Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

——and developers were trying to produce housing within a short period. Household sizes were reducing and the population was increasing by thousands each year.

The type of housing being produced currently raises eyebrows. Irish people are not used to living in cramped apartments. It is acceptable for students, first-time buyers and the new population but we must consider what will happen in 30 years time. Will it resemble the outskirts of Paris where apartments are accommodation for those with low skills on the margins of society? These matters should be considered with a view to building communities in those areas.

Empty nesting is a contributory factor. We should consider exemption from stamp duty for those who are downsizing from larger houses. This may improve supply and provide more appropriate accommodation for households of a certain size.

We must consider whether it is appropriate to have separate planning authorities within the Dublin area. There should be one greater Dublin planning authority. In Shankill, on the border with Bray, three local authorities were involved in the development of Bray Golf Club, namely, Bray Town Council, Wicklow County Council and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Mr. McNamara's proposal for the Tara Towers Hotel had the same problem because Dublin City Council and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown are involved. The latter appealed against Dublin City Council's proposal, a ridiculous situation.

We must also consider the pressure to avoid social segregation. The 2002 Act introduced this concept, which had never been referred to in legislation before. While speaking on the debate I was surprised it was not welcomed more by all sides. It is a section of the 2002 Act that must be developed. The Government has explained to local authorities how they can negotiate on development costs, profit and land value but local authorities must also develop an ethos that avoids social segregation. Part V was revolutionary when it was introduced in 2000, which is why it was considered by the Supreme Court. The amendment was——

See this speech in context