Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THERE’S NO PLANS to change the way the Dáil bar operates, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has been told.
The panel of TDs responsible for overseeing the bar’s running have told the Louth Deputy the ‘status quo’ will remain in relation to how alcohol is sold in Leinster House.
The existence of the Dáil bar — and in particular the fact that its allowed to stay open well into the early hours — has been subject to particular scrutiny following a number of late night sittings.
TheJournal.ie revealed last year that on the day and night the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill was debated, €7,000 was spent in the two bars located in Leinster House.
The infamous ‘lapgate’ incident involving Fine Gael TD Tom Barry and party colleague Áine Collins also occurred that night, with Barry admitting that he had consumed “a couple of pints” before it happened.
Adams has also claimed that at least two TDs were intoxicated on the night the Dáil debated the liquidation of the former Anglo Irish Bank as part of the promissory note deal.
He wrote to the Joint Sub Committee on Administration in February, taking issue with its contention that the Dáil Bar – which doesn’t need a licence to operate – is a “parliamentary privilege”,
But in its letter back, the Joint sub-Committee on Administration told him the status quo would remain…
“This highlights how completely detached this Government is from the views of the general public,” Adams said.
“Most people, I would contend, believe that having a bar, that can open until any hour of the morning, in the Dáil, where important legislation affecting the lives of citizens is being debated, is an unacceptable anachronism in this day and age.
“The Dáil Bar should be regulated in the same way as any other bar. Once again, the Committee has failed to deal with an issue, which caused considerable public anger last year.”
The Joint sub-Committee is chaired by Fine Gael TD Joe Carey and includes Emmet Stagg and Jack Wall of the Labour Party, Paul Kehoe and Martin Heydon of Fine Gael, John Browne of Fianna Fail, Independent TD Catherine Murphy and Sinn Féin’s Aengus Ó Snodaigh.
Unfortunately a lot of these empty houses will be in areas where there are few jobs and few amenities. So for these houses to become options for a lot of people proper investment would be needed in rural Ireland.
Holiday homes for the wealthy
Lots of empty Holiday Homes in west Donegal.
Assel. Is it a crime now in this country to a few euro more than your neighbour. I didn’t realise we live in a Communist country.
Changes in planning laws to get people to live above retail units would help. All these restrictions about wheelchair access and fire safety certs means that a large slice of potential living accommodation is remaining empty..
True, but ‘In Dublin there are 7,995 vacant houses and 16,321 vacant apartments.’ This should not be allowed, it’s a disgrace.
If the people are long term unemployed just give them a free travel pass to get to the big cities whenever they feel lonely down on ghost estate territory.?
Problem solved.(partially)
Better than having them sleeping rough or paying hotels and guest houses around Dublin.
RMcG, yes a lot are in remote areas but as the article states over 24,000 houses and apartments in Dublin enough yo house all those homeless in Dublin. No figures given for Cork, aGalway etc.
Its got on the backs of the poor.
I’d like to know how may houses are in or tied up with nama.
Interesting to see the such amount of red in Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Kerry….I wonder does it include holiday homes cause I know for a fact there are many houses in places like Connemara and west Mayo that are in effect holiday homes.
I’d say you are correct.
However this is the journal and having this explainable fact in the article would take away from the misleading title
I’d say you are wrong.
I actually clicked on and read some of the report.
“There are 230,056 unoccupied residential properties (excluding holiday homes) across the state
(Census 2011); almost three-quarters (73%) are houses and the remainder are flats / apartments (27%).”
Because Noonan gave tax incentives to developers to build in thsoe areas. Now they are ghost estates and the developers are rich. Thanks Noonan.
I live in mayo ballycroy.. It’s 11 thousand hectares with about 50 people living there.. A lot of people have died and their houses are vacant I know of 10 at least.. I had to immigrate that’s a given.. a lot of people with great heritage have died out..
Noonan wasn’t the one giving tax breaks to developers.
2011 Cencus data, 5 years out of date.
On my dog walk rounds in Dublin 12 – about a 2Km radius from my own occupied gaff – I pass at least 4 definitely empty houses …… maybe there are more less obvious. On the SCR from Rialto to Kelly corner there are apparently (and very oddly given the rental potential) a few disused dwellings. Time to tax!
There is percentage of homeless people who choose to be homeless because they have been offered a house but wasn’t in the area they want to live ….. Back to the bottom of the list with you … And like in England there building homes were no one wants to live…
Yes, delighted someone said it . I’m sick to death listening to one’s whingeing about being homeless and saying how they were offered a house but it was too far away from their Mammy or their friends. If they really gave a crap they would take any house they got and give their kids some stability. Back to the bottom of the list they go. Furthermore I personally know a person who wanted a bigger house and was told she didn’t need one as she only had 4 kids ……guess what? ?? She’s expecting! #sickofspongers
5 three storey house on SCR numbers 1-9 left vacant since 2008. Seems there are belong to one owner purchased them as assets and not interested in renting. This is a total disgrace
Are they really suggesting that there are 23K homes in Dublin which are vacant? It seems crazy that this could be the case.
*Properties not homes
I can count at least 20 empty apartments just in our estate just by looking through my window, so 23K sounds very plausible
Everyone seems to think these are just being held on to by greedy, rich people. If you inherit a home in Dublin yes you may be able to rent it out for good money but after the government takes their exorbitant cut and you pay maintenance fees as well as the hassle of dealing with the tenants it’s sometimes not worth it. If there’s no mortgage it costs nothing to let it sit there aporeciating in value. If you want these homes on the market they need to incentivise it.
I think the average rent in Dublin is somewhere around the 1200 mark a month . If you own a property and can let it sit there empty you are a lot richer than most people . obviously there are costs involved but you can still make good money . sell it or rent it , don’t leave it empty .
You probably think the landlord gets to keep 1200. The reality is after tax and running expenses it is more like €500. For that money you could have a lot trouble ranging from general maintenance to neighbours fighting tenants. Some people hang on to property for family members when they are old enough too.
Right so, compulsory purchase orders and penalties for not utilising empty units. Theres already provision in the constitution for doing so.
Compared to the alternatives it will save the state money in the long run, rather than stuffing the pockets of landlords and hoteliers, or temporary housing at a quarter million a pop.
off you go, north Donegal for you. Force people to live where there are no jobs and you just create a lifetime welfare problem
Think its pretty obvious that you would start with units in urban areas dave. A bit of coordination and joined up thinking would go a long way here.
A lot of these homes in far flung places could be an option if there was proper broadband in this country.There are many occupations like IT work which are location independent but require a decent connection to the internet.
One of the key housing policy objectives of the last FG/Lab government was the socialist policy objective of driving as many private landlords as possible out of the rental market. This was successful as it is estimated that up to 1,000 rental properties are taken off the rental market every month. Anyone looking to rent a house will tell you that this has been a disaster for renters – firstly, with fewer houses to rent rents have increased, secondly, the latte drinking socialist classes always wanted ‘professional’ landlords – they’ve now got them and they’re called vulture funds who, unlike the private landlord, will buy and sell whenever it suits.
That is it alright seizing property off people is the freedom people fought for. The councils have the ability to compulsory purchase abandoned houses for years and failed to do so. Considering they haven’t done that seizing vacant properties will not help. Being vacant is not a reason for the state to take it away from somebody. Not uncommon for a person to be in a nursing home and have a house vacant for a number or years and wills can take over a year to sort. I’d be pretty annoyed if a house was seized under those conditions
I see you don’t understand how compulsory purchase orders work.
Oh, and….
“I’d be pretty annoyed if a house was seized under those conditions”
You’ll forgive me if I consider putting a roof over somebodys head more important than you getting annoyed.
If you want to make it all about the language I used let me clarify. I would sue the hell out of the government if they tried to seize a house with a compulsory purchase because a relative was sick and died just because it wasn’t in a timely manner. I am fully aware of compulsory orders work and it takes time and under pays the owner most of the time.
How would you sue the government when it would be acting constitutionally?
Connoly >You think the constitution allows for government to interfere with private ownership rights to provide housing? Please point out where. Don’t mix up the ability for compulsory orders for infrastructural projects as that is very different. You think the EU courts will allow it too? It will never happen.
“You think the constitution allows for government to interfere with private ownership rights to provide housing? Please point out where.”
Article 43.2 & 43.3- Private property
“The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing
provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.
“The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.”
Let me know if you need anything else.
“with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good”. Very vague statement. How do you define “the common good” in a manner that would stand up in court? If I am being offered 300k for via compulsory purchase order for a house in Dublin, yet there are houses available for one third that price in lets say Westmeath, then is it not in the common good for three houses for be bought for 100k instead of three houses for 300k? When you take into account the cost of legal fees, and the time involved getting a judgement and possible appeals, you could be talking about years it to be resolved, and that is just for one house. Also, there are very few empty homes that are ready for people to be gives keys that are empty, so you could be going all that hassle for a home that needs to be renovated before anybody can live there, increasing the cost, and time again.
One house as the common good won’t wash. As I said the for state compulsory orders are only useful for infrastructural projects i.e. the common good. Seizing somebody’s property because you feel they are under using it won’t work. Why not just take houses off people who don’t need all the bedrooms in their house?
good point Kal lpers, its like forcing somebody to rent out a room in their house.
Ah, so you know more than the Master of the High Court, do you?
“Speaking on Claire Byrne Live on RTÉ television, he said the Constitution allowed interference in property rights where social interests required action by the State. He said that as a lawyer he was frustrated by the commonly held view that property rights were untouchable and that “you can’t go there”
Where does it exactly say that in the constitution, and what exactly does the interference allow? My previous point is valid, as there is no clear definition as to what the “common good” actually is, and its up to an actual judge to decide that, not you, me, or the master of the high court, who is not a member of the judiciary, and is not a judge. Either way, is the government prepared to go to court, and spend all that money in legal costs to buy a few houses, when it would probably be cheaper to build in a green field site?
“He said legislation could be introduced so the properties could be bought back at the price paid and used as social housing.” I would like to hear his fully fleshed out idea on this, what would happen in instances where a house might have been bought in the 1960s, and is now worth multiples of the price paid? This solution may give the government tens of houses, when they need thousands.
Connoly> I don’t know if you are just dim or deluded. The article you posted has nothing to do with vacant properties. So not the same thing and not applicable. You were talking about compulsory purchase of individual properties. The article is not about that. You are grasping at straws to say your idiotic plan could work when it is very obvious it wouldn’t.
Telling me what I meant. Good lad.
I’ll post the relevant part again…
“he said the Constitution allowed interference in property rights where social interests required action by the State”
I don’t need to tell you what you meant I just go on what you said. You still have no point and are too dim to see the connection
It would take a lot more than decent broadband to attract me to those desolate ‘far flung places’.
Banks own many houses in my small village , all been empty for a number of years. Up for sale but with houses prices still low and the new mortgage rules. No one it seems able to buy them. So they are just sitting there.
same thing happened in my village. Houses selling for 220k during the boom, took months to sell for 60k two years ago.
It would be interesting to see what % of those vacant properties across the country are a result of repossession and voluntary surrender of keys (due to inability to pay as many lost their jobs during the recession). Also NAMA have a pretty substantial property portfolio.
you know we don’t do voluntary surrender in this country. Handing back the keys doesn’t stop you owing the money
Kal, that’s exactly what a neighbour of my mum’s did when the husband’s business failed 5 years ago, they surrendered the keys to the bank, the bank subsequently sold it for 75k which was 25k less than what was owed on the mortgage. They still owe the 25, but the repayments are still a hell of a lot less than a mortgage of 100grand.
In my village , which I won’t name , it being the internet and all. It’s in s Offaly and there has been a 8 bedroom house which was once a b&b years ago. A developer bought the property , done it up , built 2 apartments, a 1 bedroom and a 2 bed. Apartment to the rear of the property. He also built about 20 houses to back of said property. These houses sold for 160.000 during the boom and now a few are empty owned by banks can’t even sell for 70.000. the 8 bed house and 2 apartments were up for sale by the bank for 250.000. I kid you not. Still empty but no for sale sign so I assume it’s still for sale. No property rise down here.
Many are probably handed back to the Banks. Huge money borrowed to build them in better times – the bank hasn’t a chance of getting their money back on them. There’s nothing down the country – no employment, business’s closing – rural Ireland is in a very sorry state with no prospects for the young & it will remain that way for years to come.
Also lots of very greedy people in this country. Of the landed gentry spoilt type with more money than decency
Or people that have not sat on their holes as a lifestyle choice. Worked hard all their lives. Raised children and used their retirement fund to purchase a small home in the country to visit in the summer instead of going on foreign holidays to locations full of welfare raised gougers getting off their tits on taxpayer’s funds. Yeah….greedy and spoiled…..
Who said anything about people who are lazy? ….I’m talking about another type of person that I unfortunately come across in work who look down on other people . Not sure what you’re ranting about but you obviously have an axe to grind with the poor. What’s wrong? …you’re easy pension from the government not big enough?
Plenty of lazy people, plenty of hard workers and plenty of people who’ve had everything handed to them due to their situation and source of wealth. Nothing’s so black and white.
Is this the gov setting the scene to provide evidence to let themselves introduce a tax on empty houses?
The only solution these useless politicians have for everything is to raise taxes, this ain’t gonna solve the homeless crisis. Many of the homeless people went homeless because of all the taxes introduced by these politicians associated with living in a house, raising the cost of living up to unsustainable levels for many, but our clueless politicians don’t see this, as varadkar said, “sur it’s only an extra 3 euros per week”, well its 3 euros probably 20 times over with all the taxes.
This agency was setup in 2010 and are now only identifying vacanct properties. No surprise to anyone when goverment policy was to decentralise department that housing stock was built in now forgotton rural towns. False election promises that regeneration would happen and jobs would be moved to these areas. Anyone who invested got stung by politicians more interested in short term political gain then any long term sustainable developments. Most now have to commute to Dublin spending hours traveling missing out on family life. The housing agency was tasked with promoting sustainable communities, how many have being setup by this agency and how many are comming on line. If the answer is none then this agency is adding to the housing crisis not carrying out its mandate. Another quango reporting the obvious as if it was news.
I remember people flipped out when the vacancy rate was running at 16% in Dublin during the boom. It traditionally runs at 10%. People went.on about how it was intentional to force prices up. The reality is when it runs above the normal is when houses are being built and drops below the normal when there is little being built.
Another reason we got so many vacant property is emigration, I use to work with vacant property a lot of the owners had died without a will / alone with their families overseas, or it was due to fees/taxes and the unknown families would just leave to rot.
For such a small country we should not put every thing in Dublin it should be spread out , our roads have improve greatly in the pass years,
JustMadeIreland, everything isn’t in Dublin and the reason Ireland works so poorly is lack of scale. Even Dublin is too spread out compared to most efficient capital cities. Spreading things out even more leads to dispersed capital expenditure meaning you end up spreading your investment too thinly and achieving very little. Ireland already has one of the highest rate of unique addresses in the OECD and one of the largest road networks per head of population. All this leads to is poorly maintained roads and poor services.
All successful industrial countries concentrate investment in cities, towns and villages to encourage scale and quality services. Incidentally the policy you advocate has actually been de facto Govt policy for decades. It hasn’t worked. It never will work. It’s just a fudge. In modern societies wealth is largely generated in towns and cities. Then it is redistributed. Ireland barely has scale as it is. We don’t need less of it. We need more of it. It’s called good planning.
But wait….this Headline doesn’t fit the NAMA or Tom Parlon narrative!!?!??
Interesting it is mostly Gaelteacht areas that have huge investment in all things Irish. €4 Billion this year will be spent in these areas on Irish and it’s like flogging a dead horse. Better invest in other more productive stuff like Tourism, Organic farming, etc. At least it might stop unemployment and emigration.
The housing crisis is exacerbated by the greed of landlords. #1916 and all its proclamations were a joke in the light of what we do to ourselves.
The housing crisis is largely due to the need for the international finance system to keep the market artificially afloat- Keeping empty houses off the market in NAMA, all funded by the taxpayer As usual we are looking at the symptoms rather than the disease.
Rather than waiting for some entity, with more money than sense, to bring broadband to remote areas of the country via very expensive infrastructure, why can’t some private operator seek Government / EU support to roll out a low-cost satellite broadband solution.
Such solution has to be cheaper and faster to implement than digging up the highways and byways of rural Ireland to lay the necessary cables.
The next Ice Age will be upon us before any Government gets its act together and delivers broadband solutions to kick-start some economic activity in those dying remoter corners of our country.
Rory if it was that easy don’t you think someone would have done it? The main problem in Ireland is that we have a small and largely scattered population. We still have fewer people than we did in the 19th century. The Govt strategy to deliver high speed broadband will work I believe because it is using several different ways of achieving this in partnership with the private sector. The reason it has taken so long is due to cost (scattered nature of the Irish population) and poor technological solutions. Thankfully technical and economic solutions now appear to be available. Satellite broadband is not a panacea and has strict limitations.
Just because they are empty does not mean they are not owned by someone
Not as extreme as ‘maximise your investment’ putting people on the street…
have your say