Dr. Conor O'Toole:

I do not have a great deal to add. On affordability, I do not have any evidence to suggest that changing the parametrization of the current agency in order that there has to have 100% affordable housing on all the public lands is not a good idea at this stage. I would support a requirement that it would have, as an objective, the delivery of affordable units because it is critical to the issue in Ireland.

On site taxes, in general, as Professor McQuinn highlighted, the international evidence indicates that where markets do not rely on bulk zoning activities and have a freer ability to manage land over the cycle or when it is needed, they do a better job of removing the volatility from the price movements, which a large body of international work has examined. The characteristic, which is shared between the UK and Irish economies, has been pointed to as a bottleneck and difficulty from our point of view.

On the difference between the site value tax and the vacant site levy, as Professor McQuinn indicated, there appear to be administrative challenges with the vacant site levy, the registration process and other administrative aspects. A site value tax is a more direct instrument, given that it identifies some land and its current phase. Using a fiscal instrument to put a cost on keeping it in that phase has much merit. Moving that land through the process and ensuring there is a cost to keeping it at that stage, as opposed to moving it through the cycle, should be strongly considered.