Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am puzzled as to why we are rowing back from 20% to 10% of the land that must be provided for social and affordable housing. There is a myth among the general public that local authorities were given up to 20% of the land zoned for residential use. I know that it was quite common for it to range from 17% to 18% but the local authorities had to buy the houses. In some cases, the developers and builders used low grade material in the social and affordable houses, with some of them leaving a lot to be desired. However, other developers built houses that ranged from okay to very good.

I am at a loss to understand the reason we are reducing it from 20% to 10%. There is a growing need for affordable housing, particularly in the cities and larger towns. The previous Government has been criticised, and it may have deserved criticism for some things, but the figures as set out show what was built under the social and affordable housing scheme each year. Many people who otherwise would not be able to buy a home were able to buy a home under this scheme. I think it is a retrograde step to halve it to 10%.

The provision in this Bill is that the development has to be a minimum of ten houses - in other words, the local authority will be able to buy one in ten whereas in the past, the local authority had the option to buy one house in five and often had the same option when four houses were built. I think the reduction to 10% is a retrograde step. I am at a loss to know the reason for this. Has the need for affordable evaporated?

I am aware there are parts of the country where one can buy a house cheaper than any local authority could provide a house, especially in more rural areas, where there is no demand for housing and the ghosts estates are lying idle. Even in County Laois, I can see parts of the county where it would be hard to give houses away but in other parts of the county, there is a high demand and prices are starting to outstrip what people who are earning reasonably good wages in steady jobs can borrow. We must look again at the provision of affordable housing and bring it up to 20% in the first instance