Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe. As I listened carefully to the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, I was reminded of how I had applied for planning permission in 1964 - none of the Members present was around at the time - to build a supermarket in Finglas. We were refused permission because, according to the planners, we had not allocated sufficient car parking spaces. The local Deputy complained in the Lower House and asked what sort of idiots were involved in the planning system, seeing as how they were looking for car parking spaces in Finglas and not what were really needed, namely, pram parking spaces. It shows how things can change, as the planners were right and we were wrong. We reapplied after we had provided for sufficient car parking spaces which we needed badly within ten years.

The obvious criticism of the report is that it only refers to post-April 2007 housing estates where there is a vacancy rate above 10%. Given this, we do not have a full and clear picture of the situation. The Minister of State may argue that certain buildings do not come within the scope of the report and perhaps the report gives the impression that there are fewer vacant homes than is actually the case. Why has it not been made available on-line and will the Minister of State do so? I could not find it on-line.

I understand an expert group is being established by the Government to advise on how best to deal with the problem of ghost estates, on which Senator Buttimer commented. Would it not make more sense to leave it to town councils which are aware of the extent of the problem first hand? This would save money being spent on employing so-called experts. I sometimes have a problem with involving experts when there is already the ability to do something. Senator Buttimer touched on this matter coherently.

The expert advisory group on unfinished housing developments to be established includes a wide variety of relevant representatives. A cynic might say the group includes many of those who played some part in fuelling the overheated property market. Would it make sense to include persons with real business experience or even an economist to examine the problem from a different perspective? I am unsure of the exact objective behind choosing the team.

Could the Seanad be utilised in some way in a debate on the best way to use the vacant properties? This is one such debate. We must allocate some properties to be used as social housing units, but what about other ideas in the context of NAMA? Could apartment blocks be adapted to be used as low-security prisons? Based on the Scandinavian model, this would deal with the problem of overcrowded prisons. Could NAMA buildings be used as outpatient or storage facilities to free accommodation in overcrowded hospitals? There must be other uses to which they could be put, instead of leaving them vacant.

We must decide on whether knocking down developments would make sense. Would it benefit certain parties such as builders? Knocking them would mean house prices would rise and benefit those contractors involved in the demolition business. Would this stimulate the economy in some way or would it be madness to destroy wealth in the form of assets? We have discussed this question today and on a number of other occasions.

We must consider the fact that the ESRI has predicted that the population will increase by 500,000 by 2021. It is believed this will equate to a need for 185,000 additional homes. I hope there will be growth in demand in those 11 years. It also gives us the opportunity to consider the way in which houses were built during the boom. I dare not use the term "thrown up", although it would be more accurate. Many were not built with professional architectural expertise, are too small and need to be rebuilt because they do not conform to standards. This is not to mention the need to improve environmental and sustainability standards, as the Minister of State knows. Sustainability and environmental standards were not adhered to in recent years.

One of the problems always in the background is that of dispersal in rural areas, which results in increased costs in many areas, for example, postal service, energy and transportation costs, etc. I visited France last month. In some towns and villages the post is no longer delivered to one's door. Instead post boxes are located at the front of estates and so on. This idea must apply in so many other ways such that the concept of bungalow blight does not make sense. Should we be looking at refusing permission for one-off houses in rural areas if they are not sustainable? I accept this suggestion is not acceptable and that the decision would be a difficult one. If a farmer wants to build a house or his or her child wants to build a house on the farm, it is difficult to understand why an objection from someone living 20, 30, 40 or 100 kms away would be lodged, but there is a logical reason. There are no easy answers to these questions, but I look forward to getting a clear view in respect of so-called ghost estates in the coming months and brainstorming on how we can best address the associated problems.

This debate has been useful and the Seanad is a suitable place in which to hold such a debate. Let us be sure that we use the opportunity to take us further along the road towards a solution to the problem.