Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

A number of stakeholders also raised the issue of the provision which causes certain planning permissions to wither after two years. This provision was not viewed as helpful in terms of increasing housing supply. 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.

The Bill will replace section 96 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. The purpose of the new section is to give new options as to how an applicant for permission for development can comply with the requirements of Part V. At present agreements are confined to providing land within the proposed development for the local authority or providing houses or sites within the development. In addition to these existing options, the applicant for permission will now be able to reach an agreement to reserve land or provide houses or sites at another location, or make a payment to the local authority which will be used for the provision of social and affordable housing, or agree to a combination of any of these options.

In considering whether to make an agreement as an alternative to reserving land within the site which will remain the primary requirement the authority will have to consider a number of important issues, the most important of which will be the need to counteract undue social segregation in the area. Social integration does not mean making people live side by side. Some voluntary housing bodies argue against "pepper potting" houses through estates for management reasons. It does mean ensuring all the people of a community, of all kinds, are represented within a locality, going to the same shops and schools, benefiting from the same community facilities and transport links.

I am determined that this new flexibility in Part V will not lead to builders providing new estates at the edges of communities with no social links or infrastructure. I will be setting firm guidelines for local authorities as to the types of alternative arrangements that will be acceptable in terms of social integration. The agreement's potential contribution towards achieving the objectives of the housing strategy and how quickly housing is likely to be provided as a consequence of the agreement will also be considerations for the local authority.

These changes to Part V are all about delivery of housing more quickly and efficiently. The new provision will not lessen the obligation on developers. Any agreement under the Bill must result in a contribution of an equivalent monetary value to the reservation of land within the development. In practice this means the equivalent of whatever the local authority would have saved if it was acquiring the land within the development at existing use value instead of market value. Any alternative arrangement must be of equal benefit.

These changes to Part V will introduce flexibility into the system which will give local authorities a variety of choices in deciding how social and affordable housing requirements of their communities are to be met. They are firmly within the principles of Part V – to integrate housing supply fully into the planning system and require applicants for permission on residentially zoned land to contribute towards meeting the existing need for social and affordable housing. The system in Britain requires developers to make up to 30% of larger developments available as social or affordable housing. The aim of their policy is also to achieve mixed communities with a balance of housing types and tenures. The difference is that, through their more flexible system, they are delivering low cost and social housing. It has become a normal and accepted part of the planning process for developers to negotiate with local authorities on social and affordable housing provision and build those houses, either as part of the development or at another location.

This is what we are doing, building in the same flexibility and trying to ensure Part V becomes a settled part of the planning process in Ireland. One may ask the reason developers or landowners should contribute towards social and affordable housing. The value of land is increased by a decision of a local authority to zone land for residential development. Part V is based on the principle that there should be some benefit to the community arising from that decision and that developers should contribute some of the gain back to the community. It was this principle that was upheld by the Supreme Court in the summer of 2000 when it declared that Part V was constitutional.

The review of Part V also signalled problems with the provision under which certain permissions withered after two years. This withering provision was introduced to put all planning permissions on an even footing as soon as possible in relation to social and affordable housing. However, it is now estimated that permissions for many thousands of houses would expire because of it at a time when it is critically important to ensure continued supply into 2003 and 2004. I therefore propose to insert two new sections into the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

Section 96A reverses the impact of section 96(15) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Section 96(15) provided that permissions for residential development granted after 25 August 1999 but before a housing strategy is included in the relevant development plan in accordance with the Act, and to which Part V of the Act would have applied had the housing strategy been incorporated when the application for permission was made, would last until 31 December 2002 or for two years from the date of the grant of permission, whichever was longer. Planning permission would expire for those houses within the development for which the external walls had not been built by the relevant date.

Section 96A removes that provision and provides that the normal rules concerning the duration of permission will apply to those permissions. These permissions are not subject to Part V requirements because they were applied for before the Part came into force. However, it is consistent with the principles on which Part V was based that developers of the houses in question should be required to contribute towards the cost of social and affordable housing.

In return for extending the duration of permissions affected, developers will be required to make a once-off contribution towards funding social and affordable housing. The alternative was to do nothing and leave these sites to wither. There would have been no gain, financial or otherwise. I chose to try to keep the sites viable and to go further than was provided for in the previous Act by seeking a levy from the developers which will go directly to the local authorities. They will thus have more funding available to them for social and affordable housing. I hope Members who comment on this point will be prepared to propose another alternative. The one facing us was to leave the sites to wither, in which case nobody would gain anything. A total of 80,000 permissions would have been lost from the market on the supply side. I have restored them but have gone further by securing a substantial community gain for the housing stock. That is a more imaginative approach.

The response from the building industry is positive in this regard. Without this we would have had nothing. I hope people do not confuse this provision with regard to withering with the other elements in Part V because they are separate. It was a question of doing something or nothing and I believe we took the right course.

Section 96B provides that a levy must be paid in respect of each house for which permission would have expired, if this Bill were not passed. It should be emphasised that it is not a levy on all houses built in future, just on those whose permission is being restored. The levy, which will be 0.5% of the cost of a house with a value less than €270,000 or 1% of the cost of a house with a value equal to or greater than €270,000, will be paid to local authorities to put towards the provision of social and affordable housing. Setting the levy at this level should not discourage developers from building out these permissions and will be an incentive to set the price of the houses that are built at an affordable level.

Payment of the levy will be a condition of the planning permission for each house and will be the responsibility of the developer. There may be concerns that this cost will be immediately passed on to the purchasers of the houses but the section prohibits this. It provides that if an agreement of sale includes a requirement on a purchaser to pay the levy, that term of the agreement will be void and the money, if paid over, can be recovered.

I will now deal with other sections of the Bill in detail. In preparing the Bill, a number of amendments to the Housing Acts to facilitate the supply of housing were included. The opportunity was also taken to make a number of miscellaneous and mostly technical amendments to the 2000 Act. Part 1 of the Bill contains the standard citation and definition sections. Part 2 contains the provisions to amend Part V of the Planning Act, which I have already outlined.

Part 3 of the Bill contains the other amendments to the 2000 Act. These are mainly technical amendments. Sections 7 and 8 amend the provisions dealing with local area plans, to clarify that land may be zoned in a local area plan. In addition, a second public display period will be provided for where it is proposed to make material amendments to the plan following the first display period. This is similar to the requirements for development plans.

Section 12 will permit a decision by a local authority on a declaration in relation to a protected structure to be referred to An Bord Pleanála for review. This will be similar to the procedures where a local authority makes a declaration on what is or is not development, or exempted, under section 5 of the Act.

Section 13 amends section 239 of the 2000 Act to permit regulations to be made in relation to the granting of certificates of safety for fairground equipment which refer to technical guidance documents. Section 14 amends section 262(4) which provides that certain regulations made under the Act are subject to a requirement to get positive approval. This amendment will remove the requirement to get positive approval for procedural regulations in relation to development by State authorities while retaining the requirement that regulations determining the types of development which are approved under this special procedure will be subject to the positive approval requirement. Therefore, the same rules will apply in this case as, for example, in relation to a local authority's own development.

Part IV of the Bill makes amendments to other legislation, namely, the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1992 and 2002, and the Housing Finance Agency Act, 1981. These amendments are also designed to ensure a continued supply of housing.

Sections 15 to 18, inclusive, amend the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1992 to 2002, to introduce measures to facilitate the provision of affordable housing. The amendments complement the changes to Part V. The changes will allow approved housing bodies to provide affordable housing for sale, in addition to providing houses for rental. The voluntary housing movement is keen to get involved in providing affordable housing which these amendments will facilitate by permitting them to provide houses under the affordable housing and shared ownership schemes and by providing that persons granted a shared ownership lease by an approved body will be eligible for subsidy on their rent.

One important change is that the terms of the shared ownership scheme will be amended for voluntary housing bodies to allow them to retain part ownership of these houses and so ensure they remain within the affordable housing market. Under these amendments a person granted a shared ownership lease by an approved body will not be required or entitled to eventually purchase the interest of the body in the house. The lessee will, however, be entitled to eventually sell his or her interest in the house to a person who meets the eligibility criteria applicable to the scheme. The House will agree that this scheme represents a reasonable balance between the right of the lessee to purchase an interest in a house and the retention of a social equity in the house, and will facilitate the provision of integrated housing projects by the voluntary and co-operative housing sector, comprising a mix of social rented, shared ownership and affordable houses.

Section 19 amends section 10A of the Housing Finance Agency Act, 1981, as inserted by the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, to correct a technical error in the section to permit the National Treasury Management Agency to borrow on behalf of the Housing Finance Agency. While the error was technical, it could have prevented the NTMA acting on the HFA's part when borrowing money.

I reiterate that the Bill is primarily about improving housing supply and promoting social integration. The new flexibility will speed up agreements and free up resources. Agreements will be concluded more quickly and more social and affordable housing will come on stream more quickly. The level of contribution required from developers remains the same – there is no reduction. The agreements allowed under the Bill will ensure it continues to support the objective of social integration. I commend the Bill to the House.

While Governments come and go, it is their duty while in office to give priority to every citizen's right to a place that they can call home. Housing is a basic human need and right. The principal issues facing us are increased demand on services, planning and building control, settlement patterns and the distribution of growth in order that benefits are shared equally throughout the country. I sincerely hope the Government will take this on board when it tries to implement the national spatial strategy.

According to figures released by the Department of the Environment and Local Government, housing waiting lists have soared to over 120,000, of which approximately 52,000 are children. These figures represent 48,413 households, an increase of 23.5% from a figure of 39,176 in 1999. At the present rate of progress it could take up to 30 years to clear the waiting lists.

The real crisis in housing lies with the Government's inability to satisfy demand for social housing. Although previous legislation – Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 – has forced developers to allocate 15% to 20% of new developments for social and affordable housing, this is applicable to land zoned residential or mixed use land only. No clear guideline has emerged as to how the social housing element of the scheme is to be delivered to the end user.

It is essential that locations that need such housing are identified and given immediate priority. Underfunded and overworked local authorities do not have the resources to purchase, administer and manage all the social housing stock. Loopholes leading to a blurring of developers' compliance with Part V would once again see the needy in our society bearing the brunt of biased legislation.

Part V of the housing Act was meant to make a percentage of new homes built more affordable, yet the legislation has had the opposite effect – rather than increasing the supply of homes and affordable housing, some counties have seen planning applications dry up as builders and local authorities differ on interpretation of Part V. Places such as Cork, Limerick, Ennis and County Kerry, where all residential land is zoned, have seen this effect while counties Meath, Wicklow and Kildare have seen planning applications fall by as much as 60%.

In the Ireland of 2002 home ownership is beyond the reach of many of our citizens. Married couples, both of whom are employed, do not qualify for a mortgage on a starter home. The same couple is deemed too well off to secure local authority housing and reasonably priced private rented accommodation is lamentably inadequate. With first-time buyers forced in many cases to turn to local authority housing, due to high prices, withdrawal of the first-time buyer's grant in the Estimates and now a new squeeze – an increase of 1% in the VAT rate in the budget from 12.5% to 13.5% – housing list numbers are due to rise yet again. According to the Irish Home Builders Association, the increase in VAT will add almost €1,800 to the cost of a new house.

The Minister referred to systems in Britain where developers have to allocate 30% of land to social and affordable housing, but in the United Kingdom new houses are zero VAT rated which helps to keep the price down for the buyer. In Ireland the Government seems intent on increasing the cost to the purchaser yet again. A country such as Ireland, which has a young and growing population, needs to expand its housing stock to ensure that its ever increasing accommodation needs are adequately met.

Tied in with the need for housing provision in the short term is the inevitable conclusion that this provision will dictate the quality of life for generations to come. The national spatial strategy, which is designed to achieve a better balance of social, economic, physical development and population growth between regions, will flounder in the area of housing if the existing problem, whereby affluent areas grow richer at the expense of poorer areas, is not addressed. The resultant urban exodus will strain rural resources that are already tightly stretched.

The need for farmers to provide housing for their families is recognised within rural communities. It is often not possible for an entire family to live off the land, but many farmers want to provide sites for their sons and daughters who work in neighbouring towns. While a site in a town might cost €50,000 to €60,000, a young person could be offered a site on his or her parents' farm. Many such people are being frustrated in their efforts to obtain planning permission because planning regulations are becoming more and more restrictive. It is possible to allow people to live and raise their families in their native area without damaging the beauty of the countryside. The Department of the Environment and Local Government must find a way to facilitate such applicants.

This is not an effort to promote a policy of ribbon development or the eruption of satellite suburbs. Protecting agricultural land is one matter, but, given the wide-scale planting of some of the best land in the country, it seems that excessively restrictive criteria are being used to refuse planning permission to some applicants. It is essential that a proper balance is struck between rural and urban development, particularly in light of the national spatial strategy, in order to ensure that people with connections to the countryside will be allowed to build houses there, even if they work in offices rather than on the land. Delays and inconsistencies in the planning process are undermining the housing market and deterring multinational investment.

Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, compels developers to provide 20% of the units they build for social and affordable housing. This has proven to be unworkable, not least due to the absence of a consistent approach by local authorities. An increase in respect of all existing two year planning permissions to five years should be made in cases where builders make voluntary agreements with local authorities in respect of social housing, a point with which the Minister dealt. Abandoning the current provisions and charging a levy on each housing unit instead would provide a more effective means of funding social housing. Using this approach would give the Government the money it needs to fund the provision of social housing. How does the Minister propose to collect such a levy and is he in a position to guarantee that it will – this is a point of the utmost importance – be passed back to the purchaser?

People are at the centre of the concept of sustainable development and are the basis for all actions taken under the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, which recognises that rural and urban areas are economically, socially and environmentally interdependent and that cities and towns are engines of growth which contribute to the development rural and urban human settlements. Allied to the problem of the homeless on our streets, the crisis in social and affordable housing will be one of the worst legacies the Government will leave behind when it vacates office.

I agree with the Minister that a review was needed. Such a review was promised in An Agreed Programme for Government in order to meet the objectives in relation to social and affordable housing. The question arises as to whether the provisions of Part V of the 2000 Act achieve the desired result of improving the supply of social and affordable housing. If there is a bureaucratic provision in the legislation in this regard, success will not be achieved in respect of that objective.

I wish to cite an example which involves houses built under the scheme in County Galway. I understand from the local housing officer that 56 houses were built under the affordable housing scheme in recent years. Seven were built in Abbey, Loughrea – a small village – eight in Mount Bellew, 16 in Tuam and 25 in Loughrea. I firmly believe that more houses would be built under this scheme if there was greater flexibility in its provisions. The Minister was right to consult a wide range of interests in regard to the review.

With regard to applicants for affordable housing, some confusion arose regarding the new house grant. The Minister clarified the position and I am glad that such applicants applied for their grants prior to 4 December, the closing date for applications.

This issue should be taken up by the Department, as difficulties may arise at local authority level. This is one of the reasons the scheme might not be as successful as we had hoped it would be. An affordable housing scheme is an excellent idea, but bureaucracy, to which the Minister referred, has hindered the provision of extra housing. I would like to see improvements in the scheme, where possible, especially when many of the suggestions for improvements have come from local authorities.

It is unhelpful to the increase in housing supply if planning permissions wither after two years. This was one of the outcomes of the review of Part V of the Act. There was no support for the complete repeal of the Part, rather for an examination of the withering rule which the Minister has deleted. He was not prepared to do that for nothing and has imposed a levy towards social and affordable housing. The urgency of the Bill is to be seen in the fact that, had the Minister not acted, planning permission for 44,000 housing units would have expired at the end of December this year and another 36,000 over the course of next year. A grand total of 80,000 units would not be built because of the withering rule.

Section 96A reverses the impact of the two year withering rule and all planning permissions will have the same duration. Section 96B provides that a levy must be paid in respect of each house built on foot of a permission that would have expired had the Bill not been passed. The levy will be 0.5% of the cost of a house with a value less than €270,000 or 1% of the cost of a house with a value equal to or greater than €270,000. Payment of the levy will be a condition of the planning permission for each house and will be the responsibility of the developer.

The Minister stressed that the legislation prohibits the passing on of the levy to the purchaser. It provides that, if an agreement of sale includes the requirement on a purchaser to pay the levy, the terms of the agreement will be void and the money, if paid over, can be recovered.

The Bill stresses the need for flexibility and the options available are important. For example, the Minister mentioned the option of the applicant reaching an agreement to reserve land, provide houses or sites at another location, make a payment to the local authority which will be used for the provision of social and affordable housing or agree to a combination of any of these options. This is as well as reserving land within a proposed development for the local authority to provide houses or sites. If there is an alternative to reserving land, the authority must receive the equivalent monetary value and will have to consider, among other things, the need to counteract undue social segregation in the area.

An important question we are asked as public representatives is how quickly a housing development can proceed. Another question is how it will proceed in the context of what we are doing in this legislation. I mentioned the disappointment at the delay in providing housing under various schemes. I hope that an increased number of houses will be provided next year now that the review of Part V gives the flexibility to increase the supply of social and affordable housing.

An important issue is the work of the approved housing bodies. I pay tribute to the voluntary housing bodies who provide houses in conjunction with the local authorities. They have done excellent work throughout the country and groups such as RESPOND have worked closely with local authorities and communities in providing the necessary housing.

I listened to a news report on Traveller families seeking accommodation which stated that 1,000 such families are on the waiting list. I am aware of many Traveller families who have suitable sites for housing. I am also aware that 100% grants are available from the Minister's Department. I have raised the issue with my local authority in Galway. Steps should be taken to speed up the provision of houses for people who have their own sites and where there is a difficulty obtaining other sites or houses. There should be a provision under this scheme or another one to ensure that, where suitable sites are available, Traveller families receive priority. I know the Department has provided sufficient money for them and that the difficulty is obtaining sites. Using sites that Travellers have available would be a good way of providing housing for them and there are many examples of this in County Galway.

It appears that what was promised in the programme for Government and what is proposed in the Bill are different. There is no hint in the programme for Government that the withering requirement will be reversed, only that its practical implications will be smoothed out. On the other hand, the withering requirement is repealed in the Bill. Instead of these planning permissions lapsing, as was correctly provided for in the Act of 2000, they will continue for the normal life of planning permissions, subject to a small financial slap on the wrist for the developer.

This provision is a cop-out that effectively extracts the teeth from the provisions of the Act of 2000. It is accompanied by a remarkable exercise in either wishful thinking or cynicism, whichever way one wants to look at it. I know Members of the House are wishful thinkers rather than cynics but one must look at this one way or the other.

We are expected to believe that the levy to be paid for continuing a permission which should have withered will be borne by a developer out of his own pocket. The explanatory memorandum would have us believe as follows:

The section prohibits the passing of the levy on to the purchaser. It provides that if an agreement of sale includes a requirement on a purchaser to pay the levy, that term of the agreement will be void and the money, if paid over, can be recovered.

My response, if I may be a little rude, is to tell the Minister to pull the other one. Anyone who thinks the levy will not be passed on and the cost paid by the purchaser of the house has to be living in cloud cuckoo land. He or she is certainly not living in the Ireland of 2002.

The main provision of the Bill revokes the requirement on the developer to make 20% of the development available for social housing.

Having said that, we are dealing with one area of the Act on which I will focus my attention. The objective of the Bill is to increase total housing supply and help increase the supply of social and affordable housing. Serious difficulties have emerged with the implementation of Part V. The legislation was too rigid and created serious delays in the framing of planning applications. This has caused, not only difficulties in meeting the requirements of providing the 20% of units as social or affordable housing, but has also seriously reduced future housing supply by reducing the number and volume of residential applications.

We must introduce flexibility in such a way that the market can respond while continuing to deliver social and affordable housing. This needs to be achieved in a way that does not impact on planning applications for residential development and could help to deliver social and affordable housing in addition to the full demand for private housing. The Bill endeavours to set out a mechanism to increase the supply of houses in all categories. We now must examine this legislation and decide whether it will achieve this objective in real terms. Does the Bill maximise and fast-track the development of local authority land banks for housing? Does it encourage local authorities to bring forward lands where joint ventures with the private sector could be used?

I am concerned that the intention behind the Bill will not be achieved unless the relevant local authority wants to uphold the spirit of the Bill. We should not be dependent on local authorities adhering to the spirit of the Bill, we should ensure that we legislate for its practical implementation by clearly setting out our intentions because this would remove ambiguity. We should not limit the reality of the benefit we are trying to achieve.

The explanatory memorandum refers to flexibility. We must ensure that the Bill achieves the desired results. A local authority and An Bord Pleanála must examine the development plan and the housing strategy adopted by that local authority in making a decision, and rightly so. However, this will restrict flexibility unless we spell it out in the legislation and permit real alternatives to existing practice by allowing the use of off-site locations for social and affordable housing or a financial payment in lieu of providing same. We cannot tie the hands of local authorities in terms of purchasing units or land, when it may well suit certain authorities if developers provide these elsewhere or make a financial contribution to authorities that want to provide social and affordable housing in their own way.

The Bill is meant to give flexibility to the 2000 Act. I am concerned that, on a strict and detailed reading, we have tweaked the Act a little, but effectively made changes only in the case of a local authority that has no demand for social and affordable housing. In such a case, the relevant authority will have other options to consider.

We need to examine the Bill and ask some questions. We must ensure that we do not go through the pain of changing a process unless we are satisfied we will improve the supply of housing and make it more affordable. We also need to face reality and ensure that we bring with us those people who develop properties and provide housing because our role is to ensure that housing is available for all sections of society and that demand is met.

I ask the Minister to address four areas and clarify several points. With regard to section 3(6)(a), why is the process being delayed by insisting on the appointment of a property arbitrator? While an arbitrator needs to be appointed where agreements cannot be reached between the local authority and the proposed developer, they should be given the opportunity to reach such an agreement in advance of an arbitrator being appointed.

The Bill also states that the proper planning and sustainable development of community requires a positive and effective working partnership between the planning authority and those undertaking the development. A key role of planning authorities is to grow sustainable development. The Bill provides the broader options which are to be agreed between the planning authority and the applicant. The decision on whether to make an agreement under section 96(3)(b) should be a joint decision between the applicant and the planning authority. The wording used in the Bill gives the planning authority the power to refuse any proposal made under this subsection. Reasonable proposals have to be considered and have to be allowed to be made.

With subsection 3(h) of the new section, we should reinstate the provision in the 2000 Act whereby, when entering into an agreement, the planning authority must not just simply consider the matters set out in this paragraph, but must have regard to them and thus preserve the meaningful and effective working partnership between the local authority and the applicant.

Sections 96(6) of the 2000 Act and section 3(6) of the Bill, as drafted, favour developers and landowners who had purchased or acquired land immediately prior to 25 August 1999. Those who have owned land for a longer period are penalised by virtue of the fact that they did not sell or transfer land in the period preceding the publication of the Bill in 1999. To be equitable, compensation should be payable to landowners based on the market value on 25 August 1999 plus index or holding costs, whichever is lower. This provision is unfair to families and elderly landowners who have held on to land for generations.

I ask the Minister to examine these four areas and consider the points I have raised. I hope he clarifies the position and, if necessary, amends the Bill to ensure we achieve what we set out to achieve, namely, to provide necessary housing for all sections of society.

I welcome the Bill and I thank the Minister for dealing with it as a matter of urgency. Housing is a basic right for everyone. As legislators, we have the responsibility to ensure we do all in our power to ensure housing is provided for all sections of society.

If a re-application was made, it would be covered by the 20% social provision, as it should be. It should either wither or be covered by the 20% provision. Instead, this legislation provides that the planning permissions will continue for up to five years but that the 20% social provision will not apply. The developers and landowners are simply asked to pay a paltry levy – half of 1%.

Why is the scheme being reviewed so early in its life? It has barely come into operation. It is a comprehensive scheme and, as with any housing scheme, it will take time to develop and mature. Instead we have an amazingly early review. It seems clear from where this is coming. It is the result of pressure from the building industry, land developers and housing developers.

The local area plans and zoning provisions are significant and will have an important effect. That is one of the reasons we should not rush this important legislation and should spend time teasing out the elements of it. The provision on local area plans and the fact that land may be rezoned when local area plans are being drawn up could turn out to be a negative one. It is a provision about which I have many concerns and I hope we will have time tomorrow to tease out those concerns.

I am glad the Minister referred to retention permission because I fundamentally agree with him on this issue. The retention provision is significantly abused. When the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dempsey, introduced the original Act, he spoke of his determination to stamp out applications for permission to retain. The Minister has stated that when illegal unauthorised development takes place, the local authority should intervene. However, in many cases the building has been completed, occupied and, perhaps, used as a commercial premises before the application for retention is submitted.

This abuse will not stop until buildings are taken down. It is a significant abuse of planning law, particularly when one considers the number of people who play by the rules, submit their planning applications and go through the planning process while unauthorised developments are built at the same time. The planning system has been totally undermined and this issue needs to be tackled in a fundamental and heavy handed way so that people will sit up and take notice.

We will oppose Second Stage. I have tabled a number of amendments for discussion tomorrow and I hope the necessary time will be made available so that we can tease out this fundamental alteration to the original Act, which has been undermined.

The second problem with Part V is the inclusion of the provision that 20% of all new developments should be set aside for social and affordable housing. I have seen application after application for planning permission to my local authority, including one for a 300 house development which was supposed to deliver 60 houses under the social and affordable housing provision. However, the development has not been built because a debate took place regarding when the application was made and what was meant by affordable or social housing. The application was referred to An Bord Pleanála when the local authority insisted the builder had to adhere to the 20% provision. However, the board has such a backlog of cases that we still await a reply. No house, therefore, has built over the past 18 months because of that provision.

The reality on the ground is that Part V has not worked and I welcome the amendment to the legislation. We want to make sure social and affordable housing is built in each local authority area and this raises the question of the best way to do so. The Minister has provided that applications that include the 20% provision can be flexible so that there is less bureaucracy. The builder can enter negotiations with the local authority regarding an exchange of land or a monetary contribution or the types of houses that will be built. That will work as long as the builder adheres to the 20% provision.

I want everybody to have a decent quality of life and I support the village concept. I was reared in a village and I want society to integrate. The only way for that to happen is to amend Part V of the original Act. It will have a better chance to work under this legislation.

A levy of 0.5% or 1% can be added to the cost of housing developments, which will generate €70 million for the coffers. Why is the Labour Party whingeing?

The social housing project does not extend to rural areas. There is a pullback concerning the specific instance cottage. There is no obligation on local authorities to provide for the specific instance cottage in rural areas. I am not talking about providing social housing on an ad hoc, once-off basis, but about providing housing that was provided 100 years ago in rural areas of Donegal or west Clare. Senator Dooley will appreciate that there would have been clogháin of maybe four to five houses together in a nucleus. That is not being addressed in the Bill.

We have a duty to debate the housing issue but we are not being allowed to do that today. I am actually taken aback and I agree with Senator O'Meara's reaction to the time constraints. I understand where the Minister is coming from – he is reacting to a supply and demand issue – but if we are to spend our time reacting to issues in this or the other House, God help the social infrastructural project. There is not even a mention of recreational parks in housing estates.

There should be an inter-agency or inter-ministerial brief at this level. If there is an increase in crime or problems in places such as Letterkenny or urban areas like Limerick, one sees inter-agency approaches being adopted by the health board, the relevant Department, such as the Department or Social and Family Affairs, and the Garda. They are reacting. Everybody in the country is reacting and it is time we woke up and realised the real debate should take place in this Chamber without time constraints such as those imposed on us today.

I can see why there are difficulties in other parts of the country. Developers can afford to do this in Dublin, but given that they do not get the same price for their properties in country areas, perhaps they should not be required to set aside the same percentage of land. This aspect needs to be looked at because I understand in many local authority areas developers are not submitting planning applications. The current provisions are working well in Fingal County Council, which I welcome as it will help to alleviate the problems.

The proposed amendments to the legislation will make matters more flexible. We must ensure no more ghettos are built, such as those in the 1970s where all those in the social housing sector were confined to specific areas. The 2000 Act seeks to avoid those mistakes by providing for social inclusion through integration. We must ensure this is not rolled back.

I welcome the proposed amendment to the provision on the withering of planning permissions under the two year rule. I also welcome the proposed introduction of a levy. How will it be monitored and how does the Minister propose to ensure it will not be passed on to the purchaser?

It is regrettable that there is no proposal to abolish the €20 fee to accompany letters of objection to local authorities. It denies people their constitutional right to make representations on an application and appeal to An Bord Pleanála. I would welcome a review.

There is a need to consider the role of An Bord Pleanála. I am astonished at the number of local authority permissions it has overturned and which are contrary to the decisions of its inspectors.

In the absence of this legislation planning permission for an estimated 44,000 houses would have ceased on the last day of this year and more than 30,000 would have had their permissions expire in 2003. The housing market is already in a difficult state, but if this preventive action was not taken, it would have been plunged into crisis. Under the proposed amendment to Part V of the 2000 Act, concerned with social and affordable housing, developers will have the option of meeting the 20% social housing requirement through alternative sites, houses and lands or through the payment of an equivalent amount to a local authority. This will allow for easier compliance with the Act.

Senator Terry indicated that in certain parts of the country problems did not arise with the Part V provisions of the 2000 Act. As I understand it, nothing in the Bill will preclude Fingal County Council or other local authorities from adhering to the old provisions, but it allows greater flexibility to those councils and authorities which had difficulties with the 2000 Act. It means they will be in a better position to provide accommodation for those who need it. Greater supply at this end of the market will ensure a greater number of houses overall which will mean that more people will be able to secure their own home.

I am pleased to note that developers will now be subject to Part V of the 2000 Act as they will be required to pay a levy of 0.5% on all houses costing up to €270,000 and 1% on the sale price of houses above that amount. The efforts in the Bill to ensure these levies are not passed on to house purchases should be applauded. I have no doubt the Minister will ensure they are not passed on. It is a welcome means of ensuring those houses hitherto excluded from the provisions of the Act because planning permission was granted in advance of it coming into force will now make a contribution to the Exchequer.

While these measures are for the good of house buyers and the development of housing, the Minister should consider other aspects of the market that are threatening to derail the provision of housing. There needs to be a wider debate on the role of An Bord Pleanála and An Taisce. I disagree with Senator McHugh that the Bill is a hasty response to the Planning and Development Act. Without intervention applications under the two year rule would have withered.

An Taisce describes itself as Ireland's oldest, largest and most wide-ranging environmental organisation. It has been a prescribed body under the planning Acts since the first Planning Act of 1963. Every year it makes approximately 2,000 to 3,000 observations on planning applications. It describes its stance as representative of the public interest. It clearly has considerable influence on the issue of planning procedures and judgments.

Despite its claims, however, this largely voluntary organisation does not represent the public interest. I understand from recent reports that three new members from the west were expelled because the organisation considered that they did not subscribe to its objectives. If it acts in the public interest, should it not reflect the views of all strands of society, not only those who agree with its ideas? That is like a country saying it will allow its citizens to vote but only if they vote in the requisite manner. An Taisce's position is similar to the approach taken in Iraq. It is clear to all except the blinkered that the organisation does not meet the public interest aspirations it ascribes to itself but merely represents what it prescribes as being in its own interest.

With this in mind we need to examine some recent actions taken by An Taisce which it claims were in the public interest. The organisation has accused people in the countryside of fraud and corruption in pursuing planning applications for one-off housing because some of them are then sold to others. This is an outrageous position to hold and is destroying the fabric of rural Ireland.

I come from east Clare, an area which has not suffered the same level of depopulation as parts of west Clare but where the actions of An Taisce have caused tremendous grief and heartache to individuals who have been brought up and now work there. They find it difficult to have a planning application approved because of objections from An Taisce, which has criticised the recent national spatial strategy, although it earned praise from most as being a document that would benefit the future growth of the country in a balanced and co-ordinated manner. It stated no more than one third of houses in the countryside should be one-off. This policy, based on how communities in other parts of Europe live, is that we should all live in villages, but that is not part of our culture. It wishes us to live in cocooned communities which is alien to our culture.

I have no objection to an environmental group having a view on the environment or planning matters, but its efforts to change the culture of society need to be addressed to a much greater extent. I hope the Minister will introduce legislation to rein in the actions of An Taisce and An Bord Pleanála, about which I do not have the opportunity to speak as I am sharing time.

I am sorry that An Taisce is getting so much abuse. We need environmental watchdogs. I understand how there is great concern in country areas about objections to building and note that the reports on water quality by the Environmental Protection Agency have identified private water schemes as being polluted by e.coli which can only originate in either animal or human waste. All too frequently it is suggested that one-off housing is a problem. I questioned the relevant Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, about the matter in the House and he insisted that sewerage systems were very well maintained. In many cases one-off septic tanks are not cleaned with the desired regularity. Rather than cursing An Taisce which is trying to raise standards in environmental issues such as the supply of clean water we should acknowledge that what it is objecting to is a very unfortunate source of pollution. I would be happier if it were insisted upon that one-off septic tanks were cleaned regularly.

These basic environmental issues must be addressed. It is astonishing to think that in the west 50% of private water schemes are polluted. More care must be taken in the siting of one-off developments and the maintenance of sewerage schemes. We are constantly criticised by the European Union for this revolting situation.

These proposed changes will ensure a faster, more prolific provision of much needed affordable housing. Some quarters are of the opinion that the proposed partnership approach between the local authorities and the private sector has the capacity to increase dramatically the number of units built per annum. There are some excellent examples of how an alternative approach can be successful. A prime example, of which Senator Terry will be aware, is the Castlecurragh development in Blanchardstown. This is where the local authority used its own land bank, in partnership with the developer, to produce 700 units in an equitable mix of social, affordable and private housing.

Local authorities themselves are providing their own affordable housing. Dublin City Council is providing 370 units in Cherry Orchard, 112 of which it will sell at very affordable prices. There are 105 two, three and four bedroom houses being built at Scribblestown which will be sold at cost price in the new year. Dublin City Council has bought 53 units in Inchicore and is selling them through the shared ownership scheme.

There are systems in place. However, in recent years a series of better targeted schemes has assisted low income purchasers and those with social housing needs to get on to the ladder and into the market. Between 1998 and 2001, the provision of social and affordable housing grew by 35%, with higher forecasts for 2002.

The Minister's point, regarding whether he should do nothing or just let the permissions not taken up wither, is well made. Some Members in this House and the other House would be up in arms if up to €500 million worth of housing was not built as a result of the withering rule. More than 74,000 units were at risk of that and if he should do nothing, we would certainly hear from the Opposition.

I support Senator Minihan in the points he raised regarding planning, and in particular on the issue of objections to permissions. It has always amazes me that some parties and individuals cry out for increased housing supply while at the same time they continue to object to developments and to progress, sometimes for the most spurious of reasons. I would welcome a debate in the House on that topic.

Section 96B, the levy of 1% or of 0.5% in the case of a house with a value less than €270,000, is being framed in such a way as to ensure that the purchaser is not landed with the bill. The section prohibits the passing of the levy on to the purchaser. It provides that if an agreement of sale includes a requirement on a purchaser to pay the levy, that term of the agreement will be void and the money, if paid over, can be recovered. This ensures equity in the system of levy and, I am sure, will benefit quite a number of purchasers.

The Minister pointed out that the value of land is increased when a decision is made by a local authority to grant planning permission for it. Part V was based on the principle that there should be some benefit to the community arising from any decisions made by the planning authority. It was on this principle that the Supreme Court upheld Part V and found that it was constitutional. These amendments will ensure the fairest possible implementation of the Act.

Most of the Senators who have spoken so far have said that in some cases the Act has worked, while in others it has not. However, it has not provided the required number of houses to keep up with demand. I am sure that the amendments will continue the good work done to date.

I would welcome a wider debate on An Taisce and, as I have said previously, on an organisation called The Friends of the Irish Environment who have caused immense problems in planning in rural Ireland. In my constituency, they have pulled plans out of the county council to appeal them to An Bord Pleanála. Many local authority planners are scared witless by them because they just do not know what to do. If ever there was an organisation to be proscribed it should be The Friends of the Irish Environment because they have caused a great deal of trouble. They can publish on websites remarks about elected members of county councils and allege that all councillors and all people who get involved in the planning process are corrupt. No Member of this House would find it acceptable. These people should not be able to get away with doing that. There is no law to stop them making these remarks.

Part V is an honest attempt to mix development and I welcome any such attempts. It is galling that for the past 30 years we have put people into major local authority housing developments. There are such developments in my town, in Dublin on a larger scale and in all areas.

We are all victims of our environment. If one puts everybody in the one place, they will all come out thinking as one. I am glad to see these new houses and apartments coming on stream. The meagre resources the people concerned had were going to pay for the upkeep of run-down houses with no heating or insulation. I welcome anything that will improve the housing stock. This measure is somewhat developer-led. I worry that it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. I hope it is not. I welcome any arrangements that will redefine and streamline Part V. The Bill is an honest attempt to provide for and integrate people in various communities.

Given human nature, there is a natural danger. We all know builders and developers who own land. I am thinking of two who hold land very close to the centre of a certain town. They have held off and will now be rewarded. They will provide the monetary compensation or land as a repayment. If they provide land, it will be land that is not as near to the centre of town. It will be interesting to see how this works out in practice. How will the equivalent monetary value be determined? The Minister may mean well – I am not doubting his objective of getting over a stumbling block. In practice, however, local authorities will face real difficulties in surmounting it. It will be interesting to see the detailed guidelines the Department may issue to them in this regard.

I welcome the removal of the withering clause and the introduction of the new levy. Again, however, think of the responsibilities placed on local authorities in deciding whether a development is already up to the level required. There is a policing role involved, and we all know that local authorities are already stretched. It will not be easy for them. Planning, as we all know too well, has unfortunately become more and more restrictive. In rural Ireland the situation is very difficult in terms of one-off houses. It is unconstitutional what some local authorities are doing in insisting that people have to be from a particular place or county or must reside there. We have the utmost sympathy for those who come from the land, obtain a site from their mother or father and wish to build on their own land. All of these issues have to be overcome. There are ways of screening and using stone. One does not have to mar the beauty of the countryside.

I am concerned – the Minister of State might overrule me if I am wrong – about the fact that An Bord Pleanála is overruling its own inspectors in 10% or 11% of cases. In this age of transparency, openness and accountability we need to look into this.

As a nation, we need to have the best of planning and development continued and, where possible, accelerated. The withering rule, as it was commonly known, has now been removed which should give confidence to the building industry. This is a very good example of a Government listening to its constituents and its people and coming forward with a workable solution to difficulties that arose and could not necessarily be foreseen.

These proposals will be well received and give the building industry the necessary reassurance to continue with its work. On occasion, the theoretical and the practical do not mix, as happened in this case. A workable solution has now been provided. The industry can now make a worthwhile contribution to social and affordable housing need without necessarily becoming directly involved in provision. Local authorities are best qualified to deliver for this section of society and have long experience in doing so.

Considerable progress has been made in recent years and this will continue with this provision. I had the opportunity last week to commend the Minister of State on his approach to rural housing as envisaged in the national spatial strategy, on which the feedback has been very positive. The constituents I serve see this as a vindication of their right to live in rural communities should they wish to do so, provided the normal environmental safeguards are in place.

The ethos of this proposal is in accordance with the rights enshrined in our Constitution. Those misguided people who would herd us into larger urban centres if they had their way need to think again. They need to look at the history and fabric of our society and recall that within the last 100 years this country had double its current population residing in rural areas. The attractiveness of the rural landscape has not been, nor will it be, diminished. This is not a bad thing because it means the fabric of our society can be protected and enhanced.

Senator Feighan spoke about the Friends of the Irish Environment. I would rename them the "enemies of the Irish people" and proscribe both them and An Taisce. I will refrain from including some members of An Bord Pleanála because we do not know who they are. They are as faceless as the people in An Taisce but they, too, are the enemies of the Irish people, as I have renamed them. Everybody has seen the recent decline in the quality of life as a result of the over-centralisation of our population.

The spatial strategy document and the provisions of this Bill provide a vehicle for the improvement of people's quality of life. We should commend the Minister on this new situation and avail of the new tools provided for in the legislation. I thank the Minister for his quick response to the situation which had been developing.

I welcome the Bill, which will greatly enhance the effectiveness of Part V of the 2000 Act. I also welcome the Minister's decision to introduce safeguards to ensure there will be no opportunistic use of the flexibility being introduced. I would like to say a great deal more but I do not have time. To cast aspersions on the motives for the introduction of this Bill is a failure to face reality.

The Bill is a regressive measure. The reality is the Government is all over the place on housing. As the Irish Independent editorial stated yesterday, the Government's housing policy is a shambles. It is developer-led and this Bill is a further example of the Government giving in to developers on the housing market. Housing is a right and the Labour proposals are required. Those proposals would make housing a right. They advocate radical intervention to ensure housing is provided for everyone, including State acquisition of land for housing, the allocation of 20% of every private development to social housing and windfall taxes.

This issue will come back to haunt the Government. During the election the Tánaiste was quoted in a local newspaper as saying there was no housing crisis. I could not believe she represented the same constituency as I do and that she did not meet the thousands of people who cannot afford to buy a house and cannot get a council house. They are living in crowded conditions in their parents' homes. There are thousands of people who cannot afford to buy houses in their own areas. They must go miles outside those areas to buy houses and then travel back into Dublin. I condemn the Bill.

Part V is here to stay. There was never any question of the Minister setting aside the requirement that housing developers make a contribution to the provision of social and affordable housing. He is aiming to remove the current rigidity in order to ensure a more effective and efficient system, thereby delivering a much higher volume of social and affordable housing. The main changes to Part V will give developers and planning authorities more flexibility to agree a variety of arrangements to provide social and affordable housing. The new arrangements will allow for land, houses or sites to be provided at alternative locations as well as land exchanges between developers and authorities and payments to a local authority fund to provide social and affordable housing. All arrangements agreed must be fully in compliance with local housing strategies and development plans and must ensure social integration.

The Minister announced he was removing the provision under which many planning permissions would wither on 31 December 2002 and during 2003. This move was decided in the interest of ensuring a continued supply of housing. The Minister noted that without this provision, planning permission for an estimated 44,000 houses would cease on 31 December 2002 and permission for over 30,000 houses would cease in 2003. With the demand that exists, losing so many permissions would have a serious impact on housing supply next year and he could not afford to let this happen.

As the permissions that were to wither did not include any obligation under Part V of the Planning and Development Act, the Minister has decided to introduce a levy on developers towards the local authority housing programme. Builders must pay a levy to local authorities for each unit built under these permissions. I understand builders and developers have no problems with that. The whole system was logjammed and was not working under the old legislation. The Minister is making it illegal for the levy to be passed on to house purchasers, which is welcome.

Under the Bill, each developer must pay a levy of 0.5% on the sale price of each house costing up to €270,000 and 1% on the sale price of houses costing over €270,000. That would mean the levy for a €350,000 house would be €3,500. The income from this levy would be paid to local authorities to fund social and affordable housing. By introducing this levy the Minister is ensuring that builders make their contributions as they should. The levies will raise significant funds which in turn will be invested in building more social and affordable housing.

The Bill also includes some miscellaneous amendments to the Planning and Development Act as well as some amendments to housing legislation which are related to the supply of housing. The Bill also includes a new provision which allows the voluntary sector to enter into shared ownership and affordable housing schemes. Those are very welcome also.

There has been some discussion of An Bord Pleanála today. I am aware of two planning applications which were granted by my local authority but objections were lodged for various reasons and the applications went to An Bord Pleanála. The inspector came down, inspected the applications and recommended that the applications be granted. An Bord Pleanála refused them. I understand no member of the board has ever seen the sites, nor would they know where they are, yet they feel they have the right to refuse those applications.

Where I come from in the northwest one can still buy a site for €25,000 to €30,000. Many young couples, with the help of family, friends and those in the building business, can muster the price of a site and build a house. It might not be finished for ten or 15 years but at least they have a roof over their heads to rear a young family. Those people could easily be on the council housing lists referred to today – and most of them should be – but because they are people who get out and work they provide a home for themselves. People are frightened by going through the rigours of planning applications – I deal with that every day. After getting planning permission one then has objections lodged with An Bord Pleanála, which holds up the project for another 12 or 14 months. An Taisce has now become a new force to consider, objecting to people providing homes for themselves who would otherwise have to get the State to provide housing for them. That is wrong and this matter needs to be investigated.

With regard to the levy envisaged, it is set at a paltry level. When one compares this treatment with that meted out to first-time buyers, one can clearly see on whose side the Government stands. While I applaud the aspirations behind the amendments, the Bill waters down the provisions for social inclusion and panders to the demands of developers in this regard.

I regret that the Bill is being rushed through for the reasons stated. Some Members referred to An Bord Pleanála, on which I would also like to comment. Inspectors reports' have been overruled by the board in many instances. What message does this send out? What transparency and accountability is there in the system when a board can overrule the findings of its inspectors?

The provisions in the Bill represent a U-turn on the provisions of the 2000 Act. The Bill effectively acknowledges that the Government's housing, planning and development policies have failed. This tinkering with the system will not improve the position one iota.

Today's announcement of the cutbacks in the back-to-work scheme, representing a saving of €24 million, and the cutbacks in the community employment schemes are an attack on the underprivileged, those who need housing most. The provisions in the Bill will not help the disadvantaged in any way. They represent a continuation of the policies the Government parties adopted when they first came to office. They are now doing a U-turn on their policies. Despite the aspirations underpinning the provisions of the Bill, the disadvantaged and socially excluded will not be served well by the Bill.

I accept the need to deal with Part V of the 2000 Act, to which a great deal of time and energy was devoted in the Seanad. It was a controversial part of the Bill and, if I recall correctly, significantly amended in both Houses. Local authority officials will confirm the view that it was becoming extremely difficult to operate it. From casual conversations with officials in Kildare County Council, I am aware that they were bewildered as to how they should proceed with it. They were not clear as to how it should be exercised. As a result, there was a backlog of developments, which otherwise might have gone ahead quickly. In the circumstances, it was prudent to examine the provision, a review of which formed part of the programme for Government. The review has taken place and the legislation is before us. That is as it should be.

The flexibility accorded by the Bill will improve the supply side, which is a central point. It is the task of Government to make sure the supply side of the equation is as fluid and as open as possible. In other words, the Government must ensure there are no restrictions, other than the normal planning requirements under law that would prevent houses from being built.

One point that seems to have been ignored – certainly by those I heard speak – is that in considering whether to reach an agreement, a local authority will have to consider its contribution towards achieving the objectives of the housing strategy, its resources, the financial implications of an agreement for its housing budget, the need to counteract undue social segregation in an area, the provisions of the development plan and how quickly housing is likely to be provided as a consequence of the agreement. That is fairly explicit as to the obligation imposed upon local authorities, which I am sure is one they welcome in order to ensure there is social integration and social and affordable housing available for communities which need it. Anyone who lives in the greater Dublin area – I include Meath and Wicklow in that category – is aware of the pressure to ensure that sufficient numbers of houses are built and that sufficient land is zoned for housing.

I must declare a vested interest, which we are required to do when voting on issues of this nature. I own land in the Newbridge area that is zoned for housing development. I must inform the House of that, but it is not relevant to what I will say. Supply side management is crucial and the Government must ensure there is a degree of flexibility which allows as much development as possible to proceed within the planning laws. I accept the need for those laws and regulations. One need only consider the most recent census figures for Dublin's neighbouring counties to see the increase in population.

There is a reference in the spatial strategy to the declining number of people per housing unit. It is predicted that the number will fall significantly over the next 20 years. There are features of modern society such as marriage break-up and so on which will place greater pressure on the need for houses. In the case of a marriage break-up, two people live apart who previously lived together. It was a feature of society in rural areas – I am sure the Minister of State is aware of this from experience – where three generations of a family lived in the same house. Thanks be to God economic circumstances have improved to the point that people can build their own houses, hopefully on family land if it is available to them.

I dealt with the issues regarding An Taisce to some degree last week when we debated related issues. There appears to be intransigence on the question of how houses should be built in the country. It appears to be accepted that conditions can be placed on those of us who live in rural areas without reference to our wishes or needs or those of the communities in which we live. That is unacceptable.

I have a query to which I do not know the answer, but perhaps the Minister could provide it. Are there people who are members of An Bord Pleanála or who hold senior positions within the organisation who are also members of An Taisce? If so, we should be made aware of that fact. That is not to say that, by definition, it is wrong, but it is a question of the potential conflict of interest. If such a conflict exists, we should know about it.

Some of the finest examples of architecture in these islands, such as Carton House and Castletown House, are to be found in County Kildare. It appears to irritate An Taisce enormously to suggest that, if one were to try to build, in current circumstances, the houses it rightly wants to protect, there is no possibility that any of these custodians of our national virtue would allow it to happen. They would not tolerate it for a moment.

There is a middle class desire emanating from the south-east of England and to which Senator Mansergh referred last week to the effect that a person should be able to go from his or her middle class home in the suburbs or the city at the weekend and visit a rural zoo where he or she should see nothing. He or she should probably not see people and would be fortunate if he or she were to see livestock. It is getting to the point where the countryside is a wilderness. That is not what traditional Irish society is about.

I am familiar with the case of a young person in my area who was reared in difficult circumstances and was fortunate to be given land by an uncle on which to build a house. That young person obtained planning permission from the local authority without any third party objection only to be hit with a missile from An Taisce. The young person involved had every opportunity of building a house but was in no position to buy an expensive house in Newbridge. The manner in which he was dealt with was wrong.

Under the legislation we passed in 2000, new objections cannot be lodged to a planning application where it has been granted and is being appealed to An Bord Pleanála and objections must be made before permission is granted initially. This is one of the features of the Bill which has improved matters enormously in this regard.

As for An Bord Pleanála, it is important that there is an independent body which makes decisions on these matters and that political influence is removed from the planning sphere. That said, the board must be accountable and transparent. Under the Act of 2000, it must produce the reasons for its decisions. I do not object to it taking a different view from an inspector, but we must know the reasons the decisions were made and these must be made public.

There appears to be an erosion of the role of local public representatives when it comes to the preparation of development plans. We are informed about strategic planning guidelines, the Dublin transport initiative, etc. We are increasingly restricted but, if we get it wrong, at least we can be kicked out in local elections. However, if members of An Bord Pleanála get it wrong, they are in place two years later to get it wrong again and can be in place to get it wrong in perpetuity. That is not right.

What guarantee exists concerning the levy of 0.5% of the cost of a house up to the value of €270,000 and 1% of the cost of a house of a value equal to or greater than €270,000 which will be imposed on houses built on foot of planning permissions due to expire at the end of December? The builders will pay the levy on each house and the proceeds will go towards social and affordable housing. The Minister stipulated that they will not be able to add the levy to the price of the houses. What mechanism exists to prevent this happening? How can the Minister reconcile saying builders were trousering the €3,800 grant with a reassurance that the levy of 0.5% or 1% will not be passed on to the client? His thinking is flawed and not based in reality.

I am a member of a local authority. Between voluntary housing and local authority housing we do not seem to have a difficulty with regard to the expansion of housing. The problem is in getting tenants for certain housing schemes. As a result of the tenant purchase scheme and the council buying one-off houses, quite often the very good tenants have become owners of their houses. The difficulty we have in estates in my constituency and around the country is in getting tenants into the houses. In some local authority estates, as a result of what we did in the past, we have created potential ghettos on the basis that the tenants left inside feel trapped because the local authority will no longer buy houses from them. In many cases a small number of tenants are creating a nightmare for others.

I ask the Minister to reflect closely on my next point. There will be a tendency for architects designing local authority houses to try to make the housing estate look different through design concepts. I have nothing against architects being Dublin based. They seem to come from Dublin and present a proposal with plans and drawings which look extremely well on paper. However, they seem to consider density in Dublin terms, where, because of cost, it is necessary to compress a large number of units into an area as small as possible. When a local authority housing scheme is built in Newcastle West or elsewhere, there is a tendency to provide for a high density. In many cases this is in sharp contrast to the imposition the planners will place on private developers with regard to the provision of green areas.

With local authority housing there is a narrowing of space which is most unjust. There is a scheme of 50 houses being built in Newcastle West, which is a classic example. Many say this is marvellous, but the difficulty will be in filling those houses with tenants. If there is affordable housing on the one side and people with mortgages on the other, the 25 people concerned will often be the seed corn of the estate because they will be the ones out working. That is one dimension to affordable housing and good luck to them. Quite often the size of an estate built in a rural location has the potential to create problems.

In my area of Newcastle West – I am sure the same is true of Tullamore and other areas – when an estate is built there are social problems because of the density. There is a task force in a housing estate in Newcastle West involving the Garda, the health authority and the council in order to try to get things right. We then decide to build 50 houses and next door neighbours can simply stretch out to shake hands. There are no walls or divisions. However is it fair to design houses like this and push people into a small area? In our case, we then turn to the VEC to co-operate in providing a green area for children to play. We seem to adopt different criteria when private developers are building estates, but for local authority housing we try to compress them into as small an area as possible which is wrong.

I ask the Minister to consider this issue, about which I feel strongly. There have been housing schemes where a local person could not quote for windows which had to be brought in from Denmark because something unique was required. The Minister should look at the plans being produced for local authority estates, especially the implications for space, and recognise that the tenants are entitled to the same space as those moving into private developments. If he does this, he will have done something important about social housing rather than talking about the grandiose figure of 20%, which was never sustainable in the first place.

Did we ever believe there would come a time when the sale of houses would be considered a favour? Houses are now "released" and people are invited to join the queue to buy them. There is no market. I regularly disagree with the Minister who, in many instances, defends the market. Irrespective of our views, however, I believe we can agree that for the market to operate, there must be uninhibited supply and demand. Control of supply means a market is artificial and perverted. This has happened in the market to supply houses and we all know it. It is the only reason houses here are more expensive than anywhere else, excluding areas such as central Paris, in Europe. They are more expensive because, unlike other products in Europe, they are non-transferable. A house in Dublin remains a house in Dublin. As long as we are producing too few houses to meet demand, the current conditions on the market will persist.

I am too nice and well brought up to raise an issue I am tempted to mention.

We need to stand up to those who have adopted a Luddite approach to planning as houses need to be built. Whether they call themselves An Taisce or anything else, if they do not talk sense, they should not be listened to. We need to take on many interests in this area and I wish the Minister well. I am sorry the Bill had to be brought forward. While I understand the reasons behind it, we need new initiatives.

My local authority in Loughrea, which was proactive, decided to buy a turnkey development. The houses had been built and represented good value. There was an ample number of people seriously interested, all of whom had been assessed. When it came to be known that a social housing element would be incorporated in the development, the project fell flat on its face. Today, the development is semi-derelict. At the first stage two houses were occupied. When the two purchasers found out that the remaining houses had been acquired by the local authority for social and affordable housing, they wanted to give their houses back to the developer who they believed had conned them. There is now affordable and social housing and two vacant houses in the one small development. There must be a way to get matters moving once more and assist those who had actively pursued the acquisition of one of those houses through the affordable housing scheme. While the local authority cannot be blamed, there is a need to compensate those who entered into arrangements on that basis and have been left hanging out to dry for 12 months.

The Minister referred to integration and the fact people do not live side by side. What does this mean? In the case to which I referred it was the fear of living side by side and the policies of local authorities during the years which caused the problem. We have seen the headlines in recent years. Local authorities have had to purchase houses at enormous expense to house sections of the community in need of housing. It is another classic example of the failure of current housing policy.

It is important that the affordable housing concept is worked positively. Some 2,000 people are on the housing waiting list in County Galway. Unfortunately, they will remain on the list for many years to come unless the Minister decides that local authorities should acquire land which they will not be able to do under this legislation because we do not know what the alternatives are. There will be no movement. The building community which has hung the Minister out to dry will do so again unless he is up-front about his intentions in this regard.

Under the miscellaneous provisions in Part III, I welcome the meeting of deadlines for the display of county development plans. In the last month or two my local authority has probably been among the first to try to come forward with such a plan under the new legislation. We must meet next Monday's deadline for the display of county development plans because of the straitjacket in which we find ourselves. Will the Minister comment on the flexibility of the timescale within which plans can be displayed? The time should be extended so that plans can be investigated properly rather than in a half hearted way.

The workings of An Bord Pleanála must be seriously examined. I refer to a specific case on which a decision from the board has been pending since July. The deadline for the decision was extended by a month initially and the appellants were notified. However, it has been extended five times in the interim and none of the appellants were notified. Last Friday I was informed the decision would be notified yesterday and when I called earlier today I was informed it would be handed down next Friday. If more inspectors are needed, they should be appointed and whatever is necessary to enable decisions to be made should be provided. The current system is unfair to people who make legitimate appeals to the board. Something must be done and I ask the Minister to rectify this as a matter of urgency.

This is the culture that exists and it resists the notion that fortuitous enrichment, which is what happens to the owners of development land, should have a social obligation. As the Minister pointed out, large numbers of planning permissions were sought and were going to wither at the end of the year because people would not take them up. The excuse is that the system is too bureaucratic. Every time public intervention in society has been attacked, the first code word used by the reactionary right is that it is too bureaucratic. National health services, public education, regulation of energy markets and so on are too bureaucratic. One of the pet phrases of George Bush and his acolytes is, "It is too bureaucratic."

The Bill must be judged in that context and not by the admirable intention to deal with excessive bureaucracy. I would have no problem if this issue was reflected upon over a period, perhaps through hearings by the relevant Oireachtas committee. All that needed to be provided in this legislation was a simple clause to deal with the withering of planning permissions. The Attorney General was wrong if he advised that this could not be done.

I am becoming tired of Ministers selectively quoting advice from the Attorney General and then, when they are asked for a copy of the complete advice, they say it is not the practice to make it available. Can we have the complete advice of the Attorney General or can we leave him out of it? It is an abuse of his position to quote a little from him and not be prepared to allow us to make our own judgments about what he said. One could pick a line out of any Supreme Court judgment, but if one could not understand the context it would be completely misleading. The truth is that we do not know.

If this Bill was simply a holding operation to ensure the thousands of planning permissions did not wither at the end of this year, my party and I would support it. However, it is inappropriate to rush through the Houses of the Oireachtas legislation that is playing into the hands of Fianna Fáil's friends in the building industry – the funders of Fianna Fáil, the people who queue up to join those in the hospitality tent at Galway races. They are the people who lined up to fund Fianna Fáil's extravagant expenditure for the nine months before the general election and who will now make a fortune out of this.

It could not work because, if a builder who was intending to build 100, 200 or 500 houses had to set aside 20% of them for social housing and have 50% of the development completed within two years, he would have needed rocks in his head to start out on the road. That is why nobody did any building. It is not rocket science. If a developer had to set aside 20% of the land for social housing and have 50% of the development completed within two years, why would he even bother to pay millions of euro for development land? That he had two or three good years before that would not serve as a justification. He would certainly not take the risk. How could he have asked his bank manager to bankroll a development of this kind, 50% of which he had to have completed within two years? No bank manager in the country would have backed such a project.

This was a stroke of genius by Fianna Fáil. It sat down with the social partners and those looking for social housing and said it would make provision and give them 20% of every development that takes place. After the election, it said to the developers that it would change that. That is exactly what has happened. The builders have waited and they knew this would happen.

Senator Ulick Burke made a very important point on this Bill. He said the restrictions were put in place to restrict development. That is what Part V of the original Bill did. It restricted it because builders did not build for the reasons I have outlined. They did not build when we had a boom. Now that the boom is over and the Government has seen the daylight and has lifted the restrictions or tried to ease them, the Government has not the money to provide the local authority housing. We have seen from the recently published Estimates that there will be massive cutbacks in all sectors. I would like to hear the Minister say that, even if the builders go ahead and provide the 20% of land for social housing, there will be no cutback in respect of the building of local authority housing.

Every Minister who comes here refers to 1997 when the rainbow coalition was in Government. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, does not do so because he cannot. In 1985, when Labour and Fine Gael went out of Government, there was nobody on the waiting lists for local authority housing, and that was was in bad times. Now we have good times but there is a massive number of people on housing lists.

I hope that, if the builders take up the initiative even at this late stage and provide 20% of the developments for social housing, the Government will not be found wanting in terms of the provision of capital and extensions to sewerage schemes.

The Government stands indicted by the housing crisis. In stark contrast to the situation today, when the provision of local authority housing is almost at a standstill, there was virtually nobody on local authority housing lists during the 1980s despite the fact that the country faced serious economic problems. It is time local authorities started to buy land, build up land banks and once again construct substantial numbers of local authority houses.

The situation regarding rural housing is unsatisfactory. The problem arises from the inconsistencies in planning decisions by local authorities, some of which are a cause of wonder. While An Bord Pleanála is a necessary body which does good work, it reaches decisions too slowly. In my area it often takes months for the board to decide on applications granted by my local authority. That is most unsatisfactory because it often means developers lose interest.

I agree with Senator Ulick Burke's call for the inclusion in the Bill of deadlines for the completion of county development plans. Only six months ago Kilkenny County Council completed a new county development plan, a process which took almost two years. The previous plan had been out of date for almost three years. It meant that planning and development in the county was considerably slowed while decisions were being made to contravene the development plan that had been drafted before the Celtic tiger and the boom years of the late 1990s.

I broadly welcome the Government's U-turn. It was crazy to think that the original Part V provisions would succeed.

I considered the implications of the withering of the delivery of 44,000 units at the end this month and 36,000 next year on the basis that if I was to allow 80,000 planning permissions to wither, within the first six months of the new year, I would be strongly criticised for not doing something for first-time buyers and other house purchasers.

I reject the accusation by Senator Ryan – who impugned my integrity and that of my colleagues – that I have introduced this measure because I was approached by a group of builders. I assure the Senator that I was not influenced by any builders because I refused to see them. I met representatives of the different interested organisations and everyone else who wanted to contribute to the debate on this matter and I made an assessment on it, without fear or favour. People will suggest that some developers sat on their hands, waited and hoped and that members of the public did not want to buy certain houses. That may be true, but discussing the matter will not lead to the delivery of houses to first-time buyers or to those particularly in need of social and affordable housing.

I was bemused at comments from some Members of the House who are also members of local authorities and who berated those local authorities for not introducing measures to encourage the development of quality housing. That is primarily the responsibility of the members and officials of local authorities.

The most preferable form of social and affordable housing schemes are those in urban areas. These successful schemes take the form of in-fill developments in cities and large urban centres and only involve the building of between 12 to 24 local authority houses. These schemes are very manageable because they provide good quality housing, rejuvenate our cities and contribute to social integration. I was informed by many of the larger urban local authorities that with a greater degree of flexibility they could achieve a higher volume of delivery, provide more affordable housing, encourage better social integration and rejuvenate areas that had been dying. That makes a great deal of sense.

I am of the view that if local authorities believe these schemes can achieve so much – I have seen the evidence in this regard – then they are real winners in terms of delivery. However, the narrow way Part V of the Act was structured and written did not allow for flexibility in the system. I am aware that some local authorities took a more imaginative approach which, strictly speaking, was not allowed under Part V, but they were driven by a desire to deliver good quality social housing.

Senators have asked how I intend to maintain social integration. This can only be based on the housing strategies of the local authorities, it is not imposed from the centre. Those Senators who are local authority members wrote their own strategies, issued their own planning permissions and decided on their own policies of social integration. This proposal reflects that and it will have to fit into the local authority housing strategies and development plans.

Some Members are concerned that a builder or a number of builders could buy 500 or 1,000 acres in the middle of nowhere, give it to the local authority as their 20% provision and then build houses wherever they desire. That will not happen. Those Senators who sit on local authorities are in a position of control in that regard, but I will not allow it to happen in any event. Developments must fit into the social integration and strategy of each local authority. In terms of the delivery of social and affordable housing, we either want to philosophise about and discuss it or we want to do something real and tangible about it. That is the choice with which, as Minister, I was faced.

We are now trying to ratchet up this number even further through the use of Part V. The previous Minister, Deputy Dempsey, was right. The principles he set out in the Planning and Development Act were also correct.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 9.

Tá

Brady, Cyprian.

Callanan, Peter.

Dardis, John.

Feeney, Geraldine.

Fitzgerald, Liam.

Kenneally, Brendan.

Kitt, Michael P.

Leyden, Terry.

MacSharry, Marc.

Minihan, John.

Mooney, Paschal C.

Morrissey, Tom.

Moylan, Pat.

O'Brien, Francis.

O'Rourke, Mary.

Ó Murchú, Labhrás.

Scanlon, Eamon.

White, Mary M.

Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

Henry, Mary.

McCarthy, Michael.

McDowell, Derek.

Norris, David.

O'Meara, Kathleen.

O'Toole, Joe.

Ross, Shane.

Ryan, Brendan.

Tuffy, Joanna.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators McCarthy and O'Meara.

Question declared carried.