Ms Caroline Timmons:

Many of the arguments made are very fair. However, there is quite a circular argument going on in that, with regard to the proposals made, we are told we should provide the evidence that they are not true.

It is quite difficult for us to be asked to prove the negative. We should be shown evidence that it would work, but none is being put before us and so we cannot consider it. That is a difficulty. It is also an issue to say that if there was no evidence to reduce it, which we did the last time, we do not therefore need evidence this time. With the greatest respect, that is a difficult argument to accept.

We cannot say that we should just go back to the way we were without evidence to show that it will not have unintended consequences. I am not saying that that would justify it, but it could; it is a foreseeable possibility and we should have evidence to show that we are reasonably certain it will not. We need a decent economic analysis to show the reason it will not. The man in the street will know that if the game changes, the financial model changes and one will have to go back to one's bank, or to one's financiers, to say that the land or units have to be sold back to the local authority at a particular price. That is reasonable to assume. To say that that is not reasonable to assume, it has to be demonstrated why that is not the case.

It has been said that local authorities are acquiring in some areas, and that is absolutely right. Local authorities have the flexibility to do that. In a given area, if they want to acquire units, they now have the flexibility to do that. That is the beauty of the system. However, if it is stated that they "must" acquire a given area, as this legislation does, all flexibility is removed from the local authority to decide that there is enough social housing in an area.

The Department has looked at the research that was raised which states that 10% is enough, but that 10% is not separate from everything else. All these places are connected to other places. Local authorities have to look at the percentage in the broader area. Looking at one development is not a fine-grained assessment of the situation; the percentage around the development has to be looked at. To simply say that we should not care about what is around it and have 25%, regardless of what is needed, means that local authorities will have to spend a significant amount of money, perhaps in areas where the units are quite expensive, where it might not agree that it should. All flexibility to make the decision is removed.

It also means less flexibility in decision-making for a developer. It is important that developers are able to say to local authorities what would assist them in their model. If it works for everybody, that is wonderful, but developers should also be able to say that if they do this, they cannot supply the units because it does not work under their financial model. That has to be taken into account. We have to understand that it might not always work for a developer, but if it does, that is great.

I hope I have addressed logically the points being made.