I want to raise the serious issue of the physical segregation of Part V council tenants in private developments. We have several examples of Part V council tenants all over Dublin being housed in one block or area of a development and physically separated from other private tenants or occupants. We have all heard the stories of the segregation of Part V tenants as regards the lack of access to amenities or where fees are required for amenities. They cannot even pay the fees and, therefore, there is no possibility of having access to amenities. This was the case in the Davitt apartment complex in Drimnagh, which is a build-to-rent scheme. Along with my Right to Change colleague, Councillor Sophie Nicollaud, I have worked with several tenants in that complex. Part V tenants were not given access to the playground for their children. They had no access to the bike sheds and were not allowed to pay car parking fees or fees for other amenities, which is still the case. What is far worse in terms of inclusion is that they were segregated into one block, which is what my question is about today.

We see far too many examples of this. I have seen Part V tenants in a complex segregated into one block or put in a corner of the complex where the bins are kept. I know of an LDA project in Cherry Orchard where Part V tenants are physically segregated. This segregation is built into planning applications, which raises the issue of the quality of these Part V properties from day one. A developer knows what block will be for council tenants and not for cost-rental or affordable housing.

This physical segregation of Part V council tenancies is standard practice for Dublin City Council. It is often written into the contracts between the council and owners. The council said it is too expensive not to physically segregate council tenants and pepperpot that into builds. When I raised this question before, I received the following reply from the Minister, Deputy McGrath, who is sitting beside the Tánaiste:

I want to be crystal clear as to what the Government position is. We support integration. We do not support segregation. Part V should be seamless in its application because it is a very positive thing to have social affordable purchase and private housing at all situated together.

That is all well and good, but if physical segregation of Part V tenants has become standard practice in councils because they say they cannot afford not to segregate their tenants, the Government is clearly not doing enough to implement the Housing for All policy. If it is the case that ending physical segregation is too costly for councils, as Dublin City Council stated at a recent housing committee meeting, it will be necessary for the Government to give the council the funding required to pepperpot Part V tenants into private developments. Is the Government prepared to revise this matter and to provide funding? Is it prepared to insist that LDAs implement pepperpotting as part of integration?

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. She raised it very fairly. I accept the principles she has articulated. There should be no physical segregation. The Deputy might explain why councils have said it would be more costly to segregate tenants. I do not understand why it would be more costly in terms of the construction of a development of 30, 50 or 100 apartments. The apartments will still have to be constructed. It is particularly wrong that Part V social housing tenants would be denied access to amenities or general facilities. That is wrong and is not what Part V is about. It is about a proper balance and mix. I will speak to the Minister.

Local authorities can, within their planning conditions, enforce non-physical segregation. In other words, they can force or facilitate integration via a planning condition. Planning permission can be dependent on an integrated approach to the integration of social housing tenants in the overall complex. The whole idea of Part V was to create integration and avoid what people sensed in the past was, to use a phrase I do not like, overconcentration, ghettoisation or whatever other phrase was used. That seems to me to go against the spirit of Part V as originally conceived.

I will undertake to speak to the Minister. Local authorities have responsibilities in terms of the planning permissions that are granted in respect of Part V tenancies. I do not understand why it is too costly, in terms of the actual physical cost of the construction of a set of apartments, a housing estate or whatever, in particular in an apartment setting.

I would not agree with the Tánaiste. It is not about the physical cost; rather, it is about the maintenance cost of segregation. That is the argument that was put forward.

A contract was signed with Dublin City Council and tenants which we are looking into in more detail in terms of access to amenities. The Tánaiste must remember that the Davitt complex was built as a build-to-rent scheme. Under the specifics of that build, the apartments are smaller with less storage because there is access to amenities. There are huge contradictions. There has to be a review of Part V tenancies and how they link into everything else. There must be discussion with local authorities about the issues they are finding. LDAs in Cherry Orchard are introducing segregation which is totally contradictory to Part V and the concept of Housing for All. It is now incumbent on the Government to do this type of work and sort this out. This should not go on.

The maintenance cost issue seems weak enough to me as a basis for that policy in terms of arrangements. In many instances, councils themselves carry out the maintenance or contract it out. In many developments of this kind, maintenance is contracted out in respect of Part V tenancies.

I can see where there could be overlapping issues in respect of a block of apartments where there could be a maintenance issue across the entire block. That is not insurmountable, and from a cost perspective it should not be insurmountable at all.

I take the Deputy's point and I will speak to the Minister for housing on this. We need to engage with the local authorities in that they should not take the line of least resistance or the easy option in terms of Part V tenancies. They need to work harder and integration is something to be worked on and developed. Those who avail of approved housing body programmes are generally all on the social housing list. Nonetheless, there is a degree of integration and the approved housing bodies work hard on the management of the schemes, help tenants to integrate and develop and also ensure collective maintenance.

We have met two of them and they said all that, but it says in the contract that DCC has access to the amenities-----

I thank the Deputy. That concludes Leaders' Questions.