although it is something that seems to have broad consensus among policy-makers. We are pushing people onto the public housing market who could, with a little assistance, provide their own homes and which would be somewhere they would own.

There is another thing I believe which relates to the building of housing estates. We all have to admit that when we canvass in the elections and go into the housing estates where we allowed people buy the houses, even at quite knock-down prices, we will always know the quality of the houses by the sliding door in the house and the flowers outside. It is easily seen: pride in ownership. I am amazed that every time I had to table a parliamentary question on the new tenant purchase scheme, the reply was always that it is coming soon. "Coming soon" is the great answer of the public service for not wanting to say when because it might be too far away and an issue might be made out of it. They keep stringing the person along. However, it cannot be that complicated to write the regulations and publish the scheme.

One of the great advantages of living in rural areas is social integration. I was lucky that, even though I grew up in what is, funnily enough, reputedly one of the better-off parts of the city, it was much more socially integrated than might first meet the eye.

Until recent times, one of the great attributes of living in rural Ireland was the fact that there was a socially integrated society. The person who had a very good job lived beside the person on social welfare. They went to the same school and played on the same team. They were friends and their employment status made no difference. We should try to mirror this, if possible, in urban areas. For that reason, I applaud one of the steps the Minister is taking and roundly condemn another. I agree fully that it was a major mistake to allow the buy-out clause under Part V. There was massive pressure in that regard. I recall representatives of the builders federation visiting me in Galway. As they were opposed to Part V at the time, it was a matter for discussion. I remember saying to them that they were opposing it because they did not want social housing in their housing estates. However, I also pointed out that at night they came to my clinic to complain about social deprivation and anti-social behaviour in the socially segregated areas and ask me why we had created them. Profit was their motive in day time, but at night time it was the social cohesion of the city in which they lived. I told them they could not have it both ways.

The Minister should remove the buy-out clause and leave the percentage figure as it is, not take the route advocated by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett of building huge, segregated housing estates. The Minister should have courage and stand up to the vested interests in the industry. Ultimately, we would all reap the harvest, as one sees in the social deprivation to which Trutz Haase and other sociologists point when one opts for social segregation. When one looks at the figures, it is no coincidence that the areas of greatest social deprivation, with the highest prison populations and the greatest levels of anti-social behaviour, are in urban areas, with high concentrations of local authority housing. We must, therefore, integrate urban societies in the way rural societies are integrated.

It is very important that we do not pull back on anything related to the standard of housing. It is absolutely crazy to hear talk that we should not be so strict when it comes to housing standards, building standards and so forth for urban housing, while, at the same time, putting an extra €10,000 or €15,000 onto the cost of a one-off house in a rural area where the person concerned supervises the building of his or her own house and where in my experience the chances of it not being built correctly are very slim. The Minister is from a rural and an urban constituency. Did he see many building problems with one-off houses people built for themselves on their own land, where they had commissioned and supervised the building? I doubt it. Is it not ironic that people are talking about not being strict with big builders?

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to intervene to correct something I said. I referred to section 2 of the Bill, but it is section 4 that sets out the exemption of a local authority. The vacant site levy does not apply to a local authority as a housing authority. This is provided for in section 4 in Part 2.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mar a bhí mé ag rá, nuair a bhí orm an córam a tharraingt-----

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An bhfuil an Teachta Ó Cuív ceart go leor? Cad a tharla?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----- bhí mé ag ceapadh go raibh daoine imithe abhaile.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An bhfuil na huimhireacha aige?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá na huimhireacha ag an Rialtas ar aon chuí. Is deas an rud é sin a fheiceáil.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ní raibh an Teachta Ó Cuív ag féachaint ar an gclár teilifíse.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ní raibh. Bhí mé istigh anseo ag déanamh mo chuid oibre. As I said, it is very important that we maintain the standard of housing.

The PRTB system requires urgent reform. When I was Minister for Social Protection, I worked with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to try to ensure registration of all properties took place before rather than after letting and that every property would be required to have a report before it was let stating it met adequate standards and had an adequate BER rating. With so many people living in rented housing, it is vital we ensure they are living in properties of an adequate standard. Furthermore, if we were to insist on full registration with the PRTB before letting, we could ensure there was full compliance with Revenue Commissioners' requirements also.

I refer to the issue of Traveller housing. Ordinary people find it difficult to rent housing. There is an amazing and unprecedented housing crisis. Travellers, however, face even greater problems owing to the huge social prejudice against them. One of the aspects of the Government's tenure of office that shocks me is the constant reduction of money for Traveller housing. If the Minister checks his Department's records, he will see that there have been disproportionate cuts in that sector. I refer him to the latest work of Fr. Micheal McGreal which shows that the Traveller community suffers the greatest apartheid, as he calls it, in our society. Instead of trying to do something about it, the Minister has added tremendously to this policy.