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.
SOME OF THOSE who called on President Michael D Higgins to refer the Water Services Bill to the Council of State have criticised his decision to rubber-stamp the legislation.
A statement issued from Áras an Uachtaráin yesterday said that Higgins had signed the Bill into law after giving “careful consideration to all aspects” of it and the submissions he had received.
On Christmas Eve, 49 TDs and senators wrote to Higgins asking him to refer the controversial Bill to the Council of State and the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.
Independent TD Mattie McGrath today labelled Higgins’s decision as “a wasted opportunity for scrutiny”.
To my mind the President has lost a valuable opportunity to show the Irish people that those in the highest positions of power would not impose these charges without every avenue for legislative scrutiny being exhausted first. This Water Services Bill is bad law. It does not have the consent of the people and is mired in political difficulty.
McGrath added that members of the Seanad who “enabled the Government to pass this legislation through the Oireachtas also facilitated this lost opportunity”.
Sinn Féin Senator David Cullinane said the Government is “not listening” to people’s concerns about water charges and “don’t understand quite how serious this situation is”.
Articles 26 and 27
There had been suggestions that those opposed to the Bill would request the President put the issue to a referendum under Article 27 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, but this would not be possible as the Bill has already been passed through both the Dáil and Seanad.
Sinn Féin sent a letter to Higgins asking him to utilise Article 26 which allows the President – after consulting with his Council of State – to refer a bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.
Yesterday’s statement highlighted how Higgins’s hands were essentially tied in relation to Article 27, which applies to “any Bill … which shall have been deemed, by virtue of Article 23 hereof, to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas” – as is the case with the water charge legislation.
The President did have an opportunity, under Article 26, to consult the Council of State on whether or not the Bill should be put to the Supreme Court to decide if it is “repugnant to the Constitution”. However, he did not deem this necessary.
Yesterday’s statement added:
Article 27 of Bunreacht na hÉireann applies only where Bills have been deemed by virtue of Article 23 of Bunreacht na hÉireann to have been passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Article 27 of Bunreacht na hÉireann therefore did not apply in this case. The President gave consideration to the Bill, taking into account Bunreacht na hÉireann including Article 26 and the submissions received.
Higgins’s decision was criticised on social media and led to a protest outside Áras an Uacharáin yesterday afternoon.
Clarification: An earlier version of this article stated that President Higgins had an opportunity to put the Water Services Bill to a Referendum. This was incorrect: he had the opportunity to consult the Council of State on whether or not the Bill should be put to the Supreme Court to decide if it is ”repugnant to the Constitution”.
Dublin City Council needs to aggressively go after single tenants in mutli-bedroom houses. People given houses for their family 30 years ago – the kids have long moved out, but the parent is still hogging a 3 or 4 bed house. I’m sure DCC could make a huge impact to the “housing crisis” by making better use if their stock.
@Mick paisley: I have to agree to some point with you. Although you have every right to live in any house you want I work with the elderly and it’s a bit mad when you go to collect a 84 year old woman living in a 4 bed in the suberbs next to a young family. I for one would much rather be living in a smaller home at that age.
@Mick paisley: why not build more houses and vastly improve commuter public transport instead of making rich old ones homeless?
@Noj Nikrub: the comment from Mick is about socials who got their houses many years ago and now are single occupying it.
@Mick paisley: the UK actually seen this was an issue and did something.
Look up the ‘bedroom tax’ UK.
@Mick paisley: It isn’t easy to up sticks and move to another part of the city when you’ve spent most of your life in a certain area.
Usual song and dance sinn fein approach to something we already know so it looks like their actually doing something about housing. Strip it back and they have zero productive alternative to the problem. These little soundbites are great for hiding that fact though
@Alan: their solution is probably to tax Ireland’s elite on 35,000 a year plus , even further! The same elite on those kind of figures , that are sharing rooms in kip house shares !
Private property is just that-private. So it’s up to the owners to do what they see fit, such as leave empty, let go derilict or rent out to make the best return, currently Airbnb. Dcc failed to allow adequate housing be built over the last year’s then they take it out on property owners with the introduction of rent pressure zones. Why do local authorities block the division of two storey houses into 2 separate units ? It’s because planners with their heads up their culos believe they know best and Dictate to the rest of us, that needs to change.
@Bren Guiden: eh no Bren, property rights are not absolute and do not trump the common good. Its in the Constitution, feel free to go to the Supreme Court if you think otherwise
@Bren Guiden: So scrap the concept of planning permission?
@Bren Guiden: Yes there are property rights and people can do what they want within those rules, but the government can change that “free” market with tax and legislation. So what you’ve said is incorrect.
You invest in rental property you accept the investment risks including new legislation that may have a negative impact on your property.
In this case with so much new room stock coming through in the hotel market it’s in the greater interest to re-purpose this space to actual tenants
@Vin: The problem is that changes that appear to be in the general interest (of individual tenants) actually dissuade property investors from entering or remaining in the property market and over time this results in a lack of supply and increased rents and is to the detriment of tenants generally.
SF led DCC for 5 years and let all this fester
More nonsense from SF. Air bnbs are normally city center apartments that would be unsuitable/too expensive for most people.
Stop property owners from sitting on land/buildings in city center and aiming to make a gain in 10 years on dormant sites. Property tax should be based on the value of the land, not what sits on it. Landlords should receive tax breaks for fixing buildings but punished hugely for space on their land that is left derelict.
When planning permission is granted authorities should be insisting the purpose of the building. i.e rental/owner occupied.
Initiatives like this would do much to address the supply issue.
@Wreck Tangle: Apartments are housing. Housing should be used to house people, especially in times of chronic shortages. The fact that housing in our cities is “too expensive” is because of the shortage of property to rent or buy. Using apartments and houses as short term let’s for tourists exacerbates this issue. More supply = more choice= more affordable. Tourists should be in hotels or hostels , not homes.
@An bhearna:
Personally I disagree with air bnb but my point is that this is bluster and not a major source of the problems in Dublin and Ireland in general.
As you point out, this is an exacerbating factor. Removing air bnb is a good move but it is not address the property crisis. The properties will be rented to middle/high income earners and any impact would be short lived.
@Wreck Tangle: do you know how supply and demand works
Ah, good old dcc! They won’t even given Ronan an extra two floors into the stump he’s building for sales force in the docklands! These absolute hypocrites are right up there at the top, when it comes to the blame for the housing crisis! Denying tens of thousands housing in central areas , to appease existing constituents. Surprised the haven’t adopted a “ to hell or Connaught “ mantra yet, they couldn’t care less about those desperate for housing or being robbed blind to pay for it! They are the biggest culprits in limiting supply!
@Shane Murphy: You’re supporting Ronan in trying to get extra floors to build multi million euro apartments in a vanity project. There wouldn’t be one single affordable or social dwelling in it. The application has no merit and is nothing more than a greedy attempt at overturning a well thought out and correct decision by using media campaigns to convince mugs like you that it’s done kind of panacea to the housing issue.
Try finding the form 15 under the new legislation! And with only 3 days to go before the legislation the form was for not even on Dublin City Council’s website. So now just simply key in “New Short Term Letting Regulations, Planning and Development (amendment) Regulations 2019″
@Pat Redmond: shambles
Try finding the form 15 under the new legislation! And with only 3 days to go before the legislation the form was for not even on Dublin City Council’s website. So now just simply key in “New Short Term Letting Regulations, Planning and Development (amendment) Regulations 2019″
@Pat Redmond: that’s not good
Try finding the form 15 under the new legislation! And with only 3 days to go before the legislation the form was for not even on Dublin City Council’s website. So now just simply key in “New Short Term Letting Regulations, Planning and Development (amendment) Regulations 2019″
@Pat Redmond: that’s what Pat was saying earlier
Law is only in papers and big companies are still letting apt and houses as short let. Why city council didn’t check online there are so many companies still doing short let in Dublin.
Is this register available to the public? Is there a mechanism for people to report properties?
@David Guiney: yes please go to http://www.mynameisDaveandImabigsnitch.com
Try finding the form 15 under the new legislation! And with only 3 days to go before the legislation the form was for not even on Dublin City Council’s website. So now just simply key in “New Short Term Letting Regulations, Planning and Development (amendment) Regulations 2019″
@Pat Redmond: I’m sorry could you repeat that please?
Try finding the form 15 under the new legislation! And with only 3 days to go before the legislation the form was for not even on Dublin City Council’s website. So now just simply key in “New Short Term Letting Regulations, Planning and Development (amendment) Regulations 2019″
@Pat Redmond: are you sure now you looked hard enough?
Try finding the form 15 under the new legislation! And with only 3 days to go before the legislation the form was for not even on Dublin City Council’s website. So now just simply key in “New Short Term Letting Regulations, Planning and Development (amendment) Regulations 2019″
@Pat Redmond: Thanks that’s what I thought you said alright
have your say