Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

These are important amendments. When the Minister was in opposition, he talked a lot about use-it-or-lose-it measures. It was one of his big catchphrases or slogans. However, we do not see strong use-it-or-lose-it measures in this Bill. We might get a response to that.

If the planning permissions that were granted were all built in a timely manner, our housing situation would be completely different. It would be transformed. It is not all down to land speculation and land hoarding, but it is one element, as was identified by the report Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned by the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. I can think of a number of strategically located sites in my constituency that I have seen be granted multiple planning permissions and change hands multiple times over 15 or 20 years. The value went up but we were left without much-needed housing 15 or 20 years later. I have seen it happen and it has a societal and economic cost and a cost for people who are trying to access housing. It also has a cost on the planning system in the volume of resources and time taken up and the congestion it causes for planning authorities, including An Bord Pleanála.

It was interesting to hear Deputy Boyd Barrett speak about one of these sites in his constituency and finding out it is registered to an offshore tax haven because, lo and behold, in my constituency there is a strategic site that has had planning permission for many years and it is registered to an owner based in an offshore tax haven. It is one of these patterns, especially for these speculative developments. The local community would love to see the development built and has been asking for that for years. They ask who owns it and all I can say is that planning permissions have been granted but it is registered to some unknown entity on some islands halfway around the world and we do not know what the story is with it and whether the owners intend to ever do anything. We know they have planning permission and increased the notional value of the land and so forth.

To be clear, the current situation is that planning permission is valid for five years and an extension for another five years is available. Previous measures allowed a further extension of five years, but they are gone, are they not? Currently, for any development, the maximum time planning permission can be valid is five years, plus an extension of five years, so ten years in total. Under this Bill - the Minister may correct me if I am wrong - the maximum duration proposed is ten years with a further extension, if the amendment being discussed passes, for another ten years. Rather than going from use-it-or-lose-it measures, we are going from a maximum ceiling of ten years to 20 years under the Minister's proposals. It is the opposite of use-it-or-lose-it measures. It is as though he is telling people not to use it and that they will not lose it as he is giving them an additional ten years in an extension. Will he give the rationale for that? When we are in a situation where we need more housing and we need many of these projects that have planning permission to be built, why is the extra potential ten years of delay and land speculation being facilitated under this Bill?