Mr. John Sheahan:

Deputy Cowen mentioned the vacant site levy becoming some sort of an income stream for the councils. The problems with its enforcement and what one would get from the levy have been outlined. When the development contribution scheme was introduced it was contentious. It became a revenue generator for the local authorities and contributed to the infrastructure that was needed for future development. Unfortunately, it was frozen with the general Government balance. There is a lot of money in local authorities that cannot be spent.

If we got that alone lifted, it would help with putting in some of the infrastructure, which would help kick-start the construction industry.

On the issue of the difference between the councillors on the 3,000 limit and the 5,000 limit, to us, a vacant site levy is for vacant sites within large towns and cities, not for agricultural land on the side of towns. As Councillor McNally said, the towns moved out to meet them. What we need to do is bring life back into our towns because there is nobody living in them, as there is nobody living in parts of our large cities. Most of the upstairs units in commercial premises are empty and are going to rack and ruin. It is those places we need to regenerate in order to bring life back into the cities. When it comes to 7 p.m., there should be an evening economy in a city or town, rather than everybody moving to the suburbs and leaving a desolate city or town. To mix it up with agricultural land is to take the wrong way.

We suggested the 5,000 limit for population because the Bill contains so many get-out clauses for not developing the site. If one goes into the smaller towns, the footfall is not there at present because the economy has not yet reached those places. We have to start with areas of larger population, where we would hope the economy will come back to first, and then get those vacant sites developed.

We had a difficulty with the previous overall affordable housing scheme, which was cumbersome both for the local authority and the person buying the house. Deputy Stanley referred to flexibility on the percentage in Part V. We are saying that has to be flexible because there will be places where more or less flexibility is needed. We said in our presentation that dispersal of Part V, which the Deputy referred to as the pepper-dusting rather than the clustering of Part V houses, is very valid. However, through the regeneration programme in Limerick, we have found that this only works if the local authority can put in place a system whereby the people being housed are integrated, that is, that there are residents associations and everybody is up to speed on what is happening. If that does not happen, there are other situations and problems.