Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We had two of the most senior housing managers in the country, from Dublin City Council and South Dublin County Council, at our first session. They told us that after the planning stage has passed, the tendering and procurement stage can take between a year and a half and two years. The shortened process that was made available for the rapid build project in Ballymun is currently available for rapid build projects only. While the Department is looking at the possibility of applying that process elsewhere, it has not been applied elsewhere up to now. They are the facts that have been presented to the committee.

I would like to ask some questions. According to the report, 1,647 units were originally offered to local authorities but were subsequently sold or leased onto the private market. I would be interested to know whether these units were part of the original pool of units that were rejected by local authorities. Alternatively, was the decision to put them into the private market a commercial decision of NAMA? Perhaps it was a mix of the two.

I am concerned that one of the problems for local authorities and approved housing bodies is that the more streamlined and standardised leasing model that has emerged is very cumbersome, particularly for approved housing bodies. To what extent is NAMA aware of that? To what extent are attempts being made to make it easier for approved housing bodies to function, particularly in the context of the NARPS vehicle? Such bodies frequently tell us that the model in question is tricky and cumbersome and delays their ability to bring more social housing units on line.

I would be interested in getting more detail on how things have been going with the special purpose vehicle, particularly since it was given an additional role by the former Minister, Deputy Kelly, under the 2020 social housing strategy. I know there have been more than 100 meetings of the working group over the last while. If the witnesses could give the committee more information on what it is doing and what they hope its output will be, that would be useful.

Mr. Daly referred to the delivery by the National Asset Management Agency of 20,000 private sector units. It is my understanding - perhaps Mr. Daly will correct me if I am wrong - that the new Part V requirements will apply to these units in the same way as they will apply to any other commercial housing development. Given the scale of the housing crisis and the point I made about securing a social dividend, would it not be appropriate to increase the Part V element of the 20,000 new units? Has the National Asset Management Agency discussed the possibility of increasing it to 20% or 25%, as I believe would be appropriate?

We also discussed the issue of land. I am aware that, as in the case of the housing units, NAMA does not own land but holds the debts relating to it. However, in the Fingal area - I am sure Deputy Coppinger will know more about this issue than I - one of the problems facing the local authority is the absence of publicly owned land. As part of the social dividend set out in section 2 of the NAMA Act, could the agency transfer land owned by its debtors to the State, either at no cost or a low cost, for the provision of social housing?

Mr. Daly spoke about special development zones, SDZs, and their benefits. The Clonburris SDZ is the last major parcel of development land in the South Dublin County Council area. The majority of these lands, perhaps two thirds of them, are privately owned. I assume the owners of at least a chunk of this land are debtors of NAMA and have a relationship with the agency. Could innovative ideas that have not yet been discussed in the public domain be brought to bear to maximise the delivery of social units in this SDZ?

The programme for Government refers to the investment of a future NAMA surplus in infrastructure and social housing. One innovative idea would be for NAMA not to return this surplus to the Exchequer on the basis that the latter may have obligations under the European Union's fiscal rules. Portions of this surplus could then be transferred in other assets, either land or housing. Is this possibility being considered and would it be permitted under the Act? This could be another useful way of achieving progress.

I would like to see the research on which figures on housing construction costs are based. Will Mr. Daly indicate the data on which the figures he presented are based? Are they based on an assessment of a certain number of units across a certain period in a certain number of counties? Every witness who has appeared before the committee gives a different account in respect of this issue. If NAMA has more detailed research on the matter, I and other members would like to see it and the data on which it is based. I ask Mr. Daly to provide it to us.

On the infrastructural deficits and the proposal to spend €164 million on infrastructure development, what are these infrastructural deficits and how do they differ from the services for which developers ordinarily pay development levies to local authorities and any other levies they pay, for example, to the ESB and Irish Water?

While I may be taking liberties in raising the SPV model, Mr. Daly noted that Mr. Whelan has expertise in this area. Many of us, including the new Government in its programme for Government, are discussing the possibility of using arm's-length companies or municipal housing trusts as another vehicle for having off-balance sheet spending, in this case on social housing. Could the model to which Mr. Daly referred be applicable to municipal housing trusts or arm's-length companies which would be operated by local authorities for the purpose of increasing direct social housing provision through off-balance sheet activities? It is currently applied to private sector interests such as insurance companies and credit unions, whose involvement in this area I would also welcome.