Opposing an attempt by Fine Gael to delete social housing provisions from the Planning and Development Bill, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Mr Dempsey, said it would tear the heart out of the measure. The amendment move was defeated on a vote and the huge Bill of almost 300 sections was later passed.
Mr Fintan Coogan said afterwards he was in favour of the provision of social housing but felt the Government was going about it the wrong way, and that requiring developers to reserve up to 20 per cent of zoned land for social and affordable housing would prove to be unconstitutional. He and other Opposition members expressed the hope, during the debate on the Bill, that it would be referred by the President to the Supreme Court for a test of its constitutionality to avoid a protracted challenge by developers.
Mr Coogan claimed the social housing proposals were confusing and they might even drive up the price of housing. There was nothing to stop a builder erecting a wall around the social housing in an overall development, so instead of integration there would be segregation. With the huge surplus in the Budget, the real need for social housing could be met by giving adequate finance to the local authorities. The Minister should remove these sections.
Ms Kathleen O'Meara (Lab) said the notion of the State taking anything from anybody by way of the 20 per cent provision was bound to be controversial and was likely to end in court, but the Minister was to be applauded for the courage he had shown in bringing forward this proposal.
Mr Jim Walsh (FF) said the section that Fine Gael was opposing went to the core of the Bill. He was sure it would not have come before them unless it had received favourable advice from the Attorney General.
Dr Mary Henry (Ind) said they would all hope the Bill would survive a constitutional test "But I'd like to point out to the Minister that the woman in the home is in the Constitution too, and the National Women's Council have described her position as a nightmare."
Mr Dempsey noted that builders and auctioneers had claimed there could be constitutional defects in the Bill but he had been advised otherwise. To accept the amendment would be to render the Bill toothless.