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

Let us be clear. Where a manager uses this process, Part 8 will be suspended. Nobody on this side of the House has suggested the Minister is suspending Part 8 in all circumstances. My understanding of Deputy Nash’s point was clear. Where a manager opts to use this provision, Part 8 will be suspended and the 20-week process dispensed with. Just so the Minister is clear, that is our understanding of what is on the table.

Timber frame housing is not a modern method of construction. This is a notion that really bugs me. Timber frame construction has been around for 50 years. In fact, in my constituency, there are social homes that were built 25 years ago from timber frame. It is a very old method of construction. Our problem is that our construction sector is so behind the times that it thinks materials such as steel and timber frame are modern methods, whereas they are not. Even in the case of steel frame and concrete slab, I heard one senior developer recently describe that as a modern method of construction, but it has been around since the 1940s. When we talk about new building technologies, we are talking about almost 100% off-site, factory-constructed, predominantly timber, zero-carbon building technologies. That is where we need to go, not just for these cases but for others as well.

Deputy O'Callaghan makes an important point. We know about the enormous difficulties the Department of Education has with Western Building Systems. They are a matter of public record but they are before the courts, so I will not comment on them. One point I would strongly urge the Minister to take from Deputy O'Callaghan's comments is that in respect of that additional support the Minister is going to provide to local authorities, he should put the national building control office, NBCO, at the very centre of that. When, for example, Dublin City Council, which has one of the best building control sections of which I am aware, learns of a building development with a newer building technology, it will spend twice as long independently inspecting it, on top of the building control amendment regulations, BCAR, inspections, to ensure both the council and the people using the technology understand it. We cannot have a repeat of Milford Manor or of the kinds of problems faced by the Department of Education. Consulting the NBCO in that regard is a useful suggestion the Minister should take up.

I also say the following in a constructive sense. One of the concerns on this side of the House relates to when the Minister and a former colleague of his, the then Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Eoghan Murphy, celebrated the introduction of the raised income threshold for the one-stage approval process. We were told it would accelerate dramatically the delivery of social homes. In fact, it has been hardly taken up at all. Most local authorities do not use it and the number of units it has delivered is minimal. We do not want to consent to something that is very controversial if it has only the kind of yield as that raised threshold for the one-stage process. In that regard, I urge the Minister please to ensure the managers engage with their elected members as early as possible. In real terms, we are not talking about a consultation with members but rather about members getting a presentation and, perhaps, having a bit of a verbal exchange. There is not a formal consultation process with submissions and so on. Likewise, notice of the public is fine, but there is no consultation, so the earlier the notice, especially to elected members, the better. Moreover, I am particularly keen that, on the grounds we are not opposing this measure, controversial and complicated as it is, there will be regular reports to our committee. I accept the Minister cannot give us a list this side of Christmas, for example, but it would be reasonable that, every quarter, our committee would get an updated report on the progress, the lands and what is being done.

To be clear, my question did not relate to what will happen if a manager comes to the Minister in the middle of 2024. Rather, it concerned what will happen if a manager comes to him in the latter stages of 2023 with this, because we know what will happen post planning permission, 12 to 18 months before commencement. Therefore, I wonder how he or the Department is going to give consent for the manager to proceed with this procedure without any certainty as to when commencement can happen. This is just about assuring us that what the Minister says he is going to do, namely, potentially add 500 or 1,000 social and affordable homes to the existing pipeline, essentially within a year given the planning permissions will have to go through next year, is what will happen.

As for the non-council lands of, for example, Teagasc, I see the provision in the legislation for lands of other State agencies but I do not see how the council is going to get access to that land because it belongs to another State agency and sits as an asset on its balance sheet. The only set of circumstances would be if the local authority asked it whether it could build on its land and it was willing to transfer it, but is the Minister offering additional money for councils to purchase that land, for example, or will it have to be transferred for free? It is a genuine question because some of us were also surprised at non-council land being included. How does he envisage that operating?

See this speech in context