Joint Committee on Infrastructure and National Development Plan Delivery debate

Progress of the National Development Plan Sectoral Investment Plans for Housing, and Water Services and Quality: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Today's meeting is split into two sessions. In the first, we will meet officials from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to engage on the progress made under the national development plan, NDP, sectoral plan running from 2025 to 2030. I am pleased to welcome from the Department, Mr. Garret Doocey, deputy secretary general, Mr. Paul Hogan, assistant secretary, Mr. Paul Benson, assistant secretary, Mr. Ronan Gallagher, assistant secretary and Mr. Alan Byrne, assistant principal. This session is scheduled to finish in 90 minutes because we have a second session afterwards in relation to water services.

Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. I remind members that this session is 90 minutes long. Members will each be afforded a six-minute speaking slot. I now invite Mr. Garret Doocey to make the opening statement.

Mr. Garret Doocey

I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss progress since the publication of the housing NDP sectoral plan in December 2025. As the Cathaoirleach has said, I am joined today by a number of colleagues from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, including Mr. Benson, assistant secretary for the social housing division, Mr. Hogan, assistant secretary for the planning division, and Mr. Gallagher, assistant secretary for the affordable housing division. We are joined also by Mr. Byrne from the housing co-ordination unit in the Department.

The updated NDP is the most ambitious capital investment programme launched by the State. It will invest unprecedented amounts into critical infrastructure such as housing, water, energy and transport to meet the economic and social needs of people across the country. The NDP sectoral investment plan for housing was published in December 2025 and forms a crucial part of the implementation of Delivering Homes, Building Communities. It reflects the largest ever capital investment in housing and housing-related infrastructure and provides the framework through which national commitments are translated into delivery. The sectoral plan outlines a sample of significant NDP funded projects that we can update the committee on this afternoon. However, it is important to note that due to the nature of the housing programme, the Department typically reports at a programme level rather than individual project level in the housing area.

The plan is structured across around four core areas: social housing delivery; affordable housing delivery; housing infrastructure and activation; and a range of other capital programmes that support communities such as regeneration, adaptation, vacancy reduction and targeted housing needs. Since publication, significant progress has been made across each of these areas. The Department continues to work closely with local authorities, approved housing bodies, the Land Development Agency, infrastructure providers and the private sector to support housing delivery at scale. Record levels of investment continue to underpin housing delivery. The updated NDP allocates almost €25 billion to housing programmes between 2026 and 2030, while budget 2026 provided €5.19 billion in capital funding, which was also complemented by investment through the Land Development Agency and lending from the Housing Finance Agency, bringing the total capital funding for housing in 2026 to over €9 billion, with a further €2 billion in current expenditure housing supports. This investment is driving delivery across the sector. Between 2024 and quarter 1 of 2026, over 40,000 households were supported through social and affordable housing measures, including almost 22,000 social homes and more than 18,000 affordable purchase and rental supports. Investment also included €205 million allocated toward housing infrastructure in the housing activation office and €157 million allocated in 2026 for programmes supporting older people, people with disabilities and Traveller communities.

The increased investment is reflected in a strong housing pipeline. Planning permissions in the first half of 2026 were up 28% year on year. Commencements increased by more than 160% in the first eight months of this year compared to last and almost 38,000 homes were completed in the 12 months to the end of the first half 2026. Apartment delivery and permissions have strengthened in particular, while almost 19,000 commencement notices were lodged between January and July this year. Together, these indicators point to sustained momentum and increasing levels of housing activity across all tenures.

The Department remains focused on activating existing permissions, addressing viability constraints and supporting increased housing supply. Strong progress continues to be made in social housing delivery. Between July 2020 and March 2026, almost 60,000 social homes were added to the social housing stock, while more than 15,000 vacant properties were returned to productive use. In 2025, 9,090 new-build social homes were delivered, the highest annual level of social housing construction since the foundation of the State.

Delivery has continued positively into 2026, with first quarter output showing strong growth compared with the same period in 2025. The social housing pipeline remains substantial. At the end of March 2026, more than 23,000 social homes were progressing through design and construction, including almost 10,000 homes on site. The new single approval process introduced in January of this year is streamlining arrangements for local authorities and approved housing bodies and will support faster delivery. The requirement to adopt a standardised approach for all social housing projects through adoption of the design manual for quality housing and employers' requirements has now been embedded across the system. Standard internal layouts and CAD drawings are available to design teams. This is promoting a consistent approach nationally. It is decreasing the amount of time spent on reviewing proposals to achieve value for money. It is shortening detailed design phases and allows for a more efficient tender process.

Affordable housing delivery continues to expand. Over 24,000 starter home supports were delivered from 2021 to the end of the first quarter of 2026 through affordability schemes, including the first home scheme, cost rental supports, help to buy and the vacant property refurbishment grant. Last year alone, more than 17,700 starter home supports were delivered, representing an increase of almost 20% in the previous year. Cost rental delivery continues to grow, supported by a strong approvals pipeline and ongoing State investment.

Alongside social and affordable housing programmes, significant progress is being made through a range of other capital programmes funded under the housing sectoral plan. These programmes support adaptation grants for older people and people with disabilities, Traveller-specific accommodation, local authority retrofit programmes, vacancy and dereliction initiatives, homelessness supports, remediation programmes and the bringing back into use of vacant social homes. These investments are important because they maximise the use of existing housing stock, support vulnerable households and strengthen communities while also contributing to wider housing objectives.

To support strong delivery across all programmes, the Government is prioritising implementation of the Planning and Development Act 2024, the most significant reform of the planning system in a generation. The Act will streamline decision-making, reduce delays and provide greater certainty for housing and infrastructure projects. Phased implementation is continuing across the planning system. Alongside these reforms, the revised national planning framework provides a strategic basis for future growth. All local authorities have commenced the required variation processes to reflect updated housing growth requirements and population projections. When those processes conclude, local authorities have indicated that approximately 5,000 additional hectares of residentially zoned land will be available nationally. This is estimated to provide capacity for approximately 200,000 additional homes, subject to the completion of statutory processes. This represents a significant strengthening of the long-term housing pipeline and ensures that planning policy aligns with national housing objectives.

A major development since publication of the sectoral plan has been the continued work of the housing activation office and the establishment of the €1 billion housing infrastructure investment fund. The housing activation office provides a practical mechanism for aligning infrastructural investment with housing delivery. It brings together expertise from across government, including local authorities, and infrastructure agencies to identify and address barriers to housing development. The first call under the fund attracted 138 applications from across the country. In June, Ministers announced support for 82 of those projects under the first phase. These projects are expected to directly unlock lands with capacity for approximately 86,000 homes and indirectly unlock lands that could support a further 113,000 homes. The projects range from local infrastructure interventions in towns and villages to larger strategic projects capable of supporting housing delivery at scale in and around our five cities. The fund complements broader investment being made through transport, water and electricity infrastructure. It also works alongside programs such as the urban regeneration and development fund, now known as the towns and cities regeneration investment fund, which continues to support regeneration, public realm improvements and community infrastructure that underpin sustainable development. The housing activation office will continue to broaden its focus and develop future funding calls to maximise housing activation opportunities.

In conclusion, the progress made since publication of the housing sectoral plan demonstrates that the key foundations are being put in place to support increased housing delivery. Record levels of investment are supporting strong delivery across social and affordable housing programmes. Housing output indicators show a robust pipeline with growing completions, commencements and planning permissions. Planning reforms are progressing, additional zoned land is being brought forward and the housing activation office is helping to align infrastructure delivery with housing need. The housing infrastructure investment fund alone has the potential to unlock lands capable of supporting almost 200,000 homes through both direct and indirect activation, and together with continued investment across housing programmes, this provides a strong basis for delivery through to 2030. The mid-year progress report published in July 2026 outlines these developments in greater detail and has been provided to the committee. I look forward to engagement with members on the progress achieved to date and on the further actions required to support delivery through to 2030.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Doocey for his opening remarks. Before I call the first speaker, Deputy Neville, I want to make a few remarks. I am saying it to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and every other key Department that will be coming before us on this topic in the coming weeks. We have a schedule of meetings arranged. We have started with this Department because it is probably the Department with the biggest amount of expenditure under the development plan. These remarks are for the benefit of not just this Department, but for others. This committee is the Committee on Infrastructure and National Development Plan Delivery. I reiterate the word "delivery". I do not want to hear about the plans in 2027, 2028 or 2029. They are published and different Oireachtas committees will be dealing with them.

We are charged with dealing with delivery, not future plans or intentions. We can all talk about how many are planned for next year, the following year and the year after and what will happen over the next three years. The Oireachtas committee on housing will deal with those issues. We are here to make sure what is being done on a year-by-year basis is being delivered. Mr. Doocey has given good information, but it is not as specific as we are looking for. We will be coming back with some requests for information. In the documentation we have received, Mr. Doocey has given a list of housing developments that have probably been completed in the last year, but those projects were probably ongoing for a number of years. We are dealing with the plan from 2025 or 2026, which is nearly over. We want to know precisely what the expenditure was, where did it go for 2025 and 2026 and what it actually delivered in those two years.

It is fine to say that a housing development of 300 houses was completed but maybe most of that was done over a three- or four-year period. We will be looking for information in relation to the expenditure in 2025 and 2026. It might have involved completing projects that were well under way. Perhaps some of the projects that Mr. Doocey mentioned were substantially developed during 2025 and 2026 or maybe they were just being finished off. We want to know what was done on a year-by-year basis. That is what our job is - delivery. We can all talk about future plans on another day. That is really the first thing I want to say across the board to every group that is coming in front of us. What did you actually achieve last year and what did you achieve this year to date? Leave aside the plans you have for next year and the following year - we will come back to them in due course - but we want to deal with the here and now. What is being delivered now? That is the message I am sending to all the groups that have major plans under the national development plan.

The Department of housing is different from a lot of the other Departments that come in because even though we are talking about housing, the vast majority of houses in Ireland are built by the private sector and not by the Department. If we are dealing with Uisce Éireann, a lot of that will be done and controlled at departmental level. You could say the same with infrastructure. In the case of some of the big rail plans, railway station upgrades or different infrastructural things like that, the Department is hands-on with them.

Could Mr. Doocey give us a ballpark figure on this? If he does not have it, he can send it on to us. It was mentioned that 40,000 houses were completed. How many were actually built by local authorities? From what I understand, the majority of houses in Ireland are built by the private sector and through the Part V process. The Government, the taxpayer and the public get approximately 35% of them. While there is massive housing delivery, it is being done by the private sector. If the private sector activity goes down, your number of Part Vs will go down. If it goes up, your number of Part Vs will go up. I am trying to get a fix on what was actually done by the Department directly or through the local authorities. How many were built last year and this year? Separately, how many were built by the approved housing bodies? I do not expect Mr. Doocey to have the full details of the key approved housing bodies. How many were built by the private sector? This is kind of a unique situation. For most of what is under Mr. Doocey's brief, the Department is not actually carrying out the work on the ground whereas other Departments might be. Could Mr. Doocey respond to that?

I am just saying this for the value and the benefit of groups that are coming before the committee in the next couple of weeks, such as the Departments that are coming in. We are into delivery. What was done last year and this year? My personal view is that the best indication of what will be done over the next three years is what was done last year or this year. You could have done nothing last year or this year and yet you have fantastic plans for the next five years. I prefer to see the track record in delivery in each of the Departments last year and this year. That can give us confidence about if what needs to be done in the coming years can be achieved. It is the best test of the national development plan. We will be looking at what has been done over the last two years, and that will give us confidence - or otherwise, depending on the Department - as to what will actually be achieved in the next few years. Mr. Doocey might respond to that. It probably is not the type of question he was expecting.

Mr. Garret Doocey

No, that is fine. I thank the Cathaoirleach. We will be able to come back with some detail. Mr. Benson might be able to come in on this in terms of the social programme. We will come back with more detail as requested via written procedure as well. On what is being delivered or activity on the ground in any given year, if you think of the housing programme, there is stuff that is commenced or starts in a particular year, stuff that is in construction in a particular year and homes that are completed in a particular year. All three of those give a sense of the activity. That is one comment I make in response to the Cathaoirleach's general opening framing of the request that will come into us.

The Cathaoirleach is absolutely right on the difference between the Department of housing and the Department of Transport, for example, when it comes to its oversight and delivery of particular projects which are within its direct bailiwick. Its Exchequer money funds the entirety of that particular programme. Our programme consists of direct Exchequer support to deliver homes through the social and affordable programmes. Other work that we are doing does not necessarily weigh heavy on the Exchequer in terms of support but includes the planning reforms that enable the private sector to crowd in, deliver and do what they do. The housing infrastructure investment fund, within my own team, funds infrastructure to enable delivery of both public and private homes as well. I accept that we are slightly different in that regard.

I have one last question. I apologise to Deputy Neville. A developer might have a plan to build and provide a certain number of homes under Part V but sometimes the local authority, through different schemes, can end up buying the entire estate from a private developer and it is not all under Part V.

Mr. Benson will understand the nuance. I walked into a new housing development being opened in Laois and the director of services told me it had started off as a private sector development but the council and the Department had actually bought the entire lot through three different schemes. It was not just a Part V one. Mr. Benson knows better than we do and can understand where we are coming from.

Mr. Paul Benson

I can but the Cathaoirleach will be aware of a programme for Government commitment to cease the practice of late-stage turnkeys, to buy in properties like that which start off as private sector development and end up as public ones and try to develop local authorities' own-build programmes. There will be further updates on that in the near future in that report.

Deputy Tony McCormack

I thank the officials from the Department of housing for coming in today. Huge progress has been made in the building of houses right around the country. I compliment the Department and the Minister, Deputy James Browne, on the work that has gone into it and the different supports that have come along in the last number of years. None of them was a silver bullet but all of them together are making a significant difference.

As the Cathaoirleach said, it is all about delivery and what has been done up to now. However, what does the Department expect to do this year? The officials have said that for the first half of the year the figures are very strong and looking well. It was 36,000 last year. Will it be over 40,000 by the year end? I know it is like looking into a crystal ball, but what would they expect for that? Last year 36,000 were built and it should be 40,000-plus this year and moving on next year. We need to get to somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 to be sustainable and to meet the demands of the nation. What are the bottlenecks that are holding that up? What do we need to do to remove those? Do we have a manpower issue? Is it to do with finance? Is it to do with a pipeline that is there? I am very interested to find out where the Department goes with that. Perhaps the officials might answer those first and I will have a couple of questions after that.

Mr. Garret Doocey

I might kick off and colleagues can come in as appropriate. In terms of overall numbers, as Mr. Benson said, the Department does not provide particular annual projections. The trajectory generally is positive and other institutions publish their forecasts out to year end. Again, I reiterate the trajectory is positive in that regard but the Department is not in the business of making annual projections or forecasts. There is a strong pipeline there. There is a lot of investment going in from the State. There has been increased private sector activity. Last year was up on the previous year and the trajectory is positive.

Going further, how do we step it up even more to address bottlenecks, etc.? One of the bottlenecks that is consistently identified by the development sector, be it public or private, is infrastructure bottlenecks. That is where the likes of the decision by the Government to establish the housing activation office and the NDP's allocation of €1 billion to the Housing Infrastructure Investment Fund come into play. They allow us to proactively address some of the local and strategic bottlenecks that are holding up development, meaning that zoned land is not necessarily serviced such that we can go in and actually fund particular projects to open up those lands for development. That is a positive step in terms of addressing one of the bottlenecks.

The Cathaoirleach has mentioned that the committee will be having these types of engagements with other Departments. Infrastructure bottlenecks are not just within the purview of this Department. The housing-enabling infrastructure sectors are energy, water and transport. We have secondees from each of those sectors within the housing activation office but we are also relying on our colleagues in those relevant Departments and agencies, their NDP sectoral plans, their delivery, and their projects and programmes because they will ultimately unlock land for us to deliver housing. There is a wider whole-of-government piece in terms of addressing some of those infrastructure bottlenecks, not just the Housing Infrastructure Investment Fund. The last time I appeared before the committee I made the point that it is a complement to, but not a substitute for, the wider NDP.

A range of issues affect the housing delivery sector. The Deputy mentioned finance. Earlier in the year Home Building Finance Ireland, HBFI, published a very interesting report, The Scaling Challenge, identifying some of the issues SME developers are facing in terms of access to finance, etc. Steps are being taken by colleagues across wider government to address some of that, but it is certainly an issue that has been flagged in recent analysis this year as well.

Deputy Tony McCormack

Senator Patricia Stephenson

I thank the officials for coming in. I have a question on the unlocking of the various land banks. How much of that has gone towards affordable and social homes and how much of that has gone towards private developments?

Mr. Garret Doocey

I might answer initially and my colleagues might come in. As I said in response to Deputy McCormack's questions, we have the Housing Infrastructure Investment Fund and the projects that we are funding to unlock those lands that potentially could deliver up to 200,000 units. We are funding the projects to unlock the lands which are zoned. From a funding perspective, we are blind as to whether it is public or private. Mr. Gallagher has outlined the wide range of affordable measures available for local authorities and they will apply to those lands or could be applied to those lands.

Mr. Garret Doocey

We would be happy, if we are just talking about the 82-----

Deputy Joe Neville

Is the Department funding shovel-ready projects that will be done in the next two years?

Mr. Garret Doocey

What we have been doing, narrowing it down to the projects being supported by the housing infrastructure investment fund, is using the graphic. There are two ministerial chaired groups, the industry group and the delivery group. We used a graphic at the start of the programme that shows where the 82 projects are in the project life cycle, from approval gate, AG1 to AG3 to in construction. We will use that graphic as a means to ensure our accountability to the industry group and the delivery group to demonstrate the progress of those projects through approval gates to construction. We would be happy to provide that information to the committee on an annual basis and we will probably publish it as well so people can track the projects to see where they are going.

We want to learn from previous initiatives such as the LIHAF programme that commenced ten years ago-----

Deputy Joe Neville

Yes, project solved.

Mr. Garret Doocey

-----and ensure that we get a speedier delivery across all of the projects. Obviously, issues arise in individual projects but as a whole, as a programme, we want to ensure that we get a speedier delivery.

Deputy Joe Neville

Speaking to the wider social infrastructure piece, I think we all acknowledge it is a little bit disparate, in that there are sports capital grants, Y grants, Z grants, etc. However, for the regeneration and rejuvenation of town centres, there is a funding pot within the Department of housing.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Department of heritage play a separate role in that? How does the Department link in with that?

Mr. Garret Doocey

Heritage is part of the Department.

Mr. Paul Hogan

On that, our Department jointly runs the town centre first initiative with the Department of Rural and Community Development. There are town regeneration officers now in every local authority area. They are empowered to engage the community and seek sources of funding from multiple streams. We have got headline funds in both Departments but there is also a range of other things.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you.

Deputy Conor Sheehan

I thank the witnesses for coming here today. I want to ask a number of questions, focusing first on the housing infrastructure fund. Obviously, 56 projects did not make it. Will there be another call in relation to that and when?

On LIHAF, what lessons have been learned? We know that LIHAF was a bit of a mixed bag. In particular, local authorities were critical of the length of time it took to draw down capital. Will the witnesses tell the committee how this new fund is leaner and more efficient? How will the Department ensure it will deliver what it says it will, and how will it measure that?

Mr. Garret Doocey

In terms of lessons learned from call 1 and future calls, the Deputy is right that there were 50 or so projects in that 138 projects came in and 82 were funded. What we would say is that all the eligible projects got funded. The projects that did not get funded did not meet the eligibility criteria. The lesson learned is meet the eligibility criteria. I am being a little bit glib there but that is effectively our key lesson from that why projects did not get funded or were not accepted.

Deputy Conor Sheehan

What lessons have been learned in relation to how this fund will operate in comparison with LIHAF?

Mr. Garret Doocey

In terms of lessons that have been learned more broadly and what we hope will be the difference between LIHAF and the housing infrastructure investment fund, HIIF, as I said in response to Deputy Neville or one of the earlier interventions, one of the key lessons learned and one of the key underpinnings and rationales for the establishment of the housing activation office within the Department was the need for better co-ordination and to bring the various infrastructure providers together in the same room, office or unit to give an holistic whole of public infrastructure perspective from the outset as regards what type and level of infrastructure is required to ultimately service the lands that are being opened up. That is one lesson and a very important lesson.

The second lesson that we have taken on board, and it is linked to the first, is that we have brought in project management and project delivery expertise into the actual office that oversees the fund. There is a mixture of civil servants and seconded experts from the likes of Uisce Éireann, ESBN, TII, the NTA, etc., who bring their skills and experience in terms of the delivery of projects and which skills have been brought in-house and are assisting the local authorities in terms of their delivery of the projects on the ground.

On the co-ordination piece, it allows us, or we would expect and we hope it would allow us, to work with the local authorities in a much more joined-up fashion. For example, we will have a workshop in November whereby we are bringing in all of the project managers from the local authorities who are responsible for the 82 projects, we are bringing in the ESBN that has stood up a team to support all of those projects within its organisation, while Uisce Éireann has done similar and we are bringing its team in. With Iarnród Éireann, we have a single point of contact because five or six of the projects have an interface with the rail network. We are bringing them all into the one room, the one workshop from the outset so that we are all on the same page, understand the roles and responsibilities and we are all working towards the delivery of the one objective, which is to get these projects delivered as quickly as possible.

As I said, there are 82 projects. As anyone who has been involved in projects will know, there will be ups and downs in some of them but we think we have definitely drawn some key lessons from the LIHAF experience and we hope to see an improved delivery rate in terms of the HIIF projects.

Deputy Conor Sheehan

It was 920 last year. We expect to beat that this year in the context of affordable purchase. However, in September because of the timeframe I do not know what the precise number will be. It will easily be more than that target going into next year, depending on decisions we make in the context of the overall budget allocations and some decisions on projects that we still have to approve. The numbers are published quarterly and annually once they come in, by scheme and by county. We have full visibility on that.

Deputy Louis O'Hara

I understand that.

In the scheme in Athenry, where I am from, which is going ahead at the moment, the prices are advertised from €345,000 to €395,000 and then €425,000 to €475,000 if you want to actually own the home outright. Speaking to young first-time buyers in my community, it is out of reach to them. It does not actually benefit anybody who is currently locked out of home ownership because there are second-hand homes on the market for less than those prices. It is obviously welcome to have homes built, but it is not really hitting the people who are currently locked out of home ownership whom it needs to hit. Is that a consideration the Department is looking at? Is it looking at modifying that scheme to make it more affordable?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

The truth of the matter is that we have an allocation which is substantial but still limited and therefore the schemes are designed to try to extract, develop and deliver as many housing units as we can within the parameters. The Deputy points to an issue about the demand being greater than supply. That is the nutshell of the entire housing issue and why we have serious pressure. We are absolutely mindful of it but there is also a limitation of the possible level of State intervention. We keep it under review. While the schemes are successful and there is significant activity, going up over time from a low level, we need to be mindful of the extent to which there are still cohorts in our society who are not able to access housing and how we address that. It is not always about purchasing. It is also about affordable, sustainable rental properties too. The focus is on homes, part of which is home ownership but also rental opportunities.

Deputy Louis O'Hara

It is fair to say we need a lot more ambition from Government when it comes to housing. I have a question about the housing infrastructure investment fund. The witnesses might not have the details here, but they can come back to me on it. One of the projects that was funded through that fund was the Athenry relief road, but only a section of that road was funded rather than the full road. It did not include the bridge works that would be required as part of that project, as was referenced in the document that the Department put out at that time. It is a piecemeal approach to infrastructure that is not really practical. I do not know if the witnesses have detail on that, but could they come back to me on why the full length of that proposed road was not looked at, as well as the bridge works that are supposed to be part of it?

Mr. Garret Doocey

I will come back to the Deputy about that. Phases of that road were funded under the Department of Transport's regional local roads division and we are funding the bit that was not funded under that, which is the difficult bit, with the bridge.

Deputy Louis O'Hara

The Department is funding only part of it.

Mr. Garret Doocey

That is not my understanding. I will come back to the Deputy in writing on that.

I will comment on two aspects of that. A lot of analysis has been undertaken at a whole-of-government level, which I believe is led by colleagues in the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, although I could be wrong about that. It looks at the workforce capacity requirements to deliver on the NDP in its entirety across all sectors. To refer back to my earlier comments, we have a huge amount of investment planned over a short period of time, so we need to consider the workforce that is needed and what steps can be taken. This goes back two or three years and perhaps even NDP 2021 in relation to apprenticeships, etc. A lot of good work is being undertaken at that whole-of-government level. Within particular sectors, similar analysis and initiatives have been undertaken. The transport sector is one that springs to mind.

I would say there is a different perspective in the home building sector. There are stakeholders in that sector who say that they have capacity to step up and deliver more. This relates to certain companies are active in the space. As the Cathaoirleach mentioned, if we get that increased adoption of MMC, it should reduce the overall manpower requirements and assist with that capacity limit or constraint that may exist. There are different messages but it is definitely an area that requires attention.

An Cathaoirleach

We just discussed the time between planning, commencement of construction and the actual construction period. What do the witnesses understand is the time delivery between, say, a development of apartment blocks versus houses? To put it simply, if there is a development in Portlaoise for 100 houses, the developer can build the first 30 straight away. The developer then gets funds from their sale to build the next 30. With an apartment block, however, the developer cannot sell the first one until the last is completed. It must impact the financing but how does it impact the timing of delivery? People will get all of them in one go rather than some this year and the rest next year.

On a related issue, nobody can put a finger on why there is a bit of a delay after a project starts. The witnesses said it might be finance. Do they have any knowledge of developers who get planning permission but have no intention of building and instead want to sell on the planning permission? Is there much of that happening to the witnesses’ knowledge?

Mr. Paul Hogan

There is a mix of motivations for securing planning permission. What we have noticed in recent years is a higher proportion of what is getting granted being built. There was always a gap between the number of permissions versus the number of commencements and completions. In recent years, the gap has narrowed and the curves have converged. This year and last, we have seen very high levels of completion compared to permissions, for example. It means we need to get more permissions into the system. It is happening and the numbers are remaining strong.

We need to get to that point where we are actually accommodating people and the number coming in is exceeded by the tenancies we are creating, tenancies that are upgraded to a new build or a casual vacancy in the existing stock, which runs at 2% or 3% of a stock of 200,000-odd. If we can grow that number to the 12,000 target that the Government has set, that would be about 18,000 public housing tenancies a year, which would exceed the number coming into the system. That would mean we could make progress and start winding down some of that HAP, rental accommodation scheme, RAS, leasing and people in homeless accommodation.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I might just make a request, if I may. I would like to be pointed towards somebody in the Department of housing about an issue. There is a place called Ringfort in Rathmolyon in Meath. Individuals paid a deposit for a house but now the builder of those houses is looking for €80,000 more before he will let them move in. If there was somebody in the Department who could contact me just to discuss that at a later stage, I would appreciate that.

If I had built a house in Meath ten years ago, it would have taken me two years to build it. If I were to build it now, it would take me four years to build it. Why has the length of time it takes to build a house in Ireland doubled, according to the Central Bank?

Mr. Garret Doocey

It is a topic we were discussing a few minutes ago. The Central Bank analysis published last week identified three phases in the life cycle of house construction: the planning application to planning permission stage; the permission to commencement stage; and then the commencement to completion stage. It focused on the latter two phases as the primary drivers of the increase in time the Deputy identified in the overall completion of a house. There was some increase in the planning stage but it was very marginal in the overall context. It was from three to four months to four to six months.

Mr. Garret Doocey

We cannot speak to some of those elements in terms of procurement and so on, but with regard to planning, for example, which is one of the areas the Deputy mentioned, a huge body of reform has been undertaken over the past few years. There are a significant number of new initiatives that will and are beginning to yield benefit already, I would argue, and definitely will over the next 12 to 24 months. The Government has actively sought to identify and address those issues. Mr. Hogan may speak in more detail.

Mr. Paul Hogan

On the planning side, it has been much maligned. I mentioned an ESRI report that essentially corroborated what the Central Bank said last week. That was published on 30 August. It highlights the consistency - the planning process takes roughly four to six months for the vast majority of developments. I was talking to someone from Dublin City Council last week who said 83% of all applications were granted within eight weeks. The bulk of the planning system operates. There are over 30,000 applications a year and the vast majority are granted within statutory timelines.

I think it is larger, more significant developments such as housing infrastructure that get caught up in controversy. There tend to be a lot of people opposed and they have used all means available to object. Part of the reform we have undertaken over the past five years, which we are about to implement in terms of the Planning and Development Act 2024, has been to put statutory timelines in place for all consent processes and to address judicial review procedures to ensure the process is open to all but is expeditious. All of that is coming in and being implemented.

An Coimisiún Pleanála has been reformed as well with additional staffing, a different structure and a different approach in terms of justifying the rationale for its decision-making. That in itself resulted in a reduction in judicial review cases against An Coimisiún Pleanála decisions and a higher rate of success for the organisation in defending its decisions.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I only have a few seconds left. The other element is infrastructure. I was speaking to a builder recently who was waiting for water to come to his site. He has been told it will take nine months. Building has basically stopped because of the wait. He obviously has a major debt associated with the building. He has a massive interest cost on a daily basis. Why is it that we are so slow at building infrastructure?

Mr. Garret Doocey

Delivery of infrastructure across OECD countries, not just the EU, has increased in time if one compares 2026 with 1976, 1986 or even 1996. That is a fact. It is documented in numerous reports across OECD countries and those produced by the OECD.

On the specific example the Deputy gave, what can we do to try to improve? There are the reforms referred to already in planning.

There is also the better co-ordination of infrastructure through the likes of the accelerating infrastructure task force which is being led by colleagues in the Department of public expenditure. Specifically within the Department of housing there is the housing activation office whereby we are looking to bring in, at the earliest outset, the whole of public infrastructure perspective and ensure all of it is delivered in a timely and co-ordinated fashion to try to break through some of that.

Alongside that, there are procedural and process issues that both utilities have taken and are taking to try to improve timelines around their own deliveries. There is a multifaceted approach to the wider problem.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

For example, the CRU fined Uisce Éireann significantly - millions of euro - for not fulfilling their objectives in leak reduction in this country. It feels to me sometimes that when we ask these questions the response is very theoretical. In practical terms, there is no doubt that State bodies and organisations are themselves actually failing in the objectives that have been given to them or are being fined. Unfortunately, the fine is not coming out of their pockets; it is coming out of the pockets of citizens at the end of the day. It is a circular movement of money.

A private builder would be able to build the water connection between the location where the water exists in Meath to the building site themselves in far less time. To be honest, it feels that private enterprise in terms of construction operates on the basis of whether or not it can make a profit and if it cannot make a profit it folds and closes. As a result, that energy forces it to operate within certain time limits and cost restrictions that do not exist for the delivery of public infrastructure in this country. As a result, there is no end of money at the end of the rainbow for public companies in this country. Therefore, we do not have the same level of motivation to be able to deliver in the same timescales.

Mr. Garret Doocey

In respect of the private versus public debate, private companies are not in receipt of public moneys and do not therefore operate in the public accountability framework, such as we are in here today. That is a difference in approach and has to be recognised.

I will give two practical examples in response to the issues raised by the Deputy. Again, it highlights the importance of co-ordination at the outset among the State actors. If we look at the projects being funded by this Department in terms of the housing infrastructure investment fund, we brought on board 82 projects. Part of the kick-off analysis, not just what lands is that project directly benefiting but taking the zone of influence of the project ultimately in terms of the overall settlement and then saying to Uisce Éireann, ESBN, TII and NTA, who are all in the one office, "We are going to fund and deliver this project; it will ultimately benefit this number of new homes. You guys need to have your infrastructure ready and tooled up to deliver alongside the project we are delivering." That is a practical, tangible step we can take to address the issue raised by the Deputy.

The other aspect is, and it was raised by one of my colleagues in an earlier exchange, there is now the potential, in water, for developer led infrastructure to go in. That has been introduced quite recently. It is still early days in terms of the ultimate assessment of the outcome and of the benefits of it but it is now there. This should allow for some of what the Deputy is speaking about to be introduced in Ireland.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I studied economics in college and basic 101 economics is supply and demand. Pretty much all of the discussion on the housing situation in this country is on the basis of supply. Demand is obviously having a massive impact in relation to both access to housing and the price of housing. It is very interesting that 1.2 million people who live in this State were born outside of the State. Ireland is an outlier in those terms. There is no other major European country that has had the same proportion - about 23% - who are born outside of the country. The only other countries that come close are microstates, where small changes of population can make big differences to proportion. I believe 42% of the people on the Dublin housing waiting list at the moment were born outside Ireland. That is very significant. That is not in Mr. Doocey's control at all; I understand that. Does it play any part of the housing activation office's strategic understanding of how to resolve the housing crisis? Does it play any part in the discussions Mr. Doocey has with the Government about strategies to resolve the housing crisis?

Mr. Garret Doocey

Our strategy is underpinned by the Government's stated ambition to deliver 300,000 additional homes by 2030. That is what the housing activation office was set up to do and that is what we are focused on.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

It does not play any part. I thank Mr. Doocey.

An Cathaoirleach

We will conclude this session of the meeting. I thank the witnesses for their information, support and answers. I ask that the information that has been requested be supplied to the committee as soon as possible and if there are any issues with the supply of the information I ask that the clerk be informed as soon as possible. We will suspend to allow witnesses from the water side of the Department to come in.

Cuireadh an suí ar fionraí ar 5.25 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 5.33 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 5.33 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

In the second session, we will meet with officials from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and representatives of Uisce Éireann engaging on the progress made under the 2025-2030 national development plan, NDP, sectoral plan for water services and water quality. From the Department, we are joined by Mr. Fintan Towey, assistant secretary; Mr. Brian Munnelly, principal officer; Mr. Colin Byrne, principal officer; and Mr. Niall McGlynn, assistant principal officer. From Uisce Éireann, we are joined by Mr. Seán Laffey and Ms Pamela Somers.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I remind members that they will be afforded a six-minute speaking slot for questions and answers, with a second chance to contribute if they so wish. I will call the speakers in the following sequence who have asked the committee: Deputies Tóibín, Clendennen, O'Hara and McCormack.

I invite Mr. Towey to make his opening statement.

Mr. Fintan Towey

I am pleased to be here this evening as assistant secretary for the water division in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to discuss the NDP sectoral plan for water services and water quality. I am joined by colleagues from the Department and Uisce Éireann. I thank the Cathaoirleach for introducing them to the committee.

The Department has overall responsibility for water services, which play an essential role in enabling economic growth, social inclusion, environmental sustainability and the delivery of our housing need. Both our water and wastewater systems require substantial and sustained investment over a number of investment cycles to bring the systems up to the quality and resilience standards required of a modern service, to provide for population growth and to build resilience in the face of climate change. Under the national development plan, record investment of €12.2 billion has been allocated to the water sector out to 2030. The NDP sectoral plan for water services and water quality forms a crucial part of the implementation of the national development plan. Over the next five years, funding of €12.2 billion will be allocated to the water sector, with €11.7 billion or 95% of this being allocated to Uisce Éireann. This investment in our national water utility will support the delivery of a wide range of projects in our cities and regions required for public health and safeguarding the environment, and the delivery of the additional water services capacity that is necessary for the new housing targets to be met.

The NDP also allocated €306 million in investment to restore and improve water quality in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. This funding will be used to scale up and enhance targeted initiatives, such as the Farming for Water European Innovation Partnership, FFW EIP, urban nature-based solution projects to manage surface water drainage and the barrier mitigation programme to improve river habitats. In addition, the NDP provides for €230 million in rural water infrastructure, which is of vital importance in underpinning the provision of safe and secure water services to rural areas that do not have access to Uisce Éireann services. Water services continue to undergo a significant period of reform in the delivery of services with the full integration of public water services into Uisce Éireann to be completed by December this year. Uisce Éireann supplies drinking water to over 80% of the population, while 10% of households get their drinking water from private wells. The remaining 6% of households have their drinking water supplied by group schemes. Public group water schemes are supplied with treated drinking water by Uisce Éireann and manage the distribution, whereas private group water schemes abstract, treat, and distribute drinking water to their members.

The private group water schemes are generally co-operative groups delivering drinking water services to local communities in rural locations. In relation to wastewater, two thirds of households are connected to public wastewater services provided by Uisce Éireann. Virtually all the remaining one third of households dispose of wastewater using domestic septic tanks. The NDP funding will enable Uisce Éireann to make necessary, multigenerational improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure that will target enhancing the health and quality of life, protecting our environment, benefiting communities and enabling growth and development across Ireland. The NDP will support a number of major water projects, including the water supply project, eastern and midlands region, which will have capacity to support water supply needs for up to 50% of the population. It will bring treated water from the Parteen Basin in County Tipperary to Peamount in Dublin, with the capacity for offtakes along the route in Tipperary, Offaly and Westmeath. It will also enable supplies serving Dublin to be redirected back locally in Carlow, Wicklow, Meath and Louth. The NDP will also support the greater Dublin drainage project, which is the development of a new regional wastewater treatment facility and associated infrastructure to serve north Dublin and parts of the surrounding counties of Kildare and Meath. The NDP funding will also be allocated to major projects across the country, including major investments in Limerick and Waterford among other locations.

In relation to the rural water sector, the capital funding programme for the rural water sector 2027-29 is the primary funding vehicle to support capital investment by group water schemes.

This programme supports resilient and high-quality drinking water for rural communities not on the public network. The Department also supports a number of other grant schemes to support rural water services under the NDP, and all of this funding will help to support rural development.

The NDP also supports water quality programmes to support Ireland’s efforts to comply with national and EU law governing water quality, and to meet the objectives of our river basin management strategy. These are evidence-based programmes to improve and restore water quality, including the farming for water European Innovation Partnership, EIP; enhancing urban areas for water quality, the nature and climate resilience scheme; and enhancing rivers for water quality, connectivity, nature and climate resilience.

In conclusion, I will highlight some of the progress made since the NDP sectoral plan for water service and water quality was published in November last year. Among other achievements, various projects have commenced to restore and improve water quality in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. The Minister, Deputy Browne, launched the 2027-29 capital funding programme for the rural water sector. Uisce Éireann, for its part, has accelerated investment in small towns and villages, with 50 locations now progressing through active delivery programmes and additional funding scaling activity beyond the original programme's scope. It has commenced delivery across 72 cities, towns and villages across Ireland as priority locations, targeting housing and economic growth in line with Government targets. It has delivered major wastewater infrastructure projects, including the almost €550 million Ringsend wastewater treatment upgrade, the Arklow sewerage scheme at almost €140 million, and the Athlone main drainage upgrade at over €113 million. As of June 2026, Uisce Éireann has delivered 13 new and upgraded water treatment plants and 5 wastewater treatment plants as well as 97 km of water network and 28 km of wastewater network that are either new or rehabilitated. Uisce Éireann progressed major investments in Limerick and Waterford along with the critical water supply project for the eastern midlands and the greater Dublin drainage project.

I look forward to engaging with the committee this evening.

An Cathaoirleach

I think Mr. Towey for the opening statement. I will say this for his benefit and the benefit of other witnesses from other Departments who will be appearing before the committee in the coming weeks to discuss their progress in respect of the national development plan. The name of this committee is the Joint Committee on Infrastructure and National Development Plan Delivery. We are only interested in delivery. The national development plan and sectoral plans are being discussed by the other Oireachtas committees and their line Departments. Our job is to see whether what is in the plans is being done. What happened in 2025? What expenditure happened in 2025? Where did it go? What expenditure happened in 2026? What was actually achieved by that? Where did it go? I am asking Mr. Towey about the capital investment programme for those two years and where the funding went. It is good to see some major projects have been completed, but they might have been ongoing for a couple of years and were just finished in 2025. We want to know what was actually achieved in 2025 and in 2026 in terms of the capital investment.

I take the straightforward view that the national development plan is ambitious. The best barometer we have at the moment to know whether it can be delivered regarding what has been stated for 2027, 2028 and 2029 is to go back to the various Departments and ask what they achieved in 2025 and 2026. People on the ground seeing targets being achieved during the year is the best barometer for us to have confidence that the plans for the next number of years can go ahead.

I understand Mr. Towey's opening statement. His Department is in with us first, but I also want to make it clear to those coming after him in the next couple of weeks who will be saying that the national development plan funding will enable this and support that that is the future. We are talking about delivery. Are we meeting what we are meant to each year? We do not want to wait until four years' time to say that something was delivered. We want to see progress each year. Obviously, projects are ongoing and there will be a contribution to a project. In due course, Mr. Towey might be able to tell us from stage to stage what part is facilitated, if the contractor was on site and if X amount of the staged payment for the contract had been made. We have no feel for what was actually done this year. It is not the projects that are completed because, as I said, they have been in the pipeline a while. Nor is it the projects that are started because there will be a couple of years before that. We want to know, year by year, what we are actually doing. It is a slightly different emphasis than just looking at the plan.

Mr. Towey has listed a few things there on the last page of the opening statement. He can come back to us with this information; he does not have to have it today. I am wondering about the actual capital investment for 2025 and 2026 to date. How much of it went on a particular project? He may set what a reasonable figure is. I do not want to know where the Department spent €50,000 or anything like that, but we want to grasp where the big investment actually went rather than just saying it went on rehabilitation of the network. That is so vague and it is across the board. The Department has information to highlight some of the specific jobs that were done. We are into specifics rather than the general. That general comment applies not only to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, but to all of the other Departments that will be coming before us in the next few weeks. He will get a feel of the information I am asking him to send back to the committee.

I will now call the speakers, who have indicated in the following sequence: Deputies Tóibín, Clendennen, O'Hara and McCormack. We are starting with a six-minute slot.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

Gabhaim míle buíochas leis na finnéithe as teacht isteach anseo inniu. The first matter is a small issue, but an important one. There are a large number of what I would call small wastewater group schemes within the country of maybe ten or 15 houses that are linked up to a shared septic tank through some kind of system. There seem to be no grants available for them to do up the system. If each household had a septic tank in its garden, it could apply individually for a grant. It is an easy win for the country in terms of making sure water quality is increased. Will Mr. Towey give me his views on whether that could be arranged. Is that an objective?

Mr. Fintan Towey

The first point I will make is that the general rule, which is actually expressed in law, is that it is the duty of the householder who has a septic tank as a wastewater solution to maintain and ensure that the septic tank is operating as it should in terms of treating the wastewater.

Mr. Fintan Towey

This is one of six projects - it was originally seven but is now six due to the amalgamation of Craughwell and Clarinbridge projects - that were proposed by local authorities. Proposals were invited from local authorities on the basis that the schemes would be 15% funded by local authorities and 85% by the Department. The original submission of applications was about four years ago.

Following the approval and the process of refining the plans for implementation purposes, it was the case in a number of instances that the overall project costs increased. Notwithstanding that increase the Department and the Minister agreed that the local authorities commitment would remain at the amount that was 15% of the original project cost. I am not sure how exactly these figures play out in relation to Clarinbridge and Craughwell but it should be the case that Galway County Council is not being called upon to fund any amount greater than when it proposed the project.

Deputy Louis O'Hara

Yes, but that is going to be a significant issue for the local authority. That is the point that I am making. When the project is completed, it goes to Uisce Éireann. It is not going to be in the ownership of the County Council. There is not going to be any revenue out of it from the county council. It is going to pose a significant issue in terms of their budgeting, which is very tight every year. They have made that request to the Department on multiple occasions. I ask that it be examined by the Department and that 100% funding of these projects is considered because it is going to be a stumbling block. We have already had things delayed for three years where there has been pretty much no movement on this project. The project is still years away. The bottom line is we cannot afford any further delays on it. I ask that to be considered by the Department.

Mr. Fintan Towey

It was something that was proposed by the local authority in the first instance and the terms on which that project, if approved, would need to be implemented were very clear, and that has not changed. We have had approaches along those lines, and we have rejected them, but I can report the Deputy's request to the Minister.

An Cathaoirleach

Mr. Towey might communicate to his Secretary General in the morning that we have the annual report 2024 for the Department but I do not see the 2025 report up on the Department website yet, and we did not get a copy of it. It is the end of September. Can Mr. Towey ask him to send us a copy forthwith?

How are small businesses supposed to survive this?

This year alone I have had to close the Leixlip cafe six times because of water outages and Maynooth twice.

Today in Leixlip we were without water for several hours. This comes just days after we had to close early on Sunday because of the same issue.

And four hours into today's outage, I still hadn't received a single alert or meaningful update from Uisce Éireann.

For a cafe, no water means NO BUSINESS. We can't prepare food, wash dishes, clean hands, or operate safely adhering to the food safety regulations.

Every closure means lost revenue that we can never get back.

To put it in perspective the money I've lost this year could have paid for:

- A part-time staff member every weekend

- The new dishwasher we desperately need

- New front-of-house lighting for Leixlip

- A desperately needed new oven for our Maynooth cafe

- Or, perhaps most importantly, the financial safety cushion every small business needs to survive another difficult year.

Okay. At this stage, we have had a good discussion. I thank the witnesses for the contributions today and for assisting the committee. They might get any information requested by the committee into us as soon as possible. They did highlight one issue for tomorrow morning. If there are any hitches on the other information that has been requested, they should keep the clerk notified of the timescale. As there are no other matters today, the meeting stands adjourned until 30 September.

Cuireadh an comhchoiste ar athló ar 6.39 p.m. go dtí 3.30 p.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 30 Meán Fómhair 2026.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.39 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 30 September 2026.

Joint Committee on Infrastructure and National Development Plan Delivery debate - Wednesday, 23 Sep 2026

Progress of the National Development Plan Sectoral Investment Plans for Housing, and Water Services and Quality: Discussion

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Paul Benson

Mr. Paul Benson

Mr. Paul Benson

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Paul Benson

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Garret Doocey

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Paul Hogan

Mr. Paul Benson

Joint Committee on Infrastructure and National Development Plan Delivery debate -
Wednesday, 23 Sep 2026