Bernard Durkan
Ceist:1. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if security issues were discussed at the recent meeting in Prague consisting of the European-wide Heads of State. [50288/22]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Seán Haughey
Ceist:2. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the first meeting of the European Political Community. [50726/22]
Bernard Durkan
Ceist:3. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach the extent to which discussions took place at the recent intergovernmental conference in Prague regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. [51635/22]
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:4. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the Prague summit of the European Political Community. [51352/22]
Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:5. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Prime Minister of Ukraine in Prague. [52972/22]
Mick Barry
Ceist:6. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Political Community. [53552/22]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:7. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Council in Prague. [53576/22]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:8. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Council in Prague. [53579/22]
Ivana Bacik
Ceist:9. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Political Community meeting in Prague and the informal European Council meeting. [55384/22]
Rose Conway-Walsh
Ceist:10. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Council in Prague. [55406/22]
Mick Barry
Ceist:11. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Political Community. [56702/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, together.
The first meeting of the European Political Community on 6 October was a welcome development in wider European political engagement. It was hosted by the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Petr Fiala, with the support of the President of the European Council, Mr. Charles Michel. Forty-four states were invited to participate, including all 27 EU member states, the European Free Trade Agreement, EFTA, partner countries - Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein - the United Kingdom, Türkiye, the six western Balkans countries - Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo - and five of the six eastern partnership countries, namely, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Ukraine. No invitation was extended to Belarus in light of its ongoing facilitation of Russia's aggression.
The meeting achieved its primary aim of bringing together leaders from across the Continent of Europe to recognise the considerable degree of common cause among us. The formal agenda included Ukraine, energy and the European economy. It was notable also for the agreement reached in the margins with Armenia and Azerbaijan to accept a civilian EU mission alongside their border.
While at the European Political Community meeting, I participated in a round-table discussion on energy, climate and the economy. Other leaders participated in a round-table discussion on peace and security on the European Continent. I was very pleased also to have bilateral meetings with Ukraine, Albania and Bosnia while in Prague. The Prime Minister of Ukraine, Mr. Denys Shmyhal, expressed his appreciation that Ireland continued to be at the forefront of advocating for Ukraine's membership of the European Union, for the toughest possible sanctions against Russia and for holding Russia accountable, and that we were hosting over 50,000 Ukrainian people in need of protection. I assured him of our continued support at this time of terrible need in Ukraine.
As I have said, I also met with two of our partners in the western Balkans - the Prime Minister of Albania, Mr. Edi Rama, and the chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Šefik Džaferović. In both meetings, I expressed my support for them on their EU accession pathway.
The members of the European Council held an informal meeting in Prague on 7 October. Our discussion was a strategic one covering the topics of Ukraine, energy and economic issues in order to inform and prepare for the regular meeting which subsequently took place on 20 and 21 October. We discussed Russia's war against Ukraine, including the impact it was having on energy prices in Europe. We were joined in this discussion by Ukraine's President, Mr. Volodymyr Zelenskiy, via video conference. We welcomed the eighth package of sanctions against Russia adopted on 6 October in response to Russia's illegitimate referenda and illegal annexations in Ukraine. We also discussed political, military and financial support for Ukraine as well as the importance of countering Russian narratives. We confirmed our resolve to work with and support partners across the world in tackling food security issues exacerbated by Russia's war.
I will ask Members to stick to one minute each, because there are many questions in this grouping.
The concept of a European political community was an initiative of the French President, Mr. Emmanuel Macron. He made this proposal at the Conference on the Future of Europe when it was concluding. Forty-four European countries, including Ireland, attended the first meeting in Prague. The UK also attended, which marked a change in attitudes by the British to European affairs generally. There is no doubt that the Russian invasion of Ukraine acted as a catalyst for the establishment of this new forum. At the meeting, extraordinary solidarity was expressed with Ukraine, and rightly so. The European Political Community also gives encouragement and support to applicant countries pending their full membership of the EU. Is there a future for the European Political Community? How would the Taoiseach like to see this forum develop? Should it be given a more formal structure and should it meet more frequently? I would welcome the Taoiseach's views on these matters.
I am delighted to see the Ceann Comhairle back in the Chair.
The Taoiseach stated that energy and energy security were a significant focus of the Prague summit, and they continue to be for European political leaders. In that regard, I wish to raise our planning system, particularly An Bord Pleanála, which has been in crisis for some time. The difficulties run deeper than the behaviour of individual board members. There are issues around governance and organisational culture, but we are now at a critical point with just four board members in place. What is going to be done about this, even temporarily? I understand that the Government is looking for secondments from Departments. Substantial changes to the governance of, and appointments to, the board are contained within the development and foreshore (amendment) Bill. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the committee's deliberations on the general scheme of the legislation, but it is important to note that the committee's members have raised concerns regarding some of the Bill's provisions. I urge the Government to work with the Opposition to ensure that we get the reform agenda around planning correct. The resourcing of our planning apparatus also needs to be beefed up significantly so that it is fit for purpose for delivering critical infrastructure, not least in terms of developing renewables, in particular offshore wind.
When the European Political Community is discussed, there is usually much talk of human rights. Many European Political Community countries will shortly be involved at an event that will be much discussed in the context of human rights. I am referring to the Qatar World Cup, which starts in five days' time. The Qatari regime will try to use this event to sportswash its shocking record on workers' rights, women's rights and rights for the LGBT community. Many European states benefited from the rotten decision to award the World Cup to Qatar, not least the French Government, which sold fighter jets worth $14.6 billion to Qatar after France threw its weight behind the Qatari bid. I wish to give our Government the opportunity to reflect the sentiments of the Irish people and speak out strongly this week against the human rights abuses of the Qatari regime. I would be interested to hear the Taoiseach's comments on this matter in his reply.
Once again, we have further evidence of the Government trying to soften up public opinion to abandon Ireland's neutrality. In respect of the Ukraine conflict, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, stated that we were not neutral. This begs the question of what neutrality means if we abandon it when there is a conflict. The Minister went on to say that people should talk to the Russians. We all condemn Putin's bloody invasion of Ukraine, but is it not precisely the role of a neutral country to be the voice on the international stage that argues for a peaceful resolution to conflict? I do not see how we can tally that with the repeated statements of various Ministers about rethinking neutrality and so on and the presence of representatives of the State at the Ukraine contact group, which is establishing military alliances to involve themselves in the Ukrainian conflict.
The Supreme Court judgment about the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, is significant. It puts Ireland at the centre of a debate that is taking place across Europe and in Canada, with many ordinary people mobilising against what is a charter for corporations.
Earlier, the Taoiseach wanted to speak in generalities about free trade being a good thing. He did not address either the substance of the Supreme Court decision or what those of us objecting to CETA are objecting to, namely, the establishment of the investor court system, which would be a parallel system of justice that can only be accessed by corporations taking states to court for either direct or indirect expropriation, which can be - and regularly is - interpreted as anything that interferes with the right of corporations to maximise their profits. Is the Taoiseach aware that there are more than 1,000 cases right now involving Canadian companies suing different states? Does the Taoiseach know that these include European states, contrary to what the Taoiseach said earlier? A mining corporation based in Canada is currently suing Romania and another Canadian company is suing Croatia. Will the Taoiseach agree that CETA should be put to the people in a referendum to decide whether they want the State to sign it?
Fáiltím an Ceann Comhairle ar ais. When the Taoiseach attended the European Political Community forum in Prague on 6 October, the protests in Iran were only a few weeks old. Tomorrow marks the two-month anniversary of the tragic death of Mahsa Amini in Iran. Since then, more than 300 people have died over two months of demonstrations, and as many as 14,000 may have been imprisoned. The impetus to act grows as more and more people are detained on bogus charges. I met last week with representatives of the Irish-Iranian campaign group Support Equality and Freedom for Iran. They said to me how best they feel Ireland can use its diplomatic power to effect change. I ask that at every opportunity when the Taoiseach engages with other EU leaders, if he might: reinforce calls for new sanctions on Iran; ensure that we also use our place on the Security Council to act on the Iranian issue; and that we take action here in Ireland. I have called on the Taoiseach previously to consider expelling the Iranian ambassador because of the absolutely egregious abuses of human rights being committed on a daily basis against protesters in Iran and because of the repression of women's rights in that country.
Last year, the Taoiseach returned from Glasgow having apparently signed up to a pledge to cut methane emissions by 30%. When he got off the plane, however, we discovered that the State had no intentions of doing anything like that. I would like the Taoiseach to address this matter because it may appear that a similar sleight of hand is on display after the lofty rhetoric in Sharm el-Sheikh. There are reports from the EU Council that Ireland has voted to exclude financial investments and funds from the EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive. This means, as an Oxfam report recently showed, that a huge proportion of the emissions causing climate warming on the planet are caused by the wealthiest people and that the fossil fuel industry will continue to be funded and will have no problem getting the funds it needs in order to have a boom in gas infrastructure globally. Ireland is leading the charge, along with Luxembourg, to exclude financial investors from this very important sustainability directive. Will the Taoiseach please address that?
Given the range of questions perhaps we could take five minutes from the other block, or else the Taoiseach will have just two and three-quarter minutes to address those questions. Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Okay, so I propose seven and a half minutes.
Deputy Haughey raised the issue of the European Political Community. It is a significant development when 44 countries come together in an overall forum. Earlier, there had been some concerns that this was a substitute for enlargement, for example, but it is not that. This was very clear from the deliberations at the forum. I attended one of the break-out meetings on energy. These meetings were very good and concrete engagements, in particular with the Prime Minister of Norway regarding renewables, and also looking forward to stabilising pricing with Norway, exports of oil and so on. It was a very good and meaningful engagement between countries. There were Azerbaijan-Armenia discussions after dinner, mediated by France, which were about those two countries accepting an EU civilian group in respect of the borders there. One can see the potential for the European Political Community to be, at a minimum, a forum where issues can be resolved, the potential for conflict reduced and challenging issues dealt with. I am not clear yet that it is time for any structure because that could lead to people leaving. The forum is not the European Union, and it is not meant to be a replica of the European Union. The fact that the United Kingdom attended was good.
This all means that it is a forum at which people who are not in the European Union can engage with members of the latter. Over time, the number of meetings may increase but the international calendar is very full. The next meeting is due to take place in the early part of next year in Moldova. After that, there will be meetings in Spain and the UK. Those involved are looking at having meetings once every six months. I take the Deputy's point but, over time, that may grow. In between, there will be: the formal meetings of the European Union with the full councils; the Asia-Europe, meeting, ASEM; the EU-China summit; the China-Western Balkans meeting; the China-EU meeting; and the China-East Asia summit, ASEAN. Suddenly, one begins to see that the calendar fills up very quickly. To answer the Deputy's question, there is a future for the European Union within the European Political Community. I came away from the meeting thinking that the forum has real potential from the point of view of the very basic premise of people meeting and engaging in breaking down barriers.
Deputy McDonald raised the issue of the planning system insofar as it relates to energy security, but that probably belongs to a different question with regard to An Bord Pleanála or housing. The Government hopes to publish a review of the planning system shortly. That review has been under way for over 12 months, with a lot of expertise brought to bear in the context of streamlining our planning system. In the context of energy security, in particular renewables and offshore wind, we need to get offshore wind projects into operation much faster than is currently the case. The European Union carried out an analysis in this regard. It has indicated that it can take eight years from concept to realisation of an offshore wind farm coming into operation in Europe. I have a suspicion that it would take longer here. Therefore, we must do everything we possibly can to make sure we do that because offshore wind is the real alternative to fossil fuels for this country. It is the real answer to fossil fuels and to reducing our dependency on them.
In addition, there does need to be reform of An Bord Pleanála. There needs to be change there and additional resources need to be provided. The Minister for Justice is looking at an environmental court as well to strengthen on the judicial side our overall response to environmental and climate change issues.
On Deputy Barry's question, we do raise, on a constant basis, breaches of human rights, both through the European Union and bilaterally with countries such as Qatar. Again, with regard to the World Cup, I do not believe that Qatar would have been able to sportswash. It has had the opposite impact to date. Far more issues have resurfaced as a result of Qatar hosting the World Cup than might have been the case with international profiling of issues. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, and the Government have spoken out against breaches of human rights.
Deputy Boyd Barrett raised the issue of neutrality. Neutrality in Ireland has meant that Ireland is not a member of a military alliance.
That is the Government position but it is not Ireland’s position.
Yes. It has been the official Government position for a long time that Ireland is not a member of such an alliance, and this has been repeated consistently in legislation. Ireland's official policy is to be militarily non-aligned. We are, however, not politically non-aligned. I was surprised when the Deputy, through the Chair, criticised the Minister for Foreign Affairs and stated that we are not neutral towards Ukraine. We are not. We are not politically neutral in respect of Ukraine. Russia has invaded Ukraine. How could we be neutral? Is the Deputy suggesting that we should be neutral on this? This is not a conflict between two countries. This was an invasion by one country with an imperialist 19th-century perspective that believes it has a right to say that its neighbour does not have a right to exist and stated, "We are taking over that neighbour. We are going to invade it and, with all of the military power that we have, we will bomb residential targets and infrastructure, and you have to come to heel". It also stated, "The rest of the world should stay neutral on this and let us get about our business because this is alongside where we live." We cannot accept that premise. As a result, we cannot be neutral on the matter. We just cannot be neutral on it.
It is an outrageous invasion, but the Government did not say this about the Iraq war in the context of neutrality-----
I am shocked that the Deputy is saying we should be neutral on it. I am absolutely shocked that the Deputy is saying we should be neutral in respect of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That is shocking. I disagree fundamentally with the Deputy. I will not be neutral on something of that kind.
We are running out of time.
Deputy Murphy referred to CETA. The Supreme Court judgment is clear that this can be dealt with via an amendment of the Arbitration Act. I raised the issue of free trade because it is central-----
And sacrifice everything else.
The Taoiseach must deal with the question.
It is a central issue.
It is not an abstract. It is not a vote for or against free trade; it is about CETA.
The point is if one is in favour of free trade, as I unapologetically am, because it means jobs in this country-----
Sacrifice everything else.
No. I want people working in this country. The Deputies are supposed to be for the workers but everything they are doing is against the workers, as far as I can see. If the Deputies' writ was allowed to run here, it would destroy jobs in this country.
No. We would create quality jobs. We would create hundreds of thousands of good jobs.
There is no question about it. We should take the clarity offered by the Supreme Court and amend the Arbitration Act, which would cover trade deals. Investor courts are standard in trade agreements, and the European court has ruled on this.
They are not standard.
No country can be forced to accept it. There can be natural breaches of trade agreements, which have to be arbitrated. Hence, you need an arbitration court.
There are things called courts. Why can it not be done in the courts like everything else?
This makes it far more effective and efficient. People cannot sue a state or ask it to take policies contrary to its legislation policies or its constitution.
They can and do. That is wrong.
They cannot. Nor can they force states to go against the European Treaty.
In terms of Deputy Bacik-----
Time is up. We need to move on to Question No. 12. Questions Nos. 12 to 29, inclusive, have been grouped. That is 18 questions in total from 11 questioners. I suggest that the remaining 25 minutes be given to this group of questions.
It is all housing. It is all one issue.
There are 11 people asking questions, but all right.
I do not mind. I am easy.
What way do you want to deal with it then?
It is up to the Deputies.
Give it all to housing.
Give it all to housing. All right, 25 minutes.
Could I take 30 seconds for the Taoiseach's response on Iran?
Yes.
And 30 seconds for the corporate sustainability EU directive.
Does anyone else want 30 seconds for anything else?
Without the interruptions of previous speakers.
We have taken a stance in respect of Iran, as has the Minister, particularly following the killing of Mahsa Amini and what is going on there right now. It has to be investigated. We have condemned the widespread and disproportionate use of force against peaceful protestors. Women in Iran are being denied their rights. We work with the European Union in communicating our strongest opposition on this to Iranian officials. We will continue to work with the European Union and other international partners to hold Iran accountable for its actions. I do not agree with suspending diplomatic relations. We need to keep channels open.
In response to Deputy Bríd Smith, Ireland has been in the lead on loss and damage and climate finance more generally. It is not lofty rhetoric at COP27. There was no sleight of hand last year either. It is being portrayed that way.
That is not the question. The question is does the Taoiseach support the EU directive on sustainability-----
You made assertions that there was sleight of hand.
Yes, I made assertions but that is not the question.
I am entitled to rebut those.
Yes, can you answer the question though?
I will if you will allow me to. Most people at COP accept Ireland's bona fides in respect of climate finance and loss and damage. We have led the way.
That is not the question. It is not about loss and damage.
I will come back to Deputy Bríd Smith on the specifics of the question.
It is the EU corporate sustainability directive.
In future, if the Deputy wants answers to specific questions, she should not make the assertions she is making.
It was reported that Ireland is leading the charge to-----
We are not. I will follow that up and come back to the Deputy on it.
Housing Provision
Ruairí Ó Murchú
Ceist:12. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [51679/22]
Ivana Bacik
Ceist:13. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [52891/22]
Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:14. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [52971/22]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:15. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [53229/22]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:16. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [53232/22]
Mick Barry
Ceist:17. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [53553/22]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:18. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Housing for All progress report for quarter 3 of 2022 will be published. [53577/22]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:19. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach when the Housing for All progress report for quarter 3 of 2022 will be published. [53580/22]
Jennifer Murnane O'Connor
Ceist:20. Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [54576/22]
Jennifer Murnane O'Connor
Ceist:21. Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor asked the Taoiseach when the Housing for All progress report for quarter 3 of 2022 will be published. [54577/22]
Pádraig O'Sullivan
Ceist:22. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet Committee on Housing will next meet. [54578/22]
Pádraig O'Sullivan
Ceist:23. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Taoiseach when the Housing for All progress report for quarter 3 of 2022 will be published. [54579/22]
Paul McAuliffe
Ceist:24. Deputy Paul McAuliffe asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [54580/22]
Paul McAuliffe
Ceist:25. Deputy Paul McAuliffe asked the Taoiseach when the Housing for All progress report for quarter 3 of 2022 will be published. [54581/22]
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:26. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing last met. [54589/22]
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:27. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when the Housing for All progress report for quarter 3 of 2022 will be published. [54590/22]
Cian O'Callaghan
Ceist:28. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [54612/22]
Rose Conway-Walsh
Ceist:29. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [55407/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 to 29, inclusive, together. The Cabinet committee on housing has met seven times to date in 2022. The most recent meeting took place on Monday, 24 October, and the next will take place on Monday next, 21 November. The committee works to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the implementation of Housing for All and the delivery of programme for Government commitments regarding housing and related matters.
Housing for All is the most ambitious housing plan in the history of our State and contains actions to ensure over 300,000 new homes are built by 2030, along with delivering fundamental reform of our housing system. The target to 2030 includes 90,000 social, 36,000 affordable purchase and 18,000 cost-rental homes. The plan is backed by the highest ever State investment in housing and is having a very significant impact, despite a number of challenges which have emerged as a result of the war in Ukraine and other external factors.
We are on track to meet the target for this year of 24,600 new build homes. A total of 20,807 new homes were completed in the first three quarters of 2022, more than the whole of 2021. Almost 28,000 new homes were completed in the 12 months to the end of September, the highest rolling 12-month total of any period since comparable data was first published in 2011. Planning permission was approved for 44,715 homes in the year to June of this year, representing an 11.4% increase on the same period in 2021. Since the middle of last year, over 68,500 new homes have been either built or commenced. Last year 9,183 social homes were delivered. These are clear indicators that the plan is starting to work. However, the results will take time given the scale of the challenge and the need to bring about fundamental reform.
Along with increasing the supply of houses and reforming our system of home delivery, we have introduced measures to support renters. We are accelerating the delivery of cost-rental homes with State-backed rents at least 25% below what they would be on the private market. In 2023, a further 1,850 cost-rental homes are to be delivered. We have introduced legislation to cap rent increases and enhanced security for tenants through the deferring of no-fault terminations for the winter emergency period. Other initiatives which have been introduced include the first home scheme, Project Tosaigh and a vacant homes tax. A number of fundamental reforms are in progress, including a major overhaul of the planning process and initiatives to promote innovation and productivity in housing construction.
Looking ahead to 2023, we have committed a record €4.5 billion in public funding for the provision of more social, affordable and cost-rental homes. On 2 November, Government published its first annual update of the plan's actions, setting out how it is responding to challenges in the external environment, notably inflationary pressures and interest rate rises, while ensuring focus remains on delivery.
The stability provided by a clear and comprehensive plan is now more important than ever. The review was all about prioritising measures to activate and accelerate the delivery of housing supply while continuing to deliver on the fundamental reforms set out in the plan. The focus throughout 2023 will be on the following: meeting the challenges of viability, affordability and sustainability; reforming the planning system; delivering social and affordable homes; boosting productivity; increasing construction sector capacity; revitalising our towns and villages; improving the rental market; and planning for the future.
We can give a minute and a half to each Deputy here. I call Deputy Bacik.
Internal records from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage revealed last Thursday in the Irish Daily Mail confirmed the Housing for All targets are not adequate to meet the growing need. When the Government plan was published, the Labour Party made it clear that Ireland needed close to 50,000 homes per year, rather than the target of below 30,000 under Housing for All. The Department's records show 42,000 homes per year are needed, meaning there will be a shortfall, even according to the Department's records, of over 65,000 homes by 2030. This shortfall was already clear before the publication of the census showing ongoing population growth of 7.6% since 2016. Will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government will revise the targets for housing construction and put in place new measures to deliver more homes?
We also expressed serious concern that there was no additional capital funding allocated in the Government's budget to account for construction inflation. The shortfall is even more acute because fewer homes can be built with the funding available from Government. It is clear the State needs to build substantially more housing - local authority homes on public land - if enough homes are to be provided.
I have suggested in recent weeks that the Government should invest more in the tenant in situ scheme, even in the short term, to ensure councils are empowered to buy back homes where tenants would otherwise be evicted. This would be a way of meeting housing need while ramping up the construction of affordable homes.
For the next two weeks, People Before Profit and others will be doing everything to urge people to get out in their many thousands on the streets of Dublin on the Saturday after next for the Raise the Roof housing protest.
One of the components of that protest will be people from places such as Tathony House, another multi-unit apartment complex in Rathmines, St. Helen's Court in my own constituency - all places where landlords are threatening or attempting to implement mass evictions on people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. There are many individuals who have done nothing wrong whatsoever, some of whom are not covered by the Government's recently passed Bill to defer certain notices to quit, who face the imminent prospect of homelessness. Under pressure, the Government has somewhat conceded in theory that local authorities could intervene to stop people from being evicted and purchase these complexes or individual homes. In practice, all the excuses are coming out, in many cases from local authorities. One of the big excuses, enunciated by Owen Keegan, for example, is that not everyone in these places is on the social housing list, they are above the threshold and so the council cannot possibly intervene to buy the property. Many others are in that situation as well. Will the Government do something to prevent people being made homeless by ensuring properties are bought and that people being over the threshold is not an impediment to such purchases?
More than 100 victims of apartment and duplex defects will gather this Saturday for a major public conference of the Not Our Fault campaign in the Plaza Hotel in Tallaght. They will have discussions among themselves, they will hear from activists from the Mica Action Group about its campaign and experience, and they will hear from the different political parties, all of whom are invited to come and put their position. I understand they are still waiting for a response from Fianna Fáil, by the way, on whether it will have a spokesperson there. They are determined to fight for 100% redress and nothing less. They know that is the only just and only workable solution for the 100,000 families who are going to be affected by this, most of whom do not know about it yet but who will have a bill of €25,000-plus, in some cases €70,000, coming down the road. They also demand that the State pursues the builders responsible. They will also be on the streets on 26 November as part of the Raise the Roof protest because this is part of the housing crisis and the consequence of housing policy made in the interest of builders. Will the Taoiseach get a Fianna Fáil representative to attend? Will he commit that whatever scheme is introduced will be retrospective? Will he commit to 100% redress, which is the only workable and just solution?
The eviction ban does not extend to emergency accommodation; it should. I recently came across a case which shows why. It involves a woman who is in emergency accommodation in Cork city. She attempted to get a diagnosis of autism through the State. She is in that process, which is very slow, and she does not have the finance to go private. She clearly feels herself that she has autism but she has refused accommodation offers on the grounds that they are not suitable for her with her condition. However, the accommodation placement service does not accept what she says. It says she does not have an official diagnosis. She has received a notice to quit, having refused properties that would not be good for her health. This is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and a housing emergency and in the weeks running up to Christmas. I understand the Taoiseach spoke to her briefly at the weekend. I am asking him to accept there is a serious case here in both the particular and the general. Is he prepared to look into it in the particular and the general as a matter of some urgency?
I am aware that the interdepartmental steering committee is making domestic violence service provision a priority. I am told there is funding available to support action at local level while we wait for a women's refuge in Carlow town. We are moving on it. It is a bit slow but we have the funding and we are getting there. However, we are struggling with the provision we have for emergency accommodation for those fleeing violence and experiencing homelessness. This is not just a women's issue. Men's Aid Ireland has reported a 37% increase in demand for its domestic support service for men. Those figures are also replicated in Carlow. It is worrying as we approach international men's day this week. We have some safe houses in the local authority buildings in Carlow, but when they are full, the local authority cannot put in regulation 49 in social housing. They need to have approved housing bodies, AHBs, managing them because there is no such thing as a temporary licence. The legislation must change to react quickly on this. Will the Taoiseach speak to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy O'Brien, about this? I welcome the Taoiseach's commitment and that of the Government to building houses and affordable houses in particular.
Deputy McDonald touched on the planning Act review that the Government and the Attorney General are undertaking. I seek a progress report on this. Will the Taoiseach give us a timeline for when that legislation will be ready? There is a multitude of issues there that are very pertinent. The role of An Bord Pleanála needs to be examined thoroughly. The powers of the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, also need to be examined along with the streamlining of legislation, which the Taoiseach mentioned earlier, especially pertaining to renewable and green energy. An féidir leis an Taoiseach freagra a thabhairt dom?
I welcome the Taoiseach's answer. It gives an example of the depth and breadth of the Housing for All plan and how it touches on so many different areas of increasing supply, not least with the provision of public housing on public land. On the last count, more than 25 public sites are delivering public housing in my constituency. That is very welcome. The most recent of those was announced today with the extension of grants for vacant homes, Croí Cónaithe, of €50,000 in cities, including Dublin, and many towns and villages. It will be particularly welcome in my constituency.
I am concerned by the increasing interest rates and its impact on those developing housing. Will the Cabinet subcommittee step in to ensure the Land Development Agency, LDA, ensures those sites that having planning permission are developed for public housing, cost rental, social and affordable purchase and that the Croí Cónaithe cities is accelerated to ensure the viability of those sites, which may now be called into question in the context of increased borrowing costs, to ensure the delivery of new supply?
The Taoiseach describes Housing for All as the most ambitious plan. He talks about significant impact and indicators of success, yet all the evidence on the ground in the real world is of a social emergency. There is catastrophic failure in the housing market that has implications for people's quality of life, their life options and chances and their mental health. Younger people are actively making the choice to go because they cannot get a roof over their heads. The depth and breadth of the failure of the Government's approach cannot be overstated.
I have a question about the third quarter progress report. The Government committed specifically to deliver 9,000 new build social homes and 4,100 affordable and cost-rental homes this year. I do not want overall global figures, but on that commitment for 9,000 new build social homes, how many were built? On the commitment for 4,100 affordable and cost-rental homes, how many have come online?
We can argue about the inadequacy of those targets, which, as Deputy Bacik has reflected, are too low, but they are the Taoiseach's targets nonetheless. Will he give me a specific answer to my specific question? If he does not have one, will he provide it to me at the earliest opportunity?
To follow up on that, I want to ask the Taoiseach about claims the Government is making on housing delivery. Is he aware that some of the information that he and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage provide on housing delivery is simply not correct? For example, the Taoiseach claimed in the Dáil last week that the number of housing commencements is up when in fact it is down by 14% over the last year. On the issue of social housing delivery, the Government claims 1,765 new-build social homes were delivered in the first half of this year. An analysis has been done of that figure by Laoise Neylon of the Dublin Inquirer. It shows a significant number of the homes claimed to have been completed in the first half of this year were not completed and were still being worked on several months later. Will the Taoiseach explain to me how homes that are still being worked on end up in the official figures for completed social homes?
Deputy Bacik asked the first question. To make a general point, there is no document of substance on the housing issue that is an alternative to Housing for All. There is nothing with its comprehensiveness, breadth and depth covering all aspects of housing. In it is an inbuilt review mechanism, which is important in any plan. Deputy Bacik raised the issue of a census. There is no limit to the number of houses we want to build. Funding is not an issue; the issue comprises delivery, the planning system and the question of whether we can get projects through quickly enough from concept to occupation by tenants or purchase. The modality concerning how we build houses is also an issue. We need to have much more discussion on advanced manufacturing technology off site for house construction, be it associated with steel frame housing or other types of housing that can be built faster, because the population is growing. There are many people coming into the country. Deputy McDonald says many are going but many are coming in. The net figure indicates people coming in, according to the Central Statistics Office. In any event, the housing situation in Ireland is similar to that right throughout the United Kingdom. Last Thursday and Friday, I met officials from England, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and officials from the Isle of Man, Jersey and smaller areas, and I noted all have similar housing issues. There are not enough houses and people are asking whether they can be built fast enough. There is also a genuine issue in terms of prices. The same applies across Europe. Very few countries in the world, or certainly in the developed world, are not experiencing genuine housing pressures. That said, with regard to the issue of the target, there is within the plan a facility to review targets. This year we set a target of 24,500 completions. The likelihood is we will exceed that. There is no limit to the number. Obviously, some of the houses are private but many are social. With regard to the social fund we are looking at, the Minister seems to believe the number of social homes this year will be 8,000 plus, in addition to those for purchase, for lease and to address homelessness. We can get those figures and we will have them-----
Are the 8,000 new builds?
In local authorities.
Except that they are not all built or finished.
I know that. I am just stating what the Minister has indicated.
The ones-----
I have listened to the Deputy at length. I am saying where we are in respect of this. Obviously, we will have more definitive figures at the end of the year, when a lot of completions will come in.
On the tenant in situ scheme, the Minister took the initiative and local authorities have purchased houses where tenants were facing homelessness. He has instructed local authorities to proceed and take those houses-----
They are not doing it.
They are doing it, actually. A good few hundred have been purchased at this stage. I do not believe we should legislatively force local authorities to buy every single house that becomes available. There can be all sorts of background issues. Local authorities have to have some discretion in individual cases. Without that, why have local authorities and why not manage everything from the centre?
They are looking for excuses.
Please do not interrupt, Deputy.
Deputy Boyd Barrett raised a similar issue concerning tenants in situ. It seems he is basically saying the local authorities should be automatons and do what they are told across housing. I am not sure that is the right policy and that councillors on the ground would appreciate that approach. There has to be some delegation of authority to local authorities. What we can do is resource them on the housing front, as the Minister has done, to increase their capacity to deliver housing projects in the first instance and to give them the necessary resources to intervene-----
They are using the income thresholds as excuses not to do it.
-----in issues that arise in their jurisdictions. On the question of income thresholds, of course there is an issue. There has to be, and some mechanism is needed to resolve it. There is no point in saying there is not an issue because many people with lower incomes cannot get housing. Therefore, there has to be a targeting of resources too. We cannot just go in one direction only. Every local authority has resources. Each has to allocate those resources for different schemes. Again, there should be ways of intervening to prevent what is going on in the case the Deputy has identified. I am aware the Minister has been in touch with the Deputy and has engaged with him on this. We banned evictions more generally across the system until the end of March. The relevant legislation has been introduced.
On Deputy Murphy's question on apartment defects, I have said in the House that the Minister will come back to the House later in the year regarding a scheme and the associated report he published. He will come to the Government with it and then to the Oireachtas.
On Deputy Barry's remarks, I have met the person concerned. I do not believe we should raise individual cases here. The organisation dealing with homelessness has been outstanding down through the years. There is a huge crowd of community supporters. I do not know the background to the case, which I will pursue further, but we need to be careful in the House that we do not interrogate the actions of organisations that have for a long time been working with homeless and emergency accommodation.
We are out of time.
We should allow people their space. There has to be balance in how we raise these issues.
I will follow up on Deputy Murnane O'Connor's point on emergency accommodation for men. On Deputy O'Sullivan's comments on the planning review, the hope is the legislation will be published in a matter of weeks. Then it has to be deliberated upon.
We are out of time.
It deals mainly with the planning code, not necessarily the OPR or other issues. We will revert to the Deputy on this.
Deputy McAuliffe raised the issue of Croí Cónaithe. I agree with him that if opportunities arise in the context of interest rate increases, the Land Development Agency should take over sites for use for cost-rental or other initiatives.
Deputy McDonald raised the issue of housing output this year. I will revert to her with the specifics. I do not accept there is a catastrophic failure. Housing for All is making a difference. It is catching up on a lot of the construction that did not take place in previous years. A huge effort is being made.
I will come back to Deputy O'Callaghan on his remarks. With respect, I did not read the article concerned.