I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, and his staff from the Department.

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 22, line 34, after “fuels” to insert the following:

“; other than the domestic use or burning of solid fuels for the purposes of home heating in a private dwelling, including in rural areas and in households where no affordable alternative source of heating is available”.

This is a very simple amendment. If it is okay, perhaps we will hear what the Minister of State has to say before commenting further.

Would Senator O'Reilly like to speak?

We will wait until we hear what the Minister of State has to say.

I thank the Seanad for the expeditious way in which it is progressing this legislation. It has been very agreeable but, unfortunately, I cannot accept this amendment. I thank Senators Sarah O'Reilly and Boyhan for their proposed amendment.

As I set out on Second Stage, the focus of the legislation being introduced is to give the local authority powers to ensure that the solid fuel placed on the market meets a certain standard. This is to reduce the impact solid fuel has on the environment and to reduce the number of premature deaths attributed to air pollution. The Bill is about reducing the 1,700 premature deaths that occur in Ireland each year because of poor air quality, nearly ten times the number of road deaths last year. We must also remember that poor air quality contributes to heart disease, stroke, asthma, depression and anxiety.

The approach under the Bill is to improve air quality and ensure that only compliant fuel is made available by commercial operators for sale to householders. The provision for a Minister to impose a restriction on the use of the burning of solid fuels through regulations, including the burning of solid fuel by householders, was included in the Air Pollution Act 1987. It has been there since the beginning. The proposed amendment would remove the restatement of this long-standing power. To be very clear, what the Senators are proposing to remove is not something that is being inserted in the legislation by the amendments we are bringing forward but rather a provision that has been there since 1987. Given that the Act is one of the primary instruments to protect air quality in the State, it would be imprudent to remove this measure should it ever be needed in the future. Such a scenario might include where there was such a serious threat to air quality to the extent that there was no other alternative but to consider this measure.

It is worth noting that the current solid fuel quality regulations do not impose any restrictions or penalties on householders regarding the solid fuel that they use and the Bill does not impact on the current arrangement in place for householders, nor does it envisage a requirement in the future, save in the exceptional circumstances that I have outlined, as recognised back in 1987 when the legislation was first enacted.

The current solid fuel regulations are in place since 2022 and concentrate on the sale and distribution of unapproved solid fuel at a commercial level, rather than placing restrictions on householders. I repeat that there is nothing in the Bill that changes the current arrangements in place for householders with regard to solid fuel or its usage. The Bill is, however, expanding the options open to local authorities to enforce solid fuel legislation through fixed-payment notices, also known as on-the-spot fines and the powers to remove non-compliant fuel from commercial circulation and improved solid fuel registers to ensure that only compliant producers, transporters and retailers can operate commercially. In essence, the measures that we are bringing forward in this Bill are aimed exclusively at producers, transporters and retailers and the provisions relate to all of that. The Bill is not about punishing householders; it is about giving local authorities the enforcement toolkit they need to ensure they can enforce the rules that apply to the production, transport and sale of solid fuel.

The Bill is also about making sure that the fuel sold on the Irish market is of a higher quality and is less polluting. Householders will also benefit by having confidence that what they buy is cleaner and safer. For the reasons set out, I cannot accept the proposed amendment.

I thank the Minister of State. I will reiterate the discussion I previously had with him. My amendment relates specifically to section 53B. It is intended to bring much needed clarity to householders and local authorities. As the Bill is currently drafted, it is not clear whether the regulation on burning fuels is intended to apply to ordinary domestic households or whether it is confined to commercial operators and large-scale suppliers. During the previous debate, I appreciate that the Minister of State made remarks and clarifications that this would not apply to ordinary homeowners trying to heat their home, but there is a lack of clarity when the Bill speaks about regulatory powers concerning the burning of fuel. It does not specify if it will be for industry or commercial purposes or if individuals lighting a fire in their own house could be liable. That is the problem.

This is particularly concerning for older people and people living in rural areas. I am conscious that this could be interpreted in a way that brings ordinary householders within the scope of enforcement measures that were never intended for them. My amendment ensures that this legislation is not designed to criminalise or unfairly target individuals who are heating their homes, often out of necessity, and often because they have no viable alternative. We must distinguish between rogue commercial operators who are flouting the law and families who are simply trying to keep their homes warm in the context of rising energy costs and fuel poverty. In rural Ireland, they are keeping so many of our traditions and heritage alive, including lighting a fire in the family hearth. I urge the Minister of State to support this amendment and to let rural Ireland know that the Government is not targeting families using solid fuels to stay warm. There is no clarification in the legislation that differentiates between householders, homeowners and commercial or business interests.

This is Senator O'Reilly's amendment, and I am only seconding it, but I share her concerns. The Minister of State represents a rural and urban constituency. He will know about the floods and storm in the past few days. There were many people relying on solid fuel fires to light and heat their homes and to congregate around those simple homestead fires. My understanding of what Senator O'Reilly is talking about is the need for greater clarity. We need absolute clarity in relation to it.

Let us keep this simple. This is not a science. We know there are many parts of the country that have no fireplaces. We know they were the places that had the storms. I know people just outside Loughrea in County Galway. They were 16 days without power. They were not getting kindling. They had not used the fire for two years, but they were trying to light it and heat the house. These are the families we cherish and talk about in terms of our rural communities.

Let us keep it simple. If someone wants to go out and get a few twigs, a few logs or another bit of solid fuel to heat themselves, that is not unreasonable. If that simple message is lost in the complexities of the Minister of State's language or mine, then we are not communicating with the people we represent. It is that simple a message. He has the opportunity to give absolute clarity and maybe issue a circular or a memo on it. We need clarity. I do not want it out there that Timmy Dooley, "the big Minister up in the big office in Dublin," is now going to curtail all the little homestead fires. That is not his intention, but I want to say that because it is easy to put a spin on anything. He knows that more than anyone else, so I would be interested to hear what he has to say.

The Minister of State is welcome, and I acknowledge the sentiment of this amendment. This relates to regulations a number of years ago on air pollution, smoky coal and the impact that was going to have on the sale of turf. There was a lot of hoo-ha at the time and a lot of valid and genuine concerns, but also a lot of misinformation. The Government, we and Fianna Fáil backbenchers had robust meetings at the time with then Minister, Eamon Ryan, about these issues. It became quite clear that this was not in any way an attempt to stop people burning turf or wood. The issue related to smoky coal and the practicalities of that, and how smoky coal could not be sold under the regulations in certain communities. The only way that could be done was for turf and other products not to be sold on forecourts, online or things like that. Those were the practical issues relating to this Bill. This came up at public meetings, including one where an elderly man asked if we were trying to stop him from burning turf. I told him absolutely not. He could buy turf from his neighbour. He could steal turf and burn it. That is not the issue here. There is a broader issue and Senator Boyhan is correct.

I also came across homeowners and people who were out of power for 17 days with air-to-water systems and all of that. There are broader issues here. Under the regulations and plans, anyone who has turf and can buy it legally is entitled to burn it and there is no prohibition on that. That needs to be said and acknowledged.

I thank the Senators for their contributions. Without a doubt, I understand the spirit of what they are trying to achieve. They are trying to remove a level of uncertainty from people who have concerns that have built up based on press releases and announcements that have been made through the decades. Generally, when it comes to drafting legislation, it prescribes what it intends to do. It never goes into what it does not intend to do. What Senator O'Reilly is asking me to do is to have the legislation set out what it is not doing. Of course, that would be a stretch.

I will restate again with absolute clarity and certainty what the Bill sets out to do. It is about targeting the production, transportation, and sale and supply of materials that have a negative impact on the environment and, more particularly, the bronchial health of citizens. I can reiterate that again, and the Senators know the figures already. It is about improving air quality. We are targeting it at the production, transportation, and sale and supply, not at the end user. The end user is not referenced in any way in this amending legislation, nor is how the end user ultimately gets material that they, within the broader guidelines, wish to heat their home with. Many of the people I represent would be in that bracket. They are not included. It is not envisaged that the legislation would have any penalties for them whatsoever. Senator Kyne talked about the different methods of procurement they may have. That is their prerogative. The penalties and the capacities we are giving to the local authority to issue fixed penalties relate to those that would produce, those that would transport, or those that would otherwise have arrangements for sale and supply. That is all. Homeowners, regardless of age, financial circumstances or whether they are using the fuel for the comfort of a burning fire, to heat their homes or whatever, are not envisaged, included or referenced.

What Senator O'Reilly is seeking to remove is a provision in the primary Act going back to 1987 that gives powers to the Minister to act in certain circumstances. However, it is not proposed for the regulations, and it is not in any way envisaged or provided for in the circumstances the Senators talked about, that a homeowner or householder would be in any way impacted.

I understand where the Senator is coming from. I have spent a fair bit of time around these Houses and have seen different debates about who could or could not cut turf, burn timber, etc. We have got to a point from a legislative perspective where we can look at the proportionality of our response. It would of course be disproportionate to effectively ban the use of solid fuels in homes at a time when that is reducing anyway. People are benefiting more from the State supports for insulation. Since the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, has had a new programme assisting people to make their homes more energy efficient by providing significant grants for windows and doors. There are already significant grants from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, to upgrade people's homes.

We could get lost in some of these debates arguing over the head of a pin, but what we are saying is that this will have a meaningful impact on the lives and livelihoods of many people. It will target those who have been slow to desist from their practices, but they are at the commercial level. It is not the end user. We are ensuring that householders will only have ethical, as it were, materials in terms of supply.

We need to emphasise why we are doing it while also recognising that there is a struggle. I know one of the amendments excluded related to supports for people who were struggling. Senator Andrews well knows the impact on people's homes and on people who are in fuel poverty. We have brought through significant measures in the social welfare code to address that. In tandem with that, we are investing in upgrading homes to a standard and supporting the people who are the least well off and who cannot afford to do shallow or deep retrofits. In many cases, we are providing them with an entire retrofit. We have put some funding into that and will put in more.

Overall, this is part of a co-ordinated campaign about improving air quality and saving people's lives while also recognising that we need to assist people in their domestic residence and in making their homes more airtight and fuel efficient. That is the assistance we are providing to them while in no way putting any legislative measure in place that would seek to penalise them for the use of fossil fuels.

Being warm saves people's lives. More people die of hyperthermia than of effects from air pollution. That is a fact. It is about clarity in the Bill. The Minister of State said the intention of the Bill is this, that and the other but everything comes down to interpretation. I am looking for guarantees that domestic users will not be prosecuted. It is not specified anywhere in the legislation who the regulatory powers are aimed at. Maybe I am very stupid. That is what this comes down to. How do we guarantee, unless it is copper-fastened in legislation, that homeowners will not be pursued eventually down the road in years to come?

One thing for sure as long, as long as I have known the Senator, there is nobody in this House or outside that would ever countenance the word "stupid" in a sentence that might refer to her. She is showing herself to be a very able politician and legislator in the amendments that I have addressed on her behalf on a number of occasions here and in her speeches. That is a given.

I assure her that the intention of this legislation is to ensure that a certain element of the commercial sector is compliant with the law. What we are doing is giving enforcement powers to the local authority through regulation. The overarching legislation is there in terms of the clean air. It goes back to 1987. We are amending it to give powers to the local authority to address what we see as the activities of certain rogue operators in production, transportation and sale and supply of materials. That is all we are trying to do here. The primary legislation has been around since 1987.

I have been open with Senators that it provides that a Minister might in extreme circumstances be required to address something that has happened at local level, where certain events took place and there were issues, and has the powers to act in relation to directing homeowners. That is already there. The only necessity for this is to address the sale and supply. There is nothing in regulations that will emanate from this. There is nothing new in the legislation that will in any way give anyone powers to misinterpret and go after the homeowner. The regulations are very clear regarding who can get a fixed penalty notice. The word "householder" is not included in it. It is very clear that it is production, transportation and sale and supply of materials that were excluded previously.

I can do no more than give the Senator that assurance. In my reading of it, we have to look at what the intention is. There is no capacity for somebody to extrapolate that we target the homeowner when the regulation is clear that it is the producer, transportation and sale and supply of materials. I can give the Senator everything she is asking for in that regard by way of assurance.

Amendment No. 3 has been ruled out of order.

We are disappointed that the amendments have been ruled out of order. Sinn Féin will be tabling further amendments on later Stages of this Bill. Sinn Féin supports strong action to improve air quality. Cleaner air saves lives. It reduces respiratory illnesses, protects children’s health and improves quality of life for communities across the State. There is no disagreement about the need to tackle air pollution. The question is how we do it and who bears the cost of that transition. If we get the balance wrong and policy is designed without regard to lived reality, then households, particularly older people, rural families and those already struggling with fuel poverty, become collateral damage in a transition they did not create and cannot currently afford. While this Bill does not introduce new household restrictions, it sits in the context of previous bans and regulations that have already had a disproportionate impact on certain households. That is why Sinn Féin tabled these amendments, to ensure that the clean air policy is also a fair air policy.

The first amendment we proposed inserts clear definitions into the principal Act, including for fuel poverty, solid fuel homes and vulnerable households.

This is not a technical tidying up. It is foundational. You cannot design a just policy if you refuse to name the people most affected by it.

Fuel poverty is not an abstract concept; it is the daily reality of households who must choose between heating and food and between warmth and dignity. By defining solid fuel homes, we acknowledge a simple truth. Tens of thousands of homes across rural Ireland are not connected to the gas network. They do not have affordable alternatives and cannot simply switch at the stroke of a pen. By defining vulnerable households, including older people, people with disabilities and those with chronic health conditions, we are recognising that cold homes are not merely uncomfortable, but dangerous. If legislation does not explicitly recognise these realities, then it risks legislating against them.

The next set of amendments we proposed to introduce were mandatory household safeguards for when fuel regulations were being made. These provisions would require the Minister to consider the risk of fuel poverty, the availability and affordability of alternatives and the need for a just transition, not just in theory, but in practice. Crucially, these fuels are restricted or prohibited. These amendments would have required hardship exemptions for households in fuel poverty and vulnerable households, time-limited transitional arrangements for solid fuel homes and clear, simple and non-digital application processes. This matters deeply. Too often, we design schemes that assume broadband access, digital literacy, spare cash up front and contractor availability, assumptions that simply do not hold in many rural and older households.

The previously introduced bans have already shown us what happens when safeguards are not strong enough. Elderly people in rural areas, many living alone and on fixed incomes, were left fearful of fines, confused by rules and with no viable alternative heating option. This is not climate action; this is policy failure. It provides a defence where a household is accused of an offence related to solid fuel use, but they do not have reasonable access to supports. Let me be clear, in that Sinn Féin does not support blanket exemptions forever. What we oppose is a punitive approach that criminalises people for being less well-off. The amendment would recognise the reality that people cannot retrofit homes overnight, that contractors are not available in every county, that waiting lists are long and that grants often require significant upfront costs. It would ensure that enforcement focused where it belonged, namely, on commercial premises, large-scale polluters and suppliers, not on older people trying to heat one room in the middle of winter.

We are proposing a dedicated, ring-fenced retrofitting and clean heat scheme specifically for solid fuel homes because right now these homes are effectively locked out of transition. They are told to change but denied the means to do so. Our scheme would prioritise households in fuel poverty and vulnerable households, be tiered by income with fully funded measures for low-income households, and support insulation and heating upgrades, chimney safety, stove replacements and, where possible, cleaner connections. It would also include non-digital access, local advice and delivery mechanisms that actually worked in areas with limited number of contractors. Critically, it would be reported on annually to ensure transparency, accountability and delivery county by county. This is what a just transition looks like - not punishment first and support later, but support first and transition later.

We must acknowledge that air pollution does not recognise borders. This is why Sinn Féin supports the establishment of an all-island task force on air pollution. Co-ordination, data sharing and joint standards make sense environmentally, economically and socially, particularly for Border regions that already experience regulatory inconsistency.

We cannot keep passing legislation while failing to properly resource local authorities. Enforcement without staffing, expertise and funding is meaningless and undermines public confidence in environmental law.

Sinn Féin believes in clean air, but we also believe in fairness, dignity and common sense. Households should not be punished because they cannot afford access to alternatives and older people should not fear enforcement because they live in homes that the State itself has failed to retrofit. Rural communities should not be asked to carry a burden created by decades of underinvestment. A just transition must be planned, funded and inclusive, or it is not just. These amendments would have provided the balance that this legislation needs.

I thank the Senator for his considered position and the broad approach he is taking. However, our amending legislation is just addressing air pollution, not climate change. The measures here are not identified as being beneficial to the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. It is about improving the quality of the air that we breathe. It is about taking particulate matter out of circulation while still allowing the use of fossil fuels for heating homes. This is about improving the quality of fuels and reducing the particulate matter in the air that leads to 1,700 deaths. The stand-alone legislation dates back to 1987, and this amendment will remove from its provisions those who have been acting outside of the law. It is to give powers to the local authority to target the producers, the transportation and the sale and supply. That is all it is seeking to do.

The Senator has identified other areas that I would share his concerns about, but they will be reflected in other instruments. The Senator and I might disagree about how far the Government has gone in relation to that, but it is an entirely separate matter. It would not have been prudent for us, because it would fall outside the remit of our Department if we started getting into those kinds of financial support.

I want to reflect on something that I have heard a little bit here. The notion that rural Ireland is somehow at a massive disadvantage often emerges. There are some great positives to living in rural Ireland. There has been significant investment over recent years. The Senator only has to come and visit. Some people from rural Ireland spend their time beating up on rural Ireland, saying that they have not had support. Phenomenal investment has gone into rural Ireland. One can see it. One can see what is being done in villages and towns. There is still more to be done with infrastructure, and there are lots of potholes and road issues that have to be addressed, but we are getting there. The quality of life in rural Ireland is amazing.

I am conscious that lots of people who use solid fuel do not do it from a fuel poverty perspective. They do it because it is a tradition. They do is because solid fuels are available to them. Due to the way their homes are heated and the styles of house they have, it makes sense. Fewer and fewer people are doing that. As new houses are being built and developed, they have different systems. I have never got overly exercised about trying to eliminate it from a climate change perspective. The practices are changing and there will be a lot less impact from the fossil fuels used in the heating of homes in rural Ireland over the next ten, 15, 20 or 30 years. It will be a practice that will not be at the same level and, therefore, will not have the same impact. The transition should be for people to make rather than enforced, which is why I have never believed that you target the household. That is why it is not in this legislation. The Government does not believe it either, nor should it.

To give some context, the wider point in relation to the energy affordability piece is not necessarily connected here, but there is no doubt that if you remove a level of competition, prices tend to go only one way. The programme for Government acknowledges the pressure that high energy costs place on households and business and seeks to lower prices while accelerating the pace of the renewable development. The energy issue, including its cost, has an impact on every household, regardless of rural or urban or whether they are using solid fuels. As I said, people do not just use solid fuel because it is cheaper. It is just how they have always done it and it is a traditional thing.

Addressing energy affordability is a priority for the Government. That is why we have established the national energy affordability task force. That task force, as the House knows, has already introduced its first report. The Government has implemented a range of measures from the report, including the extension of tax measures and targeted support through the increased rate of payment and expanded eligibility of the fuel allowance payment.

In terms of support for vulnerable households, the Department of Social Protection provides direct support towards energy costs to qualifying low-income households through schemes such as the fuel allowance scheme and the household benefit package as well as through the additional needs payment as part of the supplementary welfare allowance, which is a very good scheme.

It is aimed at identifying the particular characteristics of households that find themselves going through difficult periods of time. The fuel allowance currently supports about 420,000 households. The benefits package, which is specifically targeted at vulnerable cohorts such as the elderly, also provides much needed assistance to qualifying households with their energy costs. As Senators will know, there are about 551,000 households in receipt of that household benefits package and almost 540,000 in receipt of the electricity and gas element. Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, the Department of Social Protection may make additional needs payments to help to meet expenses that a person cannot pay from their weekly income, including people who face difficulties in meeting fuel bills. In 2025, there were over 2,300 additional needs payments made towards household bills and heating.

Going beyond where the Bill is at to speak to Senator Andrews's wider point, there is already a recognition in the Government that energy affordability and energy poverty is an aspect of economic life for some. It is one that is being addressed and responded to. That is why we have tried to look at moving away from one-off payments and why in this and future budgets we are bringing in more targeted measures rather than the universality of what was done in the immediate aftermath of the energy crisis resulting from Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the impact that had on general supply lines of gas and oil and the way that had such a destabilising impact that pushed energy prices to where the Government had to intervene and react. That has largely stabilised in terms of both oil and gas generally, but they are still at an elevated level by comparison to where they were prior to the invasion. That is why we recognise that as being the new reality of the future. Therefore, the economic response of the State supports have to factor that in for the long term. That is why this year we moved away from the one-off payments.

There is also the exceptional needs payment, which is always a backup for people who have issues particular to them. The Department of Social Protection is always mindful of that. I thank Senators for their contributions. I hope the Bill can now pass with their support and that we address this aspect of clean air.

I thank the Minister of State. I referenced rural communities, but I would like to highlight another aspect of the Bill that he might clarify. Residents living in flat complexes like Pearse House or Markiewicz House cannot retrofit or insulate their flats. The local authority has to do it for them, but that is just not going to happen in the next 20 years. They are living in conditions where the windows are rattling, the doors are thin and sometimes cannot be closed and when they swell up they cannot be opened. Honestly, the doors have wind and cold coming through them. Those people's bills are going up as they try to heat a flat that is extremely poorly insulated. Is the Minister of State saying this Bill will not look after them at all? Can he give some assurance on that?

I can absolutely give the Senator assurance that there is nothing in this legislation or in the amendment to the original legislation that will have any impact on the homeowner or will put any extra responsibility or burden on them or open up any legal route to penalise them for how they heat their homes. That is a stated fact. However in the future for those residents, the local authorities are engaged and Government funding is being provided on an ongoing basis. We have very significant targets in terms of the number of homes which must be retrofitted to reduce our CO2 emissions in line with our 2030 targets, onwards to 2040 and beyond to get to net zero by 2050.

We are adamant that we will get there. There are two streams for the State to do that, the first of which involves commercial and residential properties that are in the ownership of the State, including State buildings like Leinster House. The State is very clear that it has an obligation to upgrade both residential stock and State-owned properties, which it is doing and will continue to do. On the domestic side, the State cannot carry all of the burden when it comes to privately owned facilities but very significant supports are provided through the SEAI for deep retrofits. A lot of that involves using insulation or using a different methodology for the heat source. It is about getting an airtight entity first and then using heat pumps as a means of removing any use of fossil fuels to heat the home. Earlier this week the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, announced a new suite of grants which aim to assist people who would not have the wherewithal to do a full deep retrofit, which in the current climate would probably cost €60,000 to €80,000. The Minister is now providing supports for homes that could ultimately get to a standard of airtightness that would be able to accommodate a heat pump. He is going to provide financial support through grants for the replacement of windows and doors. That will have a very significant impact in getting people on the journey towards retrofitting their homes on a staged basis rather than all at once.

Regarding the tenants Senator Andrews talked about who are in large, multi-unit facilities, that is the responsibility of the local authority. I know there is engagement between the Department and the local authority. I am sure the Senator, through his office, may be able to put some pressure on the local authority. I will happily engage with him, if he wants, and we will see how we can assist in that. That is something the Government is very clear on. Local authority stock must be brought up to a very significant standard in terms of reducing the use of fossil fuels and bringing it to a level of airtightness which, when it is done, will have the impact of reducing the burden of cost on those who wish to have some quality of life in a home that is fit for purpose and warm in the first instance.

The Department and the local authority are probably engaging with each other. However, they are not engaging with the residents who live in these flat complexes. Within minutes of here, we could walk to St. Andrew's Court, Leo Fitzgerald House, Macken Street, Macken Villas, Conway Court, Pearse House, Markiewicz House, Glovers Court, York Street or Mercer Street Upper. That encompasses thousands of residents and thousands of families living in conditions where there is no airtightness. The local authority does not seem to have any intention of heating, retrofitting or insulating flats or apartments for residents. In fact, Gallery Quay was only built 15 or 20 years ago. Residents had to be moved out at one stage because the construction was so poor. Even today, residents in Gallery Quay have a situation where the windows are swollen and do not fit the frame. There are pools of water and there are gusts of wind coming in. They do not see any of this. I know the Minister of State is particularly hard-working and committed. The difficulty is that the local authority is not talking to residents and does not have a plan in place for residents living in flat complexes. We are within a five-minute walk of any of those flat complexes. They are expected to live in conditions with dampness, mould, rot, rats and constant leaks. It is appalling. They have nothing to look forward to because if the door is damaged, they will come out and plane it and put a rubber strip on it but within a week or two it is back.

It is unacceptable that people living in flat complexes are neglected and forgotten about. Ultimately it comes down to the Government not pushing the local authorities as much as it should. None of us would want to live in these conditions and we would not accept them. I do not know how there is not rioting and revolution among people living in the flats. What they have to put up with is completely unacceptable. I accept that the Bill will not have any impact on them but something has to be done for residents in flat complexes because the local authorities are not doing anything.

I am aware of the Senato's interest in this regard and he has been a very strong advocate for people who live in flats and people in social housing. They have rewarded him on occasion for the work he does. This is important and he has raised an issue that has wider connotations. It has more to do with the upgrade and maintenance of the basic fibre and fabric of the structure of these multi-unit accommodation facilities rather than the airtightness or climate change aspects, which is the point of the warmer homes scheme.

Last year, approximately €90 million was spent by the Department of housing under the energy efficiency retrofit programme and it supported almost 2,700 local authority owned property retrofits. Of these, approximately 90% were fitted with heat pumps so they are more likely to be individual properties. In this year's budget we have put another 50% on top of this in funding and we are up to €140 million. This is targeting approximately 3,500 local authority properties throughout the State. By 2030 we hope to have brought approximately 36,500 State-owned residential properties to a high standard in terms of the retrofit that will make the homes warmer and more energy efficient.

While this has a positive impact, it does not speak to the issue the Senator has raised, which is more about the State's response to bringing flat complexes up to a standard. He knows the area much better than me but I am conscious of it from going in and out of the city, as I have been doing for many years. There was significant demolition and rebuilding around Dolphin's Barn and, more famously, Ballymun went through a significant transformation a number of years ago. The area I am most familiar with is Dolphin's Barn and there are probably others. We also need to look at this in terms of providing privately- and publicly-owned new homes, which is something we are driving very hard. We have to look to these older buildings as well and try to ensure we have the capacity to bring them to a standard.

I am taken by the point the Senator has raised. It is no different to a poor-quality school environment for teachers and kids. If their homes are not to a standard as well, it does take away from people's quality of life and leads to all sorts of other social issues. I know the Senator will advocate for a programme of rebuilding or upgrading homes.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.