Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I have a question for Mr. Corr and Dr. Duffy. I will begin with Mr. Corr. The whole purpose of SHD is to avoid delay, as Mr. Hyde told the committee. For a system aimed at avoiding delay, it seems there are many delays.

In September, The Sunday Business Postreported that planning permission had been granted on a little more than 16,000 new homes. The newspaper reported that in excess of 9,500 of these new homes remained unbuilt.

I listened carefully to Mr. Corr's introductory remarks. One thing he said stood out. He said that the members of the Irish Planning Institute were anxious to avoid a scenario where planning permission granted under the strategic housing development process would be used by developers or speculators to increase the value of land rather than the delivery of houses.

Mr. Corr has pointed to a danger. One does not point to a danger if the danger does not exist or if it is not a reality. I know this is a reality. I know there are developers submitting planning applications that are being fast-tracked. The permission is being granted. The value of the land increases and the land is sold on to make a quick buck. The people who are losing out on that are, generally speaking, middle-income working people who are looking for an affordable home but who cannot get their hands on one. That is unacceptable, disgraceful and a scandal.

I have my own opinion on this and I believe the scheme should be scrapped. Presumably, Mr. Corr believes this is happening and that it is a factor. Will he elaborate on how great a factor this is? How significant is winning planning permission and then flipping the land - selling it on - as opposed to building the houses? Does Mr. Corr reckon this accounts for a significant percentage or portion of those 9,500 houses that remained unbuilt when The Sunday Business Postreported on it in September?

My second question is for Dr. Duffy. The same report indicated that there had been a survey of sorts conducted jointly by two universities, University College Dublin and Queen's University Belfast, into the origins of the scheme and the level of influence that developers might have had in shaping it. One developer was quoted in the newspaper report. References to "him" were references to the then Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Coveney. He said, "We gave him our recommendations and they took it lock, stock and barrel and stuck it into the new housing bill." Effectively, what was being said was that the proposals from the developers were more or less 100% incorporated into the legislation that gave rise to this process. Will Dr. Duffy comment on the UCD and Queen's University Belfast report and the quote and give his opinion on how accurate or otherwise it might be?