Colm Burke (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I thank him for the efforts he is making to deal with this difficult problem. A number of months ago, I was asked to speak at the historical society of UCC. The society was having a debate on comparisons between the recession of the 1980s and the current recession. I spoke from my perspective as someone who comes from a legal practice. I mentioned that in the 1980s, a guy with four young children came to my office and said he wanted to buy a new three-bedroom semi-detached house. The deposit on the house was £100, which he did not have. I was able to send him to the bank to borrow £100 and, as a result, he was able to buy the house. If a person with €100,000 in the bank came to me now to buy the same house, they would not get a loan to be able to buy it. I suppose that is the big difference. Even though we were going through a recession in the 1980s, it is interesting that we were still able to keep the flow of house sales and purchases going. At the time, many people availed of a scheme that created social problems in some areas. I refer to the provision of a £5,000 grant to those who were willing to surrender their local authority house and buy their own house. It is unfortunate that we are unable to offer a similar scheme during these times to keep the market moving.

My colleague, Senator O'Keeffe, spoke about the need to have services in place before starting to build estates. I have seen a copy of the planning permission that was granted for a development in Edinburgh a number of years ago. The developers in question, who had acquired 200 army houses for refurbishment, were required to assess how many new families would be moving into the area. Not only did they have to provide all the services before any of the houses could be sold, they also had to assess the number of children who would be living in the area and build or extend playgrounds and additional classrooms in primary and secondary schools on that basis. It is interesting to note that this system has been in place in Edinburgh for many years.

I would like to raise two issues that relate to the taking in charge of estates. I will give a simple example of a problem with the system that has been in place for many years. Four months ago, I came across an estate of seven houses for which planning permission was granted in 1997. The developer built roads, footpaths and lampposts before selling seven sites. Some 13 years on, the estate does not have any lighting. I wrote to the local authority on a number of occasions before eventually telephoning an official to make the case. The problem came to a head at the end of last year during the frosty weather. One has to drive downhill to get into the estate, but that was impossible due to the weather conditions. People had to park on the main road. If they wanted to go out at night, they had to walk out of an estate with no lights and with ice on all the roads and footpaths. I suppose it really brought it to a head. I contacted the local authority to ask why this was not sorted out. It seems that the bond which was in place was not adequate to cover the cost of the additional work that had to be done. The question of the inability of local authorities to follow through arises once more. The attitude of the local authority official was that I should not be complaining because the case in question dated to 1997 and much older estates have not been taken in charge. It is a question of accountability. Local authorities are answerable to the Minister of State and his Department. Not only are we letting builders and developers off the hook for not completing estates, we are also letting the local authorities off the hook for not enforcing the rules. The problem in this case is that the bond is not sufficient to cover the costs that have arisen. At the end of the day, taxpayers will have to pay for the local authority to finish the estate.

The second issue I want to speak about is the question of compliance with the Part V regulations. I raised this matter on the Adjournment last week. The problem is that lands or houses which are supposed to be made available to local authorities under Part V when estates are built are not being made available. In some cases, the parcel of land that was promised to the local authority is mortgaged to a different financial institution that is not involved with NAMA. I referred last week to 160 apartments that have been built. The development is mortgaged with a bank that is not part of the NAMA process. A second lot of property, which should have been given to the local authority, is mortgaged to a different bank that is no longer co-operating. The local authority is saying that none of the apartments can be sold because the builder or developer - there is a receiver in there now - is not complying with Part V. This has been going on for over 12 months. If the receiver wanted to get money by selling the properties, he would be prevented from doing so. We need to be proactive in dealing with such cases. I accept that there is a problem with Part V compliance, but I am concerned that local authorities are not responding to the need to deal with this issue. I understand their argument that the legislation governing this area means they do not have an option in this matter. On the legal side the purchaser's solicitors maintain they have not been furnished with an engineer's declaration of compliance with planning permission because those involved have not complied with Part V. Therefore, the solicitors cannot certify the title. This is a problem that must be remedied because otherwise these properties will remain as they are until it is resolved. I am unsure exactly how it can be resolved but it must be resolved. This may not be taking place in a great many cases but it is taking place and I am aware of that one example where it is happening. I am also aware of other cases in which the builders are involved in NAMA and there is a slow response with regard to co-operation between NAMA and the local authority with regard to Part V compliance. This issue can be resolved. We may need amending legislation although I am unsure. However, in the case to which I referred it appears the hands of the local authority are tied legally unless it waives the condition in the planning. I call on the Minister of State to examine the position in this case. We must deal with the issues, including the old system and how local authorities ensure that developers are accountable. In addition, it is important the Department ensures that local authorities carry on and implement the role they have. I thank the Minister of State for giving us his time this evening.