I am very pleased to have an opportunity at last to comment on this Bill. Having read the media commentary and listened to the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, with interest when it was first introduced I was looking foward to reading it in the hope that it would be radical. While I welcome many aspects of the Bill which take on board many of the existing anomalies in planning and housing, I do not think the Bill is as radical as initially envisaged.
In his contribution my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, the party spokesperson on the Environment and Local Gvernment, correctly said that this is two Bills in one, being concerned with planning and housing. At this stage I wish to refer to the housing provisions in the Bill and see how they will help improve matters.
The single most important issue that we must deal with is housing. It is with a deep sense of frustration that I come to the House to make these comments, but it is necessary to make them. The housing problem, if not urgently addressed, could undermine the social fabric of society and the partnership approach which has by and large been beneficial to the country over the past 15 years or so. At a time of unparallelled buoyancy in the economy, with the Minister of Finance hav ing a surplus in excess of £6 billion last year, we have witnessed house prices increasing by over 60%, with increases in private rented accommodation costs of over 50%. At the same time there are 40,000 applicants registered on local authority housing lists. These figures relate to the two and a half year period the Government has been in office. However, we must be grateful for small measures. The Minister of State in particular has at long last acknowledged that there is a housing crisis.
In looking for a solution we must acknowledge that the crisis is multi-dimensional. We are all aware of the affordability problem which is being experienced by aspiring householders. Affordability problems in the private rented sector are resulting in insecurity, lack of maintenance and low quality accommodation. I heard a tenant in private rented accommodation stating in an interview last Monday that she had been obliged to move ten times in the past ten years. There is a crisis in the public housing sector, with 40,000 applicants on local authority housing lists compared with 27,427 when the Government came into office in June 1997, an increase of 43%. Housing associations, co-operatives and community development organisations are unable to achieve their objectives mainly due to the shortage and cost of serviced land. The Minister must acknowledge the problem of homelessness has never been so acute. One has only to look around the cities of Dublin, Cork and Limerick to see people sleeping on the streets every night. In the owner occupied category the escalating house prices in recent years have placed home ownership beyond the reach of a large proportion of young people. Even couples with two average incomes find they are unable to bridge the gap between what they will get under the normal formula for assessing loans and the house price. A significant factor is the price of land which affects the price of houses and their affordability. The average price of housing land in Dublin has risen by 200% since 1995 and today accounts for almost 40% of the price of a home.
Another startling fact is that the average price of new houses in the Dublin area, for which loans were approved by all lending agencies in the third quarter of 1999, was £157,530. When one compares this with £76,500 in 1996, it is an increase of 106%. This is unsustainable and if it is not pulled back the bubble will burst. None of us wants the spectacle of evictions and "for sale" notices around our towns and estates, as happened in England in the 1980s. In this regard I have outlined the extent of the problem and how this Bill will deal with it.
The new definition of eligible persons will not resolve the problem or make it easier for applicants to secure a home of their own. In certain cases it will discriminate against them. There are two main categories of applicants for local authority housing – those applying for local authority houses and those who may have the means to apply for a shared ownership loan. From reading the legislation I do not see any reference to a shared ownership loan. There are applicants for shared ownership loans who are not eligible for local authority houses. There is a problem on the difference between eligibility for local authority housing and for the shared ownership loan. I will discuss the affordability element later.
As we know, the eligibility limit is £37,500 for local authority housing but there is flexibility. The cost of rented accommodation and, perhaps, the number of children can be taken into consideration. The limit on the shared ownership loan relates specifically to the formula of assessing gross income up to £50,000. If applicants, whether single or couples, breach that formula or income limit, they are not eligible for a shared ownership loan. I have come across many people who could not get to the counter or inside the door of a bank or a financial institution to try to acquire a loan for a house because they had not the means but they were not eligible for a shared ownership loan by virtue of the fact that over the two years since they submitted their application – in other cases people are waiting for houses to be built under a co-op scheme – they had exceeded the limit of £50,000, by approximately £1,000, due to national increases in their salaries and in other cases because they had worked overtime.
In this context will the Minister look at how that anomaly can resolved? We must consider the couples or individuals who are eligible for the new scheme referred to in the Bill. Since the scheme came into operation the local authorities are using the same formula used for eligibility for shared ownership loans. In the context of the housing supply element of the Bill, there is no reference, good, bad or indifferent on the income limit, to the price of the house or to houses that may come on stream. The modifications to the Bill by the Seanad will not improve the situation for the vast majority of people. Will the Minister consider the fact that there is no flexibility?
I welcome the planning aspect of the Bill. I read with interest the proposals by the Minister to tackle what I classify as "rogue developers" and "unfinished estates". There was a comment in the media recently that this was an innovative proposal and they did not know from where it came. By and large, however, the Bill is similar to the Private Members' Bill I introduced in the Seanad on 17 November 1998 and in the Dáil on 17 May 1999. Last May the Minister stated that this much needed legislation could not be taken on board for constitutional reasons. However, I welcome the Bill.
A small group of rogue or cowboy builders consistently flout planning regulations, ignore their obligations to finish housing estates to the required standard and give the construction industry a bad name. Children in one estate in my constituency grew up without access to a green area for more than 20 years, yet during that time the developer involved applied for planning per mission for other estates in the area. I have pursued this issue vigorously at local authority and national level since I took up public office, and the proposals I put forward in my Private Members' Bills have been vindicated. I am delighted the Minister will implement them. At the end of the day, people who mortgage themselves to the hilt must be reassured about their futures and that they and their children will have a proper environment in which to live.
It appears that, if requested, an individual may be obliged to provide further information to a local authority to pursue a planning application. If an application is submitted and an official questions the bona fides of the applicant, there is a further delay. A simple way to deal with this would be to provide that planning authorities should require applicants to provide a brief history of the planning applications submitted and, most importantly, confirm whether an enforcement action had been taken against them in respect of such applications. Alarm bells would ring on receipt of this and the application could then be dealt with swiftly.
The Bill provides that up to 20% of future housing developments can be allocated for social and affordable housing. However, since the Bill was published that has been watered down. My great concern is that, while the Bill provides for different types of housing, such as local authority and affordable housing, people in well-off areas still do not want local authority housing in their neighbourhoods and they will continue to object. They will combine with the developers and the local authority to ensure the affordable element is introduced in certain areas but social housing will be excluded. The Minister is concerned to ensure that there is a proper mix of housing and I hope managers and builders will not get their way when his recommendations are implemented following enactment of the Bill.
Officials outside my local authority area and builders have said local authority houses are not suitable in certain areas. We are all aware that if proposals are made for a sewage treatment plant, a halting site, local authority houses or a dump, protests will take place. I hope the Minister ensures that the broad basis of what he has in mind will be implemented. I look forward to discussing other elements of the legislation on Committee and Report Stages to strengthen the Bill so that it has a positive effect on the future development of Ireland.