Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

The Senator's amendment would delete the word "undue" from the phrase "the need to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social background in the area of the authority." The planning authority must give consideration to this need when deciding whether to enter into an agreement other than the reservation of land within the development under subsection (3)(b).

I am determined that this new flexibility in making agreements will not lead to a breakdown in social integration. Builders will not be able to put social or affordable housing at the edge of communities with no social links and no infrastructure. However, social integration does not mean making people live side by side. It does mean ensuring that people of all social backgrounds are represented within a local community – going to the same shops and the same schools, benefiting from the same community facilities and the same transport links.

I will be setting firm guidelines for local authorities as to the types of alternative arrangements that would be acceptable in terms of social integration. That is very important. In including this phrase in the section, which is clear in its meaning, I was following the existing language of Part V. I did it to maintain consistency. Section 94 of the Act requires local authorities, when preparing their housing strategies, to take into account the need to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social backgrounds. The phrase is clear and I do not think the amendment would improve it. I understand what the Senator is trying to say, but I am trying to be consistent. If I start using different language now, we will end up with different interpretations. I would rather be consistent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."