Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)

In effect, the decision is to extend 44,000 planning permissions and levy 0.5% on their value. In so doing, as I said yesterday on Second Stage, it will eventually let them off the hook in relation to the social and affordable housing rule. In looking at the background to this I came across a speech given by Mr. Philip Jones, president of the Irish Planning Institute, to the national planning conference in 2001, the theme of which was the implementation of the 2000 Act and the national development plan. Naturally, Part V of the 2000 Act formed a core part of his address. I will refer to some of what he said because he was so on the ball. It is worth referring to because it echoes my thinking. I hope it will show that this thinking is not just a partisan Labour Party perspective and that the concerns I raise are echoed across the board.

Let us consider the reason the withering rule was inserted in the 2000 Act. It was an anti-avoidance measure to ensure compliance with the Part V obligations. Mr. Jones referred to the fact:

The Government wisely included a measure by which planning permissions granted between August 1999 and the coming into force of the housing strategies would have a life of two years. This was a necessary anti-avoidance measure, to ensure that builders and developers would not seek to frustrate the operation of the new provisions.

He continued:

It is just typical of the house-building sector, flushed with their success in persuading the Minister for Finance to dump the proposed 60% capital gains tax regime for the sale of development land, that they now seek to have the time limit removed. This will have the effect of further delaying the implementation of Part V.

He went on to refer to the sustained lobbying campaign by the building industry in relation to Part V. He said:

I have little doubt that, despite not winning the constitutional argument last year, many of the builders still have a rooted objection to the social and affordable housing provision, and will seek to stymie its application in practice in the case of individual planning applications.