Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is a very selective set of quotations from the court judgment. It is one of the only court judgments we have had looking at the issue of property rights and how they interact with the State’s policy attempts to meet housing need. It is also an incredibly progressive decision. One of the points that Dr. Rachael Walsh, one of the country’s leading constitutional law experts, argues is that if governments were brave enough to introduce other measures such as Part V and they could be challenged in the courts, there is a likelihood that the courts would uphold Government decisions, as was the case with Part V. It is also important that section of the Act was referred to the courts by the Government to ensure its constitutionality. Even it was not fully aware of it at the time. I would take a very different read of the judgment. Having said that, one could argue that up to 50%, rather than a minimum, might be constitutionally more sound. The principle, however, that in a much deeper housing crisis today than we had in 1999 when the legislation was first passed by the Oireachtas, there would be a constitutional difficulty with moving beyond 20% does not stand. Ultimately, however, a Government could test that in the courts rather than hide behind what is, in my view, a poor interpretation of the judgment.

The second thing is viability. This is one of the greatest canards in the whole debate. Part V actually reduces the market value of the land. As a consequence of reducing the market value of the land, it makes the developments more viable. As the Minister of State will know from his own experience, for the portion of the development which is purchased under Part V, the land value is the existing-use value. Over time, one of the good values of Part V is that it moderates land values. If the Government were to increase, whether through a mandatory minimum or up to Part V to 25% or 30%, over the medium to long term it would make projects more viable.

The other interesting thing is that increasingly developers are proactively looking to sell at least 30% of developments to local authorities and approved housing bodies. Again, that is particularly the case in Dublin and the commuter belt. The problem is when the local authority or the AHB comes to buy them, they get a better discount for the Part Vs than they do for the turnkeys. At a time when interest rates have put a level of pause on institutional investment for purchases and the State is now expected by developers to pick up the slack and buy the units, would it not make more sense to ensure that you get the Part V discount for those? Where you do not get that discount, you pay significantly more. I know the Minister of State is not accepting the amendment but when I hear some of the amendments put forward - I appreciate the Minister of State is just reading a brief given to him by another Department - those arguments do not stand up to the empirical reality out there. I do not expect that will change the mind of the Minister of State or that of his officials in terms of the amendment.