In the Seanad on 10 December 2002, speaking on the 2nd Stage of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2002, I said:

I have learnt in my time as a Senator to be highly suspicious of Bills which pop out of nowhere, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Perhaps I have a naturally suspicious mind. I have also learnt to be highly suspicious of Bills which are to be passed in a rush before Christmas. I understand we are expected to dispose of the Bill by tomorrow so that the Dáil can take the Second Stage on Thursday.

What is going on?

At the beginning of the session, the Government circulated a list of 15 Bills it would publish before Christmas. This Bill was not among them. Neither was it in the list of Bills whose heads had been agreed by Government or in the list of Bills that were at an earlier stage of the legislative process.

What we have is a type of virgin birth, so to speak.

In looking for guidance, I consulted An Agreed Programme for Government to see if it would shine a light on the mystery of this birth. Under the section entitled "Housing", the programme lists a series of 14 individual commitments under the general promise: "We will implement a multi-stranded approach to addressing housing needs right across the spectrum."

Towards the end of the list and 13th out of 14 commitments - one would need patience to find it - is a two-pronged commitment which states:

We will review the operation of the Planning and Development Act to ensure that it is meeting the objectives for which it was enacted with particular reference to social and affordable housing.

 

In order to minimise the disruption to supply we will ensure that where planning applications become necessary because of the 2 year withering requirement, set maximum application and appeals timings will apply.

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 On the other hand, the withering requirement is repealed in the Bill.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.

Mr. Cullen:

Not at all. The Senator has misunderstood.

Mr. Quinn:

I must have misunderstood it then.

Mr. Cullen:

Let me explain for the benefit of the Senator. There is no application of the 20% requirement in Part V to these particular sites.

Mr. Quinn:

There should be.

Mr. Cullen:

These specific ones escaped completely the first time around.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

The Minister will have a chance to reply later.

Mr. Quinn:

I am happy to let him continue.

Mr. Cullen:

The media got it completely wrong also.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

The Minister will have a chance to reply later.

Mr. Quinn:

I thought that requirement was the heart and soul of Part V of the 2000 Act.

It was debated repeatedly at the time because it was very controversial.

It was fiercely resisted by the building industry which was surprised and disappointed when the Supreme Court did not find it unconstitutional and throw it out.

What the industry could not get from the Supreme Court it now appears to be getting from the Government.

I would be delighted if the Minister corrects me and gives me assurance. From what I have read, the purpose of the Bill is not, as the programme for Government promised, to ensure the 2000 Act meets the objectives for which it was enacted, namely, the provision of more social housing. Its purpose seems to be to admit defeat. I would be glad if the Minister corrects me.

Ms White:

We need clarity.

Mr. Quinn:

The builders seem to have won once again.

There is a price for letting builders of the hook. However, we can be sure they will not pay the price. The customers will pay, as they have always done. I would be delighted if the Minister corrects me.

This shabby little Bill will stand as a monument to those who must be among the greatest failures of what was the Celtic tiger - I hope it will continue as such. We have passed through a period of unprecedented and unparalleled prosperity but ended up with a greater housing problem than ever before.

Most of the economic challenges faced today have their roots in the failure to address the housing problem.

Part of that failure is the unsustainable sprawl that has turned most of the eastern part of the country into a dormitory for Dublin, is to be found every day on our roads where people spend hours travelling unnecessarily long distances to and from work, and is the pressure that house prices put on many women to go out to work when, if given the chance, they would look after their families and homes.

None of it is the inevitable consequence of economic progress.

All of it is due to wrong strategies, policies and choices along the way. The losers are clear just as the winners are.

The winners will be able to enjoy an even better Christmas when this Bill is out of the way and rushed through this week as appears to be the intention.