Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I thought that requirement was the heart and soul of Part V of the 2000 Act. It was debated repeatedly at the time because it was very controversial. It was fiercely resisted by the building industry which was surprised and disappointed when the Supreme Court did not find it unconstitutional and throw it out. What the industry could not get from the Supreme Court it now appears to be getting from the Government. I would be delighted if the Minister corrects me and gives me assurance. From what I have read, the purpose of the Bill is not, as the programme for Government promised, to ensure the 2000 Act meets the objectives for which it was enacted, namely, the provision of more social housing. Its purpose seems to be to admit defeat. I would be glad if the Minister corrects me.