Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

This is an important point. I stated yesterday that I will be giving a specific direction that, in terms of payment, it is the absolute final option. I will be monitoring this from my Department and it will also be the responsibility of managers to ensure that this is the case. I reiterate that local authority members will also be monitoring this and it will be unacceptable if this is just regarded as a source of funding.

There were instances, particularly in the Dublin area, where the cost to a local authority of obtaining one or two units was huge. This did not make sense. In cases where a substantial payment in lieu was given, instead of obtaining two units, a local authority might get ten, 15 or even more units. That was the real reason behind the change.

I have made it clear in my instructions to the local authorities that this will be the final option. Any moneys that the local authorities collect under the terms of this provision can only be used for the specific purpose of the provision of social and affordable housing. It would be disastrous if the money collected under this provision disappeared into the general funds of local authorities and was spent in other areas. That will not be allowed to happen.

I return to the Senator's other point about the need to try to strike a balance. One should remember that some players would have said, "Get rid of Part V. That is what we want. Send it out the door. Forget about it. We do not want anything to do with it." Many members of the public might have subscribed to the same view. However, the Government did not go down that road. It was never an option I seriously considered, although there were those who would have wanted to see it happen in that way. I said Part V, the 20%, should remain.

Senator O'Meara rightly made the point that in her local authority they did not choose to go to 20%, they chose to go to 10%. I think some local authorities misunderstood it. It was not a minimum of 20%; that was the maximum and they could work it out. If one looks at the figures, some local authorities chose to go for 15% affordable housing and only 5% social housing, while some went 50/50. Some went for a different balance. Some did not go to 20%, but to 8% and 7%. Therefore, there were different mixes and different options used. That was right because local authorities have different needs at different times.