LAND/PROPERTY/HOUSING
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Energy Efficient New Houses (27/09/07)
An Taisce and Fintan O'Toole (05/07/06)
Local Government (Business Improvement Districts) Bill (29/06/06)
Housing (Stage Payments) Bill (28/06/06)
House Prices (21/06/06)
Planning Issues (15/02/06)
Planning Issues (08/02/06)
Energy Efficient New Houses
27/09/07 - I congratulate the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government on his recent statement that every new house built from next year onwards should have a solar panel or a similar renewable energy resource. I failed four times in the last three years in this House to change the insulation standards to allow them to be based on the proper international standards, namely the kilowatt hours required to heat a cubic metre of house space per year. This was opposed time and again by that side of the House. My latest proposal in the last Seanad and seconded by former Senator Brian Hayes was rejected by the House. I am glad to see that the new Minister has brought this forward.
Back to top of the page
An Taisce and Fintan O'Toole
05/07/06 - The issue of An Taisce’s response to applications for planning permission has been frequently raised by Members on both sides of this House. Whatever one may say about Fintan O’Toole, nobody would argue that he is anything but democratic and caring with a strong commitment to the environment. Mr. O’Toole put forward an application for planning permission through a due and democratic process for open consideration. This application has been described by An Taisce as criminal. This illustrates the irresponsible attitude of An Taisce. Fintan O’Toole has supported An Taisce for many years.
This is a classic example of the extreme lack of moderation in An Taisce’s responses and it also illustrates why democrats and environmentalists like Mr. O’Toole and others are appalled by the approach taken by this organisation time and again. It shows why ordinary people feel persecuted by An Taisce when they make reasonable applications in the interest of themselves and their families and why rural resettlement groups and other rural groups cannot cope with An Taisce’s attitude. Describing a fair, honest and open application for planning permission, like that of Mr. O’Toole, as criminal reflects on an irresponsible group that needs to be taken to task. We do not need this kind of help in protecting our environment.
Back to top of the page
Local Government (Business Improvement Districts) Bill
29/06/06 - I welcome the legislation. It is creative and novel and can only be of help. I have a number of questions and wish to make some points. ….What I like about it is that all businesses will have an equal vote in that first decision whereas businesses might have a different contribution to make when it comes to paying for it. We should look at it in a positive way, which is the way I want to look at it.
I see dangers,however, in that some people might get involved in trying to make improvements to their streets but cannot get the support of their colleagues or the other businesses in the area. I could foresee streets becoming very run down while others forge ahead. Perhaps that is the nature of competition and there is nothing we can do about it but I have to say, because I know no one else will have said it, that the fundamental question being begged is the funding and the authority of local authorities. My view on that has been consistently clear.
Local authorities are underfunded and are still suffering from the abolition of rates in 1977. We must examine issues like water rates, and I want to be clear about the way I see that working. People should not be charged for water for everyday use but if I have a fleet of cars and two swimming pools, the local authority should not have to provide the water to wash those cars and fill the swimming pools. …..I make that point deliberately, before people argue on the grounds of equity that everyone is entitled to water. Everybody is entitled to water, but the reality is that it is very costly on local authorities to provide it.
What the Minister of State is proposing here is another form of rates. ….. There has to be significant understanding that they are necessary, but they are far too high.
In a recent debate Senator Bannon raised the matter of high development costs. They have increased well beyond the rate of inflation because they are trying to meet another need. If 24 houses are built in an area, the local authority gets paid a development fee from the developer. From the day the developer walks away the houses are a charge on the local authority, without any income being paid to it. Nowhere else in Europe, or perhaps the world, does this happen. It does not make any sense, regardless from what viewpoint one looks at it.
Everything the Minister of State refers to is concerned with streets where there are active and successful businesses trying to improve their space. If one wants to breathe new life into a street, however, and create a nice shopping area, shopfront or streetscape and there is nobody there before one starts, one is on a loser. The difficulty in those cases is that streets which were not being patronised will relapse. Is there an answer or is this just pie in the sky?
One can see this happening in almost in every town in the country ….. where businesses move to the edge of town with the centre dying on its feet. I do not have the same concerns in this regard as other people. I have seen this happen in other countries. Over a period of years the inner part of the town tends to become a place where bijoux and specialist shops are located. It is a different type of shopping in which the big businesses are no longer involved. It is boutique-type shopping, even involving boutique hotels and various similar developments. However, this is a slow process. What the Minister of State talks about would not help to increase the pace of change because the people and the successful businesses are not there.
The Bill is creative, novel and worthy of all our support. I am sure there will be flaws and problems but if nothing is done mistakes will never be made. This is worth doing. We will all be keen to see how it works. Will it breathe new life into tired streets and new places?
Back to top of the page
Housing (Stage Payments) Bill
28/06/06 - We are faced with a simple choice. The decision we face is whether we are standing with the builder or the buyer, with the speculator or the consumer. The Minister of State must address a number of issues in this regard. He is playing ducks and drakes with this issue. He is stretching it out because he does not want a resolution and he has done everything possible over the past two years to defer a decision. The Minister of State wrote to both Senator Coghlan and myself last week saying he wanted another 12 months, which is appalling. Members should recall all the fine speeches, crocodile tears and concern for first-time buyers.
This is a simple issue, which could be addressed to make life a little easier for such buyers. It would take pressure off them and allow them to purchase a house in a fair and legitimate way. We are proposing what the Law Reform Commission and consumer interests, including the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, have sought. Any fair minded person would seek this and it is not too much ask to Government Members to support the legislation.
How does the Minister of State stand on the issue? Does he think it is fair that young people struggling to buy a house must often involve their parents and extended families as well as their bank managers to make repayments on a house they are not even living in? Does it strike Government Members how grossly unfair it is that young people should pay for their houses while paying rent and other bills because they cannot live in the structure for which they are paying?
I take issue with the Minister of State’s letter to Senator Coghlan and myself last week. It contains misinformation and it is misleading. The Minister of State wrote that the Government had kept open the possibility of legislation to prohibit stage payments, which he has stated previously.
He continued:
In this regard the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform published the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006 on 9 June 2006. The Bill is largely based on a draft Bill published with the Law Reform Commission’s (LRC) report ... in July 2005. The Bill contains a general power for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to make regulations in the area of contracts.
I was in contact with the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform four times earlier and I spoke to the Minister and that is not correct.
The Law Reform Commission published a report last year while a report was also published at the same time by the Auctioneering and Estate Agency Review Group. The conveyancing Bill to which the Minister of State referred is before the House and it is largely based on the review group’s report, paragraph 7.3 of which states: “While recognising that the issue of stage payments is largely beyond its remit, the group is aware that the Minister for Housing and Urban Renewal is considering initiating a consultation process with relevant interests in relation to the practice of stage payments in house purchase with a view...”. This is similar to the Minister of State’s commitment in 2004 and any other time he has been asked to do something about this. It is understood the guiding principle is along the lines Senator Coghlan has outlined.
The group’s report concludes, “The Group would generally support this objective and encourage the relevant parties, including the construction industry, the professionals dealing with the house purchase and the relevant Government Agencies, as appropriate, to work towards this achievement”. This recommendation has been made by everybody but it has not been implemented. The only reason for this is that the Government is coming under pressure from vested interests in the building industry. The Minister of State is shaking his head but he should outline why he will not support the legislation. We have made a proposal that has been recommended by interests and agencies he represents.
……… This would be a simple gesture, which would cost the State nothing. I ask Government Members to do the decent thing and to not vote against the legislation later.
…While everyone appears to be moving in the correct direction, it seems the Minister of State is not prepared to state that he agrees with the principle of the Bill but wishes to make amendments on Committee Stage. He could then make such changes. This is completely wrong and unfair. The Cabinet should consider that it is putting the Minister of State’s party, ordinary party workers, the Government and its backbenchers behind the eight ball on this issue, because there is no justification for not supporting this Bill tonight.
Back to top of the page
House Prices
21/06/06 - We have all witnessed the difficulties in buying houses encountered by family members and their children and friends. However, the harsh reality that Irish people spend more time exulting in the fact that their houses are now worth so much money means that there is not, and never will be, the political will to keep house prices down, despite arguments to the contrary. This state of affairs is appalling but no Government will take the risk of offending people by controlling house prices.
Those in the middle class would be less than impressed by any attempt to hold down the price of their property. This is all they talk about. I do not know the answer to this problem. The Taoiseach argued three years ago that development land is held by a few dozen very wealthy individuals with options in land all over Dublin and that this keeps house prices high because it interferes with the market. I do not know the answer to this problem but I would certainly welcome a debate on it.
Back to top of the page
Planning Issues
15/02/06 - The most significant problem with planning is that nobody understands it. As long as that remains the case there will be doubt, there will be lack of trust and confidence and it will always be a problem. Perhaps there are rules and conditions. However, I do not know what they are and I do not know anybody else who knows them. It should surely be something that could be applied to an area about which there is no further doubt.
How can An Bord Pleanála overturn a local authority planning decision if they are both working to the same national objectives? It should not happen. It turns logic on its head, unless somebody made a mistake. It seems that county development plans should fit into a national plan of some description. In other words, there should be national guidelines which would then be implemented with plenty of local discretion as to how it would be done. At least then all concerned would see the direction in which it was going.
The problem is that nobody is asking the questions or demanding explanations because we are not allowed to do so. If one starts getting edgy about these matters one is suddenly asked if one is interfering with the planning process and trying to bring political influence to bear. It is time we did exactly that. I would like to know that there was an understandable basis to decisions by An Bord Pleanála.
Other areas of concern include the attitude of An Bord Pleanála to a national plan, the relationship between local authority development plans with the national plan, the way in which these matters interact and how we can gain a greater understanding of what is happening. We should also look at the question of energy, not just in terms of insulation but in the wider area to encourage people to develop new forms of energy.
I want there to be a debate on the issue of planning instead of listening on the one hand to zealots, who say we cannot build a house anywhere and, on the other hand, entrepreneurs, who want to build a house everywhere. The voice of ordinary people should intercede and moderate this debate, to make a decision and hold to it. Otherwise, we are on the road to nowhere.
An Bord Pleanála should take the educational aspect of development on board when making decisions. It recently objected to an eco-friendly and environmentally sympathetic proposal for a development around Lough Key. I know every yard of the shoreline around Lough Key very well and it needs some development. There have always been a few big houses there but surely it is possible to develop it further.
We do not need an empty west of Ireland, or to hear people say we must not develop rural Ireland thereby depriving people in rural areas of realising their potential, so that those of us who live on the east coast can go back down and enjoy it all the better because there is nothing there. That is the way we are going. We need balance and moderation in planning. This discussion is worthwhile. I could speak for another hour on this topic and not say all I want to say.
We have argued here about An Taisce. Much of what An Taisce has done in recent years has irritated me. While it should exist as an important part of a democracy it fails to win the trust and confidence of ordinary people as do the planning authorities, An Bord Pleanála and development proposals. We have much work to educate ourselves and other people as to what we are trying to do in the planning area.
Back to top of the page
Planning Issues
08/02/06 - I ask that we return to planning and related issues, because every time I meet people who are trying to put together environmentally sensitive projects intended to bring added value to areas in the west of Ireland, I find they have experienced unnecessary difficulties in terms of developing infrastructure.
What is the situation with regard to legislation on major infrastructural projects? We need to address these issues in a manner that is fair to the environment, the people and the need for proper development of rural communities. Vague reasons are often given for the designation of special areas of conservation and it is not always understandable why some areas are treated differently from others. It is right that some areas are protected by strict rules but we would have more confidence in the system if these rules were made clear. Given that An Bord Pleanála often holds different views from those outlined in the various county development plans, how can ordinary people negotiate the planning system? It is blocking development and denuding aspects of the west of Ireland.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Energy Efficient New Houses (27/09/07)
An Taisce and Fintan O'Toole (05/07/06)
Local Government (Business Improvement Districts) Bill (29/06/06)
Housing (Stage Payments) Bill (28/06/06)
House Prices (21/06/06)
Planning Issues (15/02/06)
Planning Issues (08/02/06)
Energy Efficient New Houses
27/09/07 - I congratulate the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government on his recent statement that every new house built from next year onwards should have a solar panel or a similar renewable energy resource. I failed four times in the last three years in this House to change the insulation standards to allow them to be based on the proper international standards, namely the kilowatt hours required to heat a cubic metre of house space per year. This was opposed time and again by that side of the House. My latest proposal in the last Seanad and seconded by former Senator Brian Hayes was rejected by the House. I am glad to see that the new Minister has brought this forward.
Back to top of the page
An Taisce and Fintan O'Toole
05/07/06 - The issue of An Taisce’s response to applications for planning permission has been frequently raised by Members on both sides of this House. Whatever one may say about Fintan O’Toole, nobody would argue that he is anything but democratic and caring with a strong commitment to the environment. Mr. O’Toole put forward an application for planning permission through a due and democratic process for open consideration. This application has been described by An Taisce as criminal. This illustrates the irresponsible attitude of An Taisce. Fintan O’Toole has supported An Taisce for many years.
This is a classic example of the extreme lack of moderation in An Taisce’s responses and it also illustrates why democrats and environmentalists like Mr. O’Toole and others are appalled by the approach taken by this organisation time and again. It shows why ordinary people feel persecuted by An Taisce when they make reasonable applications in the interest of themselves and their families and why rural resettlement groups and other rural groups cannot cope with An Taisce’s attitude. Describing a fair, honest and open application for planning permission, like that of Mr. O’Toole, as criminal reflects on an irresponsible group that needs to be taken to task. We do not need this kind of help in protecting our environment.
Back to top of the page
Local Government (Business Improvement Districts) Bill
29/06/06 - I welcome the legislation. It is creative and novel and can only be of help. I have a number of questions and wish to make some points. ….What I like about it is that all businesses will have an equal vote in that first decision whereas businesses might have a different contribution to make when it comes to paying for it. We should look at it in a positive way, which is the way I want to look at it.
I see dangers,however, in that some people might get involved in trying to make improvements to their streets but cannot get the support of their colleagues or the other businesses in the area. I could foresee streets becoming very run down while others forge ahead. Perhaps that is the nature of competition and there is nothing we can do about it but I have to say, because I know no one else will have said it, that the fundamental question being begged is the funding and the authority of local authorities. My view on that has been consistently clear.
Local authorities are underfunded and are still suffering from the abolition of rates in 1977. We must examine issues like water rates, and I want to be clear about the way I see that working. People should not be charged for water for everyday use but if I have a fleet of cars and two swimming pools, the local authority should not have to provide the water to wash those cars and fill the swimming pools. …..I make that point deliberately, before people argue on the grounds of equity that everyone is entitled to water. Everybody is entitled to water, but the reality is that it is very costly on local authorities to provide it.
What the Minister of State is proposing here is another form of rates. ….. There has to be significant understanding that they are necessary, but they are far too high.
In a recent debate Senator Bannon raised the matter of high development costs. They have increased well beyond the rate of inflation because they are trying to meet another need. If 24 houses are built in an area, the local authority gets paid a development fee from the developer. From the day the developer walks away the houses are a charge on the local authority, without any income being paid to it. Nowhere else in Europe, or perhaps the world, does this happen. It does not make any sense, regardless from what viewpoint one looks at it.
Everything the Minister of State refers to is concerned with streets where there are active and successful businesses trying to improve their space. If one wants to breathe new life into a street, however, and create a nice shopping area, shopfront or streetscape and there is nobody there before one starts, one is on a loser. The difficulty in those cases is that streets which were not being patronised will relapse. Is there an answer or is this just pie in the sky?
One can see this happening in almost in every town in the country ….. where businesses move to the edge of town with the centre dying on its feet. I do not have the same concerns in this regard as other people. I have seen this happen in other countries. Over a period of years the inner part of the town tends to become a place where bijoux and specialist shops are located. It is a different type of shopping in which the big businesses are no longer involved. It is boutique-type shopping, even involving boutique hotels and various similar developments. However, this is a slow process. What the Minister of State talks about would not help to increase the pace of change because the people and the successful businesses are not there.
The Bill is creative, novel and worthy of all our support. I am sure there will be flaws and problems but if nothing is done mistakes will never be made. This is worth doing. We will all be keen to see how it works. Will it breathe new life into tired streets and new places?
Back to top of the page
Housing (Stage Payments) Bill
28/06/06 - We are faced with a simple choice. The decision we face is whether we are standing with the builder or the buyer, with the speculator or the consumer. The Minister of State must address a number of issues in this regard. He is playing ducks and drakes with this issue. He is stretching it out because he does not want a resolution and he has done everything possible over the past two years to defer a decision. The Minister of State wrote to both Senator Coghlan and myself last week saying he wanted another 12 months, which is appalling. Members should recall all the fine speeches, crocodile tears and concern for first-time buyers.
This is a simple issue, which could be addressed to make life a little easier for such buyers. It would take pressure off them and allow them to purchase a house in a fair and legitimate way. We are proposing what the Law Reform Commission and consumer interests, including the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, have sought. Any fair minded person would seek this and it is not too much ask to Government Members to support the legislation.
How does the Minister of State stand on the issue? Does he think it is fair that young people struggling to buy a house must often involve their parents and extended families as well as their bank managers to make repayments on a house they are not even living in? Does it strike Government Members how grossly unfair it is that young people should pay for their houses while paying rent and other bills because they cannot live in the structure for which they are paying?
I take issue with the Minister of State’s letter to Senator Coghlan and myself last week. It contains misinformation and it is misleading. The Minister of State wrote that the Government had kept open the possibility of legislation to prohibit stage payments, which he has stated previously.
He continued:
In this regard the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform published the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006 on 9 June 2006. The Bill is largely based on a draft Bill published with the Law Reform Commission’s (LRC) report ... in July 2005. The Bill contains a general power for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to make regulations in the area of contracts.
I was in contact with the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform four times earlier and I spoke to the Minister and that is not correct.
The Law Reform Commission published a report last year while a report was also published at the same time by the Auctioneering and Estate Agency Review Group. The conveyancing Bill to which the Minister of State referred is before the House and it is largely based on the review group’s report, paragraph 7.3 of which states: “While recognising that the issue of stage payments is largely beyond its remit, the group is aware that the Minister for Housing and Urban Renewal is considering initiating a consultation process with relevant interests in relation to the practice of stage payments in house purchase with a view...”. This is similar to the Minister of State’s commitment in 2004 and any other time he has been asked to do something about this. It is understood the guiding principle is along the lines Senator Coghlan has outlined.
The group’s report concludes, “The Group would generally support this objective and encourage the relevant parties, including the construction industry, the professionals dealing with the house purchase and the relevant Government Agencies, as appropriate, to work towards this achievement”. This recommendation has been made by everybody but it has not been implemented. The only reason for this is that the Government is coming under pressure from vested interests in the building industry. The Minister of State is shaking his head but he should outline why he will not support the legislation. We have made a proposal that has been recommended by interests and agencies he represents.
……… This would be a simple gesture, which would cost the State nothing. I ask Government Members to do the decent thing and to not vote against the legislation later.
…While everyone appears to be moving in the correct direction, it seems the Minister of State is not prepared to state that he agrees with the principle of the Bill but wishes to make amendments on Committee Stage. He could then make such changes. This is completely wrong and unfair. The Cabinet should consider that it is putting the Minister of State’s party, ordinary party workers, the Government and its backbenchers behind the eight ball on this issue, because there is no justification for not supporting this Bill tonight.
Back to top of the page
House Prices
21/06/06 - We have all witnessed the difficulties in buying houses encountered by family members and their children and friends. However, the harsh reality that Irish people spend more time exulting in the fact that their houses are now worth so much money means that there is not, and never will be, the political will to keep house prices down, despite arguments to the contrary. This state of affairs is appalling but no Government will take the risk of offending people by controlling house prices.
Those in the middle class would be less than impressed by any attempt to hold down the price of their property. This is all they talk about. I do not know the answer to this problem. The Taoiseach argued three years ago that development land is held by a few dozen very wealthy individuals with options in land all over Dublin and that this keeps house prices high because it interferes with the market. I do not know the answer to this problem but I would certainly welcome a debate on it.
Back to top of the page
Planning Issues
15/02/06 - The most significant problem with planning is that nobody understands it. As long as that remains the case there will be doubt, there will be lack of trust and confidence and it will always be a problem. Perhaps there are rules and conditions. However, I do not know what they are and I do not know anybody else who knows them. It should surely be something that could be applied to an area about which there is no further doubt.
How can An Bord Pleanála overturn a local authority planning decision if they are both working to the same national objectives? It should not happen. It turns logic on its head, unless somebody made a mistake. It seems that county development plans should fit into a national plan of some description. In other words, there should be national guidelines which would then be implemented with plenty of local discretion as to how it would be done. At least then all concerned would see the direction in which it was going.
The problem is that nobody is asking the questions or demanding explanations because we are not allowed to do so. If one starts getting edgy about these matters one is suddenly asked if one is interfering with the planning process and trying to bring political influence to bear. It is time we did exactly that. I would like to know that there was an understandable basis to decisions by An Bord Pleanála.
Other areas of concern include the attitude of An Bord Pleanála to a national plan, the relationship between local authority development plans with the national plan, the way in which these matters interact and how we can gain a greater understanding of what is happening. We should also look at the question of energy, not just in terms of insulation but in the wider area to encourage people to develop new forms of energy.
I want there to be a debate on the issue of planning instead of listening on the one hand to zealots, who say we cannot build a house anywhere and, on the other hand, entrepreneurs, who want to build a house everywhere. The voice of ordinary people should intercede and moderate this debate, to make a decision and hold to it. Otherwise, we are on the road to nowhere.
An Bord Pleanála should take the educational aspect of development on board when making decisions. It recently objected to an eco-friendly and environmentally sympathetic proposal for a development around Lough Key. I know every yard of the shoreline around Lough Key very well and it needs some development. There have always been a few big houses there but surely it is possible to develop it further.
We do not need an empty west of Ireland, or to hear people say we must not develop rural Ireland thereby depriving people in rural areas of realising their potential, so that those of us who live on the east coast can go back down and enjoy it all the better because there is nothing there. That is the way we are going. We need balance and moderation in planning. This discussion is worthwhile. I could speak for another hour on this topic and not say all I want to say.
We have argued here about An Taisce. Much of what An Taisce has done in recent years has irritated me. While it should exist as an important part of a democracy it fails to win the trust and confidence of ordinary people as do the planning authorities, An Bord Pleanála and development proposals. We have much work to educate ourselves and other people as to what we are trying to do in the planning area.
Back to top of the page
Planning Issues
08/02/06 - I ask that we return to planning and related issues, because every time I meet people who are trying to put together environmentally sensitive projects intended to bring added value to areas in the west of Ireland, I find they have experienced unnecessary difficulties in terms of developing infrastructure.
What is the situation with regard to legislation on major infrastructural projects? We need to address these issues in a manner that is fair to the environment, the people and the need for proper development of rural communities. Vague reasons are often given for the designation of special areas of conservation and it is not always understandable why some areas are treated differently from others. It is right that some areas are protected by strict rules but we would have more confidence in the system if these rules were made clear. Given that An Bord Pleanála often holds different views from those outlined in the various county development plans, how can ordinary people negotiate the planning system? It is blocking development and denuding aspects of the west of Ireland.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website