Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Inné, chuir an Phríomh-Oifig Staidrimh níos mó drochscéil ar fáil d'oibrithe agus do theaghlaigh atá ag iarraidh dul ar an dréimire tithíochta. Tá praghsanna tithíochta anois níos airde ná mar a bhí siad le linn am an tíogair Cheiltigh. Is sampla eile é seo den teip ar phlean tithíochta an Rialtais. Ní thiocfaidh deireadh leis an ngéarchéim tithíochta seo go dtí go mbeidh athrú polasaí agus athrú rialtais ann. Yesterday, the CSO published a report on property prices. It contains more bad news for workers and families looking to buy a home, with many of them now desperate for somewhere to call a home that is affordable. Today, we have reached a new milestone. House prices are now higher than they were during the Celtic tiger era. Spiralling house prices confirm that the Tánaiste's Government's housing plan is failing. Homeownership, the dream of many Irish families, is in decline, and all on the watch of this Government. The consequence of all this is that too many people are being forced into an expensive and insecure private rental sector that does not meet their needs. It is a vicious spiral.

The only way this housing crisis is going to be brought to an end is with a general election, a change of government and a change of housing plan. I say this because all the evidence shows that the Government's policies are making things worse. The affordable housing targets are pathetically low, and even these low targets are not being met. Does the Tánaiste agree that the Government has failed to meet its affordable housing targets every year, in 2020, in 2021 and in 2022? It seems that the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage is so embarrassed by his own failures in terms of affordable housing that he is refusing to publish the number of affordable homes delivered last year. We still do not have those figures.

It is a fact that many of these homes being delivered are not affordable in the first instance for most workers and families. Let us not pretend, then, that affordable homes, with all-in costs of €435,000 in parts of Dublin, are somehow affordable for ordinary workers and families, because they simply are not. It is time for a change of direction. What we need is a plan that meets the scale of the challenge we face, and Sinn Féin has this plan. Capacity, pace and affordability are key, but so is political wiliness. Political priority is key here. In our engagement with builders, approved housing bodies and other players in the market, they are all telling us the same thing, which is that there is capacity to do more with proper State support.

If it is not the number one priority for the Government, then the housing crisis is going to continue as it has done every year during this Government's term. It has been four years since the general election. Is it not fair to say that when we measure the performance of the Tánaiste's Government against house prices, rent, homelessness and homeownership, it has not just failed but failed spectacularly? We have an entire generation the length and breadth of this State locked out of homeownership and losing all hope of having a future in this country. This is the reality. I am sure the Tánaiste has met these people as much as I have. They are leaving in their droves for London, Canada and the US. Many of them are now going to Australia.

I ask the Tánaiste to answer these questions honestly. Does he accept that his Government has missed its affordable housing targets every year since it entered office? It is a fact. Does the Tánaiste accept it? Does he accept that runaway house prices, even surpassing those reached in the Celtic tiger era, are locking entire generations out of homeownership? Does he also accept it is now time for a plan that will deliver affordable housing at scale and where homes will be genuinely affordable for ordinary workers and families? This is something the Tánaiste's Government has failed to produce up until now.

Ar dtús báire, ní aontaím in aon chor leis an Teachta Dála. Níl aon amhras ach go bhfuil dul chun cinn le feiscint ó thaobh cúrsaí tithíochta sa tír seo. Gan amhras, is í seo an fhadhb is mó atá againn sa tír faoi láthair. Is í an aidhm is mó atá ag an Rialtas ná níos mó tithe a thógáil agus a chruthú agus níos mó cabhair agus tacaíocht a thabhairt do dhaoine atá ag iarraidh a gcéad teach a cheannach. Tá figiúirí ann a léiríonn go bhfuil an-chuid scéimeanna agus áiseanna ann anois chun cabhair agus tacaíocht a thabhairt do dhaoine.

I disagree entirely with the Deputy's presentation. In the first instance, I noted the complete absence in his contribution of any reference to social housing at all. Politically, I understand why he is doing that, of course. He is approximating to dissent, because he does not really want change or he is not radically approaching the issue at all.

The reason I say that is that, of course, the Deputy did not wish to highlight that between 2022 and 2023 up to 22,000 social houses have been delivered by this Government. This is a record high, and about 26,000 more social homes are in the pipeline.

On the affordable aspect, the Deputy spoke about change. Sinn Féin's change would be a change for the worse. Why do I say this? It is because in the alternative Sinn Féin budget, which was published, it was proposed to abolish the help-to-buy scheme, which has supported more than 40,000 home buyers. The Deputy's party would get rid of that support for affordability to enable young people to afford to buy their first home. The party would also scrap the first homes scheme, which gives up to 30% in equity share in new properties and enables people to be able to buy their homes. The State will take an equity share of up to 30% in this context. There have been 2,600 approvals already under that scheme in just over one year. Sinn Féin, though, would again scrap this measure. It would also eliminate the new vacant and derelict property grants of €70,000, for which more than 4,500 applications have already been submitted and 200 approvals to date. Equally, significant supports for affordable housing would be scrapped in the party's budget, amounting to up to €260 million.

That is what the party has proposed. The issue is that Sinn Féin does not have a plan. It has a few pages stitched together, as in the party's housing policy budget, which we have read. The party would scrap support for homeownership. It would increase taxes on inheriting the family home by a substantial amount, close to €36,000 on the average family home. It would scrap the support. It would also then, as I said, abolish the key schemes that give real support to young people who wish to buy their first homes. Some 550 first-time buyers are now buying homes each week. Mortgage drawdowns for first-time buyers have reached a new peak, with there having been about 26,000 in 2022. This is the highest annual level since 2007, which the Deputy did not acknowledge. We have also expanded the help-to-buy scheme.

We want to do more and we have to do more given the population increase and the scale of the challenges out there. We have substance in our planning, however. We are not opposing projects like the development at the Oscar Traynor site, which Sinn Féin did, or at Ballymastone or other big projects that would have delivered social and affordable housing much faster if it were not for all the prevarication you people engaged in on the councils, especially in Dublin. The Deputy's party just has sound bites. It has only about four or five pages of a plan. That is all it has. It keeps talking about change. It is a great sound bite. The oldest sound bite in elections is "Vote for change".

I warn people not to vote for the abolition of the help-to-buy scheme, the derelict house grant-----

A Deputy:

The Tánaiste is electioneering now, is he?

-----the first homes scheme and key supports for first-time buyers in this country who want to own their own homes.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One thing is clear: we will get no change from the Tánaiste. In fairness he is consistent because the last time he was in government, that Government drove house prices off a cliff. Having been in for the last four years this Government has even surpassed the Celtic tiger period. The Tánaiste talked about sound bites. It is not a sound bite to say that house prices are running away. It is not a sound bite for the 21,000 people who packed their bags and decided to go to Australia because they felt they had no hope in this country anymore. It is not a sound bite to point out the reality that an entire generation is locked out of home ownership. It is not a sound bite to point out all of the measurements of runaway house prices, rents never as high, homelessness and child homelessness never as high in the history the State, and homeownership declining. That is the result of the Government's policies. Ministers may go into conclave, pat themselves on the back and think they are doing great job. They are not. There is a housing disaster in this country under this Government's watch and people can no longer afford Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil policy that pushes up house prices and fails to deliver on their own plans of delivering affordable housing.

I note that the Tánaiste did not answer one of my questions. Does he accept that the Government missed the targets every single year that he has been in government? Does he accept that runaway house prices are locking out an entire generation? Does he accept that we need a new plan because we cannot afford prices continuing to go up this way? We cannot afford rents continuing to spiral. We cannot afford having more children in emergency accommodation. We cannot afford house ownership to decline as is happening under his watch.

Where the hell is Sinn Féin's plan? It has produced nothing in four years other than three pages on housing in a 52-page budget document. Where is Sinn Féin's plan? The Deputy is all sound, noise and fury with no substance on any of this. Some 33,000 houses were built last year, which is in excess of the target set in Housing for All. In 2022 it was 29,500, in excess of the target set in Housing for All.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about affordable housing?

The targets are being exceeded. The Deputy has a responsibility. We understand that housing is the biggest issue facing families across this country. We have never hidden that reality. Our population is increasing and there are challenges out there. However, the supports we put in place are enabling young people to buy houses in this country at levels that were not seen before. We want to do more, of course, we do. The Deputy has not responded to the assertions that I have made.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a plan there. It is called social and affordable housing.

There is no plan to help young people.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is supposed to be questions to the Taoiseach, not questions to the Opposition.

Sinn Féin's plan is to abolish supports for first-time buyers and undermine their capacity to afford new houses.

That is the essence of Sinn Féin's three-pager in its 52-page budget document. The Deputy is all bluster and no substance.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no substance from the Tánaiste and no answers either.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is supposed to be questions to the Taoiseach and not questions to the Opposition.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was more grim news this week for the thousands of people desperate to find a secure and affordable home. House prices are now higher than the Celtic tiger peak yet the Government's building targets remain too low. It is four months since the Taoiseach admitted to me in Leaders’ Questions that more ambition would be needed. Instead of Housing for All, it seems we are still stuck with housing just for some.

Those struggling to find an affordable home to rent must continue to compete with short-term tourist lettings. It is five years since the Oireachtas first debated a Labour Bill to regulate Airbnb-style lets. Now we understand that the European Commission is still delaying a decision on the Government's proposal to do just that. The Government needs to remind the Commission how dire the housing crisis is here and let it know of the urgency. We cannot afford to wait any longer for EU proposals. For years, we have called for stronger regulation of short-term letting. We know how many homes these platforms take out of use because, during the pandemic, suddenly they all became available. That situation has now been allowed to worsen again. "Building back better" post Covid has made its way out of the lexicon. Instead, prospective buyers and renters are being victimised by a profit-driven market, and laissez-fairepolicies in the Department of housing.

Renters in Ireland are still at the whim of landlords. There has been no tangible strengthening of renters' rights since the general election. No-fault evictions are still taking place, even though we in Labour proposed a Bill to stop them. While inspections in the private rented sector have gone up since the pandemic, enforcement is practically non-existent in many areas. Not a single prohibition notice was issued in ten local authority areas last year.

Homelessness figures will be out tomorrow, and no one is under any illusion that there will be good news this month. Every day, across the country, tenants live in fear of the dreaded call to tell them they will be losing their home. It is a Wild West for renters out there. Just ask any of the tenants of Marc Godart. I give credit to The Irish Timesfor pulling back the veil on what is really going on for renters in the properties of this Luxembourg investor. Godart has deployed CCTV to monitor his tenants, is accused of unlawful evictions, has failed to pay compensation to former tenants who won at the RTB and has summarily fired his workers. We hear about ruthless working conditions for those who work for him.

The latest documents revealed by The Irish Timesshow that he is now trying to recruit people to act as fronts for his property empire - getting others to use their identities to set up Airbnb accounts. Across a range of legal frameworks, he is riding roughshod over the rights of tenants and workers, and he appears to be operating with impunity. This is very serious. Yesterday, he avoided prosecution for breaches of planning laws. His companies were fined just €7,500 but that’s probably only a few days' takings in some of his city-centre Airbnb properties. Are we going to continue to allow unscrupulous landlords to exploit legal loopholes and to exploit renters, many of whom are desperate for a roof over their heads? He also exploits workers, it seems. When will short-term lets be regulated? How will the Government tackle egregious abuses of the law by a small number of unscrupulous landlords like Godart?

I thank the Deputy for raising a number of issues under the umbrella of renting and so on. It is not true to say that no additional protections have been put in place for renters. We have introduced quite a significant number of protections. For example, we have extended the length of notice landlords are obliged to give. The Deputy is correct in what she said about short-term tourist letting. It is frustrating that the Commission has sought further time to review the short-term tourism letting legislation which would provide a statutory basis for the establishment of the STTL register. As the Deputy will know, in November the Parliament and the Council reached a provisional political agreement on the EU STR proposal. Those issues are still with the Commission. We have also introduced a €750 rent credit. That has been taken up by a substantial number of renters, but not all renters. That is something that also needs to be explored.

I also pay tribute to Naomi O'Leary and The Irish Timesfor a very comprehensive investigative analytical piece on Marc Godart. It is extremely concerning. I have read the article and I intend to talk to other Ministers about it, but it seems to me that the Corporate Enforcement Authority should be interested in the article, particularly the issues of nominees, paper directors, shadow Airbnb accounts and ruthless staff practices. From reading that article, it seems to me that issues relating to labour law also arise. There may be a role for the WRC or labour inspectors to investigate how employees of that company were treated. We have read about arbitrary deductions of salary, arbitrary firings of people, supervisors being directed to make sure employees work out the week or month even as they are being fired. Some of them came from South America, for example, with no English language capacity. They have been told it is not enough.

Their only crime was to allow inspectors from Dublin City Council to go in to inspect premises. A person got fired for facilitating an inspection by Dublin City Council. I regard that as very serious. From my reading of it, a range of authorities were affected. These were environmental health officers who went on that occasion. They found they could not enforce because no one was occupying the property.

The Corporate Enforcement Authority should be interested. From a layperson's reading of this, clearly at a surface reading employment law breaches need to be highlighted. In terms of the city council's role and potentially other authorities, I am conscious of my restrictions in parliamentary terms. I want to stay within those restrictions and I will adhere to that.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Tánaiste for his comments. I commend Naomi O'Leary. Her article makes for chilling reading. Undoubtedly, there are issues with the arbitrary deductions from workers wages and workplace practices.

To return to the issue of Godart's treatment of his tenants, what is the Government going to do to ensure unscrupulous landlords like Godart will be made accountable and that there would be some comeback? Clearly, neither local authorities nor the Residential Tenancies Board currently have the power or capacity to regulate the undoubtedly small number of egregious abuses in the rental sector. Will the Tánaiste bolster the RTB to crack down on those who are exploiting tenants? Clearly, they are not representative of the vast majority of landlords, but right now, the RTB investigations and sanctions unit can only levy fines of up to €15,000. That is not enough to deal people like Godart. In the nineties, we saw how the Labour Party Minister for Finance, Ruairí Quinn, created the Criminal Assets Bureau to go after the assets of criminals, seizing property and going after ill-gotten cash. We now need an enforcement mechanism within the RTB with real powers to go after the small number of unscrupulous landlords who are making life a misery for far too many. Reading Naomi O'Leary's piece, all of us will recall that these are practices from 19th century Land League times. This was why the Land League was set up, calling for fair rent, fixity of tenure and decent conditions for renters. We are seeing some appalling conditions still prevailing for renters in Dublin and across the country today.

There are two points here. First of all, Naomi O'Leary's article on Marc Godart is shocking. I identified the list of authorities for whom the content of that article and his behaviour should be a matter of interest. I would add the Garda to that potentially. If the law is broken, it is broken. There are enforcement mechanisms to enforce the law and we have invested record amounts in the RTB. There is €13.4 million for the RTB in 2024 and €10.75 million for local authority inspections in the rental sector and for the regulation of short-term lettings. The rent laws are there and set out very clear requirements and obligations on landlords which the RTB can investigate and enforce. I do not think the investigations or enforcement are at the scale they should be given the overall numbers. This creates a huge challenge reputationally for the broader rental market when there are people like Mr. Godart behaving in a manner that he clearly has behaved in, as evidenced by the article in The Irish Times. We have enforcement authorities to enforce the law when it is broken and they should give their attention to this.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I bring to the attention of the Tánaiste a potential Government cover-up regarding the upcoming referendums. On Monday, 12 February, the former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Senator Michael McDowell, accused the Minister, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, of hiding vital information regarding the upcoming referendums in March. Senator McDowell's allegations suggest a significant cover-up by the Government and it is a matter that must be urgently addressed. I am today calling for the Government to come clean and to tell the truth, which is difficult for this Government.

Why would the Minister refuse to share the detailed notes from the crucial meetings from the interdepartmental group which considered the two referendums? These were no ordinary meetings. They were discussions which have grave impacts on our citizens and on our Constitution. These notes could shed light on how the changes to our laws might impact on taxation, social welfare, pensions, immigration and even family reunification for asylum seekers, landowners, farmers and everything else. By withholding this information, the Government is simply keeping us all in the dark, which is not only unfair but downright disrespectful to the public. This is not just a few ordinary meetings that are being kept secret. There are notes from a staggering 16 meetings and correspondence with the NGO Treoir is also being withheld.

The excuse the Government claims is that it is too early to share this correspondence as it might sway the vote, but let us call it for what it is. The Government is deliberately delaying the truth until after we cast our votes. The manipulation and misinformation goes against the very principles of democracy. Even the Electoral Commission cannot provide us with a clear picture of the consequences of these referendums. They are essentially telling us we will figure it all out later.

There is a downright cover-up designed to keep us in the dark and prevent us from making informed decisions. We have every right to demand transparency and access to the relevant information before we vote. We must stand up against this injustice and demand the immediate publication of these crucial minutes. Given the Government's lack of transparency and accountability, it is clear that voting no is the only sensible choice. We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by those in power who give precedence to their own priorities before those of our people, and we have seen that so many times. Will the Tánaiste commit to immediately publishing the detailed notes from these meetings of the interdepartmental group which considered the two referendums to ensure the public will be fully aware of the consequences and ensure full transparency ahead of the referendums on 8 March? It is crucial we have full information on what were not ordinary meetings but were 16 very important interdepartmental meetings over a long time, together with correspondence from NGOs. The people need to know the full truth.

There is no cover-up. There has been a series of Cabinet committee meetings, and these are where things are teased out and discussed, and various options are looked at and considered, if that is what the Deputy is referring to.

The amendment is very basic. One of the key ones is that the definition around family should reflect current realities. That is all we are saying to people. I am sure Deputy McGrath is a man who believes in cherishing all of the children of the nation equally. A total of 42% of all children born in 2022 were born to an unmarried couple. Are we saying the Constitution should not reflect that? Are we saying they should be excluded from the articles of the Constitution? We are simply saying in that amendment that we want to cherish all of the children and all of the various family units, including couples with or without children, single parents and their children, and grandparents raising children. We are simply saying all of those should be covered by the new article - nothing more, nothing less. People are endeavouring to complicate it and raising all sorts of red herrings which I do not believe have real substance. This has been the motivation of the Oireachtas all-party committee as well. The idea with the amendment on replacing the duties of women in the home was to replace it with a provision that recognises care in the home, without discriminating on gender, in other words, care provided in the home by any member of the family, and that the State should strive to support that.

That is, in essence, what is before the people. It is modest but they are important changes to our own Constitution which I think are good ones and have been welcomed by many people who have felt excluded for far too long in our society. There has been much deliberation on these issues for three decades now, I would say. It has been the subject of various Oireachtas committees, and perhaps the most recent Oireachtas committee, which was chaired by Deputy Bacik, may have wished us to go further on the care dimension to it. Again, with respect to the separation of powers, it is important the Oireachtas and the Government of the day and of the future retain the parliamentary discretion to prioritise allocation of resources at budget time. That has been the essential nature of how we order things in the country, that we have a Constitution which provides for fundamental rights and is essentially a liberal, rules of law based document which gives a lot of rights to the citizen but also creates the Executive, which is the Government of the day, and the Parliament, to then work through the allocation of resources to the various areas of society: education, health and so forth.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste is afraid to answer my question. If they are trying to rename Páirc Uí Chaoimh, they should call it Páirc Micheál Martin because he is so good at kicking the ball around and off the pitch, but will not play the ball on the pitch and deal with the questions he is asked.

The Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, made an assessment that the Irish Constitution says that a woman's place is in the home. Supreme Court judge Marie Baker, chair of the Electoral Commission, has clarified that the Constitution makes no such statement whatsoever. It is flabbergasting that a Supreme Court judge, who has been appointed by the Government to regulate misinformation during a referendum campaign, would say that a Minister's interpretation of the Constitution in the context of the referendum is simply wrong.

When she was questioned on this matter, the Minister, Deputy Martin, contradicted the eminent judge and insisted that her interpretation is quite clear. Can the Tánaiste clarify if it is the Minister's interpretation that is correct, or is it the position of the chair of the Electoral Commission that is correct? Can he clarify the Government's position? We cannot have an Electoral Commission saying that a Minister's interpretation is incorrect and still have confidence in both the Minister and the Supreme Court judge and chair of the commission. We cannot set up an Electoral Commission to regulate misinformation in regard to a referendum and then turn a blind eye to the disinformation from the Government. What action will be taken against the Minister or any other Minister who is peddling misinformation? I want a direct answer to the question I am raising, not a trip around the park.

I appreciate the Deputy's plaudits in terms of my capacity to kick the ball around the pitch. I have to enlighten him that the position that the selectors decided for me as a young person was corner-back in an era when neither pace nor skill was a premium.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Good job you were not in goal.

People would understand what I mean by that.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Scoring own goals.

The role of the commission that has been established is to objectively assess the proposed changes and explain to the public, in an objective way, what the impact of the amendment will be. Political participants in the campaign, those who are for or against, will argue in favour of it.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about a Minister?

I do not accept the charge the Deputy has laid. I have seen some stuff online about disinformation in terms of the difference between "duties" and "place", and I think it is completely over the top and is a complete misrepresentation of the Minister's presentation. The existing articles are clear. I would have appreciated a response to my question from the Deputy. Does he favour a more inclusive encapsulation of the concept of "family", as reflected in modern-day reality? Does he accept that in the modern era? Some 42% of children are currently excluded. Does the Deputy think we should bring them in and include them in the Constitution?

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to raise the serious issue of the physical segregation of Part 5 council tenants in private developments. We have several examples of Part 5 council tenants all over Dublin being housed in one block or area of a development and physically separated from other private tenants or occupants. We have all heard the stories of the segregation of Part 5 tenants as regards the lack of access to amenities or where fees are required for amenities. They cannot even pay the fees and, therefore, there is no possibility of having access to amenities. This was the case in the Davitt apartment complex in Drimnagh, which is a build-to-rent scheme. Along with my Right to Change colleague, Councillor Sophie Nicollaud, I have worked with several tenants in that complex. Part 5 tenants were not given access to the playground for their children. They had no access to the bike sheds and were not allowed to pay car parking fees or fees for other amenities, which is still the case. What is far worse in terms of inclusion is that they were segregated into one block, which is what my question is about today.

We see far too many examples of this. I have seen Part 5 tenants in a complex segregated into one block or put in a corner of the complex where the bins are kept. I know of an LDA project in Cherry Orchard where Part 5 tenants are physically segregated. This segregation is built into planning applications, which raises the issue of the quality of these Part 5 properties from day one. A developer knows what block will be for council tenants and not for cost-rental or affordable housing.

This physical segregation of Part 5 council tenancies is standard practice for Dublin City Council. It is often written into the contracts between the council and owners. The council said it is too expensive not to physically segregate council tenants and pepperpot that into builds. When I raised this question before, I received the following reply from the Minister, Deputy McGrath, who is sitting beside the Tánaiste:

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

That is all well and good, but if physical segregation of Part 5 tenants has become standard practice in councils because they say they cannot afford not to segregate their tenants, the Government is clearly not doing enough to implement the Housing for All policy. If it is the case that ending physical segregation is too costly for councils, as Dublin City Council stated at a recent housing committee meeting, it will be necessary for the Government to give the council the funding required to pepperpot Part 5 tenants into private developments. Is the Government prepared to revise this matter and to provide funding? Is it prepared to insist that LDAs implement pepperpotting as part of integration?

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. She raised it very fairly. I accept the principles she has articulated. There should be no physical segregation. The Deputy might explain why councils have said it would be more costly to segregate tenants. I do not understand why it would be more costly in terms of the construction of a development of 30, 50 or 100 apartments. The apartments will still have to be constructed. It is particularly wrong that Part 5 social housing tenants would be denied access to amenities or general facilities. That is wrong and is not what Part 5 is about. It is about a proper balance and mix. I will speak to the Minister.

Local authorities can, within their planning conditions, enforce non-physical segregation. In other words, they can force or facilitate integration via a planning condition. Planning permission can be dependent on an integrated approach to the integration of social housing tenants in the overall complex. The whole idea of Part 5 was to create integration and avoid what people sensed in the past was, to use a phrase I do not like, overconcentration, ghettoisation or whatever other phrase was used. That seems to me to go against the spirit of Part 5 as originally conceived.

I will undertake to speak to the Minister. Local authorities have responsibilities in terms of the planning permissions that are granted in respect of Part 5 tenancies. I do not understand why it is too costly, in terms of the actual physical cost of the construction of a set of apartments, a housing estate or whatever, in particular in an apartment setting.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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

A contract was signed with Dublin City Council and tenants which we are looking into in more detail in terms of access to amenities. The Tánaiste must remember that the Davitt complex was built as a build-to-rent scheme. Under the specifics of that build, the apartments are smaller with less storage because there is access to amenities. There are huge contradictions. There has to be a review of Part 5 tenancies and how they link into everything else. There must be discussion with local authorities about the issues they are finding. LDAs in Cherry Orchard are introducing segregation which is totally contradictory to Part 5 and the concept of Housing for All. It is now incumbent on the Government to do this type of work and sort this out. This should not go on.

The maintenance cost issue seems weak enough to me as a basis for that policy in terms of arrangements. In many instances, councils themselves carry out the maintenance or contract it out. In many developments of this kind, maintenance is contracted out in respect of Part 5 tenancies.

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

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

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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