Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I know the comments made by Senators have been intended in a positive way. They have talked about addressing the reality of unequal social backgrounds and experiences. However, we need to be clear that this is not about people's aspirations. It is not that people need to be inspired by seeing a rich person living next to them. I understand that is not what other Senators have suggested, as I made clear in prefacing my remarks.To be clear, I understand that. The reason I am making this point is because there has been a problem in how it has been approached in the past. While I know this is what the Minister of State means, I wish to be clear, when speaking on aspirations, that I refer to the aspirations of the State in respect of the investments it makes and the aspirations it has for people.

I have a concern around this particular argument and the promotion of the idea that we need to have greater diversity of community and background. In the past, we have seen this argument being invoked in the idea of public land needing to have a certain component of private or high-end property if it is going to be developed. When it comes to private developments that are appealing to those of a particular social and income background, however, very often the way in which those developments are framed, with all of the different caveats and the management fees that residents living in those buildings must pay, means that, for example, the social component that is meant to be happening within private developments ends up instead being moved to some other place, being supplanted or replaced in another way. My concern is that the goal of diversity in community and diversity in developments tends to be invoked very strongly in relation to any public initiative but sometimes just does not happen in the case of private developments. We have seen, for example, the development of social units within private apartment buildings. The people in these units are not able to access the shared amenities or to participate in the facilities in those developments. I have a concern in respect of that argument. I absolutely do not question its sincerity but rather how it sometimes has been invoked. I am uncomfortable with the language as it is placed at present. In the past, I have heard the argument and the idea that the approach will somehow be inspirational and people will have different experiences. However, they are not intrinsic.

To be clear, we should have a positive vision. It is a technical fact that my amendment and that of Senator Warfield overlap. However, I would be happy to withdraw amendment No. 11 in favour of amendment No. 10, which seeks to insert the phrase: "promote sustainable mixed income communities". It is a very positive framing of language. I would reserve then the right to seek to add in the language in my amendment around owner-occupiers at a later Stage, perhaps on Report Stage.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly mentioned that there is not enough language in what Senator Warfield is offering in his amendment. Were the Government to accept amendments Nos. 10 and 12, there would be enough language. Amendment No. 10 mentions "sustainable mixed income communities". Amendment No. 12 talks about "the long-term sustainability of diverse communities". I completely agree that it is important. However, I deliberately included the phrase: "the long-term sustainability of diverse communities, including the intergenerational sustainability of urban communities" in amendment No. 12, because we are concerned that we are not seeing the intergenerational sustainability of urban communities in the city centres not just Dublin, but in Galway and other places. In many cases, people grow up in an area that has been previously a local authority housing area. They do not have the opportunity to stay in those communities and areas. I have spoken to people who really want to stay living in the city centre near their mother and their aunt and it is just not an option for them. Therefore, it is important to include the language on the long-term intergenerational sustainability of urban communities in order that we can enable that fabric to be built over years.

In both the amendments that Senator Warfield and I have tabled, the key word is "sustainability". All of this is about teasing it out with the language and what we do not like about the Bill. The word "sustainability" is important because it does not just capture a moment in time. Whatever form of language is used, and I hope the Minister will listen to his colleagues who have asked him to refine the language, the word "sustainability" is most important.It should not just be that at the point of sale there is a snapshot of different incomes or different backgrounds purchasing in an estate. We want to ensure that the diversity is maintained ten, 20 or 30 years hence, that we do not simply have a moment of trying to ensure it in terms of who purchases, but that we try to build that in.

That is where my other amendments that are grouped in this section come in. They refer to owner-occupiers. I am hoping this is something that can be addressed and on which the Minister of State will be able to assure us. I am aware that the Government is trying to address the issue of ensuring owner-occupiers in other parts of the housing policy, but I have a concern that in a number of places, when we talk about those who might be eligible, we talk about whether they own a property already. It is important that it is not just those who do not own a property, but that those who are trying to buy affordable housing want to live in it. My concern is that the owner-occupier piece is somewhat missing from the eligible persons under this. When we talk about different experiences, we do not want a situation where there might be three or four children from one family that may be wealthy who may technically qualify for this individually. We do not want a danger that these affordable houses become starter investments. We want to ensure they are affordable for the people who are going to live in them. The Minister of State is bringing owner-occupier language into other areas, so I ask him to view these amendments in terms of how we ensure this is affordable housing for owner-occupiers, not simply that somebody may afford it, may qualify as an eligible person, get the assistance of the local authority in purchasing it and then the person continues living elsewhere while renting it out. That is a danger and a loophole. One hopes that this would not occur, but loopholes are exploited wherever they are. I want to make sure that is there.

I apologise for speaking for a while, but this is a large group of amendments. I am very disappointed that some of the amendments have been ruled out of order as not relevant. It is very interesting that when I mentioned diverse communities the amendment was in order, but when I specifically mentioned people with a disability the amendment was out of order and not relevant to the Bill. It is relevant. We talk about different social backgrounds and diverse or sustainable communities, but people with disability are a big component of society, up to 18%, and it is important that we factor that in when we have an arrangement in respect of a new affordable housing development. I worry when I see this being ruled out of order. It is not the Minister of State's fault as it is not his prerogative. When I see this being ruled out of order it is as if we deal with people with a disability somewhere else. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides that we think about them all the time in all the things we do in respect of community and living together, and that they come in at every point. I am very disappointed to see that amendment ruled out of order. I will reintroduce it and I hope it will not be ruled out of order, having reviewed the issue properly, on Report Stage.