Regeneration Projects
139. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to provide an update on the regeneration of Oliver Bond House following his meeting with the regeneration forum. [37767/26]
I understand the Minister had a very frank and potentially positive meeting with the Oliver Bond regeneration forum, so I am hoping he can update the House on the progress that was made and also listen to some of the concerns some of us continue to have with the approach being taken by the Department, not just with respect to the Oliver Bond complex but also concerning the other inner-city flat complex regeneration projects across Dublin.
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.
I thank the Minister. This may be one of those rare occasions where we might have more in common than we have to disagree about. I do think the letter sent by the Minister’s officials to Dublin City Council in April was a mistake. The Department’s position had shifted significantly from the stage 1 approval in 2023 or 2024. The amalgamation of blocks L, M and N from 74 units to 46 units had already been approved in principle two years ago. In fact, the revised scheme from Dublin City Council includes a significant improvement with the addition of a community centre.
Likewise, I refer to the explanation given by the Minister’s officials to us in the housing committee last week that it was possible to build 13 units inside the existing development but that the Bridgefoot Street development could not be considered, in which case it would be possible to get 43 units as part of the overall scheme. That is a mistake.
I thank the Deputy.
I am hoping to hear that there is some flexibility to return to the good elements of the Dublin City Council scheme so we can get the resolution that the residents of the Oliver Bond complex, in particular, desperately need.
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.
The hardening attitude of the Department to the issue of amalgamations is a problem. The issue here, in the first instance, should be to ensure that these homes are brought up to modern standards and, exactly as the Minister said, for good estate management, that there is an appropriate mix in each block, as well as across the development. I disagree with the Minister slightly in that I think Dublin City Council had actually put forward not just the proposals for the three blocks in question and Bridgefoot Street, but had also set out to the Department its intentions for the remainder of the complex.
There needs to be a clear understanding that the priority has to be to bring these homes up to standard. Where it is possible to get additional units on site or near the site, we absolutely should do that, but it should not be a condition. I would hate to see that we will have the same problems every time a new proposal goes in for each of the subsequent phases or other developments. The sooner that issue is clarified, the better.
I thank the Deputy.
Again, I am not hearing anything from the Minister that I disagree with. The quicker all of us can move on right across the inner-city flat complexes, the better.
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.
Housing Provision
140. Deputy Conor Sheehan asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage the action he proposes to take to address the monthly rise in homelessness and the record number of evictions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37893/26]
142. Deputy Rory Hearne asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to detail the interventions, schemes, programmes and policies employed by his Department to avoid people being made homeless by eviction, prevent them from entering into homeless accommodation and reduce the number of people evicted into homelessness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37934/26]
I want to ask the Minister what actions he proposes to take in light of the monthly rise in homelessness and the record number of evictions that we have seen detailed in the release of the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, data last week, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
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.
The RTB data shows that 7,062 eviction notices were issued in the first three months of this year. While there is an increased number of landlords, some of that is down to the regularisation of tenancies. Will the Minister's homeless prevention framework, which he said is coming, have clear targets and timelines, year on year and quarter on quarter? If it does not, then it will effectively become redundant very quickly . What legislative measures similiar to, for example, the homeless families Bill or the Simon Community's homelessness prevention Bill will the Minister introduce to in order to bring the homeless figures down?
I said earlier that this Government is the cruellest since the foundation of the State. The Minister waffles on about homelessness prevention but he will not do the one thing that could actually prevent people being made homeless, which is to put in place a ban on evictions. He has become and will be known as the Minister for evictions. We have record evictions and record homelessness, and the Minister will not do the thing that he can do to prevent families and children being made homeless, which is to put in place a ban on evictions. Every month the figures come out, the Minister is in hiding and never has to answer. In here is the one time that he does have to answer, and it is a disgrace.
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.
The Minister spoke about prevention measures but the fact of the matter is that the most effective prevention measure that we had in recent times was the one that he severely restricted, namely the tenant in situ scheme or the ability of local authorities to acquire homes through second-hand acquisitions. The number acquired halved between 2024 and 2025. Will the Minister prioritise homeless prevention by allowing local authorities to use second-hand acquisitions for homeless prevention where it is not practically possible to offer an allocation? Local authorities are really severely restricted at the moment. Will the Minister support my Bill to ban no-fault evictions? I ask everybody in this House to support that legislation.
I absolutely stand over the comparison with the Famine. What the Minister is doing is refusing to acknowledge the trauma that is caused to every household that is evicted. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have stood over, year after year, evictions and homelessness rising. Deputy Browne is just another Minister who is standing over record homelessness and evictions. He said that I have no solutions. I set out my solution very clearly for him, namely a ban on no-fault evictions applying to existing tenants. The Minister is getting up in here and lying.
The Deputy cannot say that.
He cannot say that.
The Minister is spinning mistruths that he has put in place the biggest protections for tenants-----
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
-----when he has not protected existing tenants. He should correct the record.
I want that remark withdrawn.
Deputy Hearne-----
The Minister has not give any protection to existing tenants.
Deputy-----
They are all still as exposed to being evicted onto the streets in the same way they were before the Minister's new measures.
Has the Deputy finished?
Yes.
I am going to ask him to withdraw that comment.
I will withdraw that it was a lie; it was a mistruth.
I hope people at home can see exactly the kind of behaviour we get from the Deputy.
I hope people at home can see the Minister's behaviour, which is being visited on them in the streets.
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.
The Minister never acknowledges the human impact.
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.
Vacant Properties
141. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to provide an update on the voids programme review committed to in the Government's housing plan. [37768/26]
On page 76 of the Government's housing plan, there is a commitment to develop a new voids funding programme that would "incentivise lower vacancy rates and faster turnaround times for vacant local authority stock". The plan was launched 187 days ago on 13 November 2025. In that time, only one action has been taken on the voids scheme.
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.
The Minister talked to colleagues earlier about policy. I launched a policy to return vacant, boarded-up homes to use in housing families. This is the low-hanging fruit and I still cannot understand why the Minister, his Department and the other Ministers in the Government do not tackle it. The voids programme for 2026 will allow for the return of 2,200 homes, with local authorities receiving only €11,000 per unit when there are more than 4,500 houses boarded up and vacant. Why is the Minister not being more ambitious? This is a fundamental disagreement. He will not fund local authorities to return those homes to use. This could be a success story. We could house 4,500 families if he were willing to put up the money.
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.
The Minister mentioned the NOAC report. I will refer to some of the figures in that report. In 2024, there were 4,251 empty council houses, which was an increase from the previous year. One in four of those homes was empty longer than a year. I know of houses in my constituency that have been empty and boarded up for years. The problem is a lot of local authorities do not have the excess funding to bring the long-term, older, more complicated and more expensive homes back into use. If the Minister is only giving €11,000 per unit and the average cost, according to NOAC, is €31,000, from where will the local authorities get the funding shortfall? Many councils are struggling and do not have the money. Will the Minister commit to funding local authorities to do that work? Will he stop blaming them for not doing so when he has the ability to make the funds available to enable it? This is an easy win. I cannot understand why he will not do it.
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.
They do not have the money to do it.
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.
Some of them are up to 100 years old.
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.
They cannot do so.
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.
They cannot do it because the Government cut their funding.
Those renters need to know their money is going where it should be going.
Question No. 142 answered with Question No. 140.
Defective Building Materials
143. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to provide an update on the Celtic tiger-era building defects redress scheme and the interim fire safety remediation scheme. [37769/26]
The Minister previously informed us that it was his intention to have the legislation to underpin the Celtic tiger-era defects redress scheme not just introduced but passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas by the summer, with the objective that homeowners and owners' management companies could apply for inclusion in the scheme before the end of the year. Obviously, that legislation has not been published. Can he give an update on when it will be published and when he expects to have it passed by the Oireachtas and open to applicants?
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-----
I thank the Minister.
I appreciate the answer, although none of that is new information. The specific question I asked was when this legislation will be published. When does the Minister expect it to complete its passage through the Oireachtas? When does he hope owners’ management companies will be able to apply? With respect to the interim scheme, I appreciate that finally four pathfinder projects have been approved, but that relates to over 200 schemes that desperately need this funding and it has been two years or more since the scheme was originally agreed in principle by the Government. Will the Minister give us some clarity on when the legislation will be published, when it will be passed and when it will be open to applications, and some indication of the extent to which he will be able to accelerate funding approval for more of the 22,000 homes that urgently need interim fire safety funding?
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.
I thank the Minister for that clarity. One assumes that while the Minister may publish before the summer recess, it is likely the Bill will only come before the Oireachtas in the autumn. It is fair to say, to give some clarity to owners' management companies, that that means it is highly unlikely a scheme will open for applications this year, and it will more likely be next year.
With respect to the memo the Minister spoke about regarding retrospective pathfinders, there was some media commentary that there might have been some consideration of the issue of caps. Can the Minister give us some assurance that no caps will be included in the overall scheme and that where the issue of caps is being discussed with respect to procurement challenges for retrospective payments, he is hoping to find a solution so nobody is out of pocket and they get the full cost remediation, whether retrospectively or into the future?
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.
Rental Sector
144. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage whether his Department has undertaken or commissioned any analysis of trends in landlord exits, reductions in rental listings or changes in small landlord participation following the introduction of rent regulation measures, including rent pressure zones and the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2026; if he will provide details of any available findings, including regional trends where available, in tabular form; the measures being considered to prevent further loss of rental supply while maintaining tenant protections; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37528/26]
Has the Department commissioned an analysis of trends in landlord exits, reductions in rental listings or changes in small landlord participation following the introduction of rent regulation measures? I am cautiously optimistic that this will be a blip. Will the Minister provide details of available findings or regional trends where available?
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.
It would be fantastic if we could and I hope we can. The housing crisis needs this. The RTB’s own data is telling us about the small landlords, those with one or two properties, who are leaving the market at an accelerating rate.
To touch on the [vacant above the shop grant], I welcome the scheme and the work that has been done but I wish to ask a question about it because it does need to be re-examined. I know from speaking to the Department that it is currently being introduced and there may be amendments to it. The provision of €95,000 for one unit, €115,000 for two units and €135,000 for three or more units is meaningful, but I would love it to be re-examined for more than three units. It needs to be raised. If we are trying to increase supply, the jump should not be so small. If we are trying to bring back Dublin city, we need to enable people to build above shops.
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.
If we are trying to increase supply, the grant should be more beneficial when more units are being built. I was a councillor in Dublin city. I understand that the vacant and derelict register need to be updated. I am asking for an urgent review.
Regarding the company ownership restriction on the vacant above the shop grant, the Minister acknowledged, which I welcome, that passive surveillance by people living above shops reduces antisocial behaviour. That would be very beneficial.
People I represent are waiting for these homes. They are my generation. It would be especially good if we could put in, in conjunction with the regulations, encouragements for people in critical jobs such as those working in Beaumont Hospital, gardaí and nurses because those places above the shops across my constituency could house them. The policy needs to catch up to that reality and I am asking for that to happen.
I swayed away from the original question, so I appreciate the leniency.
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.
Derelict Sites
145. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage the progress being made in addressing vacancy and dereliction following reports of the lowest number of quarter 1 electricity reconnections since Central Statistics Office, CSO, data began. [37512/26]
The first quarter of this year saw the lowest number of first quarter reconnections and it was the second lowest number for any quarter since the CSO began collecting data in 2011.
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.
I find it astounding and unbelievable that the Minister would say this is not a measure.
It is not a measure.
This is a CSO figure that shows the lowest number for any first quarter in 15 years. That is a measurement. Regardless of whether the Minister agrees with it or wants to accept it is his issue, but these are the facts. I printed them off.
I did not question the facts.
We have the lowest number for any first quarter and the Minister says it is not a measure. The Minister can disagree with me, but he should not say these figures are not right because they are right. The Government is not delivering. This proves the Government is not delivering on dereliction because the vast majority of these derelict sites are not connected to an electrical supply, so if there were no reconnections or the number of reconnections was low,-----
Thank you, Deputy.
-----that shows that the Government's policy on dereliction has failed. These are the facts. I am not making them up.
The Minister to respond.
I am sure the Minister can recognise that these figures are accurate.
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-----
Thank you, Minister
-----and successful scheme and the above the shop grant is now adding to it.
It is unbelievable that the Minister would say my conclusions are wrong. I am using CSO figures. The Minister does not have any figures to contradict mine, so I am right. They prove the Government's policy on dereliction is failing.
I will give another figure to prove how the Government is failing. Some 2,361 homes were self-assessed as liable for the vacant homes tax in 2025. According to CSO figures - the CSO is probably making all this up, if we go with what the Minister believes - in the fourth quarter of 2024, there were 70,000 vacant homes. Under the Government's vacant homes policy, 2,361 homes were liable out of 70,000. If those 70,000 were delivered-----
Thank you, Deputy.
-----it would help to solve the housing crisis. The Minister said he was looking at staged payments. Where are the staged payments? People want to turn these vacant homes around.
Deputy, your time is up.
They do not have the money and they do not have the support from the Minister.
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.
Some of them have been vacant for 20 years.
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.
Is the vacant homes tax working?
Questions Nos. 146 and 147 taken with Written Answers.
Parking Provision
148. Deputy John Lahart asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage if his Department has assessed the impact of reduced parking provision in high-density residential developments on neighbouring estates, including the issue of overspill parking and its effect on community relations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37539/26]
Maximum parking rates for new residential developments are addressed at a national level in the sustainable residential development and compact settlement guidelines issued in 2024 under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The specific planning policy requirement, SPPR 3, of the settlement guidelines sets out graduated maximum car parking rates based on proximity to urban centres and sustainable transport options. These range from one space per dwelling in central or accessible locations to two spaces per dwelling in more peripheral or intermediate locations with higher rates of car dependency.
While the settlement guidelines set out the general policy approach, where planning permission is sought for particular residential development proposals, planning authorities and An Coimisiún Pleanála will need to be satisfied that the necessary and appropriate provision of parking is provided in accordance with the requirements of the settlement guidelines. For developments of 100 residential units or more, the settlement guidelines recommend that a mobility management plan or travel plan is prepared in support of the proposed parking arrangements. These guidelines are designed to strike the balance between the need for residents to have access to parking and the need to encourage the use of other transport networks. In areas with strong public transport links, lower parking ratios may be appropriate. However, planning authorities must also ensure that parking provision is sufficient to meet the specific needs of future residents of a proposed development, taking into account the local context.
That being said, the provision of car parking can add significant cost to developments, particular the high-density schemes the Deputy referenced, such as apartments, where higher ratios of parking necessitate a podium or basement car park.
I will follow up further.
It did not take the "Prime Time" documentary on this to educate me about it.
It started in my constituency with Citywest where there was out-of-proportion development in relation to the capacity for parking that was provided by either the local authority or An Bord Pleanála, now An Coimisiún Pleanála. Why was that density allowed? I presume proximity to the Luas red line was one of the reasons. However, not everybody living in that area takes the Luas red line. There were appeals on social media a number of years ago from people in Citywest asking to rent a space in the driveway of adjoining residential estates and to pay for it over a period of a year. That has stopped now. Cars are parked overnight on major artery roads significant distances from where people are actually living. They return to their cars in the morning hoping they will still be there. This is completely unsatisfactory. There is one line in the reply to which I want to come back in my second bite of the cherry. This is not working and the Government needs to come up with some response.
I thank Deputy Lahart. I and the Department are aware that this is an issue. At the same time it is important to point to the fact that there is a graduated approach to parking, as set out in the Planning and Development Act and the guidelines associated with it. It ranges from one space per dwelling in a central or accessible location to two per dwelling in a more peripheral or intermediate location with higher rates of car dependency. Obviously in terms of the mobility plan and transport demand management strategies that have to be created in the context of 100 units or more, these are designed to try to address that flexibility of approach and to give local authorities and planning authorities flexibility over the approach that is appropriate in each individual circumstance.
If we go from Citywest to Knocklyon where I live myself, it was mentioned in the documentary that 600 units overspill into adjoining estates, causing a lot of aggravation. Representatives of residents' associations in adjoining estates look for double yellow lines or parking measures to mitigate antisocial forms of parking. Then we have the people who do not have parking spaces because a sufficient number of car parking spaces were not provided in the apartment complexes. I get it that underground car parking is more expensive. However, in the answer it said that the approach provides planning authorities with a degree of flexibility so they can operate a plan-led approach and take the circumstances of the planned area or an individual site into account. It is not working, and it is going to get worse. We, on this side of the House, are going to have to design a solution - simple as.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I know it is an issue for his constituents and the constituents of other Members across the House. I am more than happy to engage with him in a proactive manner in relation to it. If he has some suggestions that he can bring forward I am more than happy to hear them. It is important in the context to note the cost of providing basement and underground car parking is exceptionally high. We hear Deputies opposite criticising the cost of delivering apartments and high density developments, but we do have to take all these factors into consideration. We also have to take into consideration that when we adjust and adapt policy in this area we do not want developments that already have planning permission going back to the start of the planning process. There are trade-offs in all of this, but that is not to dismiss the genuine concerns the Deputy has raised.
I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I will take him up on his offer to engage further.
Question No. 149 taken with Written Answers.
Housing Schemes
150. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to explain why open market value, OMV, is used as the starting price point for the affordable purchase scheme rather than all-in development costs; and to justify this policy in cases where the OMV is higher than the all-in development costs. [37509/26]
I have raised this with the Minister before. It is really to try to understand where this particular policy originated. As he knows, OMV is calculated prior to any discounts being applied for the purposes of affordable purchase schemes. That open market valuation does not necessarily have to be based on the all-in cost of development and in some developments is coming in significantly above that. It is not in the legislation or in any of the statutory instruments. When I discussed the matter with local authorities they told us that they do not know the origin of it. I am looking for the origin and an explanation of why this is the policy.
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.
I thank the Minister for that explanation. The difficulty is that part of the problem is that not only is he not meeting his formal purchase targets, but in many instances the full cost of those properties is exceptionally high. In fact, in some developments it is as much as €500,000 and others, including the ones he referenced in my constituency, it is €440,000 to own the property outright. The difficulty is that by using open market value rather than all-in cost of development, we are increasing the cost to the purchaser and making the homes even less affordable. For example, we do not get any benefits if the land is provided by the local authority, or indeed if there is a significant gap between the development costs and the OMV. Let us take, for example, Glenveagh in Oscar Traynor Road. Those homes probably cost - what Glenveagh was probably paid for those - about €50,000 less than the open market value, so people end up paying far more. There are better ways to deal with the challenges of future sale under the scheme. I just do not understand why the Minister would use a valuation that significantly increases the cost of development when the price of those homes is already too high for far too many working people.
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.
This is probably the only product in the world where the price you pay for it is not the price that it cost to deliver it, plus profits, but a fictional valuation of an open market value.
As for the only additional question I will ask, the Minister may not be able to answer it because it predates him taking up his current role. At any stage was the consideration of using open market value a concern about the potential impact of an affordable housing scheme on surrounding private market houses? Unlike cost rental where there is a deliberate Government policy - which I support - for cost rental to moderate private sector rents over time as that grows, was that a policy that was deliberately avoided with affordable purchase so as not to have any impact or to moderate rising private market home prices in neighbouring housing estates?
I am not aware but I will certainly enquire.
Question No. 151 taken with Written Answers.
Housing Policy
152. Deputy Ryan O'Meara asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage if he has any plans to scrap development levies for one-off housing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37318/26]
Does the Minister, his Department or the Government have any plans to reintroduce the waiver for development levies, particularly in this case on one-off rural homes; to incentivise drive-on but also to make the building of a one-off home in rural Ireland more affordable, particularly for young people?
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.
If I consider a young person or couple building a home for the first time in a rural part of my constituency outside of the villages or towns - for example someone building a house outside Toomyvara village, in a rural part of the parish, or outside Cloghjordan, Ballynahinch or Ardcrony - they will not get a footpath or public water most probably. They certainly will not be connected into any form of sewage system or wastewater mains system and they will not get any public lighting. As far as I am concerned, the development levy, particularly on one-off rural homes, is essentially a tax for the privilege of building on one's own land. I fully appreciate the importance of funding local authorities and I actually believe we need greater levels of funding for local authorities through central Government but I believe the current levy on one-off rural homes is making it more expensive at a time when costs are already so high for those young couples to build their own homes.
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.
In relation to the potential of a waiver, it would be important that central government step in and continue to fund the local authorities to the same level they would have been funded if the individual was paying this. I am conscious, however, of those houses that are already there. Some people might be paying for sites, if they do not have one they can get from a family member. There is the cost of building at the moment and the shortage of labour increases the costs further. This is one way in which we could help those people, many of whom I am representing.
While we are talking about rural housing and one-off houses, I would also like to acknowledge the work the Department is currently doing and the constant engagement the Minister is having with us, as members of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party to try to liberalise the rural planning process. That work is very important because we need to see more of those rural homes, particularly for those young couples and those people abroad who I represent and went to school with, who want to come home, build in a rural parish, start their family there and start a life for themselves there.
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.
Questions Nos. 153 to 155, inclusive, taken with Written Answers.
Turf Cutting
156. Deputy Louis O'Hara asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage if he will issue an order to allow the cutting of turf at bogs (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36514/26]
Will the Minister of State issue an order to allow the cutting of turf at Ardgraigue, Clonmoylan and Barroughter bogs in County Galway? Many representations have been made by other elected representatives and me on this so I imagine the Minister of State will be aware of the situation there.
I thank Deputy O'Hara and am aware of the representations that have been made by him and other Oireachtas Members from that area about these three particular bogs. The EU directive on the conservation of habitats, flora and fauna, commonly known as the habitats directive, requires all member states to select sites for the protection of habitats and species considered threatened in EU territory. Annex I of the habitats directive lists active raised bogs as priority habitats in danger of disappearing from the EU. Under the habitats directive, member states shall designate selected sites as special areas of conservation and shall take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats within them.
The bogs referred to are special areas of conservation and wetland ecosystems of high ecological value. The main threats to their conservation arise from any actions that remove the vegetation, drain water or cause them to dry out. In the case of active raised bogs, average water levels need to be close to the surface for most of the year to survive. Turf cutting involves the direct removal of peat and the vegetation on top and associated drainage compromises the hydrological integrity of these protected bogs by lowering the water table. These changes to the bog structure do not only result in the loss of the unique raised bog ecology but under certain conditions can influence the hydrology of the bog and its surrounding landscape.
Arising from this legal obligation on the State to ensure these sites are adequately protected, and due to the damaging effect of turn cutting and associated drainage on these protected bogs, as Minister of State, I am legally prohibited from granting consent for activities which will have an adverse effect on the integrity of these sites. Under a compensation scheme introduced by the Government in 2011, €8.9 million has been paid to date to eligible applicants in the three SAC bogs in question. On average, each eligible turf cutter across these bogs has received a payment of €24,085, which is exempt from capital gains tax.
In early 2025, a local turf cutting contractor was served with a High Court injunction to cease the harvesting of turf. As a result of this action, many local people who rely on turf to heat their homes were left without a supply for last winter. As we are currently in the turf cutting season, these families are facing the same issue due to the fact that there is no contractor to cut their turf because the injunction remains in place. Approximately 40 families are affected. What is happening is causing significant distress. Many of them are elderly. They have cut turf in these bogs for years, rely on this fuel to heat their homes, are watching their supplies dwindle and have no affordable alternative. Under the existing legislation, the families could be allowed to harvest the turf if the Minister of State signed an order. On behalf of the affected families, I ask him to do that or, at the very least, to meet with them, discuss the issue and try to find a resolution to it. I cannot emphasise enough the distress that this is causing and the anger that is felt by these families, who have not signed up to the scheme the Minister of State mentioned earlier.
I reiterate that, as Minister of State, I am legally prohibited from granting consent for these activities for the reasons I outlined. These are special areas of conservation. They were designated so for a reason. Any cutting and removal of turf or any drainage or removal of top soil from this site would completely compromise its integrity and affect the species there and the habitat. I cannot comment on any court injunctions or proceedings, as the Deputy will understand, but I will say - and I have already relayed this to Senator Rabbitte and Deputy Dolan, who also made representations - that the NPWS does have a facility. We do not want anybody to be cold or to not get access to heating. There are procedures whereby the NPWS can help people in terms of getting support, but I cannot permit cutting on the bog. It is as simple as that.
No help has been provided to the families in this case. I understand that the bogs been designated as SACs. There are significant concerns around how these bogs were designated that I have outlined here before and have written to the Minister of State about, but I still have not received any real explanation. It is important to say that the people who are affected have not accepted payment through the scheme to allow rewetting and so on because they want to continue cutting turf on their bogs. The Government has said that these schemes are voluntary, but the families involved are being forcibly prevented from cutting turf by the Government. I cannot understand how the Government can justify a situation where predominantly elderly people are being left without fuel to heat their homes, especially during an international fuel crisis, not just last winter but also, as seems likely, next winter. That is the consequence of this. I am simply asking the Minister of State to meet with the affected landowners in order to find a solution to this matter. Will he give a commitment that he will facilitate that request and meet with the families affected?
By law, I am not permitted to allow cutting on the bog in question. It has been designated. A process was undergone. The Deputy can question how that process was conducted, but this is now a designated SAC, By law, I have to make sure that the integrity of the site and the habitat remains intact. As a result, I am not allowed to permit cutting there. A total of €8.9 million was paid out in respect of the three bogs referred to by the Deputy. In total, €97 million has been paid out under the cessation of turf cutting scheme, which has worked for the vast majority of communities and led to those with turf cutting rights receiving payments but also to the integrity of these bogs and habitats being maintained. I reiterate that I cannot permit cutting on these bogs.
Questions Nos. 157 to 163, inclusive, taken with Written Answers.
Energy Policy
164. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to provide an updated timeline for the delivery of the retrofit scheme to all social housing units in County Louth and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37523/26]
Can the Minister provide an updated timeline for the delivery of the retrofit scheme to all social housing units in County Louth? Louth County Council has been very good at delivering on retrofitting and has at times gone beyond its targets. I would like to think that it would be given the facility to get through the entire cohort of social housing units that require to be retrofitted.
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.
Louth County Council has one of the longest lists for social housing. It must deal with the issue impacting on every local authority at this point , namely an insufficient amount of money to deal with maintenance needs. I constantly deal with those who work for the council and deal with maintenance. The reality is that from time to time you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and cannot always deliver to meet actual needs. People who have been tenants for many years and who may not have looked for anything from the local authority previously will come to you with issues, particularly in relation to windows and doors. In a perfect situation, if you can get them on the list for retrofitting, it means that at least you can ensure that they are in a house that is properly insulated and warm and that they will not be facing astronomical costs during the cost-of-living and cost-of-fuel crises with which we are dealing. It is about ensuring that we can deliver in respect of the need that is out there. I am of the view that the timeline is never going to be met.
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.
The Minister will always be welcome when we are talking about the opening of social housing in County Louth. The problem is that we need to see a lot more of it, The issue relating to Fulacht Fia or any of the other schemes is the huge numbers of people on the waiting list and of people who believe they may have a chance of getting a house. Unfortunately, the hopes of many will be dashed.
To return to the issue of retrofitting, Louth County Council has at times showed a capacity to be able to retrofit more houses than the targets it was given, particularly in the early stages of the programme. It was able to get moneys that were not initially being used by other councils.
Even at some stages, they had produced more one year than the target and funding they were provided for again. It is about ensuring we get a timeline that is achievable within the near future, because we want to see the whole issue of retrofitting and the issue of the insufficient maintenance budget dealt with for those who are not in appropriate places. We just need to deliver for all of them.
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.
Question Nos. 165 and 166 taken with Written Answers.
Housing Policy
167. Deputy Séamus McGrath asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to outline a timeframe for the upward revision of social housing qualifying income limits. [37496/26]
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.
I thank the Minister and welcome his reply. As he said, the limits were last revised over three years ago, and as I understand it, they went up by €5,000 in the basic change. Unfortunately, that was not sufficient at the time, but it was a welcome increase. We certainly need to look at that group who find themselves outside the social housing qualifying limit but do not find themselves within reach of any other support scheme, whether that is cost rental, affordable purchase or any other scheme. We need to try to address the needs of that particular cohort of people - those individuals, couples and families.
I also ask that this be more than just keeping in line with inflation, general growth or the need for an adjustment. This needs to be a fairly significant reform of the system. We need to try to capture as many as possible of that group who have been left behind . The Minister alluded to that in his reply, so I encourage him to be bold and brave with this, and to try to do something that will capture as many of that group who have been left behind as possible.
Given we have the time, we will go to Deputy Ó Broin for a supplementary contribution.
First, I fully agree with my committee colleague. In the Minister's consideration of this, it should not just be a question of the limit. When the Minister spoke about this at committee before, he was also looking at possibly linking the eligibility thresholds to some metric, and I have given that some thought since the committee meeting. Given that social housing is typically for a set percentage of households depending on their income, EU-SILC data, which is updated every year, could provide a useful link.
In addition, I urge the Minister to look at the income disregard. We have a situation where, for example, the State awards the working family payment because it recognises that the working income of families is too low to meet an adequate standard of living, but that can then push them above the threshold. It is the same with disability allowance. We also have a larger number of working adult children forced to live at home because of the housing crisis, which can also result in families losing their position on the list. I am talking to colleagues in my own parliamentary party, and I am sure the Minister is doing likewise, who are having constituents removed off the list and they have no other option. This is something we would be keen to work with the Minister on, but it is quite urgent.
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.
I again thank the Minister for that. I am encouraged by his words. I ask that this happen as quickly as possible. If a broader review is required, the Minister might increase the limits initially while that review is undertaken, because as public representatives we are all dealing with people who are on very low incomes but find themselves outside the limits. It is a disincentive to work; that is the reality of the situation. If people find themselves pulling back on their working hours, their working week and so on so that they stay within the limits, that is not good enough at a time when we need everybody engaging in employment to the best of their ability. This is currently a disincentive for people to work or to gain additional employment and so on. People do not want to find themselves in that position; that is my experience. They want to be able to fully engage in employment while also qualifying for social housing. As a State, that is what we should be doing, and it is what we did decades ago. People were working and still qualified for social housing. We need to go back to that model.
I welcome the Minister's words here this evening but I emphasise the urgency of this. It needs to happen.
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.
Questions Nos. 168 to 186, inclusive, taken with Written Answers.
We have time for one more question. Given that Deputy Sheehan turned up to chair the Chamber, he is now getting Question No. 187.
I am well off script at this point.
I think so, as is Deputy Sheehan. We will be all right.
Rental Sector
187. Deputy Conor Sheehan asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage if he will carry out a review of the licensing system in relation to the Government’s plan to allow landlords to rent out modular units adjacent to the principal private residence under the proposed revised exempted development guidelines; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37482/26]
I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach. I wish to ask the Minister if the Government will carry out a review of the licensee system in relation to the plan to allow landlords to rent out modular units adjacent to the principal private residence under the revised proposed exempted development guidelines. The reason I ask is because there are a number of loopholes with the licensee system and the protections that are there for tenants are non-existent.
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.
I raise this issue particularly in light of a very good report that Threshold did last October looking at the licensee system and the category of people in the licensee system who were, when it came to renters' rights, effectively invisible. The rent-a-room scheme does not come under the RTB Act, so there is no security of tenure there and no real renter's rights. That might be fine when you are talking about a room in someone's house but if you are talking about a modular unit, it is a separate physical entity. What we do not want to do is create a situation where we inadvertently create another shadow rental market. I know when this was first mooted the intention was not to allow landlords to rent these out. Then that was changed. I am looking for a quick review of the licensee system in order to make sure that if landlords are allowed to rent these out, tenants at least have some basic sense of protection.
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.
My concern here in relation to the licensee system is that in the arrangement they have with the person from whom they are renting the room, most people do not even realise it is a licensee agreement until there is a dispute. Then when there is a dispute and they go to the RTB, they find out that they, in effect, do not have very many rights. There is a real need for clearer regulations that safeguard licensees, who are very much in a grey area. There are very limited grounds on which a licensee can challenge a sudden eviction or rent increase. If the Government is going to go ahead and allow landlords to rent out modular units adjacent to the principle private residence, then that needs to be done in tandem with a review of the licensing system to safeguard renters.
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.
Given that we have two minutes and we are gone well past prepared questions, I am going to finish oral questions with the Minister there and move to Topical Issues, or else we are going to Deputy Conor Sheehan on Question No. 197.
I would give it to Deputy Sheehan.
I think we will conclude oral questions there. We are gone very far off piste-----
See, I was magnanimous.
-----which is all right, but we will move to Topical Issues.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar www.oireachtas.ie.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.