Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Bill and commend the Minister and the Minister of State for deciding they would not deal with a new measure, albeit only two years old, in an ostrich-like fashion. It is unfortunate that the ostrich syndrome still appears to be alive and well in Irish politics, as I have seen and experienced only too often in Dublin City Council. The only claim to fame of some members of the council is their attitude that "Thou shalt not build, even on a blade of grass, or we will make it so difficult you will walk away."

I decided to speak tonight after hearing an Opposition Senator, who is now absent from the Chamber, making all sorts of unfounded allegations and insinuating that the Bill is motivated simply and solely by a desire to facilitate developers. If one gets caught up in that type of ideological claptrap, one will miss the point. The objective of Part V of the Principal Act is the promotion of social and affordable housing. If something works, why fix it? However, if something is not working to the extent and in the manner intended, it is the duty of the Minister to look at it to see how it can be made more flexible and workable.

The evidence is clear throughout the country, perhaps to a lesser extent in Dublin, that Part V of the Act, even though the principles underlying it were extremely laudable, was not realising its objective. The Minister is amending Part V in this Bill but the central principle is retained, although this was misrepresented earlier in the debate. I commend the Minister on retaining the laudable central principle to promote planning and the development of communities in this country in a socially integrated way. This Bill and subsequent regulations will introduce changes in the Act to facilitate its smoother and more expeditious operation.

A number of figures were quoted during the debate. A substantial number of houses have been put on hold because of the withering rule. It has also been mentioned, and I have evidence of this from the planning officials of the city council, that there is a degree of coyness on the part of applicants applying for planning permission for housing. If that is the case, and given that the raging inflation in the housing market is driven by demand, one of the principles underpinning the 2000 Act, to enhance supply, is not being realised to the extent defined in the Bill. To say that this legislation, after two years, is a decision made with indecent haste is to ignore or be insensitive to the many thousands of people who are not satisfied that the current legislation is working for them. These people are looking for houses but find the local authorities are unable to respond meaningfully or quickly enough to their demands.

Dublin has made minor progress in providing affordable and social housing but not nearly enough to meet demand. A speedy response was needed after two years, when it was clear that the fundamental intentions of the legislation were not being achieved.