Populism often tends to distance itself from specialist advice, as notably seen during the Brexit debates when the UK disregarded expert opinions. Now, has the Irish political landscape demonstrated similar tendencies? We witnessed the government rush to discard the comprehensive findings of the Commission of Tax and Welfare, formerly led by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar. He characterised sections of the report as resembling a Sinn Féin manifesto.
Moreover, the Department of Housing and Minister Darragh O’Brien hastily deferred the suggestions from the Commission on Housing to the Housing Agency for review. In a textbook bureaucratic language, they assert that 65 out of the 83 proposals are either underway or at diverse stages of execution. The public sector might be slightly irked, given that the commission reported a record of “reactive policymaking and ineffective decision-making”.
Several recommendations are likely to be subtly sidelined within committee discussions, but one suggestion met with outright rejection. It was the proposal to establish a Housing Delivery Oversight Executive – a compact team given the mandate to steer the housing sector through the entire public sector. O’Brien retorted that this would merely add “another layer of housing delivery”. It’s easy to see why his department would disdain the thought of relinquishing control to this administrative superior, particularly when the recommendations called for a ground-breaking “strategic reset” of policies.
Yet, it’s a necessary step. The creation of new quangos is typically discouraged, given that a considerable number already exists. But in this instance, all signs direct towards the need for a body that can coordinate actions across various government departments. The Department of Housing lacks the necessary teeth. Minister O’Brien’s department detests the notion of a housing group. It’s one of the key justifications for establishing one.
In past times, we’ve witnessed similar occurrences. The National Roads Authority, created in 1993, had the main function of managing the evolution of the major roads network, an assignment it effectively executed due to the powers it held, overlapping both local and central government.
A new housing entity must be established for three crucial reasons. Firstly, we urgently need strategic project management to tackle the housing crisis. Housing development is a long-haul game with a multitude of complicated elements that surpass the capacity of a single department. To illustrate, creating new zones for housing necessitates water, electricity and a consistent planning mechanism, all of which are currently challenging. And we haven’t even addressed core elements such as planning, funding for construction, etc.
A vigorous project management programme is the only route to accomplish such change. To create the new Ireland, we require a proficient team of spreadsheet nerds with the know-how, led by a leader unafraid of disrupting the traditional norm. Ireland has the requisite talent. Large native companies manage massive manufacturing projects in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and have exported this proficiency abroad. Unlike the National Children’s Hospital case, it doesn’t have to always lead to major delays or cost overrun. However, the civil service, with its generalist culture, lacks these skills on a wide scale. Planning and delivering tens of thousands of diverse new homes is a colossal task.
Secondly, we require an executive responsible for this duty who is capable of being a thorn in the side. The political system affirms the housing crisis in speech but swiftly becomes indifferent if solutions cause discomfort — hence, planning transformation is slowgoing. Notably, the government’s decision to green light the controversial and complex Shannon water pipeline took months and was postponed until after local elections. One role of the executive would be to persistently bring awareness to these issues both internally and in public. For example, the government has been sluggish in addressing the shortage of staff in the planning system, or in ensuring local authorities have the necessary support. Power battles and control retention also contribute to the ongoing issues.
The third primary factor involves an assertive fiscal examination of the substantial resources being injected into the housing sector. Statistics recently unveiled that the government, in one form or another, acquired 25% of all the new properties established last year. This only emphasises the hefty fiscal obligation of the government towards the sector amounting to roughly €5 billion according to the Housing Department’s budget, and arguably exceeds €8 billion if additional expenditure is taken into consideration. Despite these significant contributions, it appears we are struggling to achieve significant progress. The commission highlighted that Ireland is among the nations with the bulkiest public spending on housing yet demonstrates one of the poorest performances.
In the tangled network of government programs designed to fund and guarantee supply and demand, along with the escalating and leveraging of Approved Housing Bodies, the Land Development Agency, etc., serious questions arise regarding value for money, financial risk and the attraction of investment. Addressing the fundamental aspects such as planning delays and the delivery of timely infrastructure to mitigate a substantial financial risk integral to housing development in Ireland becomes significantly more critical than concocting yet another program to entice property developers. It becomes crucial to scrutinise the inevitable contingent liabilities and manage them effectively. The government is compelled, by necessity, to delve into this primary socio-economic issue, cognisant of the risks involved but ensuring optimal strategies are employed.
A critical aspect of the commission’s duty was its recognition of the enormity of the task, considering the individuals who’d willingly move out of their homes equivalent to 10% of all existing households. It brings to light the immediate necessity for a robust governmental response. That’s what renders the official ‘everything is under control’ response rather underwhelming. Acknowledging the expert perspectives in a mere formal manner, relegating their findings to a committee, and persisting in the status quo is certainly discouraging.