Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to appear before the Seanad today to discuss the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2002, the primary purpose of which is to amend Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, which deals with housing supply. The Bill will also make other miscellaneous amendments to the 2000 Act and certain amendments to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1992 and 2002, and the Housing Finance Agency Act, 1981.

I stress that the Government is committed to making Part V work. There was never any question that I would set aside the requirement on housing developers to make a contribution to the provision of social and affordable housing. My aim is to remove obstacles and make Part V work to ensure a continued good supply of housing which is the only way to affordability. The changes now proposed are designed to make the system operate more efficiently and effectively, eliminate the rigidities that were slowing down supply, and bring more social and affordable housing on stream more quickly, while continuing to promote social integration.

A review of Part V was promised in An Agreed Programme for Government to ensure it was meeting the objectives in relation to social and affordable housing. The review was initiated mainly because complaints had been received that the system was overly bureaucratic, not only from developers, but also from local authorities, and because it appeared to be slowing down supply – the opposite of what was intended.

In initiating a review the Government's aim at all times was to boost the supply of housing, particularly social and affordable housing. A key element was the continued promotion of social integration. The review, which was conducted with all key stakeholders, reached some interesting conclusions on which there was a fairly general consensus: the provisions in relation to making housing strategies and the requirement to zone sufficient land for residential development were positive; there was a need for increased flexibility and less bureaucracy in the operation of the provisions of Part V; the provision of an adequate supply of social housing was essential; and there was no support for a complete repeal of Part V.