I thank the Deputy for raising what is a very important matter, namely, the urban regeneration of Oliver Bond House. I did meet in the last couple of hours with the residents of Oliver Bond House and the Oliver Bond regeneration forum. The meeting was very much an opportunity for a meaningful discussion with the residents, to listen to them and to see where we can go from here in a very productive manner. It emphasises the Government’s commitment to carry out the regeneration and to fund it. The funding, in excess of €20 million, is still there, of course. Obviously, people are frustrated. They want to hear that the funding is still there, but, more importantly, they want to see progress and action to carry out the regeneration work there, because people are living in a completely unacceptable situation. The conditions in Oliver Bond House are, in terms of the residents’ health and the environment, totally unacceptable, as I said, in respect of how people are living there. It is for those reasons that the regeneration of the estate remains a priority. We have been working with Dublin City Council. The importance of the meeting today was to get an opportunity to listen to the residents. The piece being discussed at the moment concerns blocks L, M and N within the complex, but there are other aspects there that we can start to do in parallel and actually accelerate the overall regeneration project. I reaffirm the €2.5 million that is there for public realm works. I have asked Dublin City Council to clarify how much of that has been drawn down. I think it is very little at this stage. I have asked it to clarify how much of the works have been carried out, because that funding is there. There is also €1.37 million for a community centre.
Sentiment score: 0.12
There is a pathway to resolving this issue. We do need an appropriate mix. The position is not to say that there can be no amalgamation or even a reasonable amalgamation. The Bridgefoot Street development part is essential for the residents of Oliver Bond House as well, and that is a part that can be quite accelerated. There is an element where too much of this is happening sequentially. I am very struck by the fact that the actual process here started five years ago now. Whatever decision was made and whoever made it, and I do not want to go into the history of why we are here, it should not have taken five years to get to this point. We also addressed other issues. There are some important ongoing works that I would call far more than maintenance. Water is dripping through roofs and there is mould. That work should not be put on hold either while the regeneration is happening. There is probably a sense that some works that need to be happening are not happening in the interim either to ensure that people can, at least, address some of those issues. These are ongoing maintenance problems, although far more than maintenance.
Sentiment score: 0.01
Absolutely. These people are living in appalling conditions. We can accelerate the entire process here. It is about having the right mix and people being able to stay in their own local communities. The Bridgefoot Street development is an essential part of that, and, as the Deputy rightly said, there are another ten blocks for regeneration. Three blocks are part of a demolition proposal, with replacement as well. It is about how all of that happens. Every time there has been a proposal in this regard, it has simply taken too long. We have agreed to stay engaged with the Oliver Bond regeneration forum, accelerate this process and engage with Dublin City Council too. The forum is ably chaired by Frank Clarke. It is the residents’ voices, though, that are so important here, and they deserve to have decent, habitable homes that they can live in with dignity. I am determined to see that happen and I am keeping a very close ongoing involvement with this from here.
Sentiment score: 0.10
I propose to take Questions Nos. 140 and 142 together. Supporting individuals and families experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness is an absolute priority for me, my Department and the Government. The Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2026, which came into effect on 1 March 2026, provides the strongest tenancy protections in the history of the State. The new Act introduced a new national rent control for all tenancies which limits rent increases to inflation as measured by the consumer price index, CPI, up to a maximum of 2%. For new-build apartments and student-specific accommodation, however, rent increases are capped at the level of inflation only. These changes were introduced to promote greater investment in the rental market and to increase the supply of rental properties. while strengthening the protection of tenants. The Act also provides significant improvements in security of tenure for renters. The latest data published by the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, on 14 May shows that the number of registered landlords and tenancies have increased on a quarterly and a yearly basis. Increased supply is key to addressing homelessness, meeting need and addressing the challenges in the housing market. Therefore, we are building more than ever in recent times. A record level of investment is being provided for the delivery of housing in 2026, with €5.2 billion in Exchequer capital funding complemented by investment through the Land Development Agency, LDA, and lending from the Housing Finance Agency, HFA, bringing the total capital funding for housing in 2026 to over €9 billion. Delivering Homes, Building Communities aims to deliver 300,000 new homes in the period to 2030, including 72,000 social homes and 90,000 starter home supports. The Government is targeting the delivery of more than 300,000 new homes over the next six years, an average of 50,000 per annum, with annual targets increasing incrementally to exceed 60,000 by the end of 2030 or 2031. This means 12,000 new social homes will be delivered on average each year to the end of 2030. Delivering Homes, Building Communities recognises that homelessness is the single most pressing social issue that we face and introduces a number of key measures to address homelessness. Ensuring the implementation of these measures will be a priority for me this year. Meeting the Government commitment to eradicate homelessness requires a whole-of-government response. The national homeless action committee, NHAC, which I chair, supports the co-ordination of the response by Government, local authorities and their service delivery partners. The most recent meeting of NHAC took place on Wednesday 4 March 2026. I will continue to work with the committee to ensure that a renewed emphasis is brought to collaborating across government to implement actions in the new housing plan. Prevention of homelessness in the first instance is an absolute priority. There are many prevention initiatives already underway in my own Department and across government. This includes the provision of social and affordable housing, HAP and homeless HAP, and our strong tenancy protection legislation. In order to ensure a fully aligned all-of-government approach under the plan, the programme for Government includes a commitment to a holistic, cross-departmental approach to homelessness prevention. Work has commenced on developing a national homelessness prevention framework to ensure all possible measures are being taken across government to prevent homelessness. It is intended that this framework will be in place later this year. Addressing family homelessness is another key priority for me, my Department and the Government. Under the new housing plan, we will develop a dedicated child and family homelessness action plan. This will bring together key stakeholders to drive the continued focus on preventing children and families entering emergency accommodation, providing enhanced supports for children experiencing homelessness, as well as measures to accelerate exits and reduce the time spent by children and their families in homeless emergency accommodation.
Sentiment score: 0.22
In the context of the actual questions put forward by Deputy Sheehan, I would say that we are putting in a number of measures to target homelessness, not just preventing people from becoming homeless, and particular measures where we are aware that people might be going into homelessness. There are also measures relating to exits and how we get people out of homelessness as quickly as possible. The implementation of those prevention measures by every local authority across the country is absolutely crucial. We also have a series of specialised interventions. We have the national homeless action committee, which meets on a regular basis and in the context of which I engage with all of the NGOs. The latter are engaging with all of our action plans to address homelessness, including the child and family homelessness action plan and the youth action plan. Homelessness is complex. The more than 17,000 people who are homeless are not all in the same situation and do not require the same solutions. Obviously, each of them needs a roof over their heads, but many also need different supports put in place. Many need different types of accommodation, so we are putting a multitude of different measures in place. When Deputy Hearne talks about the Famine, he does a real disservice to all of those people who died during the Famine. That was a shocking period in our history. To come in here and start throwing that word around in respect of the housing crisis we are in is wrong. There is no comparison with what happened back then. It shows the low level of hyperbole the Deputy is prepared to go to just to get his little social media clip, as I have said before, but this is about policies. While I do not agree with their policies, at least the other two Deputies from the Labour Party and Sinn Féin are putting forward policies. Deputy Hearne just comes in here with his usual personalised rant. It achieves absolutely nothing, and it certainly does not help the people who need help.
Sentiment score: -0.07
The Deputy cannot say that.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I want that remark withdrawn.
Sentiment score: 0.08
I hope people at home can see exactly the kind of behaviour we get from the Deputy.
Sentiment score: 0.44
This House must be about finding solutions to address the housing crisis. We have put our policies forward to address that crisis and we stand behind them. That is why we saw a 20% increase in housing delivery last year and the highest number of social houses built in the history of the State. We are going to build more houses, including an increase in affordable provision. An eviction ban does not and will not work. It has already been tried in the State and all it does is kill supply. I want to help not just the people already renting but also those living at home who need somewhere to rent. I bring in policies to do that, while the Deputy has the luxury of putting forward an eviction ban, which is fine. However, the consistently personalised nature of his contributions in this House does a disservice to every public representative in the country.
Sentiment score: -0.26
I cannot imagine what people at home who are interested in policy think when they hear the kind of personalising of politics in which the Deputy engages. It epitomises how little he actually has to say about policy in this area. Deputy Sheehan spoke about no-fault evictions. Of course, what he proposes would protect people in the short term but, as I said, it would kill supply. I need to see greater supply in order that people have places to rent. Our population has increased by more than 800,000 since 2014. Off the top of my head, that requires approximately 250,000 homes. As well as delivering the homes for those people, we must deal with the undersupply that was there before that, which requires delivering even more homes. It has to be about driving that supply. I think we will see fewer notices to quit as we move forward with that.
Sentiment score: 0.09
I thank the Deputy for his question. The management and maintenance of local authority social homes, including pre-letting repairs and the retenanting of homes, is entirely a matter for each individual local authority, as set out in section 58 of the Housing Act 1966. Local authorities must also ensure tenanted homes comply with the provisions of the rental standards regulations. To that end, local authority elected members and officials must make adequate budgetary provision for housing repairs and cyclical maintenance utilising the significant housing rental income available to them as part of the annual budgetary process. That said, my Department is providing €260 million as a contribution towards the remediation and maintenance of local authority homes in 2026. This includes €40 million under the planned maintenance and voids programme, which is an increase of some 30% on the 2025 allocation. A total of €24 million of that sum is available for essential works to ensure vacant homes meet minimum standards, with the remaining €16 million available to support planned maintenance work programmes that are informed by stock condition surveys and delivered on a structured cycle of inspection, maintenance and repair. A revised funding approach, notified to local authorities earlier this year, will be introduced from 2027. It will effectively link funding available through the programme to more efficient stock management by local authorities. With unacceptable levels of homelessness and a growing demand for social housing, it is imperative we increase availability within the existing stock while new-build social housing reaches the levels required in the coming years. That can be achieved by local authorities. The most recent National Oversight and Audit Commission, NOAC, report on stock vacancy levels and turnaround times shows the current national average vacancy rate is 2.75%, with an average turnaround time of 35.56 weeks.
Sentiment score: 0.26
Two local authorities have vacancy levels of less than 1%, with five having vacancy rates of less than 2%. There is no reason that every local authority cannot reach those targets. The data also shows that four local authorities have turnaround times of less than 18 weeks, compared with the average of 36 weeks. The average vacancy rate is nearly 3% but some local authorities are well above it. I want to see those voids brought back into use. They are empty local authority homes that were paid for by the State. There should be people living in them. Some local authorities are taking various approaches to them rather than getting them turned around as quickly as possible. We are now incentivising councils to complete those turnarounds.
Sentiment score: 0.01
It is not a question of ability; it is a question of duty. Under section 58 of the Housing Act 1966, it is the duty of the local authorities to keep those properties maintained.
Sentiment score: -0.12
The previous Government gave significant money. There should not be any home in long-term disuse. Significant money was given by the previous Government for every home that was empty long term to be brought up to standard. How is it then, only a few years later, that there are more properties no longer up to standard and, in fact, in very poor condition? That should not be the case.
Sentiment score: -0.10
The figure of €11,000 is only an average. Each home should not take €11,000 to fix. The duty is on local authorities to maintain their stock. The Government is stepping in to help and support them but it should not really have to do so. The local authorities should be able to look after their own stock, as is their duty. The key point is that a lot of local authorities, if not almost every one of them, are not putting 100% of their rental income into maintaining their properties.
Sentiment score: 0.07
People in social housing homes are paying rent. They have a right to have that money put back into maintaining the properties, but the local authorities are not doing that, which they should be.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Those renters need to know their money is going where it should be going.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Government approval was received on 18 September 2024 for the priority drafting of the apartment and duplex defects remediation Bill. The purpose of the legislation is to place the defects remediation scheme on a statutory footing, further to commitments contained in the programme for Government. The Bill will provide supports for the remediation of relevant fire safety, structural safety and water ingress defects in purpose-built apartment buildings, including duplexes, constructed between 1991 and 2013. It is envisaged that 100% of eligible remediation costs will be funded in the relevant apartments and duplexes. An interim remediation scheme has been in place since December 2023 to provide an acceptable level of fire safety in buildings, pending the introduction of the statutory scheme and completion of the full remedial works. As of the end of April 2026, 264 applications for the interim remediation scheme had been validated, having met the eligibility criteria. These applications represent 22,607 residential units, with circa 75% in the Dublin region. As part of the interim scheme process, a number of pathfinder projects were identified to help inform the development of the legislation. I have just recently approved the final pathfinder project and all four projects across Dublin city centre, Portmarnock, west Dublin and Kilcock are now approved for funding from my Department in the amount of €24 million. Remediation works have commenced or will be commencing shortly in each case. In February 2026, the Government announced some significant amendments to the interim scheme in order to simplify procurement and cut through administrative hurdles, allowing works relating to fire detection and alarm systems to be completed more quickly, while ensuring residents can remain safely in their homes until full building remediation is finished. I am very conscious that a large number of homeowners in affected apartment developments have, on their own initiative-----
Sentiment score: 0.17
In terms of the timeline, all I can say is we will move this as quickly as possible. I wanted to get those interim schemes in place, and in particular the supports around fire safety. I also brought a memorandum to Government on 21 April 2026 on retrospection. Approval was received on a number of policy recommendations around retrospective grant payments. These recommendations will inform the ongoing drafting of the legislation. I can confirm works have been completed at 50 eligible perimeters of the scheme and these costs will be reimbursed. The general scheme of the Bill completed pre-legislative scrutiny in January. As the Deputy will know, drafting of the Bill has been progressed and I very much hope to be in a position to publish the Bill before the summer recess. Beyond that, I intend to move as quickly as I possibly can.
Sentiment score: 0.18
The aim here is that people will not be out of pocket. There will not be caps. We are trying to do it in such a way that we can move as quickly as possible. There are some challenges around tender limits and how we can address that in a way that allows people to move far more quickly, but there are no overall caps on it. In terms of any submissions on what the costs will be, the Department will look at that to ensure it meets what needs to be done to help these people. The Deputy is correct; if we publish the Bill before the summer, it will be debated in the autumn. I will aim to have it passed by Christmas. Obviously, that will be a challenge in terms of timelines but we will try to drive it as quickly as possible.
Sentiment score: 0.04
I thank Deputy Heneghan for what is clearly an important question on an issue he has raised on a number of occasions, namely, protections for renters. The Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2026 came into effect on 1 March 2026, introducing a new national rent control for all tenancies, which limits rent increases to inflation as measured by the consumer price index, CPI, up to a maximum of 2%. For new-build apartments and student-specific accommodation, however, rent increases are capped at the level of inflation as measured by the CPI. These changes were introduced to promote greater investment in the rental market but also to ensure significant improvements in the security of tenure for renters. Multiple expert reports, including those from my Department, the Housing Agency, the Department of Finance, the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, the OECD and the International Monetary Foundation, IMF, agree that the former rent pressure zone, RPZ, system was a major obstacle to increasing rental supply. The changes were introduced in order to attract increased investment in the rental market and thereby increase the supply of properties available for renters. Delivering Homes, Building Communities recognises that the rental market is an important element of a well-functioning housing system. It contains a suite of measures to support domestic and international investment in the delivery of new rental properties, in particular the supply of new apartments. The Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, reports on the profile of the register and on the number of new tenancy registrations it has received on a quarterly basis. The latest data shows that the number of registered landlords and tenancies have increased. Obviously, for people facing notices to quit, it is an extremely distressing situation. Our aim is to increase the overall supply. That is cold comfort to people facing notices to quit but we can increase the supply and ease overall the regrettable situation people are facing in this country.
Sentiment score: 0.26
The over the shop grant is just one of many to help tackle vacancy and dereliction and create additional homes in the centres in our towns and cities and within the hearts of communities. It is win-win. All the facilities are there - water, wastewater, electricity, footpaths and streets. It helps to revitalise the community and acts as an antisocial behaviour measure as well for people to be living in town and city centres and in communities within cities as well. We are giving significant grants but, of course, we keep all grants under continuous review. We encourage people to use them to make these properties available.
Sentiment score: 0.43
I welcome Deputy Heneghan's genuine interest in housing solutions. There is no one fix for solving our housing crisis. Supports for people to reuse existing properties to be able to get the homes they need in their local communities are important, and this is something the Deputy is passionate about as well. We will continue to engage right across the House. I will always listen to any proposals to see where we can make changes and continue to evolve our policies.
Sentiment score: 0.27
I thank the Deputy. Unlike connections in the delivery of new housing, reconnections are not a measure of tackling vacancy and dereliction, as many vacant properties never lost their connections. The vacant property refurbishment grant, funded under the croí cónaithe towns fund, has been a key measure in addressing vacancy and dereliction. At the end of the first quarter of 2026, more than 17,400 applications had been made to local authorities, with more than 13,100 of those applications approved and more than 5,300 grants paid, amounting to almost €285 million of grant funding paid out. That is an important success of that scheme. The grant provides up to €50,000 for the refurbishment of vacant properties for occupation as principal private residences and for properties that will be made available for rent. A top-up grant of up to €20,000 is available where the property is derelict, bringing the total grant available for a derelict property up to a maximum of €70,000. In addition, the Government approved the introduction of a vacant above the shop grant, with a package of up to €140,000 to be made available in cases where vacant above the shop space is being converted or refurbished for residential use and the commercial element is there as well. The additional grant amount for these properties recognises the complexities involved in bringing this space into use. The package includes an expert advice grant of up to €5,000. The new vacant above the shop grant and expert advice grant were launched on 1 April 2026, with applications and information on the grants available online. In the housing plan, a commitment was also given to explore an extension of the vacant above the shop grant for properties owned by small or micro companies. This work is being undertaken and will be completed by the end of the year.
Sentiment score: 0.48
It is not a measure.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I did not question the facts.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Deputy seems to be under a basic misapprehension about how the grant works. A property does not have to be disconnected from electricity to get the grant. Therefore, the CSO statistics might be correct, but they do not reflect the argument or opinion the Deputy is putting forward. The conclusion he is drawing from them is incorrect. No one is disputing CSO statistics, but the Deputy's conclusion is incorrect because the connections do not reflect how many vacant properties have been refurbished. The facts are that 13,100 applications for the vacant property refurbishment grant have been approved and 5,300 to the value of almost €285 million have been paid out. If that is not a measure of the success of the scheme, I do not know what is. This has been an extremely popular-----
Sentiment score: 0.26
-----and successful scheme and the above the shop grant is now adding to it.
Sentiment score: 0.74
As the Deputy will know and understand, in relation to the number of vacant properties, properties become vacant and not vacant. They are not all the same properties.
Sentiment score: 0.04
We have significant schemes to tackle vacancy and dereliction. They are being availed of by the public. They are bringing a significant number of properties back into use. I want to see them used even more and see even more properties being brought back into use to tackle vacancy and dereliction, and that is what we will continue to do.
Sentiment score: 0.14
The new housing plan, Delivering Homes, Building Communities 2025-2030, reinforces and expands the range of existing affordable housing measures being implemented by the Government. In particular, the plan provides for an unprecedented level of State funding in order to deliver an average of 15,000 starter home supports annually between now and 2030. Last year represented a record year in terms of delivery of affordable homes. Through the various affordable supports now available under the Government's new housing plan, more than 17,000 financial supports were provided to help people secure their first home during 2025. Under the affordable housing fund, which the Deputy is asking about specifically, we hit a record number of new affordable homes completed last year - at more than 900 - right across the country. Even more affordable purchase homes are currently being advertised in Kilbeggan in County Westmeath, Carrickmacross in Monaghan, Kilmacow in Kilkenny, Clonburris in Dublin, and Rathmoylan in County Meath. These are homes made available for middle income families who up to now may have been priced out of the housing market. We need to do more. That is very much acknowledged. We are doing more to get affordable housing built where it is needed and onto the market at prices people can afford. On the Deputy's question about open market value and how the scheme works at a technical level, the OMV is the reference price used to calculate the value of the affordable home, which in turn determines the level of equity share. The OMV is the best estimate of the price for which the affordable home might reasonably be expected to be sold on the open market. This reflects the value of the asset to the purchaser at any given time. The pricing always reflects the open market value of the home at the time, whether the cost of developing the home is greater or less than the open market value. In my view, this is the best way to ensure fairness from one scheme to the next. As the Deputy is aware, development costs can vary for the exact same house in the same area for reasons such as the cost of developing a site; one site being more complex and challenging to build on than the other. If under this scheme we used the development cost of the house as the reference point for setting the purchase price, it is more than conceivable that two families under the scheme might end up paying very different prices for the exact same house around the corner from each other.
Sentiment score: 0.30
It is an important and indeed an interesting question, and depending on what approach had been taken it would affect prices. With an all-in cost approach we would have had very significant variation in prices depending on input costs. That could lead to dramatically different prices even for apartments in developments side by side. In my view the open market value approach is the correct one as it provides a consistency of fairness. We would have to go through each scheme to find out which side of the costs it would arrive on in terms of the costs to those who would be availing of the scheme.
Sentiment score: 0.23
I am not aware but I will certainly enquire.
Sentiment score: 0.48
I thank Deputy O'Meara for this important question about levies on one-off housing. I thank the Deputy for his ongoing engagement with me and the Department in terms of how we can deliver more homes in County Tipperary and at an affordable price. Development contributions allow local authorities to recoup some of the public costs of servicing land for private development. They provide a mechanism for contributions to the cost of providing public infrastructure and facilities that benefit development in the area and are expended on public infrastructure defined under the Planning Acts, as well. These include the provision of open spaces, recreational and community facilities, roads, sewers, wastewater and water treatment facilities, drains and water mains, public transport, schools, school sites, broadband and flood relief works. The adoption of the development contribution schemes is a reserved function of the locally-elected members of each planning authority. It is a matter for the members to determine first the level of contribution and the types of development to which they will apply and second, the expenditure of contributions within the confines of their scheme conditions. The legal basis for development contributions are sections 48 and 49 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Under section 48, planning authorities must draw up a development contribution scheme in respect of certain public infrastructure and facilities provided by, or on behalf of, the local authority that generally benefit development in the area. All planning permissions granted are subject to the conditions of the development contribution as set by the local planning authority. Section 48(2)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, provides that a development contribution scheme applied by a planning authority in respect of its functional area may make provision for payment of different contributions in respect of different classes or descriptions of development. In other words, they get to distinguish between one-off houses and larger developments. The level of contribution and the types of development to which development contributions should apply are determined at local authority level, in accordance with the powers vested in local elected members in relation to the adoption of local authority development contribution schemes.
Sentiment score: 0.40
I again thank the Deputy for raising the important question about development fees on rural one-off homes and the cost they put on those families who are building those homes and who often do not get the same benefits as one might in a town, for example, or within the confines of a village. Nonetheless, the contribution that is charged to those families who are building those homes is set by the local authorities within their own development contribution schemes and is not set by the Government. It is a matter for the local authority if it wants to charge those development fees, how much it charges and what kind of variation it charges between the various schemes where there would be one-off houses, housing schemes or apartments for that matter, and who is paying those.
Sentiment score: 0.04
I again thank the Deputy for his contribution. There is significant work being done around the rural housing guidelines and I thank my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, also. We are very much working together to ensure we can have liberalisation of rural housing that works for people in rural Ireland. We will bring forward those proposals in the very near future. In the meantime, we want to help people in rural Ireland to be able to build homes in their own communities and whether that is rural one-off housing or providing people with the opportunity to buy their homes through affordable purchase or through being able to buy with the supports the Government provides, what is essential to us is that people have the option to be able to live in their own local communities in a house that meets their needs.
Sentiment score: 0.41
I thank the Deputy for his very important question about retrofitting in County Louth. We have put substantial funding into retrofitting and we encourage local authorities to move as quickly as possible with retrofitting schemes. Where retrofitting works are carried out, it brings extraordinary comfort to families. It also helps to tackle fuel poverty, which is really important as part of our retrofitting schemes, the building of A-rated buildings and nearly zero energy buildings houses and now moving to zero-emission houses as well. We will continue to engage with Louth County Council to look at how we can accelerate the delivery of retrofitting to improve the quality of lives of people living in social homes in Louth.
Sentiment score: 0.55
I acknowledge the Deputy's concern for people who live in social housing. I visited County Louth recently. I acknowledge the fantastic progress of Louth County Council in terms of delivering social homes, but I also recognise that it has a very large social housing list and faces a particular challenge with regard to the high level of homelessness within the county and the wider region. I have met with the Simon regional homelessness group. I have also met the directors for housing in Counties Monaghan and Louth to see how we can start to target specific supports to County Louth. The two major towns in the county, Drogheda and Dundalk, are looking for city status, an issue that was raised with me on a number of occasions when I visited. I very much acknowledge the work that is being done by Louth County Council with support from all politicians.
Sentiment score: 0.20
I again thank the Deputy for raising the important issue of retrofitting of social homes in County Louth. We very much recognise the importance of it for people's quality of life. Louth County Council has an excellent record on all the targets in providing supports, whether it is retrofitting, building social homes or other supports. It is a council that other councils could look up to in terms of how it delivers and maintains properties. However, I acknowledge there are particular challenges Louth faces as a rapidly growing county with two rapidly growing towns as well. When you grow that quickly, you face challenges, so it is incumbent on the Department of housing to keep focus and to support local authorities. I will certainly keep the Deputy's comments under consideration.
Sentiment score: 0.44
I thank Deputy McGrath for raising this very important issue of the upward revision of social housing qualifying limits. As the Deputy will know, the then Minister for housing, Deputy O'Brien, increased the limits in 2023, as I recall, by about €5,000 for each of the various limits. That was to catch up with inflation and increases in social welfare payments, but time has moved on since then. We are now carrying out a review of social housing limits, what they should look like and whether we need more reform of them, other than simply increasing the limits for those who can avail of them. Last year, we delivered the most social housing in a single year in the history of the State, but we need to ensure those limits keep pace and ensure people can actually get onto those lists. Increasing the amount, which in turn will increase the numbers on the list, is not something that bothers me or has ever bothered me. We want to ensure that everyone can get a house in their local community on that spectrum, whether it is social housing, affordable housing, affordable housing supports to purchase, cost rental or people who are able to purchase without supports. We have to keep all these schemes under constant review and consideration to ensure there is not a gap appearing between various schemes. I am conscious that with affordable schemes, some local authorities are struggling, and that while we have the help to buy and shared equity schemes, if there is not a significant amount of private building going on in those local councils, it is difficult to benefit when you cannot purchase under one of those schemes. We are keeping all those schemes under constant review.
Sentiment score: 0.36
I thank both Deputies for their contributions. Deputy Ó Broin is correct; I said we were going to look at whether there were any other mechanisms. I agree that while there is a call for increasing the limits, and understandably so as welfare payments increase, inflation increases or society changes, it ends up with this question as to when the Minister will increase the limits and it is up to the Minister to do so. That is not the ideal way to do these things at all. It is not reflective and it needs to be more agile. There need to be more reflective, year-on-year changes. It is something I am looking at. The review is going to go a little bit deeper than simply the limits, and the Deputy is correct in that it needs to go beyond this. I assure both Deputies that I am very carefully examining these limits. It may be a question of increasing them in the short term while we look at a wider assessment of how we get to those limits and when they would be increased. We are carrying out that review and it will be completed this year. We will try to do it as quickly as possible.
Sentiment score: 0.12
I will carry out this review as quickly as possible, or certainly the initial one on the limits, and then we can look at a deeper review. On the disregards, one of the agencies did an assessment of these and they were quite inconsistent across the various local authorities as to what is or is not allowed as a disregard, which can lead to significant variations in who can or cannot get onto a list. The Deputy is 100% right; we do not want anybody having to give up work or to cut back on hours. Unfortunately, this can happen when people try to stay on a housing list because that is their housing solution, and the quality of social homes being provided is very high. As I said, we are keeping an open mind, but I am actively working on this.
Sentiment score: 0.10
I am well off script at this point.
Sentiment score: 0.27
A principal private residence is somebody's own home. We have a rent-a-room scheme at the moment where people can rent a room out within their own property. The modular units that would be on principal private residences, those being, people's homes, are being deemed an extension of their homes in that respect. Landlords cannot use this scheme. If you want to call people renting out a room in their own home "landlords", so be it, but this is about people who, in one respect, are able to supplement their income in their own private residence. It is also provides people with somewhere they can live and if a rent is being charged, there is a tax credit on those principal private residences, or people's homes, when they rent out a room. That acknowledges the very different nature of those situations.
Sentiment score: 0.19
People are obviously renting out a room or modular unit in their homes. It is a very different scenario than a landlord renting out a property. However, it is acknowledged that people are renting out those rooms, albeit in people's homes, which are protected under the Constitution. It is a balancing act and a difficult situation. We want to ensure that anybody who is renting is being protected while recognising that these are people's own homes and that, if someone wants to rent out a room in their home, they are not constrained in the event they need that room back or whatever the case may be. This is obviously quite a balancing act and can be quite a difficult situation but ultimately it has to be recognised that, in regard to these people who are renting out these rooms, those are their own homes.
Sentiment score: 0.10
I will certainly keep the Deputy's concerns in mind. He comes from a position of genuine concern on this issue and for those who are renting out rooms. We know that the vast majority of people renting out rooms in their own homes and who will be renting out modular units under licence are good, local people. There will always be, of course, a certain number who will abuse a situation and we want to see those people facing the most stringent of punishments, if you like, or the responsibility that would be expected of anyone who would behave in an unacceptable manner. As I said, however, these are people's own homes, and that is why there is a distinction made between someone renting out a room in their home and landlords.
Sentiment score: 0.01