Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this legislation, the purpose of which is to amend Part V of the original Act. Many of us remember the bullishness of the Minister's predecessor in pushing through legislation which, according to advice from all quarters, not necessarily the Opposition, was unworkable. It is a pity the Minister had to inherit such a disaster. It is important that he is, at least, making an attempt to increase the housing stock. The affordable and social housing concept was a good one, under which heading the Department financed many worthwhile projects in recent years. My local authority, Galway County Council, was proactive in submitting proposals to the Department which under the then Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Bobby Molloy, a member of the Minister's original party, was proactive in responding to the initiatives of the local authority to provide housing where possible on greenfield sites.

The Minister said, "The changes announced in the Bill are specifically designed to meet the concerns about bureaucracy and flexibility expressed in the review and thereby boost housing supply." Will he outline the bureaucracy and the difficulties which stemmed from it? As many have claimed, it may be that the deadline of 31 December had to be met, otherwise planning permission for 44,000 or 45,000 housing units would have been lost. The original provision fell flat on its face because builders would not budge. That is the tragedy. We should look at output in recent years in relying on housing stock to be provided by the State through the local authorities. What will output be now when all we see ahead of us are cutbacks?

The original Bill failed and this amending legislation is destined to suffer the same fate because of the uncertainties. The Minister said there would be firm guidelines for local authorities as to the alternative arrangements that could be made. He knows what they are, but who else does? Will they work? He said any alternative arrangements would have to be of equal benefit. While there will be alternative arrangements and flexibility, will the Minister give local authorities firm guidelines? Confusion abounds in the Bill. For that reason, we are once more embarking on ill-conceived and rushed legislation which, given the hasty decisions made, the Minister, like his predecessor, will regret.