2026-06-16

The Government is failing to tackle the scourge of dereliction. Every day, people pass homes, buildings and derelict sites in their communities. Houses are left to rot while land hoarders and speculators get off scot-free. I cannot tell you how angry and demoralised people seeking a home feel when they see all of this, not to mention the impact on our cities, towns and villages, with rows of derelict homes that are magnets for dumping, rats and antisocial behaviour - symbols of decay. Volunteers who keep neighbourhoods clean, community groups and sporting organisations without a base all look on in anger. The housing Minister announced what he called a "war on dereliction" in October last year, and this was followed by Simon Harris announcing, and re-announcing, plans for a new derelict property tax. There were plenty of soundbites, press releases and big promises. Today, finally, he brings his tax proposal to the Cabinet. The questions people will be asking are whether this is the big step forward that is so badly required and if it will bring the necessary pace to tackle dereliction head on. The answer to both of those questions is "No", because the tax will not come into effect until 2027 and collection of the tax may not start until 2028. Today, we learn the tax will not apply to the entire State, but only to places with populations of 4,000 people or more. This phased approach means that thousands of derelict properties will not be captured by the tax in its initial phase. If the Government is serious about dealing with the blight of dereliction, urgency is required. It has to put it up to those responsible for dereliction with legislation and serious financial penalties that will get homes and buildings back into use. Sitting back and pushing the derelict property tax out for another two years is not the mark of a Government intent on getting the job done. It is incredible that there is nothing in Simon Harris's proposal to ensure the collection of the more than €30 million already owed in derelict site levies. We told the Government that this money was not being collected and that local authorities did not have the capacity to collect it. We gave the Government the solutions, but instead, it gifted a multimillion euro amnesty to land hoarders. Ní leor leathiarracht maidir le foirgnimh tréigthe. Caithfidh an Rialtas gníomhú go práinneach agus go héifeachtúil chun dul i ngleic leis seo i gceart agus chun tithe agus foirgnimh a thabhairt ar ais in úsáid. It is time to get serious on the issue of dereliction. We need a derelict property tax with real teeth. We need to penalise property hoarding and incentivise homes and buildings being reoccupied. Property hoarders who are not playing ball must be hit hard. The tax should be introduced now and ratcheted up - doubled, we believe - every year. Of course, we have to ensure that every last cent owed by property hoarders is collected. Anyone who hoards property must pay the price and does not simply get to walk away. That is what urgency looks like. That is what ambition looks like. That and that alone is what will bring thousands of homes back into use.

I would dispute what the Deputy has said and her analysis and presentation of it. Dealing with vacancy and dereliction is multi-stranded and must involve a multi-stranded approach. As far back as 2022, the Government introduced what I would consider to have been a game-changing initiative in terms of the vacant property refurbishment grant, which provides up to €50,000 for vacant properties and up to €70,000 for derelict properties. Since its launch in 2022, a total of 17,486 applications have been received; over 13,000 have been approved; €285 million had been paid out by quarter 1 of this year; and over 5,300 vacant or derelict homes have been returned to use. That is proactive and going at this in a very significant and pragmatic way, and it has yielded results. Then we have the new vacant above-the-shop grant which was introduced last April. That provides up to €140,000 to convert vacant upper floor commercial space into housing alongside a €5,000 expert advice grant. We have regeneration and local authority action. Government has allocated €150 million through the Urban Regeneration and Development Fund to tackle vacancy and dereliction. About €142.5 million has already been allocated and more than 1,300 properties approved for intervention. Dublin City Council has received €10 million with approximately €9 million still available for deployment. That allows local authorities to acquire vacant or derelict properties, carry out works and return them to productive use our or sale. The town centre first policy is a significant initiative to support community-led regeneration and reuse of vacant buildings in towns across Ireland. Cappoquin in Waterford is a good illustration. It has gone from 33 derelict properties to 11 in five years through a plan from the Cappoquin Development Association supported with investment from the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht through the town and village renewal scheme and Rural Regeneration and Development Fund. We provide support to local authorities to address vacant housing. The local authority vacancy rate was 2.75% at the end of 2024. It had been a 3.18% prior to that. That is the national residential vacancy rate. We have made a lot of progress in terms of social housing. In terms of the derelict property tax, the Government took a decision last year to change it and to move the function from local authorities and to move it from a levy to a tax to be implemented by Revenue. I would appreciate the Deputy’s support for. She is indicating she will support it wholeheartedly. It needs legislation and it will be legislated for in this year's finance Act but a lot of work has to happen and is happening to make sure it is accurate, comprehensive and up to date. There is a tendency always for the Deputy and others to be all things to all people. She has said the local authorities did not have the capacity; they did have the capacity. The reason we are moving this to Revenue is that local authorities have not succeeded at all in implementing the derelict sites Act as it was fashioned. Some local authorities did. Limerick and others had the capacity to do it; others just did not bother. I do not want to be criticising people for the sake of it but the bottom line is this. On another day in this House people will decry the lack of devolved authority in government in Ireland but here is an area where local authorities really did not go after it-----

You are in control of housing.

-----in any effective way. That has to be said and articulated. Tá an Rialtas ag déanamh gach aon iarracht an fhadhb seo a réiteach. Tá dul chun cinn le feiscint anois sna deontais éagsúla a chuirimid i bhfeidhm.

According to the census, there are up to 180,000 vacant and derelict properties across the State. That cannot stand at any time but particularly in the grip of such a serious housing crisis. The failure to collect that more than €30 million in the derelict site levy speaks to an ambivalence or, certainly, a slowness on the part of the Government. Let me just repeat the problems here that need to be solved: delaying the introduction of this tax, which is a tax we recognise is absolutely necessary,-----

The Deputy supports it.

-----until 2027 and the collection of it until 2028; and the Government saying it will only apply to places with populations of more than 4,000 people. None of that makes sense at a time when we need immediate, comprehensive action. By the way, the level of tax-----

Thank you, Deputy.

The financial penalty has to be significant and ought to be ratcheted up against those who do not play ball.

I appreciate the Deputy’s support for the Government’s initiative on the tax front. It is not being delayed. In many ways, what is happening here is illustrative of the inaction and the absence of a comprehensive database to bring in a tax in the first instance. Work is ongoing between the Department of housing and the Department of Finance in that regard. Local authorities have had the Derelict Sites Act for decades. There are deficiencies in terms of identifying all of the properties that come under dereliction, not necessarily vacancy because not all vacant properties are derelict. We have to make that point. This is going to be done properly and comprehensively-----

Slowly.

Very slowly.

-----and in a way that ensures there is a very defined and precise database to enable the tax to be levelled by Revenue. We will do everything we can to accelerate this. There is no delaying of this in any shape or form. It will be legislated for in the forthcoming Finance Bill, which it has to be legislated for. I welcome the Deputy’s support for it.

I call Deputy Cian O’Callaghan of the Social Democrats.

The board of the Rotunda has now said it will abide by national healthcare policy and ensure that consultants on public-only contracts are not breaching them by treating private patients. How confident is the Taoiseach that he can rely on what the board says? At the weekend, the Irish Independent revealed more concerning details of practices at the hospital. Consultants on public-only contracts who deliver babies for private patients at the weekend are routinely gifted with sums of up to €1,500 by consultants contracted to do that private work. The hospital is aware of this and described it as a long-standing practice. The hospital also says that the payment of these gifts is, “personal to the consultants and the hospital is not involved”. Given that women are giving birth in the Rotunda and are treated by consultants employed by the Rotunda, this is clearly nonsense. The hospital is very much involved. It just does not want to act. Whistleblowers have informed my colleague, Deputy Pádraig Rice, that the payment of these gifts is not confined to the Rotunda. It is happening at Cork University Maternity Hospital, CUMH, too. It takes place at weekends because of the way the Rotunda and CUMH are operating their rosters. They each have just one roster while other hospitals are operating two, one for public patients and one for private patients. Whistleblowers have also come forward to Deputy Rice about issues at University Hospital Galway. The hospital has a deal in place to do laboratory work for a private hospital and consultants on public-only contracts are being asked by management at the hospital to do laboratory work for private patients. While many consultants on public-only contracts are refusing to do this, it is nonetheless leading to big delays in the processing of samples for public patients. This includes public patients with cancer. As the Taoiseach knows, an early cancer diagnosis can save a life while a delayed diagnosis can be fatal. Delays are so bad at the hospital that it is outsourcing some laboratory work for both public and private patients to commercially run labs. This is at an enormous expense to the public purse. Was the Taoiseach aware that some consultants in the Rotunda were receiving gifts of up to €1,500 to deliver a baby? Did he know that this was also happening in Cork University Maternity Hospital? Has Revenue started an investigation into these gifts, given that no tax is being paid? Is the Taoiseach concerned that this could give rise to a level of fraud if insurers are being billed for work consultants have not done? Was he aware of the issues at University Hospital Galway? Is he concerned that public patients are receiving-----

Thank you, Deputy.

-----delayed diagnoses for life-threatening conditions? What actions will the Taoiseach take to address this?

First, the last Government moved in terms of negotiating the public-only consultant contract. We spent a lot of time and did a lot of work on it. We negotiated that with the IHCA. The Government not only expects that to be fulfilled, but will work relentlessly to ensure its enforcement and fulfilment. People cannot be signing contracts and then arbitrarily varying those contracts or deciding to ignore them. Neither can hospitals that are funded predominantly by the State do that either. It is an imperative that the public-only consultant contract is implemented and that it works as it is supposed to across the entire health service. Strong progress has been made in contract uptake and in increasing consultant capacity, but the clear focus now, on the Minister's behalf, the Department's and the HSE's, is on delivering in practice, particularly extended hours and weekend services for patients. More consultants are now rostered for evening and Saturday work, but the current levels remain too low and need to improve further. We are fully committed, from the Government's side, to the implementation and enforcement of the public-only consultant contract. As I said, there has been strong national uptake - about 3,416 consultants had signed up as of 29 May of this year, including 1,220 new entrants and 2,196 consultants who have switched from the older contracts. This means that about 69% of all consultants working in our hospitals are now on the public-only consultant contract. Consultant numbers themselves have also increased significantly, with 51% more consultants now working in our hospitals than in 2020, strengthening overall capacity. The fundamental issue and the rationale for the contract is delivering stronger consultant presence on site, including at evening times and at weekends, so that the patients see the benefits of this contract. As the Deputy knows, the contract allows for rostering from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday to Friday and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays. At the moment, current figures show that only 37% of consultants are rostered for evening working and only 11% for Saturday. That is far too low and simply has to improve. The HSE has governance and programme structures to strengthen its oversight, reporting and accountability and the Minister is very clear about engaging with all of the hospitals to ensure compliance and implementation. In terms of the Deputy's two questions, the answers are "No" and "No". I was not aware of what was contained in the report at the weekend in respect of gifts to consultants who turned up. Again, as the Deputy knows, Revenue is independent, but I am sure Revenue read the article, as the Deputy and I did. It is a matter for Revenue now to pursue any issues that arise from that.

Clearly, this is an issue beyond the Rotunda. There are instances in Cork and Galway. There is an emerging pattern around the country of breaches of the public-only contract. The Taoiseach and the Government have a responsibility to patients and to the taxpayer to ensure that the contract is being implemented. He is clearly not aware of the different breaches around the country. The Taoiseach, the Government and the Minister for Health need to get a grip on this. They need to get ahead on this. They need to take actions to ensure that the public-only contract is actually being implemented and enforced. What are the Taoiseach, the Minister for Health and the Government doing to ensure that the public-only contract is being adhered to? Is he going to get a grip or a handle on this? When are we going to see results in terms of ensuring that the public-only contracts are actually implemented?

First, the Deputy mentioned whistleblowers. I have not had access to those whistleblowers. I do not know whether they have formally given their information to the HSE or to the Department. Are they whistleblowers as per the Act or are they people who have gone to the Deputy directly? The Deputy might clarify that at a later stage; he does not have the opportunity now and I appreciate that. That is an important point. It needs to be clarified and the Deputy needs to be very transparent about that because I do not have access-----

The Taoiseach needs to be transparent about what he is doing to address this.

I do not have access to that information. What I can say to the Deputy, however, is that the Minister is extremely strong on this. The Government brought in this contract, which, in itself was a radical change from what had historically been the case. We are determined that it has an impact and an effect. As far as the Government is concerned - I was very clear last weekend in my statements on this, and the Minister likewise - we will not tolerate any variation from the contracts that people have signed up to.

What are you doing?

That will have to be implemented. I would like the Social Democrats to support that. They did the last time-----

Thank you, Taoiseach. The time is up. We move to the Labour Party's Deputy Bacik.

The Minister for housing has declared a "war on dereliction"; fighting talk and a striking turn of phrase. This is the Government's tactic. It is to flood the airwaves with repeated announcements, deflect responsibility and spin its failures to save face. This week, the Tánaiste sought to pin responsibility for vacancy and dereliction on councils alone, a convenient distraction from years of Government failure. Who has been in charge of national housing policy for the past decade? It is the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. For years, the Government ignored the growing number of vacant and derelict properties blighting the country. Meanwhile, rents and house prices have spiralled, homelessness continues to rise and people are losing hope. After years of inaction, it seems the best response from the Government will be a thinly-veiled attempt to pass the buck. What has this so-called war on dereliction delivered? A delayed measure, already announced in last year's budget, the renaming of a 35-year-old levy and a promise that Revenue will now collect it. If it worked, this could be significant but, as with so many of the Government's housing plans, it is a half measure, delayed and diluted, and arbitrarily deployed, initially only to urban areas with populations of 4,000 or more. As if dereliction did not affect small towns and villages when we all know it is a blight on every community. PAYE tax is paid by every employee, so why this selective approach? The Government said it is phasing this in but why this approach and why rule out these small towns and villages which are also blighted by dereliction? Speculators and land hoarders in every part of the country, not just in larger urban centres, are profiting from the misery caused by the chronic shortage of homes so unless this new tax is set at an effective and meaningful level, speculators will keep sitting on their assets, literally. Derelict buildings on empty streets across the country will remain a visual reminder of the Government's failure to get off the fence and fix housing. We are all hearing from people who have been directly affected by this. Every day, I hear from people who have received an eviction notice and who can find nowhere else; nowhere to rent and nowhere to buy. Each case and each family situation is heartbreaking. I am supporting one such mother of three, who has had her eviction notice and now feels she has no option but to overhold. She and her young family have literally nowhere to go and in Dublin Bay South, they see vacant houses and derelict sites all around them. People like that young mother need the Government to act now on dereliction. The Labour Party is calling for the introduction of compulsory sales orders - a new mechanism to force persistently vacant and derelict properties back into use. We are calling on the Government to fund vacancy and dereliction teams in local authorities across the country. The Taoiseach is not a commentator; he has effectively been in government for a decade, so when will he and his Ministers stop blaming everyone else for the vacancy and dereliction crisis? Will the Government introduce the stronger measures needed to bring empty homes back into use and to generate greater housing supply to fix this housing crisis?

Just to say, Fianna Fáil came back into Government in 2020. I was not in government for the past decade. Facts matter. We did not have the executive authority we now have.

We all know the arrangement.

The most significant measure we have taken in terms of dereliction-----

The Labour Party was in government.

-----is the introduction of the grant to refurbish derelict and vacant housing. There is no question about it. I took a personal interest in that because when I walked in rural areas or urban areas I could see dereliction. The Minister at the time, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, introduced it. Some 17,500 applications is no mean change and 13,000 of them have been approved so that has been a significant initiative. So, it is not years of doing nothing. That is a very significant measure the Deputy chooses to ignore. Around €285 million has been paid out by quarter 1 of 2026. That grant scheme has been extended to 2030. The vacant above the shop grant will do significant work as well. The Government has allocated €150 million through the Urban Regeneration and Development Fund to tackle vacancy and dereliction, and €142 million of that has already been allocated. Again, this charge of inaction, as it nothing is happening, is just not true. There are many more initiatives as well. The Government launched the CPO activation programme in 2023 to support proactive local authority acquisition of vacant and derelict properties. Approximately, 11,000-plus properties engaged, 400 CPOs commenced and 250-plus were completed. Proposals are also being advanced to centralise certain CPO powers to An Coimisiún Pleanála. The existing unpaid derelict site levy will remain a charge on affected properties and continue to be collected by local authorities. In terms of the replacement of the derelict site levy with the tax, I think we all have to agree. It seems very clear to me. Deputy Bacik mentioned 35 years with regard to derelict sites. Does anybody acknowledge there has been some weakness here in local government in terms of implementing the derelict sites levy? No, but Deputy Bacik chooses to blame central government. We need to make up our minds in the Oireachtas. When we delegate and gift powers to local authorities, there comes a time when there has to be accountability from local authorities as well. When we look at the tables in terms of who did what at local authority level, there are differences. Some are far more proactive than others but no one on the Opposition side ever wants to criticise this aspect of it because it has to be the Government's fault for everything. We have a very double-standard approach to regional delegation of power and local authority devolution. The reason we are transferring this to Revenue is because we believe Revenue has a tendency to concentrate the mind a bit more than local authorities have done. That is the bottom line. When people see Revenue coming, behaviour will change but we are going to have to do it in a comprehensive way. We are going to have to do it in a proper, precise way, again illustrating some degree of inaction by local authorities in terms of having ready registers and ready maps of properties-----

The time is up, Taoiseach, and Deputy Bacik will respond now.

I have listened carefully and the Taoiseach's answer is again a textbook response by Government. People like the young mother in my constituency are sick of central government looking to claim ownership for any win but absolutely looking to absolve itself of responsibility for any failure. It is buck-passing to local authorities and it is utterly shameless and meaningless to people who are looking for action. Yes, of course we acknowledge that one third of local authorities collected no derelict sites tax revenue in 2024. Clearly there are issues with the existing model but it is the job of central government to fix it. I have several questions because the Government has no sense of urgency and there is no sense of urgency from it on these new announcements. Why is the Government introducing this new tax on a selective basis? Why, when all employees have to pay PAYE, is this new tax, even once it finally comes in, going to be confined to urban areas with a population of 4,000 or more? Has there been pressure from somewhere? Why is this arbitrary distinction being made? Is it not true that the new tax will not be collected until 2028 at the earliest?

The point I am making is that the reason it is over 4,000 is because that is where the housing need is and it is where there is the greatest degree of dereliction.

Who says?

It is also the first phase of this because this is a mammoth task. Notwithstanding the Derelict Sites Act being there, the database as inherited is not sufficient to immediately introduce a tax when we do not have a comprehensive database on derelict registers the length and breadth of the country. This is a tax that is coming in, so it will have to be done properly and in a very precise and effective way that will make a difference. It is very important that we get it right and do it properly. We expanded the living city initiative in the last budget and that will help significantly with regeneration in cities as well. The URDF and the rural community development fund are doing an awful lot of work in towns across the country and in cities in terms of bringing back to life city streets. Sometimes people might say Deputy Bacik is textbook Opposition and that everything has to be the Government's fault but the point I make is that a lot of progress has been made in a lot of areas. We need to do more-----

The time is up and we will move to the Independent and Parties Technical Group and Deputy Healy.

As Fianna Fáil leader, the Taoiseach led the party into a confidence and supply arrangement with Fine Gael in 2016, ten years ago. That was in the wake of large-scale water protests, which resulted eventually in the abolition of domestic water charges and the setting up of a special Oireachtas committee on water services. I and former Deputy Thomas Pringle represented the Independent TDs on that committee. That Government, which the Taoiseach supported, promised and committed to bring forward a referendum to put public ownership of water services into Bunreacht na hÉireann. Ten years later, we are no nearer to that referendum. I compliment former TDs and colleagues, Joan Collins and Thomas Pringle, for their efforts in pursuing this referendum and introducing the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016. In the intervening years, that commitment has been given by successive taoisigh and Ministers. In 2017, the Oireachtas committee on water unanimously agreed that a referendum should be held. In 2019, the then Minister, Eoghan Murphy of Fine Gael, promised that a referendum would take place in the first half of 2020. The programme for Government in 2020, Our Shared Future, again promised a referendum to "Retain Irish Water in public ownership as a national, standalone, regulated utility." In November 2022, Micheál Martin, as Taoiseach, told the Dáil that the Government intended to hold a referendum on housing and water in, as he said, the near future, and that the Minister, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, would be in a position to act on these issues early in the new year in 2023. In March 2023, the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said the Government was committed to holding a constitutional referendum to keep Irish Water in public ownership. Ten years later, and after all those commitments, we are no nearer to that referendum. Where is the referendum relating to the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2022? When will the Minister bring this Bill forward to the Dáil? When does the Government intend to call a referendum to put water services into the Constitution as a public utility?

First, I do remember the chronology of events very well. Regarding the issue of keeping the provision of water in public control and ownership, the Government has fulfilled that.

No, it has not.

Irish Water is entirely publicly owned and will remain so. Recently, the Government, in the context of the national development plan, NDP, allocated unprecedented funding to Irish Water for the development of water infrastructure across the length and breadth of the country. The urgency and imperative right now is to fundamentally improve the water supply infrastructure. It is a key utility, and the State is investing unprecedented amounts of taxpayers' money to make sure that we get the big wastewater treatment plants through. These include the eastern and midlands project. It will be interesting to see if the House will support that very important public infrastructure. If it does not happen within a decade or so, the midlands, Dublin and other areas on the east coast will be running out of water. It is likewise with the wastewater treatment plant and the Dublin drainage project. Big projects are under way, and that is where all the focus has been and will continue to be. It is arguable at this stage whether a referendum is really required at all in respect of this matter. There is unanimity in the House in respect of keeping it in public ownership. It will stay in public ownership. Of course, when it comes to constitutional amendments, the divil is always in the detail and in the framing of the language and the wording. That is always problematic and challenging at the best of times.

It has been ten years.

The more important point is that there are no proposals from anybody around the privatisation of Irish Water or any of the water services. The more important focus for us is repairing and upgrading the existing infrastructure, but also expanding it. Utilities are key to the future of our society and economy, and that is why we are putting huge amounts of money and equity into Irish Water to make sure it has the capacity to do the type of work that is required. In the last three years, particularly in the context of the national development plan, the allocation underpins the significant growth and development of water infrastructure and supplies in this country. The key question will be whether we can get community and political buy-in to the kinds of projects that the country requires and avoid partisan rows that would undermine the national and public interest in terms of getting these projects done.

The Government has certainly not honoured its ten years of commitments, as I outlined. All those commitments have been broken. The Taoiseach has not answered the questions. We can only presume that he and the Government wish to keep the door open to the future privatisation of water services in this country. The Taoiseach must know that if that happened, it would be an absolute disaster. We only need to look across the water to the UK to see this. The UK water sector struggles with a combination of massive debt, failing infrastructure and underinvestment. It is now generally accepted that the UK privatised-for-profit water services model is flawed. Profits and dividends are prioritised over modernisation. Thames Water, for instance, has a debt burden of about €20 billion and is facing collapse. The Taoiseach should close the door on privatisation, announce a referendum, as he and previous taoisigh committed to over the past ten years. He should honour those commitments.

I remember the negotiations when we were in opposition but part of the confidence and supply agreement to make sure the country had a Government, which is something the Deputy has never quite had to worry about because he is always in splendid isolation-----

What about the referendum?

-----and splendid opposition, which is his entitlement.

Abide by the rules.

The Taoiseach promised a referendum.

However, the point I am making is that what we negotiated was-----

If I could be allowed to answer-----

The Taoiseach has not honoured his commitment-----

The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to answer.

Answer the question.

I am trying to be the Deputy is interrupting.

The Deputy is interrupting.

He is not answering the question; he is deflecting.