Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

I thank the Acting Chairman and as he is aware, I was present for every second of the debate. I had intended to go elsewhere but I called it off. I am heartened to note the key points and contributions raised in a non-partisan way in today's debate have been broadly captured in the context of the advisory group's report and my Department's response to it. It gives me confidence the Government has undertaken a robust scoping of the problems with unfinished housing developments but at the same time, one cannot suggest the Government has all the solutions. Any innovative suggested solutions put forward, for example, involving synergies for providing employment and resolving these developments, to which some Members referred, will be considered fully by the national co-ordination committee. I do not care from where solutions come, as long as they are workable and practical. Were a Member from any side of this House to come up with an idea, the Government would be prepared to consider it. It makes no difference, as I have always worked in a non-partisan way. Party politics can be played outside but in these Houses, one must work with all shoulders to the wheel. This is an approach I adopted in the early 1980s and have continued to take. Consequently, I am greatly encouraged by what is happening.

This problem presents enormous difficulties for residents and their children, especially those who face immediate public safety issues. However, the Government is taking immediate and further planned action to resolve those issues. The important message is that I remain encouraged by the strong consensus and commitment among the key stakeholders who are participating on the national co-ordination committee, as evidenced by its productive meetings thus far.

I now intend to refer to the various points made by Members. The Government is finalising with urgency a roadmap in the form of an implementation plan. The plan is fairly significant and does not merely comprise two or three pages, but consists of plans, followed by actions and then results. This is the way it will be and is the reason I took personal responsibility in chairing the committee. I have many other things to do, as one might argue the place is always on fire as far as housing and planning are concerned. I decided to take this on because one element of politics I have always hated is that no matter who prepares a report, it is either thrown in the bin or thrown outside, never to see the light of day again. I was determined this would not happen in this case because the issue is far too serious and it affects every community and the residents in particular.

In this context, those who will be centrally involved in site resolution plans will be the residents and communities, who should be part of the site resolution process. I refer to those who site resolution plans must ultimately involve. As Senator Barrett noted in respect of estates in receivership, it is great to have someone there. The same is true of liquidators or whatever. As for developers, some simply need a boost in the form of a few bob to enable them to get going again. I note that sometimes, developers and site owners are not the same entities and even the occupiers may not be the same as the site owners or the developers. All sorts of legal complexities exist and were these problems simple, they would have been solved long ago.

However, there is a multitude and a myriad of complexities. As someone who was a barrister, in common with several Members of this House, I understand the legal complexities and the last thing I wish to do is to land the Government in a legal mess. There are enough problems all over the place and enough money is being expended on legal issues without me adding to it. I would be letting down all Members were I to engage in so doing. However, a roadmap is in place and the Government will work progressively to resolve the issues facing it in respect of unfinished housing developments.

Senator Wilson made a point in respect of site resolution plans. The aim is for 300 plans to be submitted by the end of 2011 and the Department will also work through 2012. This constitutes a significant number, although Senator Wilson may think otherwise in the overall context. However, an interesting development since the report was issued is that a significant amount of work is now up and running in various areas. It is not earth-shattering but the acorn seeds principle suggests some light is beginning to be seen. Some Members have made the point that of 34 local authorities, 28 have identified issues. However, eight local authorities have now indicated they will not need any State money because developers, receivers or whoever are coming on board and are working. Perhaps the report issued on 9 June was the switch to fire them into action, as action now appears to be taking place. The important point is I will seek reports to ascertain how much action is taking place. One could have action for a week before drifting back into old habits. While I acknowledge Senator Wilson's mathematical skills, the calculation of €3,000 per estate is a little unfair as it is for 242 such estates. The Government asked for the identification of the most serious estates in which significant difficulties were going to arise in respect of safety, technical issues, building compliance and so on. My concern was that as summer approached, an estate could have been built up to a level offering access for children onto roofs. All Members are aware of how alluring that can be for children.

Those are the issues which cause me concern. I refer to uncovered manholes. I know of one incident in an estate which houses many children, where an elderly woman walked on a board covering a manhole and she fell through and broke her elbow. One can imagine the danger to children and the impact such an incident would have on a person. The elderly lady and her husband had bought a house in an estate on returning from abroad. Such situations cause untold misery. The State could not be expected to pick up the tab, not even in the time of the Celtic tiger, for developers who overshot the runway and who were encouraged to do so by various incentives.

I agree with Senator Barrett and I refer Members to the framework document on housing. We must not stimulate house prices because this would create a false market again, the very thing that caused us problems. We must allow prices to reach their own floor by themselves. The last thing we must do is create an artificial level as this would lead to disaster.