Mr. Tom Phillips:

The windfall tax was introduced in 2009 under the NAMA Act and it went straight from 0% to 80%. It was not incrementally increased all the way from 20% to 80%; it came from nowhere and was immediately imposed at a level of 80%. We are not seeking a tax break, what we want is an equitable tax. Many people would like it to be reduced to 0% but we are suggesting that it should be reduced to 33%. We are not seeking a tax break, what we are pursuing is a balancing or a correction of the tax. In 2009 this appeared to be a good brake on the system but it has not worked and the proof of the pudding is that it appears to have brought in no money. All it seems to have done is act as a disincentive.

In the context of planning and social housing, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is exemplary. It has a major workload with which to deal - including implementing the recommendations relating to the Mahon tribunal, establish the office of the planning regulator, etc. - and has only a limited number of planners on its staff. One of the Department's other duties is to oversee the position with regard to Part V social housing. Between 2000 and 2011, some 3.5% of all houses, excluding one-off dwellings, were social and affordable houses. Part V did not deliver 15%, it delivered a much smaller percentage. It would be useful, from our point of view, if the introduction of the planning Bill could be expedited. There is a great deal of ground to be covered by that legislation and the position with regard to Part V social housing is only one aspect. If it could even be done in stages and if Part V could be expedited rather than there being a need to wait for all the other items to be dealt with simultaneously, this would at least provide some certainty.

We know that affordable housing has been taken off the table but social housing is still in play. It is very difficult to advise someone who wants to develop land exactly what the position is likely to be. This is because there is an expectation that a planning Bill is going to be introduced but this eventuality always appears to be three or four months away. If we could obtain an indication with regard to when the Bill is going to be introduced, this would provide some certainty to the market. When it appears, the Bill will then provide us with a way of working out how we can deliver social housing. I agree with Mr. O'Hogan to the effect that we are supportive of the delivery of social housing. However, we must be able to see, from our point of view, that it will be viable and that there will be ways of delivering it. We are not talking about tax breaks, we are seeking an equitable tax situation.