Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is interesting and I hope the Bill will reactivate construction and get more houses built. In doing that we must ensure there is social integration in development. In the past where buy-outs were possible, social integration was not done as well as it should have been. We should keep that in mind. Mr. Skehan said there is still a facility for affordable housing. I would not like to see it go away, particularly in light of the new regulation on the 20% deposit. Although that decision has not been made, it is imminent and will affect first-time buyers. That must all be taken into consideration. The facility for affordable housing should remain.

I was on South Dublin County Council for 20 years and saw how Part V led to problems. I hope that this will activate building. While the recommendation to keep all the options and the 1% sounds attractive, I do not think it would work to provide social housing.

On the issue of the land valuation tax versus the vacant site levy, too many taxes could halt construction. In an ideal situation where there are enough houses or builders have money to build the houses which we do not have, we could say we would not start from here but we are here. I can understand the theory behind the land value tax instead of the site levy but we are not in the right place for that.

I agree that the housing strategies may need to be amended to be more responsive to change because that is a shortcoming of the housing strategy. They are static and react to change rather than being proactive. Building is expensive. Developers are in the business for the good of society but also to make a profit. I can see why nine houses were specified. I would enter a caveat that in order to progress development, for example, a site for 36 houses should not be done piecemeal in groups of eight and a few. If a developer who owns such a site wants to build only nine houses on it, the local authority should have the foresight and insight to question that. The construction industry welcomed the reduced development levies which removed some of the inconsistencies in them but the levy is a matter for the local authority. It asked too that the payment be made as the development progresses rather than as one tranche. It depends on whether the local authority can afford that.

The exceptional circumstances must be defined because exceptional to the witnesses may not be exceptional to me. There are many ways to skin a cat. That is wide open.

Deputy Dowds dwelt on the difference between urban and rural areas so I will not go into that.

While I am interested in many things, I am particularly interested in the revolving infrastructure fund in the UK that the witnesses mentioned might lead to promotion. I believe Deputy Catherine Murphy mentioned the bonds. It is there and it is an interesting aspect to consider - anything that will promote it on the ground. Perhaps we could promote that and the committee could investigate it further.