Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Yes, please. In terms of putting together the housing development strategy, currently the Bill states "The housing development strategy may ... indicate in respect of any particular area referred to in paragraph (a) that there is no requirement for housing referred to in subsection (6) of section 219 in respect of that area, or that a lower percentage than that specified in the housing strategy may instead be required in order to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social backgrounds." Section 219(6) is the section of the more detailed housing strategy, as we just discussed, which deals with the provision of social housing. What the Bill is saying is that the housing development strategy, which is supposed to be materially consistent - as the Minister of State has just informed us - with the more detailed housing strategy, can actually vary it in a very specific way by reducing the amount of social housing provided in a particular area. This is in order to combat "undue segregation". I made the point previously that the idea of "undue segregation" is problematic. I think it should be deleted but that is probably a matter for a separate amendment. What does "undue" mean in the phrase? Does it mean that there some kind of legitimate segregation? No, there is not. Segregation is wrong, full stop. There should not be any segregation. It is not about "undue segregation"; we should not have segregation at all. Setting that point aside, the substantial point here is that the no development should be allowed go below the target of 20% for social and affordable housing, solely on the basis of a rather vague notion of "undue segregation". I will address this in further amendments later, but if anything, we should be going significantly up from the 20% total target for social and affordable housing. The idea that the target can be brought down is completely wrong.

I also find it ironic that the Government would suggest that it can be reduced. One of the features I find annoying about the current Part V is that if there is a private development in, for example, a very expensive area of Foxrock, we all know what happens. The council does not take the 10% or the 20% there. It says that it is too expensive and perhaps we should not have social housing in Foxrock. Of course we should, but the housing is given somewhere else. That is what actually happens and it is completely wrong. It is also becoming very apparent with tenant in situ purchases that local authorities are very reluctant to make these purchases in particular areas because there seems to be an attitude that certain areas are a bit too posh to have social housing. Local authorities then do not pay the money to prevent people being evicted in that area, whereas they might do so in other areas. There is an attitude here that needs to be smashed. We need to demand that any development has the minimum requirement for 10% social and 10% affordable housing. As I will go on to argue later, I think the target should be ramped up to about 50%.

This is not for this Bill, but if the Government is worried about so-called undue segregation, there is a very easy way to fix it by raising the social housing income thresholds, rather than keeping them at the very low level that obtains now. This is the real reason why we end up with increasing segregation, because of the failure to raise the thresholds. Almost every year, social housing becomes something that is only available to households on ever-lower incomes. This issue should be addressed. For the purposes of this amendment, this section should be deleted. There should be no option in the development strategy to go lower than the 20% in the housing strategy.