Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will not speak to the Bill as I prefer to take this opportunity to flag several issues in regard to planning generally. The Minister has intimated there are further amendments to come, which will give us a chance to revisit the provisions.

There is an obvious need for affordable housing, whether by way of private sector delivery or State-supported schemes. With the cost trajectory and affordability index rising all the while, State spending is more and more required to supplement runaway costs. Does the Minister have any plans whatsoever to look at the tax take on new housing in the State in terms of VAT, stamp duty and development fees? The latest figure I saw showed it is somewhere close to 40% on a new house build. One of the main blocks that is occurring in the construction process at this time, particularly for housing development, arises from the role of what are, in essence, two State quangos, namely, Irish Water and the ESB. I have spoken to a number of developers who pointed to those bodies as creating significant problems when it comes to getting schemes finished and certificates issued and being able to pass properties on to the end user. I ask the Minister to look at that.

Why will the Planning Regulator, having given a series of recommendations to deliver high-density housing in both urban and rural settings, not make himself available to local authority members to discuss their drawing up of development plans? The regulations were given but we do not really know whether they have a statutory footing or are just recommendations. It surely is incumbent on the regulator to make himself available to local authority members to ensure they are fully guided on what he is trying to deliver and what is required in terms of sustainable strategic planning at local authority level.

The judicial review process, which has been referenced by other speakers, is farcical. Many of the reviews relate to strategic housing developments. Out of 34 judicial processes taken to date, the Government has lost 30, conceded one and three have not yet been heard. There is a plethora of cases coming behind the ones that are already in train. The legal cost to the State in respect of judicial reviews is horrendous, yet the Department continues to fight these cases, even though, based on the present trajectory, it has an almost 100% chance of failing. How much longer will the Minister continue to put that cost onto the State when the judicial reviews are showing significant problems with the planning process?

The quango that is Irish Water is almost dysfunctional in its failure to integrate with new planning schemes. In Waterford, it has asked developers for €30,000 per house for a connection to wastewater and €5,000 for a connection to water. I am sure the Minister of State is aware that the south-east region is probably the most disadvantaged in the country at this stage. Where are buyers supposed to find €35,000 just to connect to water? The ESB is the other State quango that is throttling investment development and adding significant costs to the building of private and public houses. The delays in connections and in the issuing of certificates are imposing increased costs on many developers in terms of accessing tranche funding before they can pass properties over to the buyer. I ask the Minister and the Department to start looking at this in a serious way.

We have a crippling lack of rental accommodation across the country, which is increasing the risk of homelessness for many people. The Government must prioritise the delivery of cost rental housing and not just in large cities. It needs to be done in rural areas also. Likewise, affordable purchase schemes must be made available in coastal towns, including Dunmore East and Tramore in my area, where property prices are being driven way beyond the means of young people to get on the property ladder. This is not acceptable and it is eradicating community into the future.

I see no clear strategy to expedite the renovation of vacant housing. We in the Regional Group brought a motion to the House setting out an interim accommodation measure in this regard. In Waterford, the local authority has been very successful in rolling out a repair and lease programme that offers property owners the opportunity to access build finance, with the authority then renting the renovated property for a period of 20 years or so. I understand Waterford accounted for nearly 55% of the total houses delivered under this scheme in the past year. Why is it not being delivered in our large urban centres, where it could add significantly to the capacity of housing stock?

Public sector procurement contracts need to be looked at and modified. The fixed-costs model with a 180-day price guarantee is no longer suitable to the dynamic market trends. That is why tenders are coming back unanswered. What is the Government doing? It is putting those tenders back to the market again as if something has radically changed, when, in fact, the same restrictions apply. This is A, B, C stuff. Why can something not be done about it?

The amount of oversight, regulation and bureaucracy involved in delivering public sector contract builds is retarding output and driving up finished-cost prices. Even for development on public lands, the time taken to expedite the build and receive settlement payment is too long and the price is too costly. In my area, I have seen private sector housing delivered in half the time public sector builds take. Hard-pressed taxpayers and the State are paying for these delays. Ultimately, it is falling back on the Exchequer to support cost prices by way of first-time incentives and so on.

Several parties in this House are talking about a constitutional change to give a right to housing. If such a proposal is brought forward, it will be meaningless without the ability of the State to deliver it. The Government continues to adopt the position of a detached onlooker to the issues around costs, many of which it is driving, and appears to have no appetite to remodel the system. That is a significant flaw in Government policy. The recent report outlining the significant fall in house ownership among 25- to 35-year-olds is a significant clarion call for our future economy and the welfare of those who are welded to rental opportunity only. This is the most productive demographic sector and it now faces significant disadvantage arising from the rampant cost escalation in the general construction sector and the failure of the State to regulate that cost base in any significant way or remove some of the burdens that are being placed on hard-pressed families. We should be trying to ameliorate those pressures as soon as possible.

As I said, we will get another chance to consider the Bill that is before us today. I have far more pressing concerns in terms of the development of policy around housing and planning. I have outlined areas in which the Government could, if it wished, take significant actions to help people trying to get onto the property ladder, including those who are welded into rental accommodation and will be for the rest of their lives. They could have an opportunity to buy a house if the Minister would give serious consideration to those issues. I wait to see what actions he will take.

See this speech in context