Like many Deputies, I drove to Leinster House this morning. I drove from Portarlington through Monasterevin and Rathangan and on to Newbridge. It is great to see building sites back open again, machinery moving very early in the morning, people moving with purpose, laying blocks and building high-quality housing to a high environmental standard. I pushed on to Tougher Service Station in Naas, which the Ceann Comhairle will know. There was a queue out the door looking for breakfast rolls. It is great to see the construction industry back up and running. I fully accept that we are at a very early stage in tackling this crisis but at least the direction of travel is good and some progress is being made.

Notwithstanding the progress being made, I have two concerns, the first of which relates to affordability. I am a believer in home ownership or at least the option of home ownership, as are most Deputies. People should be able to get a mortgage from a bank or financial institution, pay it off over 20 or 25 years and become mortgage-free in their 50s. They can then live safely for the rest of their lives and hand over their homes to the next generation. That is a good model to adopt. My concern is that the houses I passed this morning are unaffordable for many people, including soldiers, gardaí, nurses, teachers and people working in the private sector. I am familiar with the Minister's Housing for All strategy. I have been through it. It lists various principles and mechanisms but a lot of granular detail is missing. I ask the Minister to elaborate on some of the affordable housing schemes he has planned and how they will work on the ground.

My second concern is related to housing mix, which is a good thing. We should not have some housing estates for the rich and others for the poor. I am completely against any bulk purchasing of housing estates or large accommodation, particularly by vulture funds. However, I am not in favour of local authorities or approved housing bodies buying up 100% of estates either. That is not a good way to do business and is storing up problems for the future. I do not believe in concentrating a particular type of housing in a particular area. There should be a mix. I am being contacted by many constituents who want to buy a private house but cannot do so because there are so few available. When an estate is coming on stream within, say, three months, people are finding that the local authority has purchased the entire estate and they cannot buy a house.

Those are my two concerns, which relate to affordability and housing mix, respectively. I welcome that a floor of 20% social and affordable housing has been set for housing estates. That is a good thing but should there also be a ceiling? There is a minimum threshold but should there be a maximum threshold? Should we be looking for the elusive housing mix? That would be a good way to go.

I reiterate that, like the Deputy, I believe in home ownership and having it as an option for our young people and not-so-young people who are working and feel they have been forgotten about in recent years. That is why Housing for All is very important. It is the first time a Government has brought forward a multi-annual housing plan that is fully funded to the tune of over €20 billion. Of that, more than €4 billion is for affordability measures. That is real money to be able to deliver real homes for real people. More important, Housing for All is underpinned by legislation which Deputy Berry and most though not all Deputies supported, namely, the Affordable Housing Act. That Act gives real options to deliver affordable purchase for people, to be led by local authorities across the country, and to get the Land Development Agency involved and delivering affordable and social homes.

On mix, we have ensured, through the Land Development Agency Act, which the Deputy and most though not all Members of the House supported, which is fine, that 100% of lands in areas with more acute affordability issues, such as Cork and Dublin, will be used for affordable and social housing. The minimum threshold will be 50%. That is very significant. We want to give people choice and get affordable homes built, as we are targeting to do from 2022 onwards through Housing for all, which will deliver 6,000 affordable homes and 2,000 affordable cost-rental homes. We want to give options for working people, which we need to do.

The Deputy mentioned Part V provision. We have changed that already, increasing it from 10% in new developments to 20%. That additional 10% affordability measure is now in place. Underpinning all that, there must be an increase in supply. Thankfully, the anecdotal evidence we are receiving is that housing commencements are increasing and the projections for next year are good. Part of that is due to the Government's plan, Housing for All, because it gives certainty to the sector and our people that the State is making the single biggest intervention in housing in its history, fully funded right to 2026.

I have not seen any alternatives that go nearly as far as what we have done. I am acutely aware that now it is about delivery.

In relation to mixed tenure, I agree with the Deputy completely. Through measures that we have brought in, we have banned bulk buying and I am bringing forward legislation with regard to a homeowner's guarantee. This will be brought forward in the coming months, particularly for first-time buyers.

In the targets set, I do not want local authorities buying whole housing estates. In fairness, most of them are no longer doing that. In our housing targets we will set an acquisition target of 200 per year from next year with our local authorities. As a result of the measures we introduced in the Affordable Housing Act, which are underpinned by Housing for All, we will be able to have mixed tenure developments with affordable and social housing. To have mixed tenure and ensure there is choice for people, we need to increase our social house building and allow choice for those who wish to buy too.

The Land Development Agency has a number of land banks under its control, some of which are former military installations and barracks. Some 25 years ago, mostly in 1998, soldiers and their families were evicted at short notice and the land banks handed over to the State. The land is now in the custody of the Land Development Agency. If the agency develops these sites, which include Devoy Barracks in Naas, what are the Minister's thoughts on prioritising military families who are on the social housing lists in light of the historical connection to these land banks and sites?

I thank the Deputy. I will deal specifically with the Land Development Agency and former Defence Forces lands. Following on from my last reply, we have set a target of completing 10,000 new social housing builds per annum on average over the term of the plan. This in itself will make significant inroads into the social housing waiting list, which includes many former and, in some cases, current members of the Defence Forces. With regard to how the Land Development Agency will operate developments of former Defence Forces sites, I will certainly discuss the point raised by Deputy Berry with the LDA.

Underpinning this, we need to be aware that the scheme of priorities for social housing does not allow for priority to be given based on a person's occupation. Increasing dramatically the number of new social home builds will positively impact all of those who are on the social housing list. I am happy to take back the Deputy's suggestion with regard to how we may look at former Army and Defence Forces lands that are being redeveloped.