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.
Construction Contracts Bill 2010 (19/05/10)
Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009 (10/03/10)
Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009 (21/05/09)
Construction Industry (12/03/09)
National Insulation Programme (18/02/09)
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)
Back to top of the page
Construction Contracts Bill 2010
19/05/10 - I refer to the system of buying and selling property in France. The matter is dealt with by a notary public who is, effectively, a lawyer for the common interest. The parties may also engage their own solicitors if required.
The job of the notary public, for example, is if Feargal Quinn is selling a property to Joe O’Toole, he has to ensure there are no encumbrances on the property, that all planning permissions or otherwise are correct, and that it is legally in a state in which it can be sold. He must also ensure there are no encumbrances or liens on the seller. He must ensure there is no form or relationship that might have a gain on the property, that nobody has any impact upon it. Having dealt with all these matters, he must consider the buyer, in this example, Joe O’Toole. The buyer must show that he has the money and he must lodge the money with the notary before the sale can go through. This is very similar to the provisions in Senator Quinn’s Bill.
I spoke to a plumbing subcontractor recently. About 18 months ago, he finished doing the plumbing work and installation of all the plumbing and heating in ten houses off the South Circular Road. He did an honest and diligent job. However, just as he had completed the work, the money stopped. He does not know who went bust, whether it was the developer or one of the building contractors. All his materials are in the houses which are unsold and which have not been connected to gas or electricity supplies. ….. This story could be replicated across the country 24,000 times.
The system as it stands means that somebody can purchase a piece of land and having put together the money to purchase the land, can be granted planning permission to build X number of units. The individual can then seek tenders from builders and subcontractors to build the houses. With no money whatever, he can hope that the sale of those houses will allow him to pay off the builders and subcontractors, make a profit and pay for the site. If something goes wrong along the way, if the business plan does not stand up, if the houses do not sell, then he does not have the money. He loses nothing — he will still have the site — but all the contractors lose out and they are all small enterprises.
…. We need to ensure that if somebody invests time, energy, money and labour, they will get fair pay and reward for their efforts. It is a provision to protect all sides. …. He has asked me to deal with section 9 which deals with adjudication. Adjudication should be efficient, simple to understand and time bound. These are the three crucial issues for any kind of effective adjudication, arbitration or mediation. It must be able to be simply initiated and be concluded within a certain period of time. Both parties can agree either
to be bound by the outcome or to leave that until the end to agree or disagree.
…... What is needed is a bond or a financial instrument to ensure certainty so people will be paid when they are employed. This works both ways. For instance, a buyer puts a deposit or staged payments on a property but the property is not transferred to him or her and the builder or developer goes bust and people are left with nothing.
It would be a disaster, however, if nothing were to happen with this legislation. Many people in various areas affected by this legislation have shown much interest in it. We need to harness their energy and experience to get this to work. It would be positive if the Government were to expand the legislation, comparing it to the UK’s and other jurisdictions’ models.
Back to top of the page
Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009
10/03/10 - I am glad to hear he (Minister) is sympathetic to the point we are putting forward. We are trying to achieve consumer protection in a safe and quantifiable way that does not damage any of the interested parties. In many ways it complements what would happen in the public sector. Senator Bacik touched on the idea of local authorities which are about to take over an estate insisting on the development being completely finished. We have seen the chaos created in places around the country where an estate has not been finished properly and the local authority cannot take responsibility where it is unfinished.
A similar position can arise for apartments and the 5% that is withheld could allow some leverage to make essential changes or improvements…. Does the Minister have any ideas on how to make this work having considered best practice in other countries and jurisdictions? Does he have any ideas on protecting the consumer while giving leverage to a management company and putting pressure on a developer to ensure finality? …… The most important thing is that the Minister is as determined as we are to find some leverage to achieve the same conclusion. I certainly would not argue that what we are doing is better than what the Minister will come up with. Therefore, it behoves us to wait and see what the Minister brings forward.
If a multi-unit development is not completed and we place responsibility on the management committee to complete it, which is the Minister’s intention and I thoroughly support it, a question of quantum and money is raised in terms of how that point can be reached. … What has changed significantly in the meantime is that it has become a buyer’s market. The Minister commented on this and acknowledged that the market has changed. The problem now is that if someone adds 5% to the price it might not sell. This is completely different to how it was a couple of years ago.
While the Minister made an important point on this, we must pass legislation which covers all types of situations and we cannot legislate for a constant recession or buyer’s market; it would reflect badly on all of us. The Law Reform Commission conducted an investigation into this and arrived at a conclusion which was supported by engineers and architects. This was to ensure that units are finished prior to people buying and paying for them and prior to a management committee taking over the running of them.
Back to top of the page
Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009
21/05/09 - It (the Bill) has been very slow coming and Senator Ross and I have been shouting for it for the past five or six years. …I very much welcome certain provisions in the Bill, some of which are really important. I appeal to the Minister and his advisors to be flexible. There are provisions that need to be tightened up and others that are superb.
I have a query on the requirement in Schedule 3 that investigations be held at all times in private, or “otherwise than in public”. This should be re-examined. Some discretion should be allowed to the inspector on occasions where the public good would clearly warrant it. … . In some cases, the public good would be served by at least saying such investigations are taking place. The provisions in the Bill are very solid in this area.
The weakest area of the Bill concerns membership of the authority. I could easily track how the discussion on membership evolved. The first membership requirement is that one have “knowledge or experience”. This is a very low bar. If it were “knowledge and experience”, it would be better. Reference is made to “matters relevant to the functions of the Authority”. These matters should be spelled out. Reference should be made to one’s consumer background, education or qualifications and to one’s background in governance or ethics. I am not proposing these requirements specifically but arguing we should not give a Minister unfettered discretion to appoint anybody he likes. Appointees should be invited before the appropriate committee of the Houses to explain why they will do a good job.
I am appalled to find that old chestnut, in section 23(2), that the chief executive of the authority shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any Government policy before a committee of the House. The authority is required to appear before a committee of the House, and if I ask the chief executive a question, he or she cannot give a view that includes an opinion or question about Government policy in the area. What kind of accountability is that? We are saying we will not allow TDs, Senators, councillors or MEPs to have anything to do with it, but when the members of the authority appear before us they cannot answer questions in any way that is critical. When did we get so sensitive in ourselves? Do we not take hassle every time we go in front of a camera or behind a microphone? Is it not part of our game plan to cope with such things? It is not good enough.
This is a good Bill which fills an important gap. It needs to be tightened up and I ask that the Minister be open to this.
Back to top of the page
Construction Industry
12/03/09 - The construction industry cannot even give us the answer as regards how many houses, unsold, empty and waiting to go on the market are available. The construction industry, which has as tenants Home Bond, cannot even agree on the number. Neither of them agrees with the Central Statistics Office nor the Irish Auctioneers and Valuers Institute. That is why I do not trust these people.
There are stories this morning to the effect that CAB is being asked to investigate fraudulent builders who are trying to set up fraudulent sales with fraudsters, trying to cheat us, the banks and the community at large. Also today, there is news of a significant firm of auditors filing a disclaimer, unable to sign off on the accounts of one of the largest building firms in the country on the basis that it cannot confirm these are a true and fair reflection of its business activities. I am quite happy to discuss the construction industry, and particularly the small people who have lost work because businesses have gone to the wall. However, I do not have any need to meet with representatives from the Construction Industry Federation, just to give them yet another opportunity to start off on their merry-go-round of profiteering and greed which has got us into the trouble we are in.
Back to top of the page
National Insulation Programme
18/02/09 - I find this to be an extraordinarily divisive motion. I can barely speak and hold my breath dealing with it because I am so angered. I am angered that Fianna Fáil would dare table a motion aimed at tackling the legacy of poorly insulated homes. I have my speech from 2006. I could also get my speeches from 2004 and 2003. This problem has been created since 1998 with this Government refusing to implement the insulation requirements clearly coming down the road from the European Community. We acted disgracefully in the Dublin area for those ten years. Since 1998 more than 250,000 houses have been built in Dublin with hollow blocks that would not be used to build cow sheds in counties Kerry, Cork, Waterford or the rest of Munster and would not get HomeBond insurance in those counties. I stand to be corrected but I have checked this time and again. .. it is extraordinarily difficult to retro-insulate a hollow block house. I built my house in 1971 with hollow walls and it was very easy to retro-insulate that by filling the space between the walls. .. if one were to try to fill all the holes in hollow blocks one would have to put a million holes in the side of one’s wall.
In this city tonight there are young couples who are worried not only about their income levy, pension levy or losing their jobs but for the next 30 years will be paying off houses that will never reach the level of insulation required. If they ever want to sell them on they will lose money. It is a disgrace. I said it two years ago and I will say it now: people should be sacked for it. It is all on the record, every bit of it. I have raised these issues in the House time and again since 2000. I asked that the Government bring forward the European directive. When the Government saw it coming down the road it did nothing about it.
The Green Party held this view all along. It was only a month in Government when it implemented this. If it never does anything else, it got that implemented. .. in October 2006 a Minister of State in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government went on “Prime Time” and said the reason it was not done was that it would add to the cost of houses for young people. The cost at that stage to bring in the standard of insulation we require, an “A” building energy rating or whatever, would have been €800. Members should listen to this debate again and the amounts of money we are talking about. This €800 would have saved all this money at this stage. Talk about bad economics and decisions and burying people in sub-standard housing. It is a disgrace and it was all in front of us.
It is not as if we did not know. We saw it happening. We argued across the floor in this House. The Government side voted against this two short years ago and earlier. In a Private Members’ motion we demanded that the Government take immediate action and it went against it. Regrettably, hundreds of thousands of existing houses with poor energy efficiency, such as hollow block built homes, will have a lower energy rating and, consequently, a lower resale value. Home owners will continue to pay more every year for the heating of those homes and the repayments while the homes lose value. Fianna Fáil voted against that two years ago.
Back to top of the page
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.
Construction Contracts Bill 2010 (19/05/10)
Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009 (10/03/10)
Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009 (21/05/09)
Construction Industry (12/03/09)
National Insulation Programme (18/02/09)
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)
Back to top of the page
Construction Contracts Bill 2010
19/05/10 - I refer to the system of buying and selling property in France. The matter is dealt with by a notary public who is, effectively, a lawyer for the common interest. The parties may also engage their own solicitors if required.
The job of the notary public, for example, is if Feargal Quinn is selling a property to Joe O’Toole, he has to ensure there are no encumbrances on the property, that all planning permissions or otherwise are correct, and that it is legally in a state in which it can be sold. He must also ensure there are no encumbrances or liens on the seller. He must ensure there is no form or relationship that might have a gain on the property, that nobody has any impact upon it. Having dealt with all these matters, he must consider the buyer, in this example, Joe O’Toole. The buyer must show that he has the money and he must lodge the money with the notary before the sale can go through. This is very similar to the provisions in Senator Quinn’s Bill.
I spoke to a plumbing subcontractor recently. About 18 months ago, he finished doing the plumbing work and installation of all the plumbing and heating in ten houses off the South Circular Road. He did an honest and diligent job. However, just as he had completed the work, the money stopped. He does not know who went bust, whether it was the developer or one of the building contractors. All his materials are in the houses which are unsold and which have not been connected to gas or electricity supplies. ….. This story could be replicated across the country 24,000 times.
The system as it stands means that somebody can purchase a piece of land and having put together the money to purchase the land, can be granted planning permission to build X number of units. The individual can then seek tenders from builders and subcontractors to build the houses. With no money whatever, he can hope that the sale of those houses will allow him to pay off the builders and subcontractors, make a profit and pay for the site. If something goes wrong along the way, if the business plan does not stand up, if the houses do not sell, then he does not have the money. He loses nothing — he will still have the site — but all the contractors lose out and they are all small enterprises.
…. We need to ensure that if somebody invests time, energy, money and labour, they will get fair pay and reward for their efforts. It is a provision to protect all sides. …. He has asked me to deal with section 9 which deals with adjudication. Adjudication should be efficient, simple to understand and time bound. These are the three crucial issues for any kind of effective adjudication, arbitration or mediation. It must be able to be simply initiated and be concluded within a certain period of time. Both parties can agree either
to be bound by the outcome or to leave that until the end to agree or disagree.
…... What is needed is a bond or a financial instrument to ensure certainty so people will be paid when they are employed. This works both ways. For instance, a buyer puts a deposit or staged payments on a property but the property is not transferred to him or her and the builder or developer goes bust and people are left with nothing.
It would be a disaster, however, if nothing were to happen with this legislation. Many people in various areas affected by this legislation have shown much interest in it. We need to harness their energy and experience to get this to work. It would be positive if the Government were to expand the legislation, comparing it to the UK’s and other jurisdictions’ models.
Back to top of the page
Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009
10/03/10 - I am glad to hear he (Minister) is sympathetic to the point we are putting forward. We are trying to achieve consumer protection in a safe and quantifiable way that does not damage any of the interested parties. In many ways it complements what would happen in the public sector. Senator Bacik touched on the idea of local authorities which are about to take over an estate insisting on the development being completely finished. We have seen the chaos created in places around the country where an estate has not been finished properly and the local authority cannot take responsibility where it is unfinished.
A similar position can arise for apartments and the 5% that is withheld could allow some leverage to make essential changes or improvements…. Does the Minister have any ideas on how to make this work having considered best practice in other countries and jurisdictions? Does he have any ideas on protecting the consumer while giving leverage to a management company and putting pressure on a developer to ensure finality? …… The most important thing is that the Minister is as determined as we are to find some leverage to achieve the same conclusion. I certainly would not argue that what we are doing is better than what the Minister will come up with. Therefore, it behoves us to wait and see what the Minister brings forward.
If a multi-unit development is not completed and we place responsibility on the management committee to complete it, which is the Minister’s intention and I thoroughly support it, a question of quantum and money is raised in terms of how that point can be reached. … What has changed significantly in the meantime is that it has become a buyer’s market. The Minister commented on this and acknowledged that the market has changed. The problem now is that if someone adds 5% to the price it might not sell. This is completely different to how it was a couple of years ago.
While the Minister made an important point on this, we must pass legislation which covers all types of situations and we cannot legislate for a constant recession or buyer’s market; it would reflect badly on all of us. The Law Reform Commission conducted an investigation into this and arrived at a conclusion which was supported by engineers and architects. This was to ensure that units are finished prior to people buying and paying for them and prior to a management committee taking over the running of them.
Back to top of the page
Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009
21/05/09 - It (the Bill) has been very slow coming and Senator Ross and I have been shouting for it for the past five or six years. …I very much welcome certain provisions in the Bill, some of which are really important. I appeal to the Minister and his advisors to be flexible. There are provisions that need to be tightened up and others that are superb.
I have a query on the requirement in Schedule 3 that investigations be held at all times in private, or “otherwise than in public”. This should be re-examined. Some discretion should be allowed to the inspector on occasions where the public good would clearly warrant it. … . In some cases, the public good would be served by at least saying such investigations are taking place. The provisions in the Bill are very solid in this area.
The weakest area of the Bill concerns membership of the authority. I could easily track how the discussion on membership evolved. The first membership requirement is that one have “knowledge or experience”. This is a very low bar. If it were “knowledge and experience”, it would be better. Reference is made to “matters relevant to the functions of the Authority”. These matters should be spelled out. Reference should be made to one’s consumer background, education or qualifications and to one’s background in governance or ethics. I am not proposing these requirements specifically but arguing we should not give a Minister unfettered discretion to appoint anybody he likes. Appointees should be invited before the appropriate committee of the Houses to explain why they will do a good job.
I am appalled to find that old chestnut, in section 23(2), that the chief executive of the authority shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any Government policy before a committee of the House. The authority is required to appear before a committee of the House, and if I ask the chief executive a question, he or she cannot give a view that includes an opinion or question about Government policy in the area. What kind of accountability is that? We are saying we will not allow TDs, Senators, councillors or MEPs to have anything to do with it, but when the members of the authority appear before us they cannot answer questions in any way that is critical. When did we get so sensitive in ourselves? Do we not take hassle every time we go in front of a camera or behind a microphone? Is it not part of our game plan to cope with such things? It is not good enough.
This is a good Bill which fills an important gap. It needs to be tightened up and I ask that the Minister be open to this.
Back to top of the page
Construction Industry
12/03/09 - The construction industry cannot even give us the answer as regards how many houses, unsold, empty and waiting to go on the market are available. The construction industry, which has as tenants Home Bond, cannot even agree on the number. Neither of them agrees with the Central Statistics Office nor the Irish Auctioneers and Valuers Institute. That is why I do not trust these people.
There are stories this morning to the effect that CAB is being asked to investigate fraudulent builders who are trying to set up fraudulent sales with fraudsters, trying to cheat us, the banks and the community at large. Also today, there is news of a significant firm of auditors filing a disclaimer, unable to sign off on the accounts of one of the largest building firms in the country on the basis that it cannot confirm these are a true and fair reflection of its business activities. I am quite happy to discuss the construction industry, and particularly the small people who have lost work because businesses have gone to the wall. However, I do not have any need to meet with representatives from the Construction Industry Federation, just to give them yet another opportunity to start off on their merry-go-round of profiteering and greed which has got us into the trouble we are in.
Back to top of the page
National Insulation Programme
18/02/09 - I find this to be an extraordinarily divisive motion. I can barely speak and hold my breath dealing with it because I am so angered. I am angered that Fianna Fáil would dare table a motion aimed at tackling the legacy of poorly insulated homes. I have my speech from 2006. I could also get my speeches from 2004 and 2003. This problem has been created since 1998 with this Government refusing to implement the insulation requirements clearly coming down the road from the European Community. We acted disgracefully in the Dublin area for those ten years. Since 1998 more than 250,000 houses have been built in Dublin with hollow blocks that would not be used to build cow sheds in counties Kerry, Cork, Waterford or the rest of Munster and would not get HomeBond insurance in those counties. I stand to be corrected but I have checked this time and again. .. it is extraordinarily difficult to retro-insulate a hollow block house. I built my house in 1971 with hollow walls and it was very easy to retro-insulate that by filling the space between the walls. .. if one were to try to fill all the holes in hollow blocks one would have to put a million holes in the side of one’s wall.
In this city tonight there are young couples who are worried not only about their income levy, pension levy or losing their jobs but for the next 30 years will be paying off houses that will never reach the level of insulation required. If they ever want to sell them on they will lose money. It is a disgrace. I said it two years ago and I will say it now: people should be sacked for it. It is all on the record, every bit of it. I have raised these issues in the House time and again since 2000. I asked that the Government bring forward the European directive. When the Government saw it coming down the road it did nothing about it.
The Green Party held this view all along. It was only a month in Government when it implemented this. If it never does anything else, it got that implemented. .. in October 2006 a Minister of State in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government went on “Prime Time” and said the reason it was not done was that it would add to the cost of houses for young people. The cost at that stage to bring in the standard of insulation we require, an “A” building energy rating or whatever, would have been €800. Members should listen to this debate again and the amounts of money we are talking about. This €800 would have saved all this money at this stage. Talk about bad economics and decisions and burying people in sub-standard housing. It is a disgrace and it was all in front of us.
It is not as if we did not know. We saw it happening. We argued across the floor in this House. The Government side voted against this two short years ago and earlier. In a Private Members’ motion we demanded that the Government take immediate action and it went against it. Regrettably, hundreds of thousands of existing houses with poor energy efficiency, such as hollow block built homes, will have a lower energy rating and, consequently, a lower resale value. Home owners will continue to pay more every year for the heating of those homes and the repayments while the homes lose value. Fianna Fáil voted against that two years ago.
Back to top of the page
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