Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)

I enjoyed the debate which I found to be one of the most illuminating of those to which I have been party in the Seanad in recent months. The contributions of Senators Buttimer, Hannigan, Dearey and Quinn really added to the level of discussion we have had on this subject. I was not able to be present for the entire debate but my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, was in the Chamber. I caught some of Senator Doherty's contribution on the monitors and was struck by what may have been an over-emphasis on home ownership. We must be very careful not to over-stress home ownership. I have always held the view people should have a menu of options as to the kind of tenure they have and the type of dwelling they live in. For far too long we almost dictated that one must own a home, offering a menu of three choices: a one-off house, a semi-detached house or a small apartment. We have not given people enough choices. Much of what my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has tried to do in the past three years has been to give more choices to people as to the kind of tenure they have of their home and the kind of design it has. The focus on higher density, which has had many critics, has led to a focus on quality of design in new developments and a focus on terraced housing. There has been a greater understanding of the challenge posed by low-density housing which generally gives rise to a great increase in car commuting and traffic. We witnessed that at the peak of the tiger years where, because of our low-density suburbs, one found oneself stuck in a car all the time. We do not want to return to that but must give people more choices.

I am also conscious that for the best part of 20 years, property ownership was the gift that kept on giving. It was a sure bet, an Albanian pyramid scheme. One put money in and took money out. Suddenly, three years ago the whole thing fell apart. It was very difficult for those of us who questioned the wisdom of the pyramid scheme at the time. Some of us did so in terms of the policies we were putting forward and the concerns we had, but it was difficult to get attention in the media, the Oireachtas or the council chamber on such issues.

One thing we have now, however, is some clear figures. In the past there was much confusion, a lack of clarity and many headlines. The great thing about this survey is that the staff of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government visited every one of the 2,800 developments. I take Senator Quinn's point about criteria: how a definition was made of what constituted an unfinished development and why we drew a line in 2006-2007. In fairness to the officials involved with whom I had this discussion, they took a good definition that gives real clarity on the vast bulk of the problem. I am satisfied with the methodology they used and am satisfied to stand over the figures that came out. If one considers the 2 million residential units in Ireland, there is in any event a fairly high vacancy rate. Clearly, there is high vacancy in holiday homes for the vast bulk of the year and a high vacancy rate in many of the single units which were developed over the years. If one goes to a place such as Ventry in County Kerry, one will find more than 50% vacancy in that village. We should be careful not to confuse a second or family holiday home that may be 50 years old with the very real, stark challenge presented by unfinished developments in the past three or four years.

Every estate was visited by our officials and there is a very robust survey in place at this stage. Some 180,000 dwellings were granted planning permission under our methodology, of which only 120,000 started construction. Of those, 77,000 were completed and are occupied. That leaves 33,000 homes which are complete and weathertight but vacant, or almost complete with perhaps a final fix of wiring required. That 33,000 is the total number of the real surplus of houses. It is a large number; let us be clear on that. Another 10,000 units have started construction. These could be anything from a hole in the ground to gable walls or a half-finished roof. Adding 33,000 and 10,000 gives 43,000, which captures the real numbers involved in all of this. I do not wish to belittle the seriousness of the problem but this factual count of vacant new houses and apartments can help to calm some of the concerns about how and when these problems will be dealt with. It gives us a clear framework towards resolving the matter.

At the height of the boom we were building up to 90,000 new homes per year. That figure has come right down and approximately 25,000 new homes were built last year. The figure is probably somewhat lower this year. If one compares that number with the 43,000 units, at peak it was only six months' supply. At this very low level of construction the number is still less than two years' supply, which puts it in context. That is no consolation if one is living in the middle of an unfinished development but it gives clarity to the scale of the problem.

The housing units which are close to major towns and cities will be occupied sooner than other developments. Only last week, in Booterstown in Dún Laoghaire, empty apartments were snapped up at bargain prices, albeit at a massive discount. The units furthest away from where new jobs will be located will be more difficult to sell. The blanket use of tax designations in entire counties was very flawed. I said it at the time and I say it now. It was naive at best to assume property-based tax incentives could lift all boats in economically depressed areas. I wish to put that very firmly on the record.

The publication of this survey is just the beginning of the process. Using this hard evidence we are marshalling the key stakeholders. These are central and local government, the banking and construction sectors, NAMA and members of the professional communities, such as planning, engineering and architecture, who will provide advice and agree on how we may best address these issues, collaboratively and quickly. The Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, and I have established a high level expert group with stakeholder representatives on unfinished housing developments. They will advise us on practical and policy solutions to ensure satisfactory completion or resolution of unfinished housing developments. We will get a report from them soon. It is not a talking shop but is focused on outcomes and actions. We are expediting the formation of that expert group and the first meeting will take place in a matter of weeks.

We have a draft of a best practice guidance manual for managing and resolving the unfinished housing developments but, in fairness to the new group we are setting up, we do not wish to give it the solutions upon which it can deliver. It is very important these experts do what they will with that draft. I heard people suggest that other groups, bodies or professions should be represented. Someone mentioned economists and another spoke of people with a legal background. I am happy to take those views on board and we will see what we can do. The Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, the officials and I have tried to put together a list of the key stakeholders who should complete and sign off on a manual but if that needs to change, so be it.

The focus is on action taking place quickly. The best practice manual will outline guidance on a range of statutory powers local authorities have to resolve urgent matters, for example, public safety, environmental protection, building control and making best use of bonds and securities to cover the costs associated with completion of the unfinished housing developments. The draft manual will also stimulate a discussion that will influence the finalisation of the document into a comprehensive code of practice for developers, financial institutions and local authorities in managing and resolving unfinished housing developments. There is also a focus on site resolution plans in each of the uncompleted developments. This is not to ask what can be done only for us to throw our hands up and run around like headless chickens. It is about coming up with direct and solid advice on what action must be taken immediately on, for example, the health and safety issues in units which are open to the four winds. That must be done first. Indeed they have more powers under the Planning Act 2010 and can take much more action under that legislation. This work will give us the evidence and use it in the most effective manner towards putting solutions in place, in particular for those residents faced with the immediate problems caused by unfinished developments. Thereafter, it is a matter of rebuilding confidence in the wider housing market.

There are all sorts of ideas on offer and more will come in. I have certainly had correspondence as regards what these units might be used for. There is a silver lining amid some of the black cloud. If Enterprise Ireland or the IDA could tell an employer, for instance, that they had 4,500 housing units, with they keys ready to be turned in them, if he or she wished to provide employment in a particular county, would be enormously valuable if it could take place here and now. We are making this information available to the IDA.

The same is true in education. If a third level institution can be told there are 723 units within four miles of its campus if it is interested in developing housing accommodation, what a boon that would be. In almost any of the 15 Departments there are possible bonuses in being able to say there is something that can be done with this. I do not wish to overstate the situation, but at least some of the discussion taking place is pointing towards the fact these housing units are a resource. At a time when we have housing lists, we also have surplus housing units.

We must be careful, however, that we do not just bang these together. Particularly when it comes to housing lists there is a very vulnerable group of clients and we must learn from the mistakes of the past that created sick housing estates in our towns, cities and other areas. We have to be quite careful that we do not simply match those two lists.

I had a great conversation with Fr. Pat Coogan from Respond a few weeks ago. I asked him what he would do if he was given 100 empty houses. He said he would take 20, and convert two into community facilities, because vulnerable housing clients need communal areas, whether for child-minding, teenage activities or whatever. He said he would then sell the other 18 houses at a knock-down price. I thought it quite interesting that he would only take 20 out of 100. That depth of thought is necessary as regards how we engage in this discussion. In other words, we have got to be very careful we do not simply allocate housing units that were not designed for vulnerable people, and try to produce a matched fit. Ultimately, particularly vulnerable home owners want to be close to where there might be possible employment. I am not convinced that much of the overspill is right beside where the jobs are located. Those are my thoughts.

From the Green Party's perspective much of our work in Government has involved reforming the planning system to ensure past mistakes are not repeated. Over the last year we have put in place a refreshed national spatial strategy, new regional planning guidelines and a new planning Act. We have also put measures in place to protect habitats and water supplies. In addition, we have witnessed a halt to decentralisation and a windfall tax on land that is rezoned. The recession has given us an unprecedented opportunity to learn from past mistakes and put in place policies that concentrate the right type of development in the right locations.

An 80% windfall tax on up-zoned land forms part of the NAMA legislation and dramatically reduces the incentive for landowners to seek the rezoning of their lands. This is as close as we have been able to get to implementation of the 1973 Kenny report on housing land, without a constitutional referendum.

Joined up planning policies have also been a focus of the reforms. The Minister, Deputy John Gormley, and I have put in place closer links between the national development plan and the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines at the inter-county level, and city and county developments and local area plans at a local level. That has meant joined up thinking from top to bottom.

This may not sound ground breaking, but one might scratch one's head sometimes in wonder at how some local area plans reflect national policies. Most of the provisions of the Planning Act 2010 passed into law a couple of weeks ago. The new law puts an onus on councils to review their plans within a two-year period and ensure the plan has an evidence based core strategy. This will lead to a change from the laissez-faire plans of the past, which failed to deliver on their stated goals.

Of course, a process of education is also needed to upskill both elected representatives and officials. The Irish Planning Institute ran a well-attended seminar a fortnight ago and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has plans for regional information sessions around the country over the months ahead. In the UK, the Royal Town Planning Institute runs a school for councillors back-to-back with its professional conference, and I am hoping to do something similar here.

I had a good meeting with the three representative organisations for local councillors a month or two ago, and we all agree the new legislation is complex. It has very simple goals, but it is complex. I believe councillors would benefit from information seminars on the new legislation. We are already doing this for the various officials, and hopefully we can expand on that.

In conclusion, the Scottish educationalist, Sir Patrick Geddes, summed it up many years ago in three words, "survey, analysis, plan". For far too long we built without connecting these three essential elements. Now is the time to get things right.