Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)

I thank the Minister for his reply and am delighted to hear we started from the same square on the board regarding this matter. Obviously I do not agree with where he has moved to from there, even if he has had to listen to legal advice and so on.

When the original legislation was debated in both Houses, the number of speakers who referred to the fact that it was bound to end up in the Supreme Court was quite extraordinary. We all knew we were looking at a fairly radical departure, namely, that the State would intervene and, in return for compensation, basically acquire land, sites and houses for the purpose of providing social and affordable housing for the common good. It was good that this was tested in the Supreme Court and it was even better that the court issued the judgment it did. That is the framework within which we are operating.

If there had been no Supreme Court judgment, I would not be asking the Minister to look at the spirit of it. Mr. Justice Keane said on page 23 of the judgment that the schemes "are rationally connected to an objective of sufficient importance to warrant interference within a constitutionally protected right and given the serious social problems which they are designed to meet, they undoubtedly relate to concerns which, in a free and democratic society, should be regarded as pressing and substantial." In other words, the Oireachtas has the right to interfere with property rights in this case in order to advance the common good and to protect a basic right, namely, the right to housing where people do not themselves have the means to provide it.

That is the framework within which we are operating. It gives the Oireachtas the authority, indeed the right, to act on these particular planning permissions and to bring them in under the Part V framework. I agree that the measures will probably be tested but my instinct is to let them be tested, particularly in the context of the existing judgment. The common good is better served by bringing these permissions under Part V.

This is worth the risk for a number of reasons. Housing supply can continue and the provision of 20% of housing to a local authority means there would be a huge gain. In addition, it would underline a fundamental principle and send out a strong signal that we consider the common good of the fundamental right to housing and the provision of housing to be paramount. That is a very important signal to send. It might also convince those builders who do not consider themselves part of the rest of the world to join us. Given the urgent social need for housing with which we have been faced in recent years, those builders could get on with providing it.