Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and will be discussed together.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(3) The Agency may, in consultation with a Minister of the Government having functions in relation to a sector of the economy, develop proposals for investment in that sector in order to support economic activity and employment.”.

I am sorry for being a little late. I proposed this amendment on Committee Stage and there was a wide-ranging discussion that went beyond my own amendment. I know Deputy Doherty had other significant amendments that really amounted to the same thing. This amendment is to give an explicit function to the National Treasury Management Agency for a range of different matters with regard to the use of funds that will be put into the Future Ireland Fund, and funds we generate by investments to develop our regions, provide for additional resources to address the dire social and affordable housing needs we have in this country, other infrastructural developments and so on.

I was particularly explicit with regard to this Report Stage amendment, which is, in effect, the same amendment we debated on Committee Stage last week. I would like to see an explicit role being given to the agency to "develop proposals for investment in that sector in order to support economic activity and employment". It would obviously be up to the Government of the day to identify the sectors that would require particular support. My view is that our SME base and indigenous enterprise will need additional State support to address the innovation and productivity gaps that are very present.

We know we have an excessive reliance, in terms of decent jobs in this country, on jobs generated by the foreign direct investment sector. There are issues in our indigenous enterprise sector and there is a spectrum of indigenous enterprises, extending from high-performing Enterprise Ireland clients to locally traded services. My focus is on how we can develop innovative, productive SMEs to allow them to remain, grow and scale here in Ireland. We have an enormous reliance on foreign direct investment jobs. The reason we are deciding in this House to create this fund in the first place is the excess corporation tax receipts we have generated and will, in all likelihood, continue to generate into the future. That in itself shows the phenomenal performance of the FDI sector but also the vulnerabilities in terms of good jobs, the OECD process we are going through and the uncertainty around the level of corporation tax revenue that will be generated and available to us into the future.

There should be an explicit function for the NTMA around regional development. As I said on Committee Stage, we know that Enterprise Ireland generated jobs but last year the bulk of those jobs were generated outside Dublin. It is not the first time that has happened. That has been the case for a number of years. In some ways, I think Enterprise Ireland is an underrated enterprise agency. IDA Ireland attracts significantly more attention. Enterprise Ireland is doing very hard work in every town and county to generate the kinds of jobs and support the kinds of businesses that we need in this enterprise economy.

I argue for the acceptance of my amendment, which is required. The arguments from the Minister, Deputy McGrath, on Committee Stage last week seemed to be that he did not want to give the NTMA any explicit riding instructions or insert in primary legislation anything that might, in some way, tie its hands in the future. We know what the challenges will be in the future and this is one of them. As a Parliament, we need to provide the NTMA with the explicit position of this House, that we believe regional development should be at the core of what it does and that regional development and local indigenous enterprise development here in Ireland should be at the core of how this fund uses the resources to achieve the best possible outcomes for our society and economy.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Nash outlined the substance of his amendment. My amendment is very similar. It relates to the investment strategy under the Future Ireland Fund and would provide a focus for the investment strategy with respect to the Future Ireland Fund towards domestic investment in the State. As I outlined on Committee Stage and Second Stage, I believe the establishment of funds is appropriate. However, I have serious concerns regarding this legislation, as it is far too rigid and provides stipulations regarding the level of investment without due regard to other factor in the economy, particularly with respect to housing, which has been an abject failure under this Government. For that reason, we have not been able to support this legislation because the Government has not accepted any of the proposals we put forward on Committee Stage.

Reverting to the Future Ireland Fund and the investment strategy, at present the only specification under the investment strategy is that moneys may be invested inside or outside the State. As we are all too aware, the State is suffering from a chronic housing shortage as well as infrastructure deficits. These deficits are now posing a real and significant threat to the competitiveness of our economy and the living standards of our people. There is a risk that money allocated to this fund will be predominantly invested abroad in search of higher interest yields but with a massive opportunity cost to the State. There is an opportunity available to invest this money here in critical infrastructure and in less economically-developed regions, such as my region of the north west. There is an opportunity to invest in our offshore wind capacity, a national priority that cannot be wasted, providing the potential for us to secure energy independence, create jobs and build shared national wealth. There is also an opportunity to invest in affordable housing in our communities and the infrastructure around it that is critical to pulling the State out of the crisis it has been plunged into by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and by the policies that both of those parties have developed over the last number of years.

Under this Bill, the Government legislates for annual contributions to the fund that will grow to €5.4 billion by 2030, with an additional €2 billion being invested in that year in the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. We are, therefore, talking about contributions of approximately €7.4 billion by 2030. It would be a missed opportunity for other jurisdictions to benefit from investments under this fund while the State continues to face significant challenges in the areas of housing and infrastructure. These challenges are holding back the economy and our people. Instead of creating a fund that will focus its investments abroad, the Government should use the windfall corporation tax receipts to create a fund that will focus investment on infrastructure here in Ireland, one that will give a return to the fund itself. Crucially, the fund should not be structured in a way such that the transfer of money to it will take priority over other pressing issues in society, such as the infrastructure and housing deficits. That goes to the core of our opposition to the Bill drafted by the Minister.

The idea of using the windfall corporation tax receipts to create a fund that will focus investments into infrastructure here in Ireland is not a view shared only by Sinn Féin and some other parties in opposition. It is also shared by organisations like the Nevin Economic Research Institute, NERI, and the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC. Under the stewardship of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Governments, our housing crisis has reached diabolical and mammoth proportions. Today, we see another indicator of the failure of this Government, if one were ever wanted, although I am sure many Government members are popping champagne in Government Buildings as they see house prices increasing by another 7%. Looking at the track record of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in Government and their diabolical policies on housing, we can only surmise that their ambition is to get the results they are getting. They are pushing up house prices beyond the reach of ordinary families and workers, pushing up rents beyond the reach of people who are struggling to pay their rent and putting social housing beyond the reach of many. The lived experience of 14,000 people who are in emergency accommodation testifies to that.

The Government has secured its objective - if we want to call it that - by seeing another massive increase in house prices, this time by 7%. Is it any wonder that so many people have decided that this country is not for them as they no longer have hope in it and have packed their bags and found new homes in Australia, Canada and elsewhere? That speaks to the core of this legislation. The Government, in this Bill, is so out of touch with our housing and infrastructure needs that it sacrifices those needs because under this Bill, the fund may be invested outside the country. We tabled a reasonable amendment that would direct the strategy of investment to pay attention to the needs of this State but the Government voted against it, and I am sure it will do the same again.

Over the years, I have asked how bad it needs to get before the penny drops for the Government. If we take housing, the average price of a house in the State is €333,000 and it is €446,000 in the Dublin region. Governments go into huddles, slap themselves on the back and say “Good on yourself” and “Fair play”, that they are doing the right thing and that it is working. It is not working. To pay €460,000 for a house in Dublin is not working for anybody who is working in Tesco or for any teacher or any garda who is on the beat. This Government is not working for them; it has failed them. This legislation again underpins that failure and the fact that the Government is so out of touch on housing. The impact of its policies over the last number of years is crippling a section of Irish society and it has forced others to give up hope of having a home in the country of their birth.

This is a sensible amendment. It would ensure that the investment fund that would be established would at least be focused on resolving the growing housing and infrastructure deficits our people and economy face. It is about boosting productive capacity in our economy and contributing to building the economy and a society that works for all. Do I think the Government will support the amendment? Based on its track record, I would be surprised if it supported it.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies opposite for their constructive engagement on the Bill so far, particularly on Committee Stage when we had a good and lengthy discussion on the different sections, the purpose of setting up these two new funds and the different perspectives on how the funds might be managed. I thank the Members for their co-operation in facilitating the swift progression of this legislation.

Section 7 is an important section of the Bill and it is appropriate that we discussed it at length on Committee Stage. As I outlined then in response to these proposed amendments, I believe the design we have arrived at for the investment strategy for the fund is the right policy approach to suit the purpose of this fund. This approach will allow the future Ireland fund to be built into a long-term, revenue-generating financial asset to offset costs that will come over the years ahead. It is important to remind ourselves of the various bodies, both domestic and international, that have supported the Government's legislation and the setting up of these two new funds. While this is not an exhaustive list, it includes the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, the Central Bank of Ireland, the European Commission, the OECD, a whole range of different ratings agencies and many others.

If we were not to set up the future Ireland fund in a manner designed to build it into a long-term, revenue-generating financial asset, these expected known and unknown costs would have to be met with resources that would be available at that time. This would mean there would be less money in the future to invest in the things people are calling on the Government to provide or, indeed, higher costs for future generations. We must acknowledge that these known fiscal challenges are on the horizon, particularly those related to rapidly shifting demographics. While it is of course very welcome that people are living for longer, the ageing of the Irish population in the coming decades will have significant fiscal consequences. Shifting demographics in the decades ahead will result in a slower pace of economic growth and increased expenditure demands, in particular in relation to pensions, health and long-term care, putting significant pressure on the public finances.

While Ireland's demographic profile is relatively favourable at present, it is set to age rapidly over the coming decades, bringing us closer to the EU norm. The European Commission's 2024 ageing report shows that while there are currently approximately four people of working age for each person over the age of 65 in Ireland, this figure projected to fall to just over two by 2050. That is not to assume that somebody over the age of 65 is not going to make an economic contribution. Of course, many of them do and will in the future, but it does point to an overall trend that is simply undeniable.

My Department’s latest projection, which was set out in the stability programme update, estimates that age-related expenditure will increase from approximately 22% of GNI* in 2022 to 28% in 2050, an increase of 6%. Pension expenditure will account for the greater share of this, rising by 4% of GNI* between now and 2050. I want to give the NTMA the capacity to earn the best possible financial return for the State from the investment of the funds we entrust it with. I have full faith in its competence and ability to do so. To do this, we are giving the NTMA the discretion to invest inside or outside the State on a commercial basis. The intention to use the resources of the future Ireland fund to invest in specific forms of economic activity would undermine the reason for the establishment of the fund.

We all recognise that significant costs will arise down the line, such as the costs of demographic change, digitalisation, decarbonisation and other costs to the State. The policy aim is to establish a financial asset for the State to deal with such future liabilities. Such funds can only grow to a significant scale where consistent payments are made over time, allowing for an appropriate long-term investment strategy and the benefits of compounding so that the fund can reach an appropriate scale. As I indicated in my letter to the finance committee earlier this week, this could reach more than €100 billion by the time it is available to be drawn down in the early 2040s. These figures are, of course, estimates and represent outputs from draft modelling by the NTMA, with assumptions used for a number of inputs, size and timing of inflows, asset class weights, asset class returns and risks. These can vary significantly but the figure gives a sense of the potential.

We all know there are risks. Many uncertainties that we simply cannot predict may or may not materialise over the period ahead.

Based on what we know today, however, the setting up of these funds is a sensible step. It is a necessary step in my view and it will definitely help future Governments to meet at least some of the costs we know are definitely coming our way. Building a financial asset allows the State to use the proceeds of the fund to have the resources available to support the Government of the day in dealing with these issues. We do not pretend that this will solve all the expenditure likely to be incurred by the State in the 2040s, but having financial assets in place will certainly be of enormous assistance. We will all benefit from a defrayal of such costs - the current generation, people of working age, pensioners, future pensioners, future people of working age and young people today.

On the wider issue of investment, there is so much we could discuss, including the Government's national development plan, with €65 billion provided out to the end of this decade, and much more, including the role of the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, which, as Deputies will be aware, is focused on investment in Ireland. It has had a mandate since 2014 to invest on a commercial basis to support economic activity and employment. It has a discretionary portfolio of €8.7 billion and a directed portfolio of €6.3 billion.

At this point in the discussion, I will highlight the recommendation from another committee of the House, namely, the Committee on Budgetary Oversight, which recommended that the fund be solely invested outside of Ireland to protect against stoking inflation and lobbying. That was the reason cited by that committee, which has representation on a cross-party basis from this House. It is another important input into the debate we are having on this issue again this evening.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I made the point that there may be a slightly lower return from domestic investment than from international investment. The NTMA will feel it has to get the most competitive returns available, even though there is an opportunity cost lost. Amendment No. 2 does not direct it to invest in the domestic economic development or sectors such as housing, infrastructure, energy and water. It states that the fund should "have regard to the promotion of", which, in my view, would give it additional flexibility whereby even though there may be a reduced yield, it would be important in terms of the opportunity lost. This is not a zero-sum game. We can put away this money and we will have it in the future to pay for the cost of ageing from 2041 onwards. We can also deal with some of those costs through other measures, such as PRSI, some of which the Government has done, which means that the issue with the costs of the deficit in the Social Insurance Fund will not now kick in for another five years out to 2041. There other ways to deal with that as well.

The point is that if we do not invest in the infrastructure now, it will impact on the competitiveness of the economy. Therefore, the receipts on which we will be dependent at that point will be much less and diminished. We may be satisfied that we have a pool of money sitting in a fund, but if the sacrifice made for doing that is that we have the consequences of the infrastructure and housing deficits, then that is a problem.

I made the point that it is impossible for the Government to meet targets of anywhere near 250,000 homes over the next five years unless it increases the capital ceilings. Under this proposal, there will be an Exchequer deficit in the next two years. This again shows that the Government does not want to budge and look at resources we have which could help solve the housing crisis and unlock some of the deficit bottlenecks we have in the State.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Doherty for his contribution. We will discuss the issue of housing in more detail in the next group of amendments.

It is fair to point out the role of the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, which is focused on investment in the Irish economy across the four key investment themes of climate, housing and enabling investments, scaling indigenous businesses, and food and agriculture. Earlier this week, we had further evidence of the good work being done by ISIF in terms of the announcement it made about new investments in the indigenous economy.

I am very anxious that we allow the NTMA to do what I know it is capable of doing, namely, to earn the best possible return for the State to meet costs that we know are definitely coming our way. On Committee Stage, I put one figure on the record from the recent ageing report about the growth in our population with which everybody is familiar. Between 2014 and 2023, the population of Ireland grew by 14%. The largest change was seen in the over-65 age group, which increased by 37% over the same period. That figure gives us an indication of what is going to happen over the years ahead. We have to plan for the future.

I am fully in agreement that we have to invest today in the infrastructure we need. We have taken some of the windfall corporate tax receipts and added them to our national development plan, but we also have to provide for needs we know are going to come over the years ahead. That is an important contribution to make. The NTMA will use its best judgment in line with the investment strategy. That may involve investment in the State, but it will also involve investment outside the State. The evidence of sovereign wealth funds internationally is that the more we tie their hands and restrict their ability to invest on a global basis, the greater the negative impact on the return they get for their respective countries. I want to give the NTMA the flexibility to make that decision and get the best possible return.

5 o’clock

This has to be seen alongside everything else the Government is doing in terms of investment.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Future Ireland Fund investment strategy shall have regard to the promotion of the economic development and stability of the State, across sectors including but not limited to housing, infrastructure, energy and water.”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 12, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “ “designated housing project” has the meaning assigned to it by section 21;”.

I will speak to all of the grouped amendments. These amendments relate to the infrastructure, climate and nature fund and under the legislation, €2 billion will be contributed to the fund each year until 2030. It provides that the fund can be drawn down to support State expenditure in 2026 or afterwards, where there is judged to be a significant deterioration in the economic or fiscal position of the State. Under this legislation moneys from the infrastructure, climate and nature fund can be drawn down to fund environmental projects. This amendment means it would also be allowed be drawn down to fund designated housing projects. Under its provisions, up to 22.5% of the fund may be drawn down to support climate- and nature-related projects in any given year from 2026 up to a maximum of €3.15 billion between 2026 and 2030. This provision is in recognition of the likely need for additional investment in environmental projects to ensure the State meets its emission targets. This was a clear win for the Green Party at the Cabinet table but the fact that such drawdowns are allowed to fund environmental projects draws attention to the elephant in the room, which is housing. We are in the grips of a housing crisis, in case the Government has not understood or seen, and it is of epic proportions. Generations of our people are locked out of access to affordable housing and locked into an out-of-control rental system facing crippling rents and little hope of being able to buy their own first home in which they can build a future for themselves and their families. All the while the Government pats itself on the back. Only today the CSO reported there has been an increase in house prices of more than 7%. This is a staggering increase and evidence that the Government's policy all along was to jack up house prices with the only winners being the developers and investors. The losers are the ordinary people of Ireland. The average house price in this State now stands at €333,000 and has reached €446,000 in the Dublin region. The Government and the Minister for housing crow about how their housing plan is working, how they have turned a corner and all of the other adjectives they throw out every day. However, they are totally and utterly detached from the ordinary struggles that ordinary people the length and breadth of this State face day in, day out. There is no hope of affording a home in this city or in many other places. It is universally accepted that the Government's targets are far too low and that its housing plan targets are way off the mark. In fact, many of the targets are not even being met. At the same time, families in my own county and elsewhere are watching their homes crumble before their eyes, forced to deal with a failing redress scheme that is leaving them short-changed, desperate and in distress. We need a massive increase in State investment in affordable and social housing. Why then, is no provision made for drawdown from the infrastructure, climate and nature fund for the purpose of funding desperately needed housing projects across the State between now and 2030? The only possible explanation, because the Minister will vote against this, is that the Government does not understand the depth of the housing crisis it has created or that it simply does not care. The amendment is in recognition of the fact that, given the chronic housing shortage that we have and that our people are facing, this fund should be unlocked in the same manner as for environmental projects to fund the housing projects so desperately needed in the years ahead. It would allow the Minister for housing to specify designated housing projects in a similar manner to which Ministers may specify designated environmental projects under this legislation, and for money to be drawn down from the fund for that purpose.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 relate to how the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and the Minister consider instances where early drawdowns or reduced contributions of the fund are warranted. It seeks to achieve that in addition to indicators such as economic growth, public finances and unemployment being considered, that housing and infrastructure deficits being faced by the State should also be considered. The legislation provides for significant contributions to these funds on behalf of the Exchequer. These of course come at opportunity costs, which are investments that could have been made elsewhere, for example in housing delivery. These amendments seek to ensure that the chronic housing shortage and infrastructure deficits we face factor into these decisions. There can be no argument that addressing this housing crisis is not an option, but a necessity for our people. It is unfortunately not a necessity that this Government has understood or acted upon hereto now. I commend this group of amendments Sinn Féin has tabled to the Dáil and call for support for them from across the House.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I rise to support the Sinn Féin amendment No. 3 and the other ones included, up to amendment No. 7. It does not make sense, although it probably makes sense to me who is running this Government. The tail is wagging the dog, completely, totally and utterly. We can raid this fund any time we like for environmental issues, pet projects of the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and the ideology he is following that is destroying our economy. He fundamentally refuses to consider building road projects. This amendment is about housing, which is a massive crisis. However, the Government - and Fine Gael has been in government for 13 years - obviously does not want to deal with the housing crisis. I have come to that conclusion lately because it could not be so diabolical otherwise. It fundamentally does not want to house people. To be fair, from the 1940s to the 1990s Fianna Fáil built houses, but Fine Gael does not want to build the houses. The Government policy now makes sense. They do not want to build the houses. We can move mountains and enact any kind of legislation to house people from other countries who come here as refugees or asylum seekers, but we cannot and will not build for ourselves - full stop, we will not. I have issues. I also see where this fund should be used, which is where there is diabolical and bad infrastructure in places, and that would enable people to build their own houses. There are many small towns, villages and small hamlets that do not have any treatment plants whatsoever. If somebody wants to build their own house in that area they cannot get planning because of lack of capacity in the infrastructure, namely the sewer. Surely to God, we should be able to use some of this fund. While I agree with the principle of the fund we should be able to use some of it to unlock the potential for young people to house themselves given we are in such a state. Everything else the Government is doing, and the Green Party policy driving carbon tax and everything else, is adding to the cost of building houses. It is adding to the costs. As Deputy Doherty asked, what did we do with the mica and the other situation with the concrete? We let CRH off scot-free and put a 5% or 6% levy on every tonne or metre of concrete. The price of concrete has gone through the roof.

We are trying to give incentives and have done so with the non-payment of levies on planning fees for a window from April to whenever. It is due to run out shortly. I hope it will be extended. On the other hand, we are piling on the costs. The cost of insulation is unbelievable because it is oil driven and because of all the taxes and rises on oil, including carbon tax.

The Government is running around in the Cabinet room. I would love to be a fly on the wall. The Green Party is obviously running around with a big stick and Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are running around in front of them and dancing or the Minister, Deputy Ryan, has a fiddle and they are merrily dancing to his tune, any tune he decides to play. It is normally a poor fiddle with very little live music. It is only like Labhraí Loinsigh, when an elder tree was cut down to make a harp for a man with two horse's ears. Someone was always called in, a barber, to shave 11 of them at Christmas time every year. There were straws and whoever drew the short straw was used. That person was always pulled over the River Suir in aice mo theach sa bhaile and that was all we ever saw of him. One man escaped and he cut the throat of the Labhraí Loinsigh. He went and confessed his sins to the elder bush and when the tree was cut down all the fiddle would play was "bhí dhá chluas capaill ar Labhraí Loinsigh". Labhraí Loinsigh had two horse's ears.

The fiddle and tune the Government is dancing to from the Minister, Deputy Ryan, has limited music. It is not even classical music, not to mind the bit of Irish ceol I like. The Government is dancing to his merry tune all the time. If anyone had any doubts about it, the refusal to accept amendments like these is concrete evidence that he is getting his way. He can take money out for his little pet projects in the constituencies of his colleague TDs, trying to save their bacon and we cannot take out a few bob to build a house or infrastructure. Is mór an trua é sin. It is a great pity. It is scandalous.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not be supporting amendments No. 6 and 7 but they give me a segue to raise a concern I have. I hope the Minister will be able to allay it in his closing remarks.

The Future Ireland Fund and Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund Bill is hugely important. The Minister has championed it and I commend him on it. It will allow us to protect pensions and the health service in the future. It will provide sustained investment in transport, nature restoration, community facilities and affordable sustainable energy solutions. The Minister will probably point to the sustainable and responsible strategy run by the NTMA and ISIF. I have had a look at it. Balanced regional development does not feature in it, nor do I see in it a weighting for communities that have paid the biggest price for progress or decline. In that regard, I point to economic collapse and challenges or, in the case of the midlands, for example, the fast-tracking of decarbonisation for the midland counties. Longford and Offaly have paid the biggest price. As it stands, as a TD for the midlands, there is nothing to convince me that the two funds will prioritise or safeguard the future interests of the midlands and County Longford and ensure balanced regional development. The concern will always be that the funds will be used for the vanity projects of the day, be it another runway for Dublin Airport or a further expansion of the Luas. We have plenty of practical examples of that at the moment, such as the delay in the upgrade of the N4 from Mullingar to Roosky. Will the Minister address that issue and give some reassurance that both funds will ensure balanced regional development?

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support these amendments in relation to the ability to draw down funding. We are in the middle of the worst housing crisis in the history of the State and we will not having the ability to access vital funding. We have the highest house prices, rent and homelessness figures in the history of the State. We have almost 8,000 people on housing lists in Cork. The Government's affordable housing projects are a joke. That is the only way to describe them. Hundreds of people are looking to buy an affordable house in Cork. To be fair to Cork City Council, it has hit the targets the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, set, but the targets are low. Some people who do not qualify for social housing cannot get a mortgage because house prices are so high. These are the people who are trapped in the middle. We should be building houses and the Government should be investing more and have the ability to access this fund to deliver those houses. As the Minister will be aware, these are the people who are trapped in the middle. They feel let down by the Government. These are the people who, as the previous Taoiseach said, got up early in the morning and went to work, but when they came home at night they did not have anywhere to go, except the back room, living with their parents in box bedrooms. That is where they go. Does the Government have any understanding of how bad the crisis is? Figures were published today for the cost of a new build in the Minister's constituency. They are off the charts. I advise him to look at the figures for the cost of building new houses now. The Minister is a Carrigaline man. A TD could not buy a new house in Carrigaline now, not to mind an ordinary person, with the price of housing.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not true.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should check the figures published today. He probably has not seen them as he was here going through the Bill. I ask him to come back to me tomorrow. Everyone knows the target figures set by the Government and the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, of just over 30,000 houses a year are too low. Then we hear the Minister say the Government will hold a review and look at the data. I do not know. It just shows how out of touch the Minister is if he thinks 30,000 houses a year will solve the housing crisis. The man has no understanding of what is happening on the ground. He is so out of touch.

These are not our figures. Every group, AHB and local authority, as well as the private sector, is saying the same thing. The figures released today show that one in every four houses in Cork is not being bought by owner-occupiers. They are being bought by investment funds, vulture funds, cuckoo funds and landlords. These are houses families should be living in. This Government is allowing loopholes to exist in order that these funds can buy them up and block ordinary people from living there. The Government brought out-----

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the help-to-buy scheme that Sinn Féin will abolish?

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Four thousand children are homeless. Is that your best contribution? Some 4,100 children are homeless and that is your best contribution.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You will not help the situation.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fine Gael has been in government for 13 years.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil has been in government for seven or eight years with it. You have made 4,000 children and 13,000 adults homeless and that is your best contribution.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin will make it worse.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that is all you can contribute today, you would be better off going back to your constituency because you should be ashamed of yourself.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies, please speak through the Chair.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough.

To get back to the point, on derelict and vacant sites, according to the census there are 163,000 vacant properties. A number of years ago, I got a site in Blarney Street put on the derelict sites register. I have mentioned it here a number of times. This butcher's shop was empty for 33 years and because it went onto the derelict sites register and Cork City Council started to charge the owner 7% a year, he has now turned the building into a two-bedroom property and a three-bedroom property. The derelict sites register worked in that case, but the problem is that most local authorities do not have a derelict sites register and if they do, they do not put buildings on it. Other local authorities do not collect the levy. Local authorities tell me the problem is that they do not have the staff or resources and they have to use compulsory purchase. The Minister is a Corkman, like me. He should go down to North Main Street. He should be ashamed of his life with the way the Government has left North Main Street. Buildings are crumbling in the heart of Cork city. The problem is that it is on the northside of Cork city. In Blackpool, Shandon Street and North Main Street, buildings are crumbling. They should be purchased compulsorily and turned into housing and businesses. Instead, speculators and developers have bought them and left them to crumble for 20 years.

What has happened in Cork is an absolute scandal.

To go back to the infrastructure side of things, is there a commitment to money for the northern ring road? At the time of the 2007 crash the northern ring road was in the capital investment programme to be delivered and then it was taken out. I think last year the Government allocated something like €100,000 - I stand to be corrected - to look to map out how the road would be built. It was €100,000. We need a northern ring road. The problem is when there is a crash on the southern ring road or in the tunnel, people have no where to go and are trapped for hours. When people hear me talk about the northern ring road they say, "Ah, he's a northside councillor or TD" - I am, and I am fighting for it. I am not just fighting for the northside, however, I am fighting for the whole of Cork because that is a vital piece of infrastructure for which we should be able to access funding.

I will finish and I know I am out of time. We need regeneration in Blackpool and Mayfield and we need money for the infrastructure for that. We have brown water in Cork and we need money for that. We need a proper light rail because we have none at the moment.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Doherty for tabling these amendments and all the other Deputies for their contributions. We had a good discussion of this issue on Committee Stage. We do not agree entirely, that is for sure, but I set out then and am happy to set out now the reasons we are adopting the approach we are.

I reiterate at the outset that housing will benefit from the establishment of the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. This fund will be spent on infrastructure over time. We have to remind ourselves that the principal purpose of this fund is to ensure we can maintain a consistent, high level of public capital investment into the future, including in housing. That is the first and principal objective of this fund.

We can all agree there are lessons to be learned from the past when investment in housing and other areas of critical public infrastructure was significantly reduced because the funding was not there. This created a stop-start approach which is not conducive to providing certainty or medium-term strategic planning. This stop-start approach also impacts on the capacity to deliver infrastructure, as skills and competencies in businesses get lost during times of economic downturn and are difficult to replace when economic conditions improve. This fund can be deployed to smoothen this investment cycle and support capital projects, including housing development. As I said in respect of the previous amendment, we have increased capital expenditure from €4.5 billion to its current level today. Our aim is to grow capital expenditure and maintain it at a consistent level to develop and maintain capacity in the building sector and in the delivery of houses. Having this fund in place to be used in a fiscal or economic downturn allows for such capital expenditure to continue ensuring that housing provision will not be impacted as we saw in the past. That is the first point. Housing will be one of the areas which benefits from the establishment of this fund.

Second, this fund and the €3.15 billion earmarked for use between 2026 and 2030 for environmental purposes is not the sum total of Government expenditure. It is just one piece of the overall landscape of Government expenditure. We all recognise the challenges that exist in the housing sector but I believe, when I look at the data and figures, that we are making progress on housing. The Government has put in place a major programme of house building. We are building public homes once again at scale and that is the way it should be. Deputy Gould referred to the house building in Cork. Last year, Cork City Council delivered more than 800 social homes, most of them new-build. That is real progress and is on the back of the work Cork City Council did on the housing waiting lists in recent years and in the waiting list actually falling. I have no doubt the Deputy will acknowledge that. Cork City Council's contribution was part of a national outturn last year of almost 12,000 new social homes delivered, including more than 8,000 new-build homes. More than 4,000 affordable housing supports were delivered by a whole range of different bodies and schemes including approved housing bodies, local authorities, the Land Development Agency, the cost-rental and tenant in situ schemes to name just a few. Thus far, in the shared equity scheme more than 4,000 approvals have been issued since the scheme was launched. We all know of people now who are actually in a position - using the State supports that are there, in some cases a combination of affordable purchase and the help-to-buy scheme, and in other cases a combination of the help-to-buy and shared equity scheme - to bridge that gap and buy a home for the first time. I think it is a sign of real progress.

Yesterday, the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, brought a report to Cabinet and the data is very clear. Looking at mortgages - not just at approvals but I prefer to refer to drawdowns because that means people have actually been able to purchase - there was record growth in mortgage drawdowns by first-time buyers in 2023 with some 25,600 mortgages drawn down during the period. It was at the highest annual level since 2007. This represented some 500 first-time buyer drawdowns every week in 2023. Do we have more to do? Absolutely, we do but all of the evidence points to momentum and to increased activity.

For example, looking at where we are in terms of commencements, there have been 12,000 commencements in quarter 1 of this year. Deputy Mattie McGrath referenced the suspension of development charges and water connection fees. They have been extended and all of the details are on the Department for housing's website. Last year, there were 41,225 planning permissions, which is up 21% on the previous year. We have to work together to make sure we translate that into construction activity and into completions. That means focusing on apprenticeships, labour, funding, having an adequacy of zoned land and having land serviced into the future. All those different elements are absolutely essential to ensuring we can deliver the homes we need.

The amount of money we are spending as a Government is complemented by a range of other sources that we spoke about at length on Committee Stage. The Housing Finance Agency alone has a loan book of €6.7 billion. The Land Development Agency has capital of up to €5 billion. If Deputy Gould looks at the apartments being built on Horgan's Quay in Cork city, it is the first major scheme under way in the city centre since the Elysian apartments of 2008. It is because of the Croí Cónaithe scheme. There will be social, cost rental, and affordable purchase homes there in the heart of Cork city for the first time. That is real progress and there are many other schemes I am confident will get delivered and on-site over the period ahead.

We can all acknowledge the problem but we as a Government can point to action that is delivering a significantly increased scale of output now across the whole different range of tenure types. The overall purpose of this fund is that we will get away from that boom-bust approach to public capital investment, including in housing. I know I will get to speak again in a minute.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister mentioned "evidence-based". Obviously, the Minister is quite an intelligent man and being Minister for Finance, is good with figures. He quoted that Cork City Council delivered 800 additional houses. That is a misprint, that was 800 families. Some 1,000 to 1,200 came on to the housing waiting list the same year. I am not a genius or an expert in maths but if 800 houses are delivered and 1,000 or more come on to the list, that means that 200 people, or families in most of these cases, are actually worse off than they were at the start of the year. These are the facts because I know the facts. I follow them. I deal with people in my clinic every week. The problem is that Cork City Council virtually always hits its targets. The Government's targets are too low. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien's targets are too low. How will the Government solve a crisis if it cannot deliver enough houses to match the people who are coming on the waiting list?

The Minister also references that figures are coming down. Does he know why the housing figures are coming down? It is because the Government considers HAP and RAS to be social housing. I will tell the Minister now, if you are in a HAP tenancy with no guarantee or security of tenure, you could be put out of your home with a couple of months' notice. That is not social housing.

I came from Knocknaheeny. All of my family came from social housing and thank God I was able to buy my own house. Having social housing is a safety net; HAP is not. The Government made that decision.

I ask the Minister to respond on infrastructure. When will we have funding for the northern ring road and light rail in Cork? When will we have funding for regeneration projects in Mayfield and Blackpool? Houses were built in Carrignavar village ten or 15 years ago that cannot be connected to Uisce Éireann because there is no capacity for wastewater. That is just one example of something that is happening across the State. Towns and villages cannot build houses because the Government did not invest in them.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I say this often, but Deputy Gould is 100% right. Earlier, I said the reason the Government is getting the Bill so wrong is it does not understand what is happening in the housing crisis. Deputy Gould put to the Minister what is happening on his doorstep and he seems to think everything is okay. It is far from okay.

Deputy Gould also mentioned the statistics released today. What is the median cost of buying a house in Carrigaline? It is €393,000, which means that half of the houses sold are in excess of that. The cost of an existing house is €390,000, and half of the houses were sold at a higher price. When the Government took office in July 2020, the price of a house was €263,000. House prices for existing houses in Carrigaline have increased by 50% under the Government, and the Minister is even blind to what is happening in his own community. How can we expect the Government to understand the depths of the housing crisis?

There has been a crisis in that community, like in other communities right across the State, since the Government came into office. They are the statistics from the CSO. House prices have increased from €263,000 in the Minister's community to €390,000. That is the median price. The amendments before us argue that the resources we have need to be utilised to support people in building social, affordable and cost rental homes.

The Government can slap itself on the back, give itself the thumbs up and fist bumps all it wants and convince itself that it is doing something right, but people in the Minister's community are locked out of housing. People in my community are locked out of housing, and God help the people who live in the city of Dublin because the prices that are being asked for houses in the city are only within the reach of those who have very serious incomes. That is the problem. This is why the Government is getting the Bill wrong and so many people are hurting the longer Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael remain in government.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am well able to acknowledge the scale of the challenge and Deputy Gould should have the good grace to acknowledge where progress is being made. Progress is being made not just in Cork but all over the country. I will let the Deputy speak to Niall Ó Donnabháin, Brian Geaney or whoever in Cork City Council. They will take him through the numbers. The council is making progress, even on a like-for-like basis.

I knew all about social housing. I was delighted to grow up in a social house. It was a great opportunity and community and I owe the State a huge amount. I know what it is about and the opportunity that it provides for individuals and families. The Government has gone back to building public housing at scheme scale for the first time in a generation.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is HAP social housing?

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course we need to do more, but if the Deputy looks at-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please let the Minister-----

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is not answering.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

HAP is State-supported housing. We can dance on a pinhead about what it is. Of course it is not council housing, but it is State-supported housing in that the State is paying. It is not the ideal. We want people to be in secure affordable homes with long-term secure tenure. That is the State's objective and why we have gone back to building at real scale. A total of 800 social housing units in one year in Cork city is serious output.

We are not putting a cap on the ambition of that local authority or that of others around the country in terms of delivery. Affordable homes are being built in the Deputy's constituency and elsewhere. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Ballincollig and Lehenaghmore where I saw two affordable purchase schemes totalling 115 units. Do we need to do more? We absolutely do, but we are doing that. For a long time, affordable schemes were not being developed but they are now coming through the system.

In response to Deputy Flaherty's point, he raised an issue around regional development. I point to the mandate of the ISIF and its investment strategy, which is about supporting the regions. The fundamental purpose of this fund is to ensure that the NDP can be consistently delivered, irrespective of what happens in the economic cycle and as part of the Estimates process and political decision-making in terms of where that funding is spent.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When Deputy Gould referred to price increases in the Minister's community, he challenged him. House prices in the Minister's community have increased by 50%. There has been an increase of €130,000 for an existing home in the Minister's community, a fact he ignored.

He said the Government is delivering affordable and cost-rental housing. The Government has missed every single target for affordable and cost-rental housing since it came into office. That is a blatant fact. There is no disputing it. Sin é; deireadh an scéal. That is the reality. The reason house prices are going through the roof in the Minister's community, my community and elsewhere is the Government is not dealing with demand.

The Minister said there is no cap on the ambitions of local authorities. That is nonsense. The Government's Estimates place a cap on the Department and, therefore, what it can fund in terms of housing for local authorities. Let us not pretend it is the case that money is not the issue. Of course, money is the issue. I made the point that the Government will not ramp up the level of ambition needed in terms of social, affordable and cost-rental homes without significantly increasing the expenditure levels of capital investment over the next number of years, something the Government is not doing.

Under the fund in the Bill, it is planned to put €6.5 billion away for the future. Some years we will able to do a portion of that. However, if we want to increase investment in social, affordable and cost-rental homes, ensure people in all of our communities can afford to build a house, reverse what is happening under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael where homeownership is collapsing, people are locked out of affordability and into sky-high rents and are giving up on the State because they believe housing is not there to meet their needs and are instead finding other countries to live in, we have to increase the level of investment. The Bill is not allowing the Government the flexibility to do that because the Government puts, as a priority over everything else in law, the transfer of money to the fund as opposed to what we are trying to do, which is to examine what is happening in infrastructure and housing. That is why I will press the amendment.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 12, line 26, to delete “designated environmental projects” and substitute “designated environmental projects or designated housing projects”.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 16, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: "Designated housing projects

21. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage may designate in writing a housing project (in this Part referred to as a "designated housing project") where he or she is satisfied that the project contributes directly or indirectly, or is likely to contribute, to the provision of social or affordable housing.".

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 6 cannot be moved as amendment No. 5 has been negatived.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 19, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"(b) housing and infrastructure deficits,".

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 20, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"(c) housing and infrastructure deficits in relation to such years as the Minister considers appropriate,".

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we have discussed, the Bill provides for the establishment of two funds, that is, the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. These funds were first proposed in response to two trends, namely, the future costs likely to be incurred by the State and the growth of corporation tax receipts in recent years. We all acknowledge that we have seen a significant increase in corporation tax revenue in recent years. That poses significant risks. We in Sinn Féin recognise those risks and are of the view that windfall corporation tax revenues potentially should not be committed to recurring day-to-day spending.

We support the establishment of sovereign funds, particularly a countercyclical investment fund. What matters is how it is designed. This is where the legislation falls short. A total of 0.8% of GDP will be invested in the future Ireland fund from 2024 to 2035. These are significant sums, which will rise, for example, to €5.4 billion in 2030. As I said earlier, this comes at an opportunity cost in respect of moneys that could otherwise be invested in areas such as housing and infrastructure, which we cannot afford to neglect. The State is projected to run an Exchequer deficit in 2026 and 2027. Under this legislation, the State would, while running a deficit, transfer €4.3 billion into the fund in 2026 and €4.5 billion in 2027. We have concerns about the implications for other areas, such as tackling the Government's housing crisis, of enshrining this provision in law.

Under the Government, the rate of homeownership is falling, homelessness is rising and an entire generation is locked out of homeownership. The Government's housing targets are too low and it is failing even to meet some of them. More than 50,000 homes are required each year to meet housing need. Public investment must also rise in order to increase capacity in our health services and hospitals. Our economic climate is destined to change in future years. We could face a scenario whereby this legislation inhibits the public investment needs of the State. As stated, the Bill is far too rigid. It lacks flexibility and risks unintended consequences for the State's fiscal and economic policy. I have made it clear that the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund providing funding for future challenges and current crises would make good use of the significant growth in corporation tax receipts in recent times. However, for the reasons I have outlined previously and today, we will not support the legislation and will vote against it on Fifth Stage.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their co-operation in the consideration of this Bill on Second Stage, in the really good engagement we had on Committee Stage and again today on Report Stage. To those who say they are in favour in principle of a sovereign wealth fund but are against the specific one brought forward by the Government after a huge amount of work, I say, "Please table your alternative".

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government voted against it.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No alternative sovereign wealth fund has actually been tabled by the Opposition party in question.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government voted against the amendment.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill that the Government has brought forward has been widely commended by the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, the Central Bank of Ireland, the European Commission, the OECD and a list of ratings agencies and other independent experts, both domestic and international.

I agree with Deputy Doherty about the risk of using windfall corporate tax receipts inappropriately. We will not do that. It is appropriate to spend some of those receipts now. We are providing for that by enhancing the national development plan by adding €2.25 billion over the coming years for housing, transport infrastructure, investment in education, healthcare and renewable energy, to name a few examples. We must also provide for the future because we would be in a vulnerable position were we, as a Government and a State, not to recognise the risks that are there given the inherent volatility and vulnerability in our corporation tax receipts, from which we are now collecting about €24 billion a year. That was €4 billion a decade ago.

An alarm bell is ringing and we must take heed of it and take on board all of the expert advice that we are getting in that respect. That is why we are setting up two new funds: one is to provide for the future, but not the long-distant future 30 or 40 years away. The demographics will not look after themselves. These are costs that are coming very quickly in the years ahead. I refer to the cost of an ageing population, healthcare, home care and decarbonisation. Those costs must be met. If we do not face up to our responsibilities now, this generation and those who come after us will not thank us because they will be paying far more in the future and future governments will face very difficult decisions to meet those costs.

Second, there is a need to learn the lessons of the past and the boom-bust approach to public capital investment. If we encounter a shock or we have another downturn, which we inevitably will, if we do not set up these funds the response will be to slam the brakes on public spending when it comes to infrastructure. It is the last thing a government should do. When the economy is weak we should invest through the economic cycle, lean against the wind, invest in housing, transport and all of the infrastructure we need. That is what the second fund does. We will be glad of that fund at some point in the future. I commend the Bill to the House. I hope it will receive strong support from across the House. I look forward to bringing it to Seanad Éireann next week.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill will be sent to the Seanad.