Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am heartened to see the Fianna Fáil Bill on period products. The House should note that Senator Rebecca Moynihan and the Labour Party put down a Bill on period products just last week, which is No. 11 on the Order Paper.

I wish to raise two issues today. We have spent many months calling for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to come to the House to discuss co-living and the sheer volume of co-living planning applications in the system, especially in Dublin. I repeat that call now. On 23 December a ban was announced but when we see the detail of that ban there are very serious concerns, the first of which is the failure to apply the ban retrospectively. We spent a lot of time in this Chamber before Christmas discussing why we could retrospectively apply income tax to the recipients of the pandemic unemployment payment last year, yet when it comes to co-living applications going through the planning system there is a failure to retrospectively apply that. It seems to be one law for developers and another law for others. The ban is not comprehensive and there are exemptions whereby if there is a proven need in a particular area then co-living is permitted. Right now in Dublin city 55% of people on the social housing waiting list are single individuals. It is not beyond the bounds of probability that co-living could be permitted into the future. This has a very real impact on a small part of Dublin city, most notably the area I represent which is the north-west inner city, where more than 1,000 co-living units are going through the planning system currently. Within 12 months we could see 1,000 co-living units within 1.6 km in the north-west inner city.

The second issue I want to raise this morning very briefly, which is important in the context of the pandemic, is around childcare. I am aware that many childcare operators are going through a lot of difficulty and a huge amount of uncertainty but, for those who can, I ask that they please provide refunds to families who are not using their services. One of the largest childcare providers in the State, if not the largest, is effectively making up its own rules as to which families are or are not essential workers. There is one instance of a family being told "no, you are not getting a refund because you are an essential worker" but the employer is saying to the family that they are not essential workers. We ask that the Minister would come out to provide clarification as to who should and should not be entitled to refunds. It is not acceptable that the largest operator in the State would act in this manner.