2026-02-25

In just four days the Government's rent hike Bill comes into effect. Its legislation allows landlords to hike up rents to the market rate and renters will be hit with massive rent increases, the likes of which we have never seen before. We know that corporate landlords and vulture funds are rubbing their hands in glee, popping champagne corks at the thought of the huge profits they stand to make as a direct result of your legislation. They are not even hiding it. It is in black and white. In a presentation to its investors by I-RES REIT, the largest corporate landlord in the country with thousands of properties, it sets out what it can now do as a result of the Government's new rent hike Bill. It has told investors it will be able to increase new rents by a staggering 25%. It is predicting a 25% potential rental income uplift "with minimal added costs". That is a direct quote, Taoiseach. This paints a frightening picture of the size of the rent increases coming down the tracks due to the Government's decisions. The property funds are set for a bonanza. This company is telling its investors that it stands to make an extra €21 million in rents every year once the Government legislation flows through. Just imagine what that means for renters faced with a 25% hike in rent. What would this mean for somebody paying the average rent? It means having to find more than €5,000 extra per year. That is just to cover this increase. Does the Taoiseach know any renter able to afford that kind of increase on their already extortionate rent because I certainly do not? Two weeks ago, I warned that his legislation would give a big pay day to corporate landlords and the Taoiseach said that I was wrong. He said that this was all about providing stability for renters. How in the name of God is allowing renters to be hit with a 25% increase providing them with stability? Of course, the Government's legislation was never about stability for renters. It was always about feathering the nests of the big property funds and now the Taoiseach has been found out. Now we see the proof straight from the horse's mouth. The biggest corporate landlord in Ireland is saying out loud the very thing the Taoiseach denied. It will make a fortune from his legislation all on the backs of renters. This is a recipe for disaster in the lives of workers, families and our young people. He is doing it with his eyes wide open with all the proof of who will benefit on the table for all of us to see. Ní fhéadfadh leis an tiarna talún is mó sa tír a bheith níos soiléire, gur féidir leo cíos a ardú 25% mar thoradh ar reachtaíocht an Rialtais. Caithfear stop a chur leis na harduithe ollmhóra seo. Does the Taoiseach accept what the largest landlord in the country is saying? It will be able to hike new rents by 25% as a result of the Government legislation, an increase that will be a breaking point for so many. This is what the rent hike Bill is facilitating. He simply cannot allow this to happen. Will he now intervene to stop renters being crushed by these massive increases?

All those renters in existing tenancies will have their rents increased by 2%, not 25%. Existing tenancies will not be impacted negatively as a result of the changes. The changes arose out of an analysis undertaken by the Housing Finance Agency. Why did it do an analysis? It did an analysis because the Housing Commission said we needed to create certainty, clarity and stability in the rental market for the long term and that there would be clarity around that. That is the fundamental issue. However, the Minister has balanced that with greater security of tenure for tenants with the six years, essentially ending no-fault eviction where a landlord can end a tenancy without the tenant having done anything wrong. That is a significant protection for tenants. There is security of tenure and the national regulation extending RPZs to the entire nation. Those involved in social policy and the academic world have acknowledged and articulated that this is a significant increase in rental protection. The Housing Commission called for this. The ESRI called for this. It was looking for a 4% cap on rents. That is what they recommended. We said no, and that we would go for 2% on that. This Bill will give far more legal protection to renters than they have ever had in the history of the State. That is the bottom line. It was interesting that quite a number of people representing property interests threatened constitutional action with regard to this Bill. They do not like the security of tenure and protections that are provided to renters. There has been a lot of disquiet among many representing landlords around these changes. That has been articulated on quite a number of occasions. About 513,000 are people renting now in different categories, from the public to the private sector, but the tenancies of the more than 290,000 people who are currently renting will not be affected, and the Deputy knows that. That is the key element of this. Yes, we want to bring investment back into the market because we have not been building enough apartments to date. Supply is the key instrument we have to moderate rents in the medium term. Let us be under no illusion; we need more apartments and more housing. We got 36,000 houses built last year and we need to get to 50,000 per year. The State, which is allocating about €9 billion, is the main actor in the market at the moment, through supporting cost-rental and affordable housing and the building of public housing. The State is the main player in house building at the moment. The Department of Finance estimates that we need to spend about €20 billion per annum, between public and private sector investment, to get to that figure of 50,000 houses that the ESRI says we need. Some say we need even more. We have to have a balanced approach to protecting renters, particularly those in existing tenancies, and giving them greater protection in terms of security of tenure, but also then facilitating a far greater degree of construction, particularly in cities, of apartments because our density is not where it should be, in brownfield sites in particular. I would have thought everyone in this House was agreeable to greater investment. Is é atá i gceist againn ná i bhfad níos mó tithe a thógáil sa tír seo agus tacaíocht agus cosaint a thabhairt do thionóntaí na tíre.

Is waffle atá i gceist anois. This is on the Taoiseach. There is no balance here. The biggest landlord in the country could not be clearer. It knows that it can hike rents by 25% as a result of the Government's rent hike Bill. It knows that it will make an extra €21 million in rents each and every year. That means millions going into the pockets of corporate landlords and thousands coming out of the pockets of renters - security of tenure my eye. Those are the hard facts and the Taoiseach knows it. It is here in black and white. We are talking here about the biggest rip-off of renters in a generation. This sends a shiver down the spine of every renter across the land and it is directly because of the decisions and choices of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The Government's legislation is causing this to happen and I have asked the Taoiseach to take responsibility for that. I have asked him before and I will ask him again. Will he intervene, now that the writing is on the wall, to stop these massive rent increases?

The Deputy's party has had a fair degree of engagement with the property industry over the past while. Deputy Ó Broin has been very active in meeting with IBEC, on behalf of Property Industry Ireland, with Hines real estate Ireland, the Construction Industry Federation, Glenveagh Homes, Vulcan Consulting and so on, and Property Industry Ireland.

Answer the question.

It is interesting. What were the matters discussed in his meeting with IBEC on behalf of the property industry? They were the introduction of incentives for investors to capitalise apartment construction-----

Not to screw renters.

-----to extend the existing permissions, to legislate to prevent issues and, of course, promising the sun. It is like the meeting with Davy Stockbrokers a year or two ago. Supply is the key. I am sure the Deputy would agree that supply is the key.

I did not interrupt Sinn Féin's leader. I just want to make the point that supply-----

Answer the question.

I am answering the question.

I call Deputy Eoghan Kenny.

I want to finish my point. Supply is the key issue.

Time is up.

It has to be noted that the Deputy has objected to 3,000 apartments in the past while. That is her contribution to renters in this country and people who need housing. She has objected to 3,000 apartments.

The time is up. Have some respect for the Chair.

I respect the Chair but I also ask that she respect my right to reply. It is not being facilitated.

They did not listen during the time that was allowed. We have moved on to Deputy Eoghan Kenny.

On a point of order-----

There is no point of order. The Taoiseach's time was up.

The Chair should be respected. Over the past two weeks, the Government has let down children with additional needs, special needs assistants, parents, school communities and now special educational needs organisers, SENOs. That is why tonight, across the country, these very people will take to the streets and protest outside the Dáil at 5 p.m. At every opportunity, the Labour Party has welcomed developments in our education system. I welcomed new special classes, new special schools, new SNAs and the proposed roll-out of therapy supports but when something is not right, I will call it out for what it is, and this was plainly wrong. The Government was pitting one child’s needs against those of another. The political wind changed and the Government felt the pressure, scrapped the policy, went to the kitty and got money. This is a clear indication that either the Taoiseach had no faith in the policy that his Government created or he had some sort of realisation that those working within our schools might actually be right. In any case, the Taoiseach and his Government colleagues are doing their best to spin this as a win. It is in fact another case of announce, backlash, retreat and re-announce. Deep down, this question must be posed. How much damage has the Government done to special education in this country? Every year, there is fear, anxiety and worry on the part of parents across the country who wonder if their child will have an appropriate class and resources, SNA support and enough special education teachers. Parents should not have to carry that burden. As a State, we must get special education right. It cannot be ad hoc. It must take a long-term approach where we are not scrambling every year to get the basics right. I want to clarify two points. First, in his response to my party leader yesterday, the Taoiseach stated the Government "did not sign off on this" initiative. What did he mean by that? His Government created this policy and got the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, through the SENOs, to implement the policy. They did as they were told. They informed schools of the decisions based on the policy the Government created. The Taoiseach said the Government did not sign off on this. Will he clarify what he meant by that? Did he agree with the policy? Did he not know the letters were being sent out? Was this the Taoiseach attempting to place the blame on SENOs and the NCSE? Second, the Taoiseach said yesterday that the role of the SNA is primarily for the child and not for the school. The 2014 circular clearly states in section 10 that SNAs are not allocated to individual pupils but to schools as a schools-based resource in the same manner that teachers are allocated to schools. Can the Taoiseach clarify what he meant by that? Is it a lack of understanding or another opportunity to deflect from the reality that the Government was taking resources off children?

Government policy has been to increase investment in special needs education and increase the number of SNAs. That is the policy. The manifestation of that policy is as follows: in 2020, 16,420 special needs-----

I welcome that.

The Taoiseach is answering. Deputy Kenny should not interrupt him again until it is his turn.

The manifestation of that policy is that there were 16,420 SNAs in 2020, 17,921 in 2021, and this went up to 18,831 in 2022, 20,805 in 2023, 22,000 in 2024, 23,870 in 2025, and to over 25,000 in 2026. That is Government policy. That is what I signed off on. That is what all of us in Government signed off on in the Estimate that was agreed. In addition to that, staffing overall has gone up by about 27%. There are now 22,465 special education teachers in our system. In the past five years, we have provided an extra 16 special schools when there were none for the seven years prior to 2020. The story is one of expansion. The Deputy should at least acknowledge that. That is the point. Equally, the population identifying with a disability is growing. We need to expand to deal with the growing need. In the census of 2022, close to 11% - 10.8% - of children in Ireland were reported as having a disability. That compares to 6.4% in 2016. Those are significant factors and we acknowledge those. There is a lot of pressure on the system and we need to expand. When I said we did not sign off on this, no memo came before the Government saying we were going to cut SNAs in individual or specific schools. No memo came to the Government. None. It did not. Those are the facts.

Did the Taoiseach not know about the levels?

No, not the overall impact.

Wait, Deputy Kenny.

Again, the Deputy is interrupting. The Government did not sign off on any memo or memorandum or any note saying that "X" hundred SNAs are going to be cut off. That is the reality. I established the system of SNAs and, yes, when I brought it in, the SNA was allocated to the child. The system grew and we brought in school-based allocations. I know all about that, but the school-based allocation is based on the need and particularly the special education need. It is based on the number of children that require a need and then there is a decision on the number of SNAs that a given school will get.

I do not need lectures from the Taoiseach on the role of an SNA-----

No, the Deputy asked about-----

I do not need lectures from the Taoiseach on the role of an SNA. I know what they are about. I said at the beginning that I welcome the development of SNAs. I did not need the figures. I know the figures and I welcome them. As a State, we have to accept the reality. The level of resources did not keep up with the level of need. That is the reality. We were able to get €19 million overnight. Was it penny-pinching all along? Was it the Taoiseach's deputy leader, Deputy Chambers, keeping the money away from the Department of education? How were we able to get €19 million overnight? Will every single child who is entitled to a special class be given a place in a special class for the next academic year? My understanding is that the level of applicants means we now require 600 special classes. We have funding for 400 special classes. Will the Taoiseach put it on the record that every single child who is entitled to and needs a special class will be given a place?

The only reason I replied to the Deputy with numbers was that he made a false assertion in terms of Government policy on special needs assistants.

That is completely untrue.

Again, the Deputy is interrupting. I did not interrupt him.

You are telling untruths.

Deputy, please accept that you have to wait.

He did make a false assertion in terms of Government policy. I wanted to make it very clear to him and to the public that our story has been one of expansion in special education. Earlier this year, we brought forward the application date for schools and parents who require special education places for their children. The numbers have increased exponentially this year. Perhaps it is because of the earlier date or there may be other factors. It is over and above anything that was contemplated and, in particular, many more have come in post the October deadline. There is a constitutional right for every child to have a place in education. Our objective and obligation as a Government is to provide that place. There will be a need for more special classes. There will be huge challenges because of the exponential rise in children this year, compared to last year or previous years, in the data that has come in, both for those who went before the deadline date and those after.

Will every child get a place in a special class?

This Saturday, disabled people and the Affordable Ireland campaign will be on the streets demanding an emergency payment after the Government took over €1,400 from them in the last budget. So far, the Government has refused to concede. There is no money for disabled people. There was no money for SNAs until people power forced the Government back. There is no money for electricity credits. What is there money for? There is money to develop an Irish arms industry and to give to the French arms industry. The French media is reporting that we will spend €1 billion of public money on armoured vehicles, tanks and a Howitzer. The Thales Group, which supplied weapons to Israel for the slaughter of Palestinians, will be the main recipient. It is part and parcel of an agenda of militarisation and dismantling neutrality. If we look at the maritime security strategy launched this morning, it is a shameful abandonment of any independent foreign policy. Instead, it commits us to deep military co-operation with the old colonial powers of Britain and France, advocating further integration with NATO and using huge amounts of public money to defend the infrastructure of big tech companies. The strategy refers to "our responsibility and commitment to support the security and defence of Europe". When did we sign up for that? That sounds awfully like a mutual defence pact, when the protocol associated with the Lisbon treaty explicitly stated that there would be no common defence agreement involved. Again and again, the document refers positively to NATO. It says, "Ireland can play a positive role in supporting greater EU-NATO co-operation". Action 4.6 states that Ireland should "foster relations with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, in the maritime security space". Action 4.8 states that Ireland should "pursue opportunity to participate in Joint Expeditionary Force+, JEF+, activities." The Joint Expeditionary Force, JEF, is ten NATO countries led by Britain. Is that one of the reasons the Taoiseach wants to abolish the triple lock? As a neutral country, why should we support greater co-operation between the EU and NATO? NATO is made up of states that overwhelmingly supported, armed and financed Israel's genocide in Gaza. It is led by Donald Trump, who just in the past two months kidnapped the president of a sovereign country and threatened to invade Greenland and is trying to dismantle the UN and replace it with a so-called Board of Peace, with himself as the chairman for life. This is a strategy written for the big tech companies that want us to pay to protect their cables, by the arms lobbyists who want our money for their weapons and by Britain and France. Action 2.1 refers to developing "a trusted network of critical underwater infrastructure stakeholders", which is to include industry. Who is the Taoiseach talking about? Is he talking about big tech companies or arms companies? This State was born out of a struggle against British imperialism. It is why people have a deep connection to an independent foreign policy, a consistent opposition to all imperialism and support for neutrality. Why is the Taoiseach throwing all of this away?

The ESRI was very clear that the two lowest deciles in income terms benefited most from the recent budget. In terms of the supports for children and those with disabilities, embedded policies and allocations in the social protection budget and investment in disability services, education and health were all designed for the long term to support those with disabilities. The idea that there is no money, as the Deputy said, is a complete untruth. Some €13 billion has been invested in education alone this year. This idea that there is no money for children and people with disabilities and that we are now going into full-scale funding for the arms industry is hyperbole and exaggeration beyond belief. The Deputy needs to cop on with this kind of nonsense and propagandising on what are very basic necessities for an island nation-----

It is all in the national maritime security strategy.

-----to protect itself and to protect vital economic infrastructure. I do not know what the Deputy has against big tech in terms of its employment content. He seems to hate companies that employ thousands of people in this country. He seems to have an agenda against major companies that employ thousands of people. I do not agree with him. Last week, I was at Apple in Cork. It employs 6,000 people. I was a student in Cork in the 1980s when there was 17% unemployment. I witnessed all the companies-----

Fianna Fáil was in power.

-----like Ford and Dunlop closing, the Verolme dockyard closing and the Sunbeam-Wolsey plant closing. Thousands of jobs were lost. It was a very difficult decade. I have never lost the memory of what it was like in the city of Cork and many cities across the country. Part of the renovation and rejuvenation of this country - even if the Deputy might not like it - was the fact the likes of Microsoft came to this country in 1985. It has been here more than 40 years. Apple came in 1980 and it has grown. It is workers who have benefited. Ordinary people, who have career opportunities, have benefited from that. We can be critical, and we have to stand back and analyse the agendas, etc., but these are the basic facts for the ordinary people that the Deputy is supposed to represent. When we say that we want to protect critical undersea infrastructure, if anything happened to cables or the gas connectors with Britain, we would not have an economy in ten days, in terms of the gas interconnection. Is the Deputy saying we should not co-operate with Britain to protect the gas interconnectors with the United Kingdom and we should just ignore it? Is he saying we should ignore all of our European partners in protecting critical undersea infrastructure such as subsea cables and the interconnector with France, which will be completed in the next year or two and will guarantee energy security for our people?

I thank the Taoiseach. Deputy Murphy to respond.

What planet is the Deputy on that he would deny the ordinary people of this country-----

Thank you, Taoiseach. Time is up.

-----jobs, energy security and an opportunity to have economic participation?

The planet I am on is a planet where the Taoiseach introduced a budget that cut income for disabled people by €1,400. Absolutely shameful. The planet I am on is where he introduced a budget that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office, significantly increases the rates of child poverty and poverty among older people, and decreases the income of the poorest people in this country by 4.4%. That is the planet I am on. They are all facts from the Parliamentary Budget Office. This is the same planet where the Taoiseach is scaremongering to justify giving €1 billion to the French arms industry, the same people who have facilitated, enabled and created the weapons for the genocide. Yes, we think the Government should not have military co-operation with big, Western imperialist powers. We should not have military co-operation with NATO, Britain or France. Of course not. We should be neutral. The best defence we have is a consistent position of neutrality whereby we call out imperialism and attacks on human rights no matter where they take place. We have the position that Connolly put forward, "neither king nor Kaiser", which today means neither Washington nor Moscow-----

I thank Deputy Murphy. The Taoiseach will now respond.

-----neither Brussels nor Beijing but instead, stand up for ordinary people in this country.

We have been involved in peacekeeping in Lebanon with Poland. Poland is a member of NATO, by the way. Is the Deputy saying we should not be involved in peacekeeping in Lebanon with Poland, and PolBatt? Interoperability is key.

It is a battlegroup.

Please.

They must use the same equipment and weaponry. The idea that we would be involved in a peacekeeping mission with different countries and have different systems and equipment makes no sense.

I did not say that.

Please.

The Deputy did say that.

Is the Taoiseach calling for EU and NATO battlegroups-----

Deputy, it is not-----

It is in the document. Deal with it.

Again, the Deputy is interrupting. When he does not like the answer, he interrupts. That is what Deputy Murphy is saying because, according to him, we should stand alone in isolation, talk to nobody - talk to nobody at all, apparently - and we will be able to procure, we will have all the in-house expertise and so on. The truth is, Deputy Murphy does not believe in having an army at all. That is actually the truth. I asked him that some time back here and he was silent in response to it. His concept of militarisation is that we do not need armies. That is his view.

You cannot describe my views. I will describe my own views.

That is his view-----

Sorry now, time is up. I call Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice.

-----and therefore, to take that to its logical conclusion, I see where the Deputy is coming from: that we should not buy weapons at all-----

Time is up, Taoiseach, thank you. Deputy Fitzmaurice is on his feet.

-----and we should go back to the hurley sticks.

The Taoiseach spoke earlier about the need for housing and everyone right around the Dáil here agrees on the urgent need for more houses. He spoke about 50,000 houses and it is welcome that he has that aspiration and the policy to try to back it up but I would like to go to the nuts and bolts of this. At the moment in Ireland, a person with a small quarry will be four to five years trying to get planning and will have to spend a minimum of €300,000 on reports and getting through the planning process. The Minister of State, Deputy Grealish, is beside the Taoiseach. From Galway city to the Atlantic Ocean is probably 50 miles at least and there is not one quarry in that area now because they are all being blocked. Looking at the cost, a load of stone and six-inch down in 2013 was €4 a tonne ex-pit; it is about €12 a tonne now. This is what you call costs rising constantly. Then we talk about muck away. On 1 March this year, for the small operators that take away muck from housing sites, €10 a tonne is going onto a load of muck. That is €200 a load. Some €3,000 for a semi-detached is going onto a load of muck and each house being built, and the Government talks about cutting costs. Then, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Department are going to say, "Ah well, sure there is way out" and there are Articles 27 and 28. I will give the Taoiseach the facts of Article 27. First, under Article 27, if I buy new stone off a quarry - if I bring it in for what we call a haul road, where it will be taken away again - to take that new stone away from that site, I have to employ a person and get a report done for €1,500 now, plus €250 each for the two samples. That is €2,000 more to take the stone out as per the new regulation that has gone in under Article 27. Article 28 is where - I will explain it to the Taoiseach - if you had a house down the country that needed knocking, and you basically knocked it down, put it in a crusher and crushed it up, you would have to spend the same money on that house to be able to move that stone. That is what we are doing at the moment. In relation to concrete, in 2020 concrete was about €70 to €80 per cu. m. It is gone to €130 at the moment and is going up again by €10 because of carbon taxes, they will tell you, electricity costs and obviously the defective blocks are going to be part of it. They are saying very clearly it is because of what they call the greenwashing that is going on in this country. How does the Taoiseach propose, in the line of planning for quarries, to reduce that figure and keep them in the game? Is he going to allow stone shifted from site that was bought new to be exempted?

I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice. The Taoiseach will now respond.

Coming out of the weeds, or the mud, maybe, what the Deputy is talking about is the overarching planning framework that governs development in the country, the extraction of stone from quarries or the creation of quarries, or indeed other environmental legislation, but I am not quite clear on the specifics of what he is actually seeking. Let us start from the fundamental premise that we do need a planning framework. We need a sustainable planning framework and we need sustainability. That is the basic position we come from. We then have to be pragmatic, balanced, efficient and effective in the deployment of those planning laws. There has to be timely consideration of planning applications and we have to do everything we possibly can to reduce costs. The biggest cause of the inflationary pressures of the past number of years was the post-Covid period where supply chains had broken down and there was an inflationary surge, and the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis that emerged. We had very significant inflationary pressures which then impacted the construction industry in particular. We have resourced An Coimisiún Pleanála very significantly and it would acknowledge that. It has now created timelines for any planning applications. In many cases, it is now beginning to get close to meeting those timelines. We have also substantially resourced the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, in respect of its obligations. The European Union directives on the habitats directive and on environmental law generally and consents are there. They are real. They can be judicially reviewed at any time and they can be contested. The role of the planning authority is to make sure that when decisions are taken, both at local authority level and at An Coimisiún Pleanála level, they are robust, resilient decisions that can stand the test of any potential legal challenge. That is a reality. You cannot take shortcuts in respect of the EU directives. The European Union is looking at simplification of those directives and of the environmental obligations. It is examining those. I have made the case to Europe that we need to be far more pragmatic in terms of how some of these apply. The balance has to be struck between a responsible approach to sustainability and a pragmatic one as well, and best practice from observing what is going on in other jurisdictions close to us as well to make sure we are doing it in a balanced and effective way. I have not had a submission from the quarry industry. Perhaps others in different Departments have but I would gladly receive one and engage with the industry to discuss it.

What I am saying to the Taoiseach is that the facts are, if I am a small quarry operator, it is going to cost me €300,000 to do the reports that those planners need. That is not sustainable for the small guy. Does the Taoiseach realise that at this minute - I will put it on record here - we are heading for four quarries in Ireland because the big guys are mopping up? I would urge the Taoiseach to get someone to research, through the Land Registry, who owns the quarries in Ireland. Four of them are buying up everything around them because they have the legal eagles, the accountants and the funds behind them, and the small guy is being pushed out of it. Those are the facts of what is going on. I understand about the habitats directive, but look at what is going on in this country in relation to that. Also, the Department of the environment has brought in recycling under Article 27 and Article 28. Does the Taoiseach realise who is setting up those plants around Ireland, because it is €12 million to set that up?

The time is up. I call the Taoiseach to respond.

What will the small fellow with three or four lorries do in some small town when he is trying to build? He has to bring his muck away.

The time is up. I call the Taoiseach to respond.

Have a look at what is going on. Open your eyes to what is happening.

I call the Taoiseach to respond.

We are heading for four quarries in this country that will own recycling, and own the quarrying of this country.

Deputy, the time is up. I call the Taoiseach to respond.

We cannot see what is happening. You know what happens then - up with the price.

Deputy Fitzmaurice, the time is up.

First of all, recycling works in construction. I can recall that in advance of the London Olympics, and how many years ago is that-----

England has different rules.

Deputy, you are no different from anybody else. Do not interrupt the answer.

The Deputy did not even let me finish, or begin, actually. Prior to the London Olympics, I was Minister for enterprise when many construction companies in Ireland wanted to see if they could submit, tender and so on. The objective was up to 80% or 90% recycling for all the demolition and everything in respect of that. That was not law. That was their objective and their vision. Recycling is very important.

It is a different system.

No, Deputy.

We should do it.

Yes, but it is a different system.

Deputy, stop.

It can be done, and it is being done. On the competition issue, the Deputy is saying that it is going to be reduced to four. We have the competition and consumer authority. Its job is to make sure there is competition in the market. If there are any complaints or if people have concerns about any unsavoury practices developing, then please submit that to the competition authority.

We are burying our heads in the sand.