Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Phillips's final point related to development levies and the disparities with regard to having 31 planning authorities throughout the country. To what extent does he agree that where there is provision of services, infrastructure, etc., this is levied? Is he stating that, on the basis of the existence of Irish Water - which has responsibility in respect of providing water supplies and sewerage facilities - this should be dealt with in a different way and should not be levied by means of planning permission?

NAMA is becoming involved in constructing residential properties, in respect of which it has great plans, and commercial units. One of the points which has been made is that the way to plan for the future is to respond to data. What is the position with regard to empirical data? A few years ago we were informed that entire swathes of housing estates would have to be pulled down and that there would probably never be a need to construct new houses again. Our guests have explained how the market is not operating and outlined the fact that properties are not being brought onto the market. Is there solid empirical data available in this regard, not just in respect of Dublin but for the remainder of the country, including the west and to locations outside the major urban centres? What is the position and is more property required?

Another point in the context of NAMA is the existence of land banks. I am aware that land banks built up by a number of developers involved with NAMA are tied up with that organisation. Those individuals with whom I am in contact have reported that their dealings with NAMA, in the context of having these sites developed, have been very unsatisfactory. The sites in question are located in the Dublin area and they would be suitable for housing and other types of development.

There was previously a large body of experts - that is, those who were developers during the boom years - operating in this area in the past. Many of these individuals, particularly those who operated on a larger scale, became involved in NAMA, even if this was through no fault of their own. In the judgment handed down in the O'Flynn case recently, NAMA was very much chastised. Are out guests in a position to outline the experience the developers with whom they are involved have had with NAMA? We are quite restricted in terms of the type of information we can seek from NAMA. Initially, it was envisaged that a parliamentary committee would have oversight in respect of the organisation's activities. However, that has not proven to be the case and we are operating on the basis of hearsay. I would propose that some of the developers involved should come before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform or whatever. What are our guests' views on the experts in development to whom I refer who have been brought to their knees and who are not being dealt with fairly by NAMA? I accept that might not be popular to refer to these individuals in the way that I have, particularly as anyone who was involved in property development - whether good, bad or indifferent - in the past has been demonised in recent years.

The final issue in which I am interested is that which relates to social housing. To what extent can private financing be leveraged and used to build social housing? I accept that the way in which the social housing system operates is different and that people might be able to eventually purchase their council homes. In other words, the sales involved are not immediate. What sort of scheme would our guests envisage being put in place in order to encourage private investors to become involved in the development of social housing in order that we might address the housing problem?