Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am delighted to move this Bill. I will start by thanking Deputy Cian O'Callaghan and his parliamentary assistant, Jack Sweeney, and my own parliamentary assistant, Ellen O'Doherty, for their work on this Bill. It is a privilege to bring this Bill before the House on Second Stage; it is my first Bill before the Dáil. It is very apt that it is the Developer Profits Transparency Bill.

The issue that is to hand and why we are bringing forward this Bill is that house prices are completely out of control. We have seen house prices rise year after year. We have seen a double-digit increase in prices whereby house prices are now completely out of reach for most ordinary people in this country. What we are proposing in the Bill is something very straightforward. It is that developers and private builders who are building homes and receive a State subsidy, specifically in relation to the shared equity scheme, are required to publish profit and loss accounts. It is a very straightforward request, and a very straightforward piece of legislation. It is a very common-sense Bill because the State is giving significant funding to private builders, private developers and private investors, and when the State is using public money - taxpayers' money - we need to ensure there is absolute value for money achieved with that investment.

The context of this, of course, is that we have a huge debate ongoing about the viability of the delivery of housing and whether it is viable to build housing in this country for the private market and the private sector. We have seen the argument made by the various construction interests, developer interests and investor interests that there is this very significant viability gap. Figures have been put on it of between €100,000, €150,000 and €200,000 depending on how high the apartment development is going to go. However, if we are really honest here, there is no actual clarity about what the viability gap is because we have not seen the evidence even from those who are putting forward the claims. We have seen estimates depending on certain projects, but we have seen no real independent analysis of what this viability gap is. We can deconstruct the argument around viability even further when we question what viability means. If we are honest again, what viability means is profitability because the question that the developers in the private sector are asking is this: are they making sufficient profit to deliver housing? Then, we have to peel that back further and ask why we are making policy that uses public money essentially to increase the profits of the private market. This is the fundamental question. We are not necessarily achieving value for money, and we are certainly not achieving genuinely affordable housing.

What we are trying to do with this Bill is bring transparency. We are trying to bring transparency to the housing market, particularly where the State is playing a significant role in that market by subsidising development, contributing to the ability of people to buy a home and providing funds to developers who are building homes. While the Bill is restricted to the shared equity scheme, we are bringing it forward in the hope that this is extended further in time. Wherever public subsidies are going to the private sector, there should be transparency.

In this Bill, we are not arguing against private development or, in this instance, the role of State subsidies to the private sector. While we are opposed to that in principle, in this case, we are putting forward a very straightforward Bill that provides for transparency in the amount of profit private developers are making, where they are receiving a State subsidy in the shared equity scheme and that contribution is being made to the viability of their development.

The Government has said it is all in favour of transparency, for example, in the grocery sector and food. When it comes to the economy generally, or the cost-of-living crisis, the Government has supported the arguments around transparency and the need for it. Our simple question is: why do we not then have transparency in relation to the State contributing to and subsidising the building of homes by the private sector? It seems a very reasonable, common-sense request in the legislation that is being put forward.

The reason we think it is very important is the evidence shows that in the limited amount of information we get from developers, for example, the public accounts of the two large developers Cairn and Glenveagh, shows they are making hundreds of millions of profit every year. Hundreds of millions of profit is being made. If just two companies are making that much, how much is being made across this country in house sales? We know significant amounts of money must be added to the cost of housing by profit being taken out. Surely, we should know how much that is to make an assessment and to discuss as a society whether it is right that people trying to buy a home are being squeezed more and more, are being told the State has to put in more money and that people have to pay more money because it is not viable to build a home. In actual fact, what is happening is an increase. That money is going to increasing profits to shareholders, including those of the two companies I named, some of which are international. These profits are going to international wealth funds. The money the State is putting in to build homes is being channelled into international funds and not necessarily to delivering affordable housing. There is a real, fundamental problem in this approach to housing and its delivery.

The other reason we need transparency is there is an issue around what Dr. Lorcan Sirr again set out in The Irish Timestoday, which is regulatory capture and who is making our housing policy. It appears that developers and investor funds, and their lobbyists, are making our housing policy. They are the ones who are being listened to. I tried to dig into this. I put in a freedom of information request specifically relating to IRES REIT, the Irish real estate investment trust, which is now one of Ireland's biggest corporate landlords, on, for example, how many times it had met officials, or members of the Department of housing or the Government. The lobbying register states that this year, IRES REIT met an adviser in the Department of housing. Yet, the freedom of information request states there are no records of any such meeting. I would like the Minister, and his representative here today, to answer that question. How on the one hand is IRES REIT putting on the lobbying register that it is meeting advisers from the Department of housing and when I requested that under freedom of information, it comes back and states there are no records of any such meeting? It does not make sense to me because there are lots of records on the lobbying register of IRES REIT meeting officials. There are lots of records on the lobbying register of Pat Farrell, on behalf of Irish Institutional Property, meeting various Government Ministers and the Taoiseach. Why are we hiding? Why is the level of lobbying that is going on being hidden by this Government? That is why we need transparency.

People have a right to know who is making our housing policy and who is influencing it. That is the whole point. We are supposed to be moving away from a politics that was driven by developers. We know that corruption, which went back to Charlie Haughey and Bertie Ahern, resulted in crashing the economy. Now, we are seeing that lobbying and influence being hidden. What has happened is we see the changes to apartment sizes, the increase in rents, a tax break for developers, potentially, and huge amounts of public money being funnelled into the private market to investors and developer funds - for what? This is what we need to know. Is it going to more and more profits? I believe it is. Why are house prices so high? They are high because of the profit gouging going on within the private market.

This comes back to the fundamental problem in our approach to housing, which is we do not deliver it as a public good and a human right. The State outsourced it and handed it over to the private market, hence we are completely dependent on the private market to tell us what it costs to build a home. The State has not got a clue how much it is being overcharged and how much it is costing. We have this constant debate about a viability gap that is in actual fact a profitability claim and demand by developers and investor funds, which have us over a barrel and are essentially bankrolling the State and the public because we do not have our own State capacity to deliver housing. That is what we should have. At a minimum, we should have transparency. We should know how much profit is being made by State funding of private market homes. That will help us understand more how much of house prices are profits and how much are genuinely rising costs overall.

There is a fundamental problem and the Minister of State knows this. The housing market is completely out of whack. It is going to drive us into another crash. It is not sustainable. Who can afford these house prices? There is also what is being built in terms of rental. The Government will funnel more money into investor funds and allow them increase rents to market rents, so they build more build-to-rent property, but we do not need more build-to-rents. We need affordable homes that people can buy. That is what public money should be used for. We need transparency around that and the amount of lobbying and regulatory capture is going on. That is why we have brought this Bill forward.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government will oppose this Bill, but I welcome the opportunity to speak about the role of Government measures to support access to affordable housing and assist those aspiring to buy their own home. We continue to deliver the first affordable homes in a generation and are supporting increasing supply in this area. Quarter 1 of 2025 has seen the continued strong performance of the various affordable housing pathways, with affordable delivery increasing by over 49% over levels achieved in the same quarter of 2024.

This Bill proposes to put additional financial reporting requirements in place for contractors who receive funds from the first home scheme by amending section 41 of the Affordable Housing Act 2021. The description of the Bill refers to property developers who are in receipt of State subsidies, while the proposed amendment to the legislation refers specifically to the first home scheme. It remains unclear whether the intention is to apply the reporting requirements to developers who sell new homes to home buyers availing of the first home scheme, or to the wider array of State supports, but I think Deputy Hearne clarified that it would start with the first home scheme and the intention is to broaden it to the wider affordable housing scope.

Either way, the Government strongly opposes the Bill for several reasons. First, the Bill seems to misunderstand the nature of the first home scheme. The first home scheme is a commercial and independent designated activity company. Section 41 provides the statutory basis for the Minister for housing to contribute funds to this special purpose vehicle for the purpose of operating and administering the equity scheme. The scheme aims to bridge the gap for first-time buyers and other eligible households between their deposit and mortgage and the price of a new home. It does so by providing an equity share payment directly to the eligible household to support their purchase of a home in exchange for a percentage ownership in the property. This equity share can then be purchased by the household based on their preferences for buying back the equity share over time. The first home scheme holds a stake in the home until the home buyer buys it back or the home is sold.

The value of the payment is up to 30% of the value of the new home or 20% if used in conjunction with help to buy. There are maximum price ceilings of between €350,000 and €500,000, depending on the dwelling type and location, with the aim of targeting the support at the most suitable dwellings. The first home scheme is also available for self-builds and for tenant-in-situ properties where the tenant has received a notice of termination because the landlord is putting the property on the market. The equity payment is paid directly to the home buyer to pool with their deposit, their mortgage, and the use of the help to buy scheme, if applicable, to pay the seller of the new home. The scheme does not make a direct payment to the developer but rather supports the home buyer in the purchase of the house on the private market.

Seeking to track developers who sell new homes to home buyers availing of the first home scheme, and mandating these developers to publish annual financial information in order to be allowed to sell homes to users of the scheme, makes no sense. In addition, this could disincentivise developers from selling homes to users of the first home scheme to avoid triggering onerous additional reporting requirements. The Government is in the business of promoting the use of the first home scheme to support the delivery of affordable housing - not putting in place new barriers to its use.

Second, the proposed Bill would be extremely complex to legislate for and implement. The Bill refers to a "contractor" which is not currently a specific legal entity. A contractor could be a sole trader, a small private company or a large public company. While these specific types of entities are defined in legislation for purposes such as tax, financial reporting and so on, there is no such definition for a contractor. Creating such a legal definition would be extremely challenging and difficult to implement.

Third, there is already adequate provision under company law regarding the financial information that companies are required to disclose on an annual basis. While some "contractors" may not be legally classified as companies which are obliged to provide financial information, there is a good reason these onerous financial reporting requirements have not been applied to other smaller enterprises in our economy. So far, I have referred to the application of the Bill to the first home scheme, to which the proposed amendment would apply in practice.

Government also opposes the principle of mandating new financial reporting requirements for developers who are drawing on an array of Government supports aiming to stimulate the supply of housing. We remain fully committed to the successful implementation of the suite of housing measures and reforms set out in the programme for Government and under Housing for All. The forthcoming national housing plan will reaffirm and strengthen this commitment.

Many developers producing housing at scale are likely companies registered under the Companies Act 2014. Such companies are already obliged to submit annual financial data to the Companies Registration Office, and Deputy Hearne alluded to that. These financial statements are publicly available through the Companies Registration Office open data platform free of charge. As with the first home scheme, creating barriers to the private sector’s engagement with Government schemes which aim to increase the supply of affordable homes or increase the viability of apartments for sale would be detrimental to the supply of new housing and to the interests of those seeking to purchase or rent it.

Homeownership is very clearly positioned in Housing for All as being at the heart of Government’s housing policy. That plan included a comprehensive suite of measures which are both legislatively underpinned and fully funded, to better support first-time buyers to purchase homes on the private market more affordably, two of which are the help to buy and the first home scheme. Use of the first home scheme has been growing steadily after the initial bedding in period. Under this scheme, more than 7,600 buyers have been approved, and nearly 3,700 homes have been bought to the end of quarter 2 of 2025. In May of this year, Government approved an additional €30 million State commitment to the scheme, extending it to June 2027, bringing the total State commitment to the scheme to €370 million, matched 50:50 by the participating banks. The total commitment across all participants is, as such, €740 million. There is a programme for Government commitment to work with the participating banks to extend the scheme to 2030. The scheme will be key in supporting the ambitious delivery target of an average of 15,000 starter home supports per year over the next five years.

The help to buy scheme has seen more than 58,800 claims approved since the scheme began in 2017. The scheme refunds income tax and deposit interest retention tax paid by first-time new house purchasers with up to €30,000 payable to support the accumulation of a deposit and the purchase of a new home. Local authorities are delivering affordable homes with funding of €560 million from the affordable housing fund to support the delivery of more than 6,200 affordable purchase and cost rental homes by 22 local authorities. The affordable purchase scheme is based on an equity share model, similar to the first home scheme. The local authority held stake can be brought back at any point over a 40 year period after purchase or redeemed on sale if the property is sold.

The impact of these supports on first-time buyers can be observed in the data. More than 122,800 first-time buyer mortgages have been drawn down in the five years to end quarter 2 of 2025. Some 6,488 first-time buyer mortgages were drawn down in quarter 2 of 2025, up 3% year-on-year, while rolling 12-month drawdowns for first-time buyers increased almost 6% year-on-year to almost 26,900.

Our programme for Government commitment to deliver an average of 15,000 starter homes per year will be reflected in the upcoming national housing plan and will further drive the availability of affordable housing options for first-time buyers. The croí cónaithe cities scheme supports the building of apartments for sale to owner-occupiers. It aims to bridge the current viability gap between the cost of building apartments and the market sale price in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. It allows for a subsidy of up to €120,000 per apartment or €144,000 in certain cases in regional cities where lower market prices results in a larger viability gap. These subsidies render the development viable and the subsidy is then passed on to the purchaser in the form of fair market price for the apartment. With apartments already being delivered with the support of the scheme, and more apartments approved for support in construction, the Minister, Deputy Browne, issued a new call for applications in June of this year. The Government has committed to continuing the scheme to support the construction of apartments for owner-occupiers.

We have made a lot of progress in the past five years with the delivery of some 140,000 new homes since July 2020. Government is acutely aware of the need to build on this progress and act urgently to create the conditions to more than double this output to 300,000 over the next five years. We have been clear that, while the State will continue to direct unprecedented levels of public resources at housing, it is also essential that the right environment is created for greater levels of private investment to flow to support the step change in housing supply which this country needs. The environment for the private sector to invest in and efficiently deliver new housing is complex. It requires certainty, stability and predictability. It involves the supply of zoned serviced land, an efficient planning system, the timely delivery of infrastructure, the availability of adequate development funding at a reasonable price, the cost of construction and the adoption of the most efficient technologies and practices, and the additional charges levied by the State on the activity. Improving the environment for the development of new houses has benefits for both the delivery of public and private housing in terms of costs, efficiency and output. For the private sector to deliver, it needs to have a viable product where dwellings can be delivered at a cost in line with what people can afford with the expectation of a reasonable profit for the developer. Over time, an improved environment and healthy competition should result in improved affordability in the private market for renters and owner-occupiers.

There is substantial activity already under way aiming to improve the environment for housing delivery. The revised national housing plan set out the increase in zoned land necessary to support the increased housing targets. The ongoing implementation of the Planning and Development Act 2024 will ensure delays currently constraining supply will be reduced and more timely decisions on planning applications. The housing activation office will bring a critical focus to the provision of enabling infrastructure while the national development plan has provided significant additional funding for infrastructure investment to unlock more housing supply. The recently announced changes to apartment guidelines will help to reduce the delivery cost for apartments, which are a strategically critical component for the private rental sector.

The rental sector reforms announced earlier this year are envisaged to stimulate investment as well as extending protections for renters. The upcoming national housing plan will present the renewed environment for housing delivery which the Government is putting in place, including additional supports to complement the ones I have mentioned today. This will be the environment in which all stakeholders will then work towards delivering the step change in housing supply which the country needs over the next period. I therefore urge colleagues from across the House to oppose this Bill. It makes no sense in the context of promoting the use of the first home scheme by first-time buyers and other eligible households to support them in the purchase of a home. Creating barriers to the private sector’s engagement with such schemes would be detrimental to the supply of new housing and to the interests of those seeking to purchase or rent it.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I call Deputy Rice, I welcome our visitors in the Visitors Gallery. I give a special welcome to Mrs. Hearne, mother of Deputy Rory Hearne, and his three beautiful children Aisling, Keelan and Erin. They are most welcome to see their daddy introduce legislation. Well done and I wish everybody a good afternoon.

Pádraig Rice (Cork South-Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I, too, welcome the visitors in the Gallery. I congratulate my colleague Deputy Ahern on introducing his first of legislation in the House. It is a significant achievement and great to see.

As we all know, housing is the biggest challenge facing the country. We need to consider all measures possible to address this challenge. Part of that involves increased transparency and accountability, better data and more information. That is what we are try to achieve here. I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government is opposing this legislation and an increase in transparency. It has never had an interest in greater transparency in this area.

I have to dispute some of the arguments put forward. The Minister of State stated that it is legally challenging. Maybe he should engage with the Attorney General's office. I am sure some of the lawyers who work for the Department could overcome the challenges - if the Minister of State thinks they exist - and draft legislation

On the broader issues relating to housing, none of the Department's housing schemes are working. There are affordable houses in Cork city that cost €400,000. On what planet is a house costing €400,000 deemed to be affordable by the State? The Minister needs to reconsider the position. We need greater transparency in the costs around housing and around the profits made by developers. Tat is what we are trying to achieve here.

Sometimes when I hear Government representatives talk about housing, I wonder whether they have the same type of constituents that I have. Do they get the same emails that I get? We have record levels of homelessness, people in desperate situations and house prices and rents are soaring, When measures are put forward to improve things, those in government oppose them and present matters in a way to make it look as if things are going great. The narrative from the Government needs to change. It needs to be more reflective of what is happening for citizens and reflect the desperate situations people are in. The Government would do well to engage with the Opposition on our proposals and suggestions on how we can progress matters because that is the only way we will get to solutions.

Two weeks ago, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, stated that if the Social Democrats bring forward legislation, the Government would give it serious consideration and would engage with it. I would like to see a mentality of actually engaging on legislation, of us trying to progress it together and of trying to put forward solutions, because what happens every time we bring something forward at present is that it is shot down by the Government. It opposes everything across the board. Whether it is a motion or a Bill, the Government opposes it and does not try to work with us to bring forward real solutions for people and improve things.

As I stated earlier today, there is real lack of Government legislation. We have statements after statements but no legislation. More Government time could be devoted to bringing forward legislation and to progressing some of Bills of this nature that are put forward. I published a Bill last week. I would like to work with the Government to get it over the line. We need to work together on solutions for the people of Ireland. As stated at the outset, housing is the biggest issue facing the country. We need to put forward solutions. Greater transparency is part of that.

I again commend my colleague on bringing forward this legislation.

Marie Sherlock (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I very much welcome the Bill and thank our colleagues in the Social Democrats for bringing forward an interesting approach to ensuring transparency. It is an understatement to say it is a real pity that the Government is opposing the Bill.

The reality is that the State is handing over billions of euro every year to developers in this State in respect of Part V housing, affordable purchase houses, cost rental and acquisitions. However, yet we have no clear oversight as to whom we are engaging with or, indeed, an ability to understand the astronomical figures that are charged to the State by developers for these desperately needed homes.

I would like to see this Bill form part of a wider framework of ensuring a commitment to decent working standards and a lack of gouging on the part of those who deal with the State in terms of procurement and how it spends it money. We do not have good transparency in certain sectors of the State. That is the reality. For many years, my party has talked about the problem of unlimited liability. The Company Law Review Group looked at this matter many years ago. People are selling goods and services to the State but we have no idea of who really we are dealing with or their profit margins. We also do not have a level playing field when it comes to negotiating on cost because we cannot see what kind of money those to whom I refer are making. That needs to change.

With regards to housing specifically, I mentioned the various ways in which the State has to deal with developers week in, week out. I see it in my constituency of Dublin Central. I welcome that it seems as if the housing units at O'Devaney Gardens may all be social, affordable or cost rental but, of course, the State is paying an absolute fortune for that. Part of the cost in this regard is passed on in terms of the prices those who will be going through the affordable purchase scheme will pay.

On Part V, the city councils are routinely paying well in excess of €500,000 of houses. In one instance, €717,000 was paid by Dublin City Council for a two-bedroom unit under Part V. There is a fundamental problem in that the State effectively has no choice in desperate circumstances but to hand over the money. At a time when we talk so much about efficiency and value for money in respect of the public finances and of trying to battle waste, there is a large amount of waste in the context of what the State is spending. We are caught in a bind whereby we have to hand this money over in order to provide homes and put a roof over people's heads. That comes at a king's ransom to the State.

The other key part is that progress on the development of parts of our city has been hugely held up as a result of land hoarding by developers over the past decade. That is partly because of a collapse in international finance coming in to developers in this country; it is also partly because of greed and the massive return on investment for doing no work in the context of purchasing a site, sitting on it and being able to sell it on at a later date. When we look at the significant number of planning permissions in Dublin and across the country that have not been commenced, we can see that there is a real issue. In the first quarter of this year in the Dublin City Council area, of the 25,905 units for which planning permission had been obtained, work on 14,701 had not been commenced. The Planning and Development Act gives developers the opportunity to get their act together and extend planning permissions for up to three additional years provided an environmental impact assessment is not required. The reality is, however, that sufficient force has not been used by the Government to deal with those who are hoarding land in our city and forcing prices up. The Government's mantra has been that if there is more supply, prices are going to go down. Yet, we on these benches all know that is not the case because of the way that supply is drip fed into the market, because of the way in which units are developed and because of the lack of transparency in developers' dealings with a State that is desperate to try to provide more housing.

The other key issue here is that the croí cónaithe scheme has failed. When you look at the Government plan to try to develop units to date, what has been an effective handout to developers via croí cónaithe has not worked. Only one fifth of what was promised in 2022 has been delivered. There has to be a rethink about how housing is delivered. Of course, those of us on these benches are clear that we need a State-led approach to housing as opposed to being in the thrall of developers and having developer-led housing. The Land Development Agency has been underutilised. We have approximately 33 acres across Dublin Central on which, potentially, approximately 4,500 homes could be built. However, we are seeing very little progress in that space. It needs political will, and we are not seeing that from Government. When the Minister of State's party leader responds to us in respect of housing, we hear little from him with regard to how the how the Land Development Agency and local authorities are being pushed to progress work on sites.

5 o’clock

This is a very welcome Bill. It is obviously just one of the many actions required to ensure that the State is much more informed when it comes to engaging with developers. We are very clear that developers are part of the landscape of how housing is developed in this country. However, it needs to be to a much lesser extent and it a much more even and balanced way. Right now, the State is effectively being forced to hand over money for units in circumstances where it has very little insight into or oversight of the true cost involved in developing those units.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As there are no other speakers indicating, I call on the Minister of State to make his summation.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also welcome Deputy Hearne's family to the Public Gallery, although I am not sure if they are still up there. I had a sense that he was a lot more measured in his approach today. He was a lot more tempered. Usually, he does not hold back and gives it both barrels. He is clearly on his best behaviour, although I had better not speak too soon. I appreciate that this is his first time introducing legislation in the House. It is an important day for him in that regard. I welcome everyone who is in the Gallery.

I thank all Members for their contributions. Housing is a cross-sectoral societal challenge that has a real impact on people's lives. Solving this challenge is one of the Government's top priorities. Within that, we are placing a special emphasis on supporting home ownership and affordability for those seeking to buy or rent homes. As I outlined earlier, the Government has put several measures in place to support access to affordable housing and assist those aspiring to buy their own homes. On the ownership side, much of what is happening involves providing financial support directly to prospective home buyers through a payment or by means of the State taking an equity stake in the property that can be redeemed by the buyer in the future. This support can be coupled with a home buyer's deposit and mortgage to enable them to achieve the price of their new home. On the rental side, these measures are about addressing the viability challenges of producing developments which can provide cost rental accommodation and rents below the market value. In the programme for Government, we committed to embedding cost rental as a permanent fixture in the housing system.

Putting in place barriers to the private sector engaging in these schemes would be totally counter to the goal of these supports, which is to increase the supply of affordable housing for sale or rent. In any event, a company registered under the Companies Act 2014 is obliged to submit an annual return and financial statement to the Companies Registration Office, CRO. These financial statements are available through the CRO's open data portal free of charge. Most developers of scale are likely to fall under the Act's definition of a company. The Government's longer term ambition is to create an environment for housing supply where greater affordability arises naturally from a greater supply of housing and greater efficiency in the development of that housing.

I will now address some of the comments of Deputies during the course of the debate. In response to Deputy Rice, we see the exact same challenges in Cork South-West. We understand the difficulties with affordability and access to housing. We are not turning a blind eye to those issues. We are completely aware of them, which is why we are trying to deliver at scale.

Deputy Sherlock seems to think that it is only those on the Opposition benches who believe that the State should lead on the supply of housing, but that is absolutely not the case. The Government is by far the biggest investor in the delivery of housing in this State, with up to €7 billion spent.

The Bill misinterprets the purpose of the first home scheme. We must remember that this is a support that goes directly to the buyer. It goes to the buyer in order to facilitate the purchase of a home; it does not go directly to the developer. In this House, we constantly hear about barriers to delivery in housing. One of those barriers is red tape. Members talk about the onerous red tape that all sectors are required to deal with and we are constantly called on to reduce that red tape. Another level of onerous accounting or reporting would disincentivise the uptake and use of the first home scheme which we absolutely do not want to see. As already stated, there is a requirement for larger developers to publish their accounts with the Companies Registration Office. As a result, the transparency that is being called for is already there.

Deputy Hearne suggested that we could simply consult with the Attorney General about contractors. First, it is not defined as an entity. Then we have to think about the ramifications. There are contractors involved right across everything to do with the delivery of housing. Does what is being suggested refer to subcontractors such as, for example, those who bring plant onto a site or carpenters? Where does it end? I could see a situation where the introduction of a requirement for additional onerous paperwork would completely stall the delivery of housing at scale. For all of those reasons, the Government will be opposing this legislation.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure if the Minister of State was baiting me in order to try to get me to go further, but I will try to remain on my best behaviour. Seriously, though, I am very disappointed with the Government's opposition to the Bill. What is particularly disappointing is the lack of serious engagement on the legislation. As my colleague outlined, we have put forward solutions. While the Government might not completely agree with the Bill, the core idea and proposal it contains is that there would be transparency in the housing market where the State is intervening and subsidising directly using taxpayers' money. That is a very reasonable proposal, which is why it is deeply disappointing to see the immediate opposition to the legislation.

The Minister of State said that the Government opposes the principle of mandating new financial reporting requirements for developers who are drawing on an array of State supports. Why is the Government opposing that principle? The Minister of State set out different reasons but they do not really stand up. Why would it be significant red tape for developers and investors who are receiving State supports, regardless of whether the money is going to the home purchase or themselves, and benefiting from them? Why is would there be an issue as to transparency around their accounts? The Government opposing such a minor request for transparency is deeply disappointing.

When we look at the scale of the housing crisis, one of the big issues is the profits that are being extracted and the scale at which they are being extracted. It is the latter that is contributing to higher house prices. Why should we not at least have transparency around it? Why does transparency have to be a barrier? It does not have to be a barrier. Surely it is reasonable to request that developers and investors who are making tens if not hundreds of millions of euro in profits provide open-book accounts. In fact, one developer has said that he is willing to provide such accounts. What is the problem here? What is the issue? What is the Government afraid of? What is wrong with requiring private sector developers to provide open-book accounts when they are in receipt of State subsidies? It seems a very reasonable request.

The Minister of State said that home ownership is positioned at the heart of the Housing for All policy, but what is the reality? A total of 3,300 new houses were built in Dublin city last year but only 155 were bought by households. In Cork, the situation is similar. Last year, nine out of the 313 new apartments that were built in Cork city were sold to households. Of 856 new houses built under the various schemes, just 44 were bought by households. Investor funds and the State are buying up a lot, if not the majority, of the new homes being built in our cities. There is a fundamental problem with or dysfunction in our housing market in the context of how it is operating and the role of the State within it. If we are going to solve this crisis, surely we need to know what is going on. It was my understanding that a commitment to transparency was something that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were behind. Unfortunately, it seems that is not the case.

I want to draw attention to one of the schemes that was mentioned. The aim behind croí cónaithe city scheme is to activate the 80,000 planning permissions that have not proceeded to construction. To date, there have been 11 developments under the scheme and 1,100 apartments approved. This low take-up really calls into question the viability-gap narrative, particularly in light of what is available under the scheme.

Developers can get €120,000 per apartment or €144,000 in certain cases. The developer gets €120,000 or €144,000 per apartment with no requirement for affordability. Rather, there is just this statement of a fair market price, whatever that means. We know there are no fair market prices in the housing market at the moment. There are real questions here that are not being answered by the Government. If the croí cónaithe scheme is not working, which it is clearly not, then why are we pumping more money into it? Why are we talking about tax breaks? Why should there not be, at a minimum, accountability and transparency over how much money our developers and investors are making when the State is giving them €120,000 per apartment? It seems to me a very reasonable request.

The Government’s housing plan, with these demand-side subsidies for developers being implemented, is utterly failing to get to grips with the housing crisis, which is now a social catastrophe. The cases we hear that come to both mine and my colleagues’ office, as well as to the Minister of State’s office, are absolutely heartbreaking. We are absolutely failing to give our young people in this country a future in Ireland. Many of those who would be involved in building homes, teaching our children and working in our hospitals are leaving the country. It is absolutely unacceptable and we do not accept it.

There is still a lack of ambition and correct policies within the Government to solve this crisis. We have put forward solutions. The Social Democrats' homes for Ireland State savings scheme would provide additional funding for both builders and the private sector by leveraging the billions of euro that are in savings accounts and channelling them into an affordable housing fund. In our alternative budget, we set out a State construction company that would directly hire the builders and all the trades we need to build homes. We would set up modular factories around the country to accelerate the delivery of homes. These are ideas and solutions we could implement to add capacity.

In the context of active land management, we could use the Land Development Agency to compulsory purchase. All this land the Government is going to zone will be flipped and speculated upon. Why do we not do what the Netherlands does? The state buys that land, develops and masterplans it, puts in the infrastructure and then allows builders to come in and contract. It would radically reduce the cost and prices of housing.

These are radical ideas we need to actually solve the housing crisis and build affordable housing, which is still missing in the housing plan. The Government talks about 15,000 starter homes as being its key affordable housing measure. What is a starter home? Surely, we should be looking for genuinely affordable housing. This is why we need transparency. It is deeply disappointing that the Government is opposing this Bill, but we will continue to push this and other solutions to get transparency and affordable housing.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Hearne. Cuirim críoch leis an díospóireacht.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 8 October 2025.