Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In four weeks' time the emergency ban on evictions will end. From April, hundreds of people will face the prospect of losing their homes. Single people, couples, parents with children and pensioners will become homeless. In many local authorities emergency accommodation is already full to capacity. The system is at breaking point. In Dublin alone, 60 single people and 100 families from the county are in emergency accommodation in Meath and Kildare.

We are facing not only an increase in people in emergency accommodation from April but also a rise in rough sleeping and, under Tusla's rules, the prospect of families with children being referred to Garda stations for a safe place to sleep. Let that sink in for a moment. In a wealthy country with tens of thousands of vacant homes and hundreds of millions in unspent Government capital funding for housing, children will be forced to sleep in Garda stations.

Why is this happening? Who is responsible? The short answer is the Taoiseach. Last night he, the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, took a decision to allow homelessness to increase. They took a conscious decision that will force more single people, couples, parents with children and even pensioners into homelessness and, in some cases, into tents and Garda stations. Let us be clear that no other new or substantive decision was made last night. There were no additional measures to prevent people from becoming homeless in April. There were no emergency measures to increase the supply of much-needed social and affordable homes in the short term. There was just a cold, blunt decision to end the ban on evictions in four weeks' time. What a heartless, cruel and shameful decision.

When the emergency ban on evictions was introduced last October, we told the Government it was not enough. We urged the Government to use the breathing space the ban provided to take emergency action, namely, to expand the tenant in situscheme, to expand that scheme to affordable cost rental, to use emergency planning and procurement powers to target vacant and derelict properties, and to utilise new building technologies. This would all have been for the purposes of increasing and accelerating the delivery of social and affordable homes. However, the Taoiseach and his colleagues in government chose to ignore us. They have done nothing extra and now, because of their inaction and their decision last night, homelessness will increase.

Once again, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party have abandoned renters. The Government parties are throwing them to the mercy of a totally dysfunctional market, a dysfunction created by 11 years of Fine Gael in government, propped up, of course, by Fianna Fáil for the past six years, and now joined by the Green Party, whose leader has been accused today by one of his own Dáil colleagues of abandoning his party's values and policies. Together, the parties in government have allowed rents to rise and keep rising. They have failed to deliver an appropriate volume of social or affordable homes to rent or buy. Year after year, they have missed their own social housing targets, targets that were not sufficient in the first place. As a result, people are in huge housing stress. A generation is locked out of homeownership, crippled by sky-high rents, trampled in cramped flat shares, stuck in the family's box bedroom, struggling through long, exhausting commutes and languishing on social housing waiting lists. Now we have the spectre of people being forced to emigrate because they cannot access an affordable home.

My question is simple. What is the Government going to do to prevent ever more people becoming homeless when it ends the eviction ban in April and what is it going to do to increase the supply of social and affordable housing to invert the ever-deepening housing emergency?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as a chuid ceiste. Rinne an Rialtas socrú deacair inniu. Tá buntáistí agus míbhuntáistí ag baint leis ach creidim gurb é an cinneadh ceart ar son leas an phobail. The Government today decided that the temporary eviction moratorium would end on a phased basis, as planned and previously announced, from the end of March. It was a finely balanced decision. There are pros and cons, but we made the decision which we believe is in the overall public interest. Why? It is for three reasons. First, the moratorium was not effective in reducing homelessness. The number of homeless people being provided with emergency accommodation by the State increased every month for which the moratorium was in place. Second, it was beginning to create a new form of homelessness, with people being unable to move back into a property they owned or to move a son or daughter into an apartment they had bought for the purpose. Some 20,000 to 30,000 Irish citizens return home every year. Most do not own their own house or apartment, but many do, and extending this moratorium for another six months or a year would not have been right or fair to those people. Third, we also did not extend it, and this is a crucial point, because we believe that leaving it in place would have reduced the availability of places to rent and driven up rents further. Why? It would have discouraged new landlords from coming into the market, who we need. We have lost 40,000 in the past five years and it may have caused, once extended, more and more landlords to leave. It would, therefore, have been bad for renters, in our assessment, to extend this eviction ban, especially in the cases of those moving or seeking to rent for the first time.

Let me explain this point in a bit more detail. We know from reports from Daft.ie and the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, for example, that for the vast majority of renters, that is, people who have tenancies and are sitting tenants, rents increased by about 3.5% last year. This was because of the rent pressure zones, RPZs, and other measures. When it comes to new tenancies, however, and new rental properties becoming available for the first time, rents are skyrocketing and this is because there are not enough properties available. Too few new properties are coming on the market to meet demand and we believe that extending the eviction ban and this moratorium would have meant even fewer properties coming on the market. Why? People who have a property to rent would be afraid they would never be able to get hold of or control of it again. We believe, therefore, on balance, that it is in the public interest to do this for three reasons. First, this measure was not bringing down homelessness. Second, it was creating a whole new form of homelessness, with people not able to move back into their own homes and properties they owned. Third, it would also make fewer properties available in future, thus making rental property less available and pushing up rents further. This might not be correct and it might not even be the right decision, but it is one we believe is correct based on all the factors in front of us. It is the decision we believe is in the public interest.

Homelessness and the number of people in emergency accommodation provided by the State has been rising now every month for quite some time. We accept that it may well continue to rise in the months ahead. We think, however, that the decision we made today increases the chances that we can get homelessness down in the medium to long term, whereas extending it would do the reverse. It might have given us some respite for a short period ahead, but it would have made things much worse in the medium to long term.

To correct the Deputy on one crucial point, we made several important decisions today to alleviate the situation. First, we decided that local authorities would be funded to purchase up to 1,500 homes from landlords who are selling up so those people can avoid homelessness. There are roughly 1,600 homeless families in the State. The fact we have decided to buy 1,500 homes from landlords selling up so that people do not become homeless is a significant decision. We also decided that private tenants would be given the first right of refusal if their landlord is selling up, as is the case in France, and we will help them to buy when they cannot afford to do so. We also decided to lease an additional 1,000 social housing units, particularly targeted at those who are homeless.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no pro to being in emergency accommodation, sleeping in a tent or having to bring your children to a Garda station. The Taoiseach said the ban on evictions was not working. In fact, it was his Government that was not working. The reason the previous ban on evictions was so effective was because exits from homelessness rose. In the past year and half, under the watch of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, exits from homelessness have collapsed. The Taoiseach also said that the ban was creating a new form of homelessness. I tabled an amendment to the Residential Tenancies (Deferment of Termination Dates of Certain Tenancies) Bill 2022 last October which would have addressed this point, but this Government did not support it. Equally, the Taoiseach said that if the ban on evictions were to be continued, this would reduce the availability of rental stock. The very opposite would be the case. Once the ban on evictions is ended, landlords will continue to leave the market.

They have been doing it for six or seven years and they will continue in the time ahead.

With respect to the Government's target for the tenant in situscheme, we know what the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, does with his targets; he makes them and he breaks them over and over again. In my local authority, more than 100 homes have been offered to South Dublin County Council for the tenant in situscheme in the past year. How many have been bought? Three. The Taoiseach should please not come here and tell us he agreed anything new last night. The Government made one decision: to end the ban and increase homelessness.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Ó Broin. The time is up.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What additional emergency measures will the Government put in place for April to counteract the negative consequences of its own decision?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were about 2,700 exits from homelessness last year and 3,000 preventions. Perhaps the reason there were more exits from homelessness during the pandemic is that, because of the restrictions on domestic and international travel, there was simply more accommodation available, with people not coming into the country and tourists not taking up the accommodation. There were many other factors at play during the pandemic that helped to reduce homelessness, and that is now very evident. That the moratorium was not effective in bringing down the number of people homeless in the past six months proves that.

I outlined earlier the decisions we have taken. We are authorising local authorities to purchase 1,500 homes this year and we will fund them to do it. If a landlord is selling up who has a social housing tenant on the housing assistance payment, HAP, or the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, local authorities will be encouraged and enabled to purchase the property so the person or family does not become homeless in the first place. We are going to give private renters the right of first refusal and help them to buy. It will not work for everyone but it will work for some. We have also decided to lease an additional 1,000 social homes to accommodate people who are becoming homeless. We have also signalled very clearly that there will be tax measures in the forthcoming budget to encourage landlords to stay in the market and to encourage more to come in. There will always be landlords leaving, but there are zero entering now and that is a very big problem and something we need to address.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unbearable sitting here listening to the Taoiseach trying to defend the indefensible: the Government's decision to lift the ban on evictions in the middle of a housing emergency. The Government has now potentially condemned thousands of individuals and families to homelessness. There is nowhere for them to go when they leave their homes. There is no affordable private rental accommodation anywhere in the country. Emergency accommodation is full. Hotels are full. Bed and breakfast accommodation is full. There is no uncertainty about the consequences of lifting this ban: it will open the floodgates to a tsunami of homelessness. The impact of this on individuals and families will be catastrophic, in particular for children.

The Taoiseach said that he wants to make Ireland the best country in the world to be a child. He made that commitment when he became Taoiseach barely two months ago. What does he say today to those children who will become homeless because of the Government's decision? We know children who experience homelessness are more likely to be bullied and are twice as likely to be hospitalised as their peers who have a home. We all know there is lots of research that confirms the serious harm that is being done to the health and well-being of children as a direct result of homelessness. This is serious harm that is being inflicted on them by the State because of the Government's failure to address the housing disaster. I want everybody in this Chamber, in particular on the Government benches, to be very clear-eyed today about the implications of the decision on the health and well-being of children. It will cause huge damage, and that damage is avoidable. It does not have to ruin these children's lives.

Once these children enter homelessness, it becomes increasingly difficult to get out. The Government was warned as recently as January by Dublin City Council that the number of homeless families in Dublin finding homes in the private rental sector has fallen to its lowest level in five years. What does this mean? It means there are now nearly 500 families who have been trapped in emergency accommodation for more than a year. It means there are more than 200 families that have endured more than two years in emergency accommodation. Housing is a human right because it means more than a just a roof over our heads. Our homes provide us and our families with comfort, dignity, privacy and security. This is why one of the most basic requirements in a functioning society is the provision of a secure and affordable home.

It is supposedly the biggest priority of the Government, yet it is its biggest failure. I have one question for the Taoiseach. Will he reverse this appalling decision?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I explained earlier, we made this decision because we believe it is the right one in the public interest, which is the only reason we would make a decision of this nature. We weighed up the pros and cons, listened to the arguments and decided, on balance, this was the right decision for the three reasons I outlined. It has not been effective in reducing the number of people in emergency accommodation, which has increased every month the eviction ban has been in place. Second, it was beginning to create new forms of homelessness, such as people not being able to move back into their own homes after coming home from abroad and people not being able to put their own children - Deputy Cairns mentioned children - into an apartment they bought for that purpose, for example, when they become old enough to go to college. Crucially, we formed the view and opinion that by extending this, the chances of getting new supply into the market and new landlords to rent out properties and apartments would have been very low. There will always be a turnover of people entering and leaving the rental market. If we do not have new landlords coming in, we will never be able to get rents down and we will never have availability. It is our view and assessment that, if we are going to keep landlords in the market and, more importantly, get new landlords to come into the market, the only way to improve availability and get rents down is to get new landlords into the market, and by extending this moratorium, we would make the situation worse, with less availability, longer queues for people trying to get an apartment and higher rents. We see the differential now between existing tenancies, where rents are going up by about 3.5% a year, and new tenancies, where they are going up by 14% or 15% a year because there is a lack of new supply. Anything we do to discourage new supply is going to make things worse for renters. That is the basis behind our decision.

Deputy Cairns spoke passionately about how this impacts on children. I believe she is sincere in that, but if so, why is it the case that her party has consistently voted against Government solutions when it comes to affordable housing? The Social Democrats voted against the Affordable Housing Act 2021, which brought in the first home scheme for loads of young people who are now buying for the first time and brought in 50,000 new social houses in the next quarter, and that party voted against the Land Development Agency, LDA, which is doing exactly what Deputy Cairns advocates we should do, which is building affordable housing on State lands. Why would the Social Democrats vote against those measures? Why would its members complain about a problem and then consistently oppose the solutions?

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is quite telling that the Taoiseach is reduced to trying to blame the Opposition consistently for a housing disaster that has exploded during his 13 years in office. Is that really the best he can do? I know I am new to this but I think being a leader is about taking responsibility for the things that have happened on your watch. The Taoiseach said the Government had weighed up the pros and cons and, on balance, had decided to take this decision. We have heard a lot about the knowns and the unknowns in recent weeks. This was largely theorising from the Taoiseach and Ministers about what might happen if the eviction ban were extended, the potential consequences of the continuation of it and what they might be. There is no need to speculate in any way whatsoever about what definitely will happen if the eviction ban is removed, which is forcing thousands of people into homelessness. The unintended potential consequences when he was weighing up the pros and cons are very confusing for people because the definite, intended consequences are clear for everybody to see. I ask the Taoiseach again: will he please reverse this ridiculous decision?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. The decision we made today was not just a decision to allow the moratorium to lapse. We also made a decision to buy 1,500 homes where the landlord is selling up and the tenant is a social housing tenant. That will prevent hundreds, if not thousands, of families from going into homelessness. We decided to increase the number of social homes we will provide this year to in or around 12,000. Last year, we built about 8,000 new social homes, probably the highest number since 1975. We are going to do more again this year. We have also taken other measures.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked a question.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I answered the Deputy's question in the first part. We have made this decision and we believe it is the right one in the public interest. We know it is controversial and is going to be difficult to defend, but it is nonetheless, in our honest view, the right decision and in the public interest. Deputy Cairns mentioned being a leader, and I congratulate her on her recent election. Being a leader means standing over your decisions. I will stand over this decision.

You cannot go around saying you want to help people to become homeowners when you opposed the help-to-buy scheme, which has helped 30,000 young people to become owners, and the Affordable Housing Act, by means of which the first home scheme was created. You have to stand over the decisions your party makes. Tens of thousands of young people have bought homes in the past two years. They would not have done so if we had had a Social Democrats housing Minister.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No prizes for guessing what I am going to go at. I will also be focusing on the housing announcement. The Taoiseach is quoted in the media as saying that the Government is seeking to balance the rights of tenants and landlords. It is no surprise which side the balance has fallen on in light of the Government's neoliberal habits. Will the Taoiseach help my constituents in Donegal balance the figures for the county? This morning, there are only 49 houses available to rent in Donegal, 27 of which are in Letterkenny. However, there are over 1,500 short-term lets available on Airbnb. Houses to rent are: Ballyshannon, two; Ballybofey, one; Dungloe, one: Kilcar, one; Falcarragh, one; Buncrana, zero; Carndonagh, zero; Convoy, zero; Carrick, zero; Donegal town, zero; and Killybegs, zero. Does the Taoiseach want me to continue with the rest of them? Of the 49 houses available, none is affordable for those on HAP. A single person on jobseeker’s would have to pay more than 62% of their income to rent the cheapest house shown on daft.iethis morning. A family with three children would have to find €230 per week to keep the roof over their heads - after HAP - at the current rate being charged the average three-bedroom house in Donegal.

I have told the Taoiseach before that HAP is failing. There are 2,606 households in Donegal locked into these failing tenancies. There are almost 2,700 people on the council housing list, most of whom have been waiting years for offers. According to figures from the North West Simon Community, the average number in emergency accommodation in the region trebled between 2016 and 2022. It was 108 for one week in January alone. There are fewer than 40 emergency beds in the region. This does not account for the hidden homelessness figures we know exist, nor does it include the impending explosion in rental need to be generated by the defective blocks saga, for which the Government has no plan.

It is clear there is no capacity. There will be a catastrophic failure in the housing sector in Donegal to compound that which already exists. Week after week, we hear announcements from the Taoiseach and the Minister. However, these are having zero impact on the ground in my constituency. These figures are repeated across the country. More than 3,500 children are homeless. That is a shameful indictment of the Government's tenure. It is about time the Government owned it and admitted that is has failed utterly. Will the Taoiseach be honest and admit that? Maybe he will say he is going to stand over the Government's decision? That is new. In a month or six weeks’ time, when it is clear it has not worked, will he own it then and state that he was wrong? The Government needs to build public housing. That is the only way we can do this. We need to keep the eviction ban in place in order that nobody can go into homelessness. There are no houses for these people. That is the reality. The Taoiseach has to admit and live up to that.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure I was quoted accurately on that. I do not believe this is about weighing up the balance between landlords and renters as if it is one versus the other. People need places to rent. If we do not have more places to rent, there will be longer queues of people trying to get rental properties and renters will pay higher rents. We need more landlords in the market in order to increase availability and reduce rents. We have lost about 40,000 landlords from the market in the past couple of years. We need to turn that around and stem the tide of landlords leaving. More importantly, we need to encourage more landlords to come back in. It is our assessment that if we had extended the moratorium, it would have made matters worse in the medium term, not better.

I have heard what Opposition parties have said. I heard the Labour Party say today that it would extend it for a few months. I heard Sinn Féin say it would extend it until the end of the year. Do we really believe it is credible things would change so much by September, October or the end of the year that we would be able to lift this ban? I do not think anyone honestly believes that.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A decision has to be made. We believe this is the right decision, in the round, in the public interest for the reasons I have outlined.

I will finish on one matter Deputy Pringle talked about. I know he is interested in ideology. I am not particularly interested in ideology; I am interested in outcomes for people. The Deputy stated that the Government has a neoliberal ideology. Would a Government with such an ideology have built more social housing last year than in any year in my lifetime since 1975?

Would a neoliberal Government have brought in rent pressure zones and limited rent increases to 2%, which is lower than the rate of inflation and the rate at which incomes are rising?

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It certainly would have, once-----

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would a neoliberal Government have introduced the help-to-buy scheme, which has helped 30,000 people buy their first homes? Those people know who they are and know they would not have a home today under a left Government.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach has just given a classic example of right-wing ideology. The reason the Government built more houses than in any year since 1975 may be because it was forced - kicking and screaming - to do so. That is the difference of the situation.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nonsense.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The difference is-----

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At least the Deputy is acknowledging it.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for acknowledging the fact.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The difference is that we would have kept people who are now homeless in houses, on a temporary basis, while new houses were being delivered. The Government is not doing that. The Government's help-to-buy scheme and other schemes do not meet people's needs. What we need is a public housebuilding programme. The eviction ban should be kept in place while that is getting up and running. The need for an eviction ban would then decline because houses would be built and the need would be met. Unfortunately, the Government will not do what I am suggesting. That is the sad reality of the situation. If the Government is proved to be wrong in a couple of months' time, will it reverse its decision? I do not think so.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might be useful to inform the House of how much has been done by the Government while the moratorium has been in place. In the past three to five months, 5,000 new social housing units were built. A further 600 were released, 500 were bought and 1,500 voids were returned to use. An additional 500 emergency beds and 150 cold-weather beds were provided. Nobody can say, at least not factually and honestly, that the Government did not act while the moratorium was in place to provide additional social, permanent and emergency housing, as needed. We decided earlier today not just to allow the moratorium to lapse, as always planned, but to authorise local authorities to buy 1,500 homes in circumstances where landlords are selling and the tenants involved are social housing tenants. To put that into context, we have approximately 1,600 homeless families in the State. The fact that we are willing to buy 1,500 homes from landlords who are selling up in order to prevent people becoming homeless is a significant decision and has to be seen as part of the announcement today.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The residential zoned land tax was introduced by means of the Finance Act in order to activate land for development and thereby increase housing supply. The rate of the tax is 3% of the annual market value of the land. The Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and the Irish Rural Association have strongly opposed land that currently forms an integral part of existing farm operations being subject to the residential zoned land tax. Irish farm families, often spanning multiple generations, are private landowners who utilise land for food production. They have not caused or influenced the housing crisis. They are not builders, they are not speculators and they are not developers who are withholding land from being developed for residential purposes. They should be exempt from this tax, as they were from the vacant sites levy, that is, the predecessor to the residential zoned land tax.

At present, there is exemption for farmed land within these zones. If applicable, however, a person can challenge the inclusion of such land to his or her local authority. It does not make sense to go after a family unit that is farming land. Such land may be on the edge of a town or a village and it might be deemed to be suitable for housing. However, those people did not develop that land during the boom when they may have been offered large sums of money to do so. I know of land that is available in towns and villages, including Killarney, where people are farming. They are milking cows and they want to continue to do so. These people are not developers or speculators and they cannot be accused of hoarding land. They are utilising every blade of grass. Surely be to God, their case should be looked at and their land should be considered to be exempt. Failure to deal with this matter properly will be detrimental to their family farm operations.

Recently, a family from Killorglin visited me at my clinic. They own land on the edge of Killorglin town. Anyone could look at the land and say that it is very valuable and that it would be very profitable if they were to sell it and cash in their chips. They do not want to do that. They are farming the land. All they want is to be left alone. If this tax were to be imposed on them, it would cost them €30,000 per year. They do not make €30,000 from their farming operation. They are just getting by; they are getting on with life and making a living. They not looking for anything from the State, but they do not want to be penalised by it for just getting on with their lives. Will the Taoiseach look at this again and ensure that we do not put these farmers out of existence at a time when they should be left alone and encouraged to make a living for themselves? That is all they want.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As everyone in this House knows, we are in the teeth of a serious housing crisis. We need to build more homes, and we need to build them as quickly as possible. What councillors around the country have done is zone land around our towns, villages and cities for development. They have made the right decision in that regard. Of course, they have zoned the land that is most appropriate, namely, that which is near urban centres. In most cases, this is serviced land and it is the right land to be zoned. We want that land to be developed.

We fully appreciate that there are people who own land that has perhaps been in their family for generations and they do not want it developed. They want to continue to farm it, as the Deputy mentioned, or they may have their own reasons as to why they do not want to move, such as because the land has been in their families for a long time. That is why there is provision in the legislation for landowners to request that their land be dezoned in order that they can continue to milk cows, grow barley or use the land whatever purpose they choose. So far, 210 landowners have made submissions seeking the dezoning of their land in order that they can continue to do what they have done for generations. That option is open to them.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there is land in a suitable place for housing that is not being actively farmed, of course - no problem in the world - it should be taxed because we want to encourage the use of that land. We should not go after farmers, however. One thing that has transpired, and I know I am only giving an example for everybody else in the House, is that people have come to me who missed the date for inclusion in the exemption because they were not aware of it. The matter simply passed them by. They were getting on with their lives and did not realise that this was happening. They are not going to be included in any exemption. That is why I ask the Taoiseach to ensure that people who are special cases, who are genuine farmers and who are not hoarding land will be exempt from this tax, however that is managed. This is a reasonable and sensible plea to make on behalf of those people. Nobody should be hoarding land when there is a housing crisis. Nobody should be holding on to anything. We should be utilising every bit of land, every house and every type of accommodation that is available in order to ensure that have a roof over their heads. The Government should not be doing one thing at the expense of the other. Let farmers continue farming and let us build houses where we should be building them.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is reasonable for farmers to say, "This is my farm. I own this land. It has been in my family for generations and I don't want to develop it. I want to continue to farm it." That is why we have a mechanism in place to allow people to request that their land be dezoned. So far, 1,687 submissions have been submitted to local authorities by landowners. Local authorities are going to consider those submissions. If landowners do not get the answers they want, they have the right to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. It is important to bear that in mind. Of the more than 1,600 landowners involved, 210 have done exactly what Deputy Michael Healy Rae said. They have indicated that they do not want their land developed and do not want housing estates on it. They want to continue to farm their land as they have done all their lives and as their families have done before them. That is why 210 landowners have requested dezoning already.

I take the Deputy's point that people may have missed the deadline. I am not sure if there is something we can do about that, but I will speak with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to see if that is possible.