Denis Landy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending. I will be very quick in making my observations and asking my questions.

On development levies, the delegation is correct that each local authority sets a development levy. However, it is the autonomous role of elected members at local level, and I do not subscribe in any way to the view that this process should be centralised. It would be taking away the local knowledge of what is required in local authority areas.

I have a couple of questions. I will not be present to hear the answers but they will be on the record. Everyone referred to the windfall tax. Mr. Phillips suggested the levy should be reduced from 80% to 33%. Will he advise us as to why he made that decision? Would he not accept there is a windfall tax because the people who now own the land are going to make a major profit when they release it on the market? This is because it is rezoned land. From where was the figure of 33% plucked? There will be profit made on the land no matter what price it is sold for, even at this stage in our economic cycle. I would like an explanation as to why a levy reduction would kick-start development.

My second question concerns derelict sites across the country. There is currently a levy on derelict sites and, quite obviously, it is not working. It is not incentivising the development of sites. The sites are a blight in every rural town and across the city. There are certainly some unsightly locations. What do the delegates believe can be done about the derelict sites other than imposing the levy?

It was suggested that local authority land be released for development. Could the delegates elaborate on their view on the release to the market of private land, not just local authority land?

With regard to dereliction, what is the proposal to deal with the issue? It seems most of his contribution to the committee today concerned the Government, local authority or State reducing taxes in one way or another to kick-start house-building. I come from a rural area where there are many builders still in operation. They were in operation throughout the recession because they built at a reasonable rate and sold at a reasonable rate.

There was a market for what they were building. In the main, the people who went out of business were those who put their prices up in the sky - prices that people could not meet - and who then borrowed on the strength of not being able to sell houses. There is still a market for people to build and sell houses if they do so at a reasonable rate. That seems to be lost in Mr. O'Hogan's contribution today and I would like to hear his comments on that. I must leave but the answer will be on the record and I appreciate the Chairman's understanding.