Absolutely.

What the Minister is saying is not the same as what is in the circular given to local authorities. For the sake of clarity, if a local authority has a target of 50 units, it can have a pipeline of 75 units without going back to the Department.

That is stated in the circular. Every single property beyond those 75 units, no matter what it costs, has to go to the Department for individual sanction. That is what the circular says. That will take time and is causing problems. Second, the Minister introduced a new and much more restrictive set of criteria. One criterion is that all other options have to be exhausted before the tenant in situ scheme can commence. That will cause significant delays. The Minister has also imposed a CAS-only purchase option on app…

It does not exist.

None of those-----

None of those are paying cost rents.

The Housing Agency has not been able to sell any homes to approved housing bodies. Will the Minister explain that?

The circular states that for acquisitions above the local authority allocation, plus 50%, advance approval will be needed to be obtained from the Department. That is in flat contradiction to what the Minister said. The cost-rental tenant in situ scheme was meant to be that the Housing Agency would purchase the property, sell it to an approved housing body and the rent would be reduced to a cost rent. The last time I checked in with the Minister and the Housing Agency, not a single property had been sold on to an ap…

However, they are not cost-rental tenancies. First, the Minister is restricting and causing further delays to tenan ts in situ for social housing. One year and a half in, the Minister is essentially admitting he got it wrong with the cost-rental tenant in situ scheme and is now trying to scramble to introduce amending legislation. What he has said is different from what is in the circular. Will he ask the Secretary General to issue a new circular in line with what he said, not what was issued to local authorities e…

It is not because you are not loud enough. Everybody else is too loud.

What about the Attorney General?

You are too embarrassed to address the question.

We tabled 80 amendments to the legislation, which you rejected.

You rejected 80 amendments to the legislation.

He is too embarrassed to even address the question, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

What about treating the homeowners with dignity and respect?

Again.

The Tánaiste could have spoken up for the homeowners.

I apologise, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

No, because of your policies.