There was uproar in the Dáil yesterday over time allocated to debate legislation which removes the 20 per cent social housing requirement for builders.

The Labour leader, Mr Pat Rabbitte, claimed that one Co Wicklow builder stood to gain €13 million from the measure while the party's environment spokesman, Mr Eamon Gilmore, described the Government as the "downtown office of the Construction Industry Federation" and said it was a "farce" to have so little time for debate.

Fine Gael's environment spokesman, Mr Bernard Allen, accused the Government of "jackbooting the legislation through in a fascist manner", with just 20 minutes left to discuss amendments. However, the Minister for the Environment, Mr Cullen, accused the opposition of "political grandstanding". One-and-a-half hours had been allocated for the final stages of the legislation, but by forcing votes throughout the day the Opposition had cut the time to 20 minutes, he said.

The measure, the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, was passed by 75 votes to 60.

In the end that 20 minutes was taken up with persistent heckling and interventions by the Opposition and there was no time left. The Labour whip, Mr Emmet Stagg, then insisted that the vote be taken manually, whereby TDs had to pass through the Dáil lobbies rather than vote electronically.

The row followed a testy debate on a Labour motion condemning the Government for abolishing the first-time home-buyers' grant while adding 1 per cent to VAT, capping rental income for social welfare recipients, and removing that social housing provision which requires builders to set aside 20 per cent of homes they build for social and affordable housing.

Earlier, the Taoiseach said that "some of the Opposition seem to think that the social and affordable housing provided" under the Planning and Development Act 2000 "comes free to local authorities, which is news to us on this side of the House".

Under the original legislation "local authorities had to pay the full market value, including site costs, for these houses because the land was generally acquired before the 2000 Act was published", he pointed out. "Under the new Bill, local authorities will receive a levy to help them provide housing, a stream of income they did not previously have." He also said that 80,000 planning applications would have "withered" if the Bill had not been passed, and if that happened those houses might never have been built.

Fine Gael leader Mr Enda Kenny said there was a degree of certainty, if "unworkability", about the original Bill. However, under the new legislation the local authorities "will be negotiating with developers, either for compensation or for land, and there will be different outcomes in different cases".

Mr Rabbitte said the information about the Wicklow builder gaining €13 million was in an e-mail that a member of the Government side had received . It was an "absolute disgrace", he said, to which Mr Cullen replied, "Is it a disgrace because he is going to build houses?"

Mr Ciarán Cuffe (Green, Dún Laoghaire) intervened to ask why one of his party's amendments, calling the legislation the Planning and Sellout Legislation, was not allowed.

During the Labour motion debate, Mr Pat Carey (FF, Dublin North-West), said the housing situation was far from perfect but "everyone who has dealt with it has made an honest attempt to prioritise the increase in housing supply".

Mr Sean Power (FF, Kildare North) said that the idea of the 20 per cent social housing provision was good "but in the form in which it was introduced it was seen as too rigid and needing change".

Ms Marian Harkin (Ind, Sligo-Leitrim) said that the State's top 117 earners had an effective tax rate of less than 10 per cent and that the main incentives included property-based capital allowances. The relief was capped for "ordinary home-owners, people who live in their houses. But investors with money to spare and to spend have full tax relief."

Mr Finian McGrath (Ind, Dublin North-Central) descried the capping of rental allowance as an act of "social and human vandalism". He asked "why not fund social housing programmes through increased taxes? Why not introduce a levy on building land to capture the windfall profits of landowners and developers? These are tough decisions but they would make a serious dent in the 48,000 local authority housing waiting list."