Mr. Tom Parlon:

Deputy Catherine Murphy raised the importance of legislation being useful and practical. She said the derelict sites legislation did not work. I contend that Part V has not worked, despite Mr. Skehan’s assertion, because there is a major national crisis in respect of social housing with almost 100,000 people on a housing list and a long-term commitment from the Government to provide €3.5 billion for social housing. It has been aspirational and as a funding model it did not work. Regardless of its aspirational side and the positive side of social integration, which we in the CIF support, it was not supported because the funding was not there. Our model is an alternative. In light of the Government’s commitment to a substantial budget for social housing - unfortunately we will need more social housing unless private housing is built - Part V is a deterrent to private building because the costs are holding back development. Previously in the industry, and the planners would agree with me, approximately 40% of the sale price of a house went directly to the Exchequer. One of our members lately contended the figure is now 50%. That makes it difficult. Even the Part V contribution is enough. The last straw, they say, breaks the camel’s back and as Mr. Fitzpatrick said, if it is not the Part V contribution, the financial contributions or VAT, the rest is fixed and, if anything, going up. Labour prices will be under pressure and the other inputs are going up. Land is different and I agree with the Deputies’ assertion that previously the cost of land was a major factor.

Deputy Cowen talked about using it or losing it. Deputy Stanley has just left but if there is a vacant site in Portlaoise, Tullamore, Birr or Portarlington it is because it is not viable to move it. If the unfortunate owner, developer or builder, has to pay a levy, that will delay any chance of building and creating much-needed infrastructure, and jobs. However the vacant site levy is introduced, it must take note of the very serious considerations that we and the Planning Institute have raised. The costs are the major issue.