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

I move amendment No. 197:

In page 45, lines 19 and 20, to delete “and, where applicable, Part V of the Act of 2000”.

One concerning aspect of both the Bill and the more general debate is how little attention is paid to the issue of social housing. Genuine concern has been expressed by organisations such as the Irish Council for Social Housing and various homelessness organisations that, other than on local authority sites where there is a pre-existing agreement to have that higher percentage of social housing, such as at Shanganagh, where the 30% is obviously welcome, there seems to be a working assumption on the part of the LDA that, in the main, there will be 10% social housing. Even where increased funding may be made available or increased affordable housing will be provided for on sites, the social housing output will be limited, and that is very retrograde.

My view at all times is that the tenure mix should be determined by local need based on the housing needs demand assessment of the local authority and the views of the local elected members because they are best placed. I do not understand why we often hear references, both in the presentations of the LDA and in the section before us, to Part V of the Planning and Development Act. That Part applies to private housing developments, which are currently set at 10%, although I warmly welcome the Minister's commitment to increasing that to 20%. Nevertheless, LDA land should not be constrained by Part V of the Act but rather it should use its land on the basis of identified housing need. Therefore, unless the Minister can give me a coherent reason Part V should even be referenced in the Bill, I see no reason it should be there.

In general, any of the major sites we have examined, whether they are being transferred to the LDA, being developed by the local authorities or being pushed into questionable joint ventures, have had about 30% social housing, and in fact some are 40%, such as in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. Part V, therefore, and the 10% social housing requirement it implies is a real problem if we are to tackle both the social housing and the homelessness crises. Accordingly, I would be interested to hear the Minister's rationale for including lines 19 and 20 of the section.

I might deal with my amendments in this grouping in three parts because they involve three distinct sets of arguments, but I will be brief when I come back in on the other amendments.