Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Was it Clonakilty? It delivered a very good outcome but it required a huge amount of administrative time, and it requires money. The witness was quite right about the rolling fund. It would be useful to identify the deficiencies in the Derelict Sites Act, which was cumbersome in that a derelict site notice could not be served on, say, somebody living outside the country. There were disputes within families and all of that became problematic. Even the definition was problematic. If such measures could be put into this legislation, they would be useful to us in terms of making this useful and practical legislation. Too often we see legislation brought forward that has aspirations but when we attempt to implement it in practice, it is not workable. It is important to state that.

I would like to hear from the Planning Institute regarding its statement that given the rapidly improving market in Dublin in particular, it believes that the provision of some affordable element for the greater Dublin area should be considered. Will one of the witnesses expand on that? The institute's presentation goes on to refer to European Investment Bank funding with regard to addressing this particular difficulty where we have all the houses built first and the infrastructure following that.

Regarding Part V in terms of the Housing Agency, have the witnesses done a piece of work on the amount of housing that can be delivered in the various sectors? What has the agency factored in regarding Part V in terms of what can be delivered on this? It is clear there is an ability to raise money from the European Investment Bank, for example, with regard to a rental option that may well be funded through bonds from that source. Will the Part V mechanism deliver sufficiently in all parts of the country? It may well be the case that where it does not deliver in some parts, direct social housing provision or something from that other funding source may be another route. One size will not fit all. I would like to hear what the witnesses have to say on that aspect.

The big issue is that a change in behaviour required in the construction industry. The issue of bonds has been touched on. The only ones that were issued in perpetuity were those that were issued by Anglo Irish Bank and we know there are unsecured creditors in regard to IBRC. Bonds have not worked to the benefit of people who purchased houses. They are the ones whom we have an obligation to consider given that they are not here.

I suggest, for example, in regard to planning permissions that the legislation seems to be quite short-term in its focus and there should be a sunset clause in order that the operation of Part V would be examined, because in five years time we may well be back in a situation where there is a much bigger delivery of housing stock in all sectors and the provision might require to be revisited. I believe a sunset clause is the way to deal with the issue.