Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I think the Minister misunderstands or misinterprets the significance of the wording change. The problem is that the idea of mixed tenure automatically promoting integration has become something of a dogma, especially in political circles around housing. Many of us could take the Minister to mixed tenure housing estates where there is no integration. Where there are multi-unit developments there will be social housing tenants who are denied the right to participate in the owner management company annual general meetings. This creates clear divisions. There are different service delivery arrangements for refuse collection. As Deputy Boyd Barrett said, there are different finishes. There is a practice with apartment developments of putting all the social housing in one block because it is more cost effective for the approved housing body to manage one block rather than a different layout. It creates all manner of tensions.

All the evidence from all our housing policy experts, especially Michelle Norris, Tony Fahey and Mick Byrne in UCD, shows that mixed tenure is not the issue, but mixed income is. We can achieve mixed income either through mixed tenure or in a variety of other ways. For example, St. Michael's Estate is an important housing development that Dublin City Council is leading on and the Department is supporting. That will not be a mixed tenure estate. It will have social and affordable renters, all of whom will be renters from Dublin City Council. The great value of that development is that it is mixed income. That is why I am proposing the amendment. I am not going to prolong the debate but I will be pressing amendments Nos. 9, 38 and 86.