Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The main argument coming from the construction sector is that profit margins on houses are too low for the banks to consider lending, and Part V eats further into these profits. I believe that anyone who would buy a site today and build houses on it would still make some money on it. If the banks will not lend, it tells us there is a problem with the banks. The taxpayer bailed the banks out, it kept them on their feet and now they will not lend to builders unless the sector becomes more attractive and there is no risk whatever involved. The same bankers are prepared to go on the financial markets and gamble with funding they garnered from the taxpayer but they are not prepared to lend to build houses. Builders do not build houses to create homes for people. They build them to make money. However, there are other ways. Doing away with Part V would be a terrible mistake.

Part V is not only about the provision of social housing. It is primarily about social integration and it functions to tackle the creation of ghettos. It was ridiculous that, between 2002 and 2011, only 5,000 social units and 10,000 affordable units were provided by Part V.

I note that in Clancy Barracks, Kennedy Wilson, an international hedge fund, is looking to build a couple of hundred units. It has applied for permission and has signalled it thinks the site is unsuitable for social units. I am sure it thinks so, but the Minister of State should not let it away with it.

See this speech in context