Ms Caroline Timmons:

My colleague, Mr. Hogan, will comment after a few minutes but I shall start by answering the last point. The Deputy identified one way to increase the amount of social housing. The flaw in his logic is that simply setting a percentage does not automatically increase the level of social housing. One could set the percentage at 100% yet one will still not get social housing because simply no one would be able to supply it, instead one will affect development and choke supply.

The initiative does not address the impact on supply in the short to medium term. There has been no such analysis. Let us consider what was being developed during the years when the bust happened. In 2008 and 2009, there were 4,518 Part V units, which was the height of the provision, yet the number plummeted to just 36 in 2016. That shows the percentage does not automatically mean one will get more units. A percentage represents what one wants but it does not mean developers will provide units or that there will be a supply. What we are looking at here is increasing a percentage and effectively not knowing if the supply will be available. People have bought the land at these prices, they are looking at building these houses in the next two years and we are saying that we absolutely want them to do so. However, now we are saying we are going to change the rules so people must go back to their banks and say: "No, I am sorry but we will have to look at that again." As a result there will definitely be a delay and we could negatively affect the supply.

The reference by the Deputy to the Goodbody report is very apt because it shows how finely balanced things are right now. We are on the precipice and do not know whether we are going up or down. The ESRI still says that we will hit about 25,000 units and it is important that we maintain the momentum. I do not accept the point that there is instability in policy anyway and, therefore, we should have more, and it does not matter. Of course it matters. It matters that we do not have any more instability than we absolutely have to. The Minister accepted in his Second Stage speech that once a supply reaches a level that is maintainable and sustainable - possibly the 35,000 units mark - he would look at that again. That is a very fair and balanced position. Once we see supply coming back to the level we really need then one would consider whether we are getting enough and if we could get more. That is a really reasonable position. In 2000, we were very reasonable when we said we wanted to get more units and more again during the boom. However, we are not in that space now and have a very different economic reality in which to make decisions to change things; we said, in the review, that this is what we are going to do. The last point made by the Deputy was precise because he said we should stick to it for a little while. What we are doing is sticking to it for a little while, making sure we do not affect things and giving a little bit of stability but once we reach a position of stability we can make changes again. The Deputy is right that this is about providing certainty to the market. In other words, if one bought something at this price we are not going to change the game immediately and we will get= the supply, which is what we are asking for.

It is wrong to say that we are not going to get social and affordable housing any other way. Of course local authorities need them but this is why we are considering other ways to provide such houses. We are using public lands to do so, which the Deputy very much supports. We are also considering measures like the serviced sites fund, the local infrastructure housing activation fund or LIHAF, affordable purchase homes and the rebuilding of home loans. We know that all of these levers will accelerate and increase supply but this is a lever that manifestly could choke and decrease supply. One has got to use the ones that are safe bets. With this one there is a clear possible unintended consequence because at a minimum there will be a delay and, at a maximum, it could decrease supply. Given how much that might affect rents in the market we have to be very clear we have the evidence base to make a policy decision. We do not have the evidence base before us to make that policy decision right now. It would be something that we will consider again when the time is right, to check that this is something we would like to do.

My colleague, Mr. Hogan, will comment on strategic development zones. He is a planner and, therefore, has more expertise on them.