2026-02-12

I mí an Mheithimh 2024, scríobh an Tánaiste faoi mholadh cánach do thithe atá ag teastáil ó cheannaitheoirí céaduaire. Dúirt sé nach féidir cur suas leis agus thug sé gealltanas nach dtarlóidh seo arís, ach ar aghaidh go dtí i mbliana 2026 agus ceisteanna curtha air, dheimhnigh sé go raibh 293 teach bulc-cheannaithe díreach anuraidh ag creach-chistí agus tiarnaí talún corparáideacha. An nglacann an Tánaiste leis go bhfuil teipthe iomlán ar a pholasaí anois? This week, the Government's damning failure in housing has been laid bare for all of us to see once again. Its choices are making it harder for working people to afford a home. Last night, the Government pushed through a Bill that will hike rents by up to €5,000 for 60,000 renters every year, a gift to big corporate landlords on behalf of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. This morning, we woke up to the news that there are no housing assistance payment, HAP, properties to rent in 16 different areas. These are right across the country, and include areas in Cork, Galway, Dublin, Athlone, Limerick and Waterford. I could go on. This is piling even more pressure onto those desperately seeking to put a roof over their heads. That is before we come to the abysmal failure to stop vulture funds snapping up family homes. In June 2024, the Tánaiste wrote that the bulk purchasing of homes needed by first-time buyers cannot be tolerated. Those are his words, not mine. Two years on, those words ring hollow. Under questioning by me, the Tánaiste confirmed that 293 homes were bulk purchased last year alone by vulture funds. These were 293 homes and 293 opportunities lost to working people. There were 293 young people who had done everything right, saved for years and cut back, with some even moving back into their family homes to build up a deposit, only to find themselves outbid. Couples queued for hours and hours outside developments, lining up before dawn to secure a chance to bid on a first home, only for the vultures to swoop in, not with a mortgage application or savings scraped up year after year, but with institutional capital that no ordinary worker can compete with. This happened and was tolerated under the Tánaiste's watch as Minister for Finance. He told the public the Government's policy would put a stop to this. We said it would not. The Tánaiste stood over that policy and defended it. He said it would deter bulk purchasing. It has not deterred it and it has not stopped it. It is still happening. Of the 293 homes purchased last year by vulture funds, 154 were bought in the last three months alone. This is happening right now under the Tánaiste's watch and the reason is simple: the Government's legislation is not working. It made a choice to leave the door open and vultures are swooping right through it. When the Tánaiste says that bulk purchasing cannot be tolerated, what exactly do those words mean? What we are seeing is not intolerance but permission for large investors to compete directly with first-time buyers and permission for a model where ordinary working people are told to save harder, wait longer and try again next year. Does the Tánaiste accept, in the face of the facts, that the Government's policy has failed? Does he accept that as long as these exemptions remain, first-time buyers will continue to be gazumped by vulture funds? Will he now act to keep the promise he made and ban vulture funds from snapping up family homes? He said the practice, in his words, could not be tolerated. Will he finally step up and deliver on that promise?

Hear, hear.

First, in relation to the housing assistance payment and the Dublin Simon Community report that the Deputy referenced, I thank the Dublin Simon Community for the work it does. I thank it for the recognition in its commentary in relation to the tenancy protections we are putting in place in the legislation that passed in this House last night and now goes to the Seanad today. I thank it for the work it is doing, including in this capital city with the opening of its new facility this week to help people in relation to addiction and homelessness. I also want to acknowledge that when it comes to housing assistance and the housing assistance payment, we do intend, in line with our housing plan, to review the HAP limits and to have that completed within the first half of this year. That is a commitment the Government has given because we believe HAP can make a difference to people and we believe it is making a difference to people. I am pleased to see that already, when we look at people who have been on HAP and at their journey to longer-term accommodation and a more permanent housing solution, there are encouraging signs, with 37% of exits from the HAP scheme now being to other forms of social housing. The point in relation to needing to review HAP and the HAP limits is something this Government concurs with. It is something we are acting on and we will have that work concluded in the first half of this year. My second point in relation to HAP and supply more generally is that we have to keep on increasing supply. There are some encouraging signs, which I am not surprised the Deputy did not mention, when it comes to housing supply. Last year, we saw almost 100 homes built every single day, an increase in our housing figures by more than 20% on the previous year. We saw commencements of new homes in December double on what they were in November. We see 600 people buying their first-time home every single week. We will have social housing figures shortly, but I believe those will also show progress. The Deputy referenced institutional investors. The Deputy and many people, on all sides of this House, often talk about the Housing Commission report. It is important we do not pick and choose which bits of the report we want to talk about. The Housing Commission report itself says we must see private investment in our housing market. It is really important; the State cannot do it all. In fact, the State is investing way more than most European countries in housing, but we do need to also attract in private investment. There may be a policy difference with us on that. I do not know, but there may be. However, the Housing Commission report, and not you or me, recognises the importance of it. When it comes to bulk buying, and we did discuss this the other night, we have acted. We introduced a higher rate of stamp duty. When I was Taoiseach in the period of time the Deputy referenced, I acknowledged and said clearly that the extra rate we brought in, the 10% rate, was not high enough in my view. I worked closely with the then Minister for Finance, Michael McGrath, and the Government and we increased that rate of stamp duty by 50%. That saw the number of homes being bulk bought fall in 2023, 2024 and 2025 and we expect it to fall now. Another fact the Deputy did not mention, but that he should mention because I did put these figures on the record of the House the other night, is that we now see institutional investors selling more homes than they are buying in Ireland. There is a need for all of the facts to be looked at. We need private investment. We took action in relation to bulk buying. We took further action in relation to bulk buying, and we are now seeing more homes being sold than bought up by that sector.

The Tánaiste gave a commitment in 2024. He said that the bulk purchasing of these homes by vulture funds should not be tolerated, cannot be tolerated. He is the Minister for Finance. He has not just been tolerating this once or twice. He tolerated it 293 times last year. These were 293 opportunities snapped away by vulture funds from young people who wanted to buy their first home. The Tánaiste stands there and somehow defends this because he offers no solutions. It could not be tolerated in 2024 and it should not be tolerated now. Vulture funds should not be allowed to outbid and swoop in to buy homes from under the noses of ordinary first-time buyers. That is simple as. What is the Tánaiste going to do about it? If he genuinely believes it should not be tolerated, as he said, then what is he going to do about it? The solution is simple: ban vulture funds from bulk purchasing family homes. It is as simple as that. End the practice. Step up and do the right thing on behalf of people who are being completely outpriced in the market and are losing faith as a result of the Government's policies.

I have told the House quite clearly what we are going to do. We brought in a higher rate of stamp duty. We increased it further. We are seeing the number fall. We brought in specific planning guidelines that are having a very significant effect. We are now seeing more homes actually being sold than bought up by institutional investors. That is a very significant change. We gave a commitment, we acted on the commitment, and we are seeing the benefit of that policy now. It is important, though, that we discuss these issues in relation to housing. It is important that we discuss the issues in relation to HAP. However, it is also important that we are not hypocritical. We are having a discussion today about the housing assistance payments. That was the starting point the Deputy made with the Simon Communities report. Sinn Féin's housing spokesperson described HAP as a chronic waste of money. That was Sinn Féin's position. We are trying to actually review it and make sure it works. When it comes to Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald comes into the Dáil and speaks of a housing emergency and then goes back to Cabra where it is a housing objection. That is hypocrisy.

As we all know, it has been raining solidly since what feels like forever and communities across the country continue to deal with the fallout of flooding. In that time, my office has also been flooded - with pleas for help from terrified renters who are starting the new year with eviction notices. Things were already bad enough for tenants, but the Government's appalling new rent law has given landlords an effective amnesty on rent hikes; an incentive to evict. It passed the Dáil last night by a small majority. People know they will now be forced to pay even higher rents for new tenancies. That is guaranteed. Perhaps that is the reason the debate was guillotined by the Government last night. It was forced through by Government after reaching only the ninth of 69 amendments. That is the signature move of the Minister, Deputy Browne. It is a nifty trick to avoid accountability and avoid light being shed on just how daft these housing plans are. Last year, debate on every single Bill from the Minister's Department was guillotined. Not one full Report Stage was taken in the Dáil. This new year, the term has kicked off with the same thing again on highly controversial legislation. It is bad governance from a bad Government, and this is a bad week for housing policy. It is one year since stroke politics delivered us this regressive tripartite coalition with the Lowry-Healy-Rae Independents. In truth, we are seeing the impact of this arrangement and their influence across housing policy. Let us take short-term lets. We all know they are cannibalising housing supply across the country. I know the Tánaiste wants to deal with this but this week, the Government again watered down its own proposals. Instead of towns with a population exceeding 10,000, the Government's regulations, whenever they eventually come into effect, will only apply to populations of more than 20,000. This is clearly a concession to the Lowry-Healy-Rae Independents. How curious it is that the population of Killarney is 14,000. We know what the results are. The Simon Communities’ Locked Out of the Market report, published this week, which the Tánaiste mentioned earlier, found zero properties available to rent within standard HAP limits across all 16 areas surveyed. Just 31 properties were available even at the higher discretionary rates, which is a pathetic 3% of all listings. Our Labour Party housing spokesperson, Deputy Sheehan, has acknowledged, as we all do, the flawed nature of HAP, but it is supposed to get people out of homelessness. I am glad that the Government is reviewing HAP limits, but what good is that when there is literally nowhere to rent? What are people who are contacting my office, and all our offices, with news of eviction notices supposed to do? What are they to do? I am working with one woman, a civil servant, who is being evicted from her home now. She tells me of her grave distress and constant worry and anxiety. She said the property has been her home for the last 14 years, but she now has nowhere to go. Some 5,000 children are homeless and 17,000 people are in emergency accommodation. Where are they to go? It has been a bad week for Government housing policy, but renters, families and children in homelessness are the ones living with the consequences. What is the Tánaiste doing to address this?

I thank Deputy Bacik very much. I take the point about having enough time in the Oireachtas to tease through things. I would also balance that point with the fact that there is a housing emergency and every day matters. Every day we do not take a decision is a day where progress is not being made at enough speed or enough pace in relation to housing supply. We have been very clear as a Government for quite a sustained period of time as to the changes we wanted to make in relation to the rental market. I do not think, and the Deputy would expect me to say this, that her analysis of the Bill we have put before this House, and which has passed this House, is balanced. If she looks at Dublin Simon Community's comments - and I am not suggesting that the Dublin Simon Community is supportive of all aspects of the Bill; it is certainly not - it did acknowledge a number of positive aspects of the Bill, on which I would hope we could see acknowledgement across this House, including the expansion of the rent pressure zones on a nationwide basis. That is something I am not sure the Deputy would have predicted this Government was going to do. It is probably something lots of people in opposition called for us to do, and we did. As a result, there are counties that did not have rental protections in place that now do, including County Donegal and other places as well. We have really brought in a very strong tenant protection regime in Ireland, and that is acknowledged by people working in this sector and people working in homeless organisations too. We have to balance that alongside recognising that we can have all the rental protections in the world, but we also need places to rent. This Government is getting criticised in both directions and that is usually a sign that we are probably trying to get the balance right here. What we are also doing is trying to stimulate supply because otherwise, it is an academic conversation. We need more homes for people to rent. Yes, many of those homes will be built with money from this State and direct money to local authorities, but also with money through agencies of my own Department, such as the Land Development Agency, LDA. In fairness, the Deputy's party put forward ideas around how it would have liked to see that evolve. We have tried to expand its role as well. We now have one of the strongest rates of home completions in the European Union, with 5.9 homes being completed per 1,000. The EU average is 3.3. The Deputy referenced that constituent or person who contacted her. I do not in any way dispute that there is a housing emergency in this country. I do not in any way dispute that the challenge is really acute for people. However, I also know that the remedy to that challenge is more supply. It is building more homes. There are two specific recommendations the Deputy touched on regarding HAP and short-term lets. In our housing plan, we have committed to acting on both of them this year. In relation to HAP, the Deputy has acknowledged that we are reviewing the limits. That review will be completed in the first half of this year. I acknowledge and thank my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Burke, for his work on that. In relation to short-term lets, we have to have the register up and running by 20 May. We did want to get this right, though. This is a balance, and I am sure some of the Deputy's colleagues from places outside of Dublin, respectfully, or outside the greater Dublin area, would make this point too. We do not want to have an unintended consequence where there are areas that really rely on short-term lets for the tourism sector as well. It is about making sure that the juice is worth the squeeze in terms of getting extra homes back into rental. We thought 20,000 was a good balance in relation to that.

I think we can agree on one thing. There is a housing emergency.

Yes.

There is no doubt about that. I have certainly welcomed, as have my Labour colleagues, positive aspects of the legislation. However, the unfortunate truth is that these are undermined by the provisions that enable rent hikes, which incentivise rent hikes and incentivise evictions for the purpose of rent hikes. That is the problem, and it is a problem that renters across the country are experiencing. The real truth also, which nobody in Government is willing to admit, is that there is no evidence that this will work. The Tánaiste says the Government is doing this in order to ramp up supply, but there is no evidence that will work. Indeed, I am hearing from landlords in my constituency who are telling me they are leaving rental properties. They are not going to rent out any more. Why? Because of the uncertainty and the enormous number of changes there have been. The reality, again, is that we need to have significant State intervention here. The Tánaiste acknowledged that the Labour Party put forward very strong proposals in the last election campaign in order to see the State deliver at scale and ramp up the Land Development Agency to create a State construction company. Only that will enable delivery at the scale that is required to deliver the homes people need.

I did acknowledge it. I acknowledged during the election campaign and in the potential programme for Government talks after the election that the Labour Party had put forward constructive proposals. I do acknowledge that. We have a different landing zone, in that I think the Labour Party wanted a new State agency. I am not trying to misrepresent its position, but our view was to evolve the Land Development Agency. I think the Labour Party had a different proposal. I acknowledge that there was constructive engagement. I am not taking from that. We do have to take measures when it comes to supply, however. I say this respectfully. The Deputy made a point about landlords in her constituency. This is a point I am making. Sometimes, we come into the Dáil and we are told by the Opposition that we are taking all these measures to help landlords. Then, people go back to their constituencies and hear landlords saying that, hang on a second, this is actually introducing it to be a protection for tenants that poses a challenge for them. In a housing emergency, there is no perfect set of policy measures, but we do have to use a whole range of levers to try to get housing supply going. That is what we are doing. There are encouraging signs that some of the decisions we took in the budget, some of which were vehemently opposed by the other side of this House, are having a positive effect. Forget about industry and forget about developers. We are hearing that now from the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, which is talking about the viability of apartments. We keep working on this every day.

Families and children have been let down appallingly by Children's Health Ireland, CHI. There has been scandal heaped on scandal, and report after report. Behind all of that are sick children and their families who have been failed by the healthcare system and the State. Children and families are still being failed because promises to act have been broken and long-promised reports remain unpublished. The Nayagam report was commissioned in 2023, two and a half years ago. Families still have not seen it. This is a report into the medical treatment of their children. As campaigner and mother Claire Cahill said on "Morning Ireland", this report belongs to the families and their children, yet they remain in the dark. They only realised the Minister had the report after reading about it in a Sunday newspaper. Families feel like afterthoughts in the whole process. They are being strung along and fed excuses while the system closes ranks on them. Now they are told that the report cannot be published for legal reasons. There is no credible timeline for when those legal issues will be resolved or when a partial version of the report or, even, the recommendations it contains can be published. There have been 12 reports into CHI, just six of which have been published. Using legalities as a shield against transparency cannot continue, particularly when we are speaking about sick children and their healthcare. How can issues at CHI be resolved unless we are clear about everything that has gone on and about the reforms that urgently need to happen? It is more than three months since the Government agreed to hold a statutory public inquiry into spinal care for children with scoliosis and spina bifida, but all we have is a headline. A mediator has not been appointed and work to draft the terms of reference has not even started. Families have again been left in the dark. The original commitment was that the terms of reference would be agreed within 16 weeks. With three weeks left, no mediator has been appointed and no meetings have taken place. There is now little hope that the deadline will be met. That is another broken promise. Nine years ago the Tánaiste promised that no child with scoliosis would wait longer than four months for treatment. He is aware of how much hurt this broken promise has caused. I cannot understand why the Government continues to make promises to families which are not worth the paper they are written on. Families want honesty and transparency. Can the Tánaiste indicate when will phase 1 of the Nayagam report, or even part of it, be published? Does he accept that the Government will miss its own deadline to draft terms of reference for the statutory public inquiry?

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for raising this very important issue. I will begin where he began by absolutely acknowledging that the priority in all of our discussions, and I know this is something we all share a view on, must be, is and must remain the children and their parents. Deputy O'Callaghan did not do so, but it is often easy to talk about reports and everything else in this House. We are talking about children and worried parents, and they should be our priority. I agree with Deputy O'Callaghan on that. I heard the Deputy's party colleague Deputy Rice on the radio this morning. Deputy Rice does a very good job chairing the Oireachtas health committee. I assure him and Deputy O'Callaghan that the Government wants to see as much information as possible published, and certainly shared with parents. The Government wants as much information as is absolutely legally possible to be made available to a statutory inquiry. I genuinely and sincerely mean that. In fairness to my colleague the Minister for Health, I know this is her position. The Minister has been engaging with the Attorney General in respect of this matter. I am very conscious and careful, even though we are in the Dáil, of the fact that phase 1 of the report relates to the clinical practice of an individual consultant. I am also very aware of processes that may be under way legally. I am also very aware of processes that may or may not get under way in future. We need to be very careful in relation to this. Phase 1 of the report is specifically a risk assessment of the practice of an individual consultant. I do not want to say anything, and nor does anyone else, that cuts across this. However, I can inform the House that the Minister absolutely wants to be in a position to share this information. There is no reason in the wide earthly world why she would not want that. This is an important step to try to fix a very serious issue and, ultimately, to try to rebuild trust and confidence in children's healthcare and CHI. I want to make a point regarding the children. The words of Dr. Colin Henry, the top doctor in the HSE, the chief clinical officer, yesterday are important. These are his words and not mine. He stated that while "these are not clinically urgent, but nevertheless, in the interest of peace of mind and assuredness to families, this exercise needs to be carried out quickly in the coming weeks." The latter refers to follow-up appointments. We need to make sure that this happens in an expeditious manner and in a manner that puts children at the centre of the process. Specifically in relation to the statutory inquiry, the Minister spoke to this matter at the Oireachtas committee yesterday. She wrote in December to communicate her intention to appoint someone. Although I do not have the letter, I believe she also identified the person she was hoping to appoint. There has been an exchange of correspondence and information in the interim. She certainly has identified the person. She wanted to find a person of substance and high calibre who will also be available to do the work. That person has been identified and I believe the appointment is imminent. The scoping exercise needs to take place as quickly as possible. I fully understand the urgency of it. I also understand from my engagement with parents that it is both urgent and a matter of getting it right. I really hope that in the coming very brief period we can see this move forward.

I thank the Tánaiste for his response. He is absolutely right that children who have suffered pain are at the heart of this matter. They have been badly let down, and that is what this is absolutely about. They and their families deserve as much information as possible. We have had 12 reports , but only six of these have been published to date. Does the Tánaiste acknowledge that this is not acceptable? Does he acknowledge that for the statutory public inquiry to work, as much information as possible needs to be available to it, including when the terms of reference are agreed in order for the families to engage with the process and not be left in the dark? Does he accept that it is two and a half years since the Nayagam report was commissioned and yet all the families know is what they read about in the Sunday newspapers? They have not had sight of the report, even though it is about their children. They have a right to have sight of it and to as much information as can possibly be made available. The Tánaiste knows that information can be published, even if some of it has to be redacted initially pending further legal advice. When is the Government going to make that information available? When will the terms of reference of the statutory public inquiry actually be agreed? Identifying a mediator is not enough.

I find myself in broad agreement, as, I think, does the House, with the Deputy. I do not think there is a huge difference of opinion here, but I take the point. The only reports that should not be published are those where there is a legal issue with publishing. I also take the Deputy's point about circumstances where there are legal issues and trying to identify if there are ways of overcoming them and putting some information in the public domain. I genuinely know that the Minister is working in good faith on that matter. I want to make a point, and I wish to do so sensitively. I absolutely understand why people want to see the report. I am not dismissing that at all. Any parent has a right to all of the clinical information in relation to their own child. As part of the follow-up procedures with hospitals, all of the information relating to a child's medical history absolutely must be made available to their parents. It is normal for clinicians to engage with the parent of any child in this way. In relation to the statutory public inquiry, the aim is to get into a process where a facilitator or mediator, and I have heard both titles used, would be appointed imminently to work with the families, the Government and everyone else to get the terms of reference correct. I expect the Minister to be in a position to make this appointment imminently.

Despite the opposition of People Before Profit and most of the rest of the Opposition and protests last night, the Government insisted on ramming through a Bill relating to the RTB that is going to mean further hikes in rents which are already unaffordable, worsening an already dire housing crisis. The Government rejected amendments which proposed that rents be kept at affordable levels and that no-fault evictions should not continue. In the context of the purpose of the Bill, the Minister stated, "We do not want rents for long-term tenancies to fall behind market rents." The purpose of it therefore is to increase rents and make sure they do not fall behind a market that is completely unaffordable. No doubt the property speculators, the corporate landlords and the vulture funds will be rubbing their hands with glee because they are set to be able to ratchet up rents and make even more profits off the back of the housing misery huge numbers of working people, young people and students in this country are experiencing. The human cost of all of this is going to be significant. I will provide an example, namely that of Michael and Shannon, a young couple in their 20s. Michael is working and Shannon was working but had to give it up because of their housing dilemma. They have two young children, a two-year-old who came in here with them last night and a nine-year-old daughter, both of whom have special needs. They are facing eviction in the next week by a small landlord, which will still be allowed under the legislation, through no fault of their own. They are facing the prospect of emergency accommodation. They are nine years on a council list but with no prospect of a council house. They are on the three-bed list. They have been approved for HAP and told to go out and try to find a HAP tenancy but the limit is €1,912. That is the homeless HAP limit. They can pay a bit of a top-up on that which they cannot really afford. The cheapest rent today in south Dublin is €3,100 for the number of bedrooms they need. As the report confirms today, nothing is available in most areas of the country within the HAP limits. The same family has been hit by the council rent hikes that the councils are putting up. How is the Bill going to help them? Is it not the case that after 1 March their prospect of finding an affordable rental property is now absolutely gone, as it is impossible at the moment, and that their vulnerable children with special needs are now facing the prospect of going into a hostel? Shannon was breaking down in tears in front of me with her partner saying her kids cannot go into that situation. What does the Tánaiste have to say to Michael and Shannon?

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett. I say to Michael and Shannon and to all people across the country in need of housing that every action we take is to increase the number of homes that are available to rent or buy. That is not just one type of home. It is more social homes, more affordable homes and homes through the Land Development Agency, LDA. Quite an incredible the number of homes are now receiving some level of subvention from the State to be built. It is also private homes because private homes and private investment are good and there are lots of people who want to buy their own home and see either themselves or, indeed, their adult children be able to move into one of those homes. I take the Deputy's point relating to the HAP limits. I know Deputy Boyd Barrett has been a strong advocate for this. There is a commitment in the housing plan that will be concluded in the first half of this year. I would push back, as the Deputy would expect me to, around the point he made in relation to this kind of corporate landlord capture. I have heard a lot of this in the past number of days. I do think this is in the space of misinformation. Small landlords make up 88% of all landlords in this country. They are providing 45% of all private tenancies and these reforms are explicitly designed to also help retain landlords while improving tenant security. We have to do both. If a small landlord leaves the market, tenants lose the ability to rent a home. There is a cause and effect here. Small landlords and landlords are not the enemy of the public good as is often portrayed by the far left. It is a vital part. Who is going to rent the homes if there are no landlords? Deputy Boyd Barrett does not agree with my political outlook on the world but Michael Byrne of the school of social policy, social work and social justice in UCD specifically said that what is being missed in the current discussion is that the new legislation that was passed last night in this House is designed, once established, to reduce the level of notice of terminations. That is what the professor in the school of social work and social justice said our Bill is trying to do, that is, when it is enacted, to reduce the number of notices of terminations. So, yes, as is always the case, there is teasing through the legislation and debating and discussing different elements of it and what people think is good, what people think is bad and what people think should be better. However, we should not misrepresent the purpose here. People are looking at this Bill, including the Dublin Simon Community which acknowledges and welcomes the tenant protection elements of this legislation while having different views from us on other elements of the Bill. We have to increase supply. We have to keep landlords in the market, particularly the small landlords, and at the same time we have to make sure that, for the very first time in Ireland, we have a nationwide, permanent system of tenant protections. I do not say this dismissively of the very serious situation Deputy Boyd Barrett's constituents are facing, and that he rightly raised, but I do not have the specific information relating to any individual case. However, we are increasing the number of social homes and we are increasing housing supply. We have been very clear on what we are going to do in relation to HAP. We are living in a country again where almost 100 homes are being built every single day.

Factually, the number of landlords has increased in the past two years. They are not leaving the market.

That is a good thing.

There was 103,000 landlords two years ago and now there are 105,000. There are 2,000 more landlords than there were and more tenancies. So, the Government does not need to enrich them even more at the expense of tenants. What are Michael, Shannon and their two kids supposed to do? Does the Tánaiste think it is acceptable that their two vulnerable children with special needs go into a hostel, which will damage and traumatise them? Shannon was bursting into tears with fear and she is joining the parents of thousands of other children, many with special needs, and parents who are struggling. Their chances of getting out of emergency accommodation are now diminished because there will be no affordable rents. No rents are affordable under the HAP limits anyway but now there are definitely going to be none because all of the new tenancies after 1 March will go up to market levels, which are absolutely unaffordable. Has the Tánaiste got anything to say other than at some point the supply is going to come on stream? Seriously, that is not a response to people who are terrified for their kids about what is going to happen next week.

It is not at some point that supply will come on stream. Supply is increasing despite the Deputy's best efforts, whether it is objecting in his constituency to housing developments. That is a cause and an effect-----

There he goes blaming the Opposition again.

-----if you object to a house, Deputy O'Reilly does too. I know Mary Lou does. If you object to houses, and I have never objected-----

It is everyone else's fault but the Government's.

The Opposition does not like the truth.

I have never objected to a home and nobody in this House should. I do not care what party they are in. They should stop objecting to houses. Everybody should stop. There is a housing emergency, end-of.

We do not object to houses; we object to profiteering.

Surely to God we can agree on that.

We object to profiteering, not homes.

Would Deputy Boyd Barrett allow the Tánaiste answer? He asked the question.

That is my political point which I am entitled to make. Nobody in this House should object to housing. I feel very strongly on that. I hope we can all agree on that. I am not sure whether Deputy Boyd Barrett is upset that there are more landlords in the market or not by what he just said. If we were to see an increase, that is a good thing but his figures are not comparing like with like because, as he knows well, we now register approved housing bodies in relation to tenancies as well. So, he is not comparing like with like. If the Deputy thinks there is a flurry of people putting up their hand saying they want to be a small landlord, he is not engaging across his constituency as I know he does.

Thank you, Tánaiste.

In relation to Shannon and Michael, I hope Deputy Boyd Barrett's office and everyone in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council will engage very proactively to assist them.

We certainly are. They have been told to go to a hostel.