Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

(1) THAT the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010 (No. 31 of 2010), be amended— (a) in section 46(1) –

(i) in paragraph (a), by the insertion of "(cac)," after "(cab),",

(ii) in paragraph (c), by the insertion of ", (cac)" after"(cab)",

(iii) in paragraph (cab), by the substitution of "25 November 2025" for "31 December 2030", and

(iv) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (cab):

"(cac) during the period from 26 November 2025 to 31 December 2030, 9 per cent in relation to—

(i) goods of a kind specified in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 9B of Schedule 3, and

(ii) services of a kind specified in subparagraph (3) of paragraph 9B of Schedule 3,

on which tax would, but for this paragraph, be chargeable in accordance with paragraph (c);",

and

(b) in Schedule 3 –

(i) in Part 2 –

(I) in paragraph 9(1), by the insertion of "(not being services referred to in paragraph 9B(3))" after "Services", and

(II) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph 9A:

"Supply and construction of housing as part of a social policy.

9B.(1) In this paragraph-

'apartment block' means a multi-storey building that comprises, or will comprise, not less than 3 apartments with grouped or common access;

'completed' has the same meaning as it has in section 94.

(2) The supply of immovable goods, as part of a social policy, which are or, when completed, will be–

(a) one or more than one apartment, used or to be used for residential purposes, in an apartment block,

or

(b) an apartment block, used or to be used for residential purposes, but excluding any part of the apartment block that is not used or to be used for residential purposes.

(3) Services consisting of the development, until completed, of immovable goods to which subparagraph (2) applies.",

(ii) in Part 3, by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 14:

"Housing.

14. The supply of immovable goods used or to be used for residential purposes, other than immovable goods to which paragraph 9A or 9B(2), as the case may be, applies.",

and

(iii) in Part 4, in paragraph 15(2), by the insertion of "or 9B(3)" after "paragraph 9(1)".

(2) THAT this Resolution shall have effect on and from 26 November 2025.

(3) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

The first financial resolution provides for a reduction in the VAT rate applied to the supply of new apartments to 9% from 26 November 2025. This measure will apply until 31 December 2030, at an estimated cost of €250 million in 2026, with increasing costs in the following year as more apartments are built. As Deputies will recall, the temporary 9% rate of VAT on the supply of apartments came into effect on budget night. This financial resolution extends the budget night measure to cover the construction of apartments and the supply and construction of apartment blocks, including student accommodation, from tomorrow, 26 November 2025. The 9% rate will apply until 31 December 2030.

The VAT treatment of goods and services is subject to EU VAT law, with which Irish VAT law is required to comply. In general, the EU VAT directive provides that all goods and all services are liable to VAT at the standard rate, which in Ireland is currently 23%, unless they come within the provisions which permit the application of a lower rate. Under the EU VAT directive, member states may apply a reduced rate to the supply and construction of housing as part of a social policy. As colleagues know, Ireland has two reduced rates, 13.5% and 9%. The Government has committed to the delivery of 305,000 new homes, of which apartments will comprise a considerable share. It is recognised that a viability gap exists when constructing apartments in Ireland. As has been outlined in discussions of this measure in earlier stages and in discussions around the Finance Bill, the purpose of this measure is to reduce that viability gap and achieve wider policy goals, as outlined by the revised national planning framework.

Increasing density, recognising demographic and societal changes and fostering greater social cohesion can more sustainably be realised by the delivery of more apartments. As developers are incentivised to build more apartments and to commence work on the projects which have planning permission but which are not currently deemed viable, the overall housing supply will increase. The measure is set to be in place for five years. This will allow it to cover the life cycle of a building project, which can stretch over a number of years.

The legislation around VAT on property is complex. As such, this financial resolution makes changes to the text that was previously passed on budget night. These changes are to ensure that the text is in line with VAT legislation and that it achieves the original policy intention of the measure, as outlined by the former Minister, Paschal Donohoe. The measure now covers both aspects of an apartment sale sold under dual contract, that is, the sale of a site and the sale of building services to build an apartment. The revised text also includes the word "development" rather than the word "construction", which is in line with existing VAT legislation and case law.

Affordability and the chance to own a home must be at the heart of all that we do and is at the heart of our housing policy. The Government has introduced a comprehensive implementation strategy, which is in place to support the various affordable housing schemes now being delivered by a range of partners. However, to meet the housing needs of our people there has to be private sector involvement. This is what this VAT measure does - reducing the viability gap that developers face when considering whether to advance the projects across the country that have planning permission but where the sale of apartments may not lead to a profit.

I am also moving a financial resolution, as the Ceann Comhairle alluded to, in relation to the help-to-buy scheme. As a consequence of the VAT rate reduction for an apartment, it is necessary to amend the definition of "qualifying residence" in section 477C of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, which provides for the help-to-buy scheme, to reflect this second rate of VAT. This will ensure that new build apartments will continue to be included in the scope of the help-to-buy scheme. An amendment to section 477C has accordingly been proposed. To avoid a period between 26 November 2025 and the enactment of the Finance Bill, where such apartments would not qualify for help-to-buy during that period, the change to the definition of "qualifying residence" in the proposed amendment to the scheme will need to take effect from 26 November 2025 also.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

To insert the following new paragraph after paragraph (3): "(4) The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann, a report on the very high level of deadweight associated with reducing the VAT rate to 9 per cent for apartments, making specific reference to the amount of public money that will be directed towards property developers profit margins for apartments, that would have been built had the VAT level remained at 13.5 per cent.".

Today, the Government is asking us, as we heard, to sign up to two financial resolutions, both of which highlight the chaotic and ineffective way this Government handles housing policy. The first resolution relates to the 9% VAT rate on apartments. This is to fix the fact that the Government's budget night resolution did not actually cover large parts of the apartment market, such as dual contracts, construction services or apartments built for rent. The second resolution is no better because the Government failed to anticipate the knock-on effects of its VAT rate changes. We now need an emergency fix to the help-to-buy scheme just to ensure that apartments taxed at 9% still qualify for a scheme that has been proven to increase property prices.

Sinn Féin will be voting against these resolutions and oppose this policy. What we have before us is nothing short of shambolic in terms of public policy. The Government's latest idea to fiddle around with the VAT rates on apartments is being sold to us as some kind of bold intervention to stimulate supply. Nothing could be further from the truth because when we cut through the technical language and look at what is actually happening, this is a massive giveaway to developers. It is a handout dressed up as housing policy. It will do absolutely nothing for ordinary workers and families, who are being crushed by a cost-of-living crisis.

The Government is proposing a temporary 9% VAT rate for the supply and construction of apartments. We are told this is to stimulate development and that it is being done on social policy grounds. We are told this is necessary because the budget night financial resolution did not actually cover large parts of the market, such as dual contracts, construction services and apartments built for rent. Here we are again fixing a mistake of the Government's making. Let us be honest. This is not a targeted measure or a strategic intervention, and it is definitely not social policy. This is a tax cut worth hundreds of millions of euro, which will flow directly into the pockets of large developers and investment funds, the same players who already enjoy huge profit margins even in the middle of a housing emergency. Some housing developers are registering over 20% gross profits and the Government's answer is to give them more money. Developers in this State are not struggling, as we can see from some of their published accounts. They are not operating on tight margins and they are not pleading for survival. They are seeing record profits because the Government has created a market where supply is controlled by a small number of dominant players who build where and what they want and who name their price.

Now the Government wants to give them even more. It wants to cut their VAT rates from 13.5% to 9%, a move designed to use the second reduced rate permitted under EU rules for housing as part of a so-called social policy. Who exactly is the social policy for? It is certainly not for the families who cannot get a mortgage. It is not for workers who cannot rent a place 50 km from their job. It is definitely not for young people forced to emigrate because the Government has made building a home in Ireland impossible.

The Government is taking a reduced VAT rate that should be used to support genuine social housing and affordability and handing it to developers, many of whom have already benefited from every conceivable initiative, incentive, break and exemption the Government has thrown at them over the over the past number of years. From the croí cónaithe initiative to the first home scheme, help to buy, tax breaks for rental investors and now a reduced VAT rate for developers, every single time the Government reaches into the pockets to help the people who need it least.

Let us be clear. The measure is not even about reducing prices. The Government does not even claim that. It is not about making apartments more affordable. In a market dominated by a handful of large players and developers where housing is priced according to what the market will bear rather than the cost of construction, the VAT rate will be absorbed entirely into their profits. Developers and the Government know that.

In my time as finance spokesperson, which is well over a decade, I have never seen so much deadweight in a measure. The Minister for Finance brought forward a measure that will cost €250 million next year. Every single penny of that is deadweight. Every single apartment that it will go to is already under construction. There will be €250 million of deadweight and it does not end there. The following year, the measure will cost €390 million. Everybody in the House, including the Minister, knows that an apartment cannot be built in a year. It takes nearly two years to build apartments. Therefore, that money will also be deadweight. We are talking about nearly €640 million, the vast majority of which will be complete deadweight over the next two years.

Money will go directly to pad the already fat profit margins of developers. While the Government bends over backwards to deliver for developers, what is it doing for workers? It is doing absolutely nothing. Workers are being hammered by a cost-of-living crisis. There are skyrocketing rents, soaring childcare costs, record grocery bills and mortgage rates that have gone through the roof under this Government. People are struggling just to get by.

The message from the Government today is very clear, namely, it has no tax cuts for anyone but developers because Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have reduced housing policy to permanent, recurring and escalating transfers of public money to private developers. Even the financial resolution before us today is simply cleaning up Government errors. It is policymaking on the hoof, as it always has been, and is designed to benefit those who do not need help.

Sinn Féin believes in supporting supply, including affordable supply, not subsidising developers' profits. We believe in using public money to build homes that workers can actually afford, not concocting another round of tax breaks that disappear into the margin of the largest players in the market. This VAT measure is not the solution. It is, plainly and simply, a massive handout. It is an abomination of public spending and a reflection of a Government that has completely lost touch with the reality that ordinary people are facing.

Sinn Féin will not support this measure that pours money into the pockets of developers while workers are left behind to fend for themselves. What people need is affordability. What people do not need is more tax breaks for those who already make fortunes as a result of this Government's housing crisis.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this resolution for a number of reasons. The Labour Party's position on the resolution brought forward on budget night in respect of the proposal to cut VAT for apartment developers was well rehearsed on that night and on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill a couple of short weeks ago. We sought to make the point on budget night and introduced amendments that were, unfortunately, ruled out of order that we are required to comply with the VAT directive. There was an attempt to describe this particular measure as some way in which the Government proposes to address social concerns bedded in an attempt to address social policy issues.

It is a very big stretch to interpret a handout to developers as social policy. How this will contribute to making apartments more plentiful and cheaper for hard-pressed first-time buyers is arguable. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is going to work in the way in which the Minister and his colleagues have claimed in recent weeks. We drew attention a number of weeks ago to the fact that the way in which the initial resolution was crafted essentially excluded approved housing bodies from benefiting from the measure.

Notwithstanding our opposition, in the context of the debate and discourse that occurred over the past two weeks, it is of course important, if this is a measure the Government wishes to pursue, that it has the widest possible effect. In my constituency, in particular around the Drogheda area, an area with which the Minister will be very familiar, no apartment complex has been built in recent years that has not ended up being purchased at one point or another towards the end of its journey by an approved housing body or local authority. They are mostly purchased by approved housing bodies. They tend to start their journey as private operators for the market and, for a variety of reasons, these projects end up being acquired by approved housing bodies in their entirety. There are reasons for that.

The point has been made by some that there is no market for apartments. I do not accept that. It seems to me to be simply a matter of good business for developers to sell blocks of apartments en masse to approved housing bodies. It makes sense for them to do that rather than engage with individual purchasers unit by unit. The jury is open on why that is the case.

Many of us on this side of the House, as well as commentators since the Finance Bill was published, drew attention on Committee Stage to the fact that approved housing bodies and those who involved themselves in forward funding arrangements were not captured by this proposition. Apparently that is what this new resolution seeks to deal with but it is something of an emergency fix which should have been anticipated.

Moving to the points made by Deputy Doherty on the deadweight effect, there are a number of different problems with this particular resolution and policy. Among those is the deadweight effect that it will inevitably have. As I said, there is no evidence we can rely on at this stage, outside of the say-so of developers, that this will improve supply and, in improving supply, will address affordability issues for purchasers. The deadweight effect of this is something of which we need to be conscious. I support the amendment proposed by Deputy Doherty that there be a report generated by the Department.

We look forward to the advice becoming available. However, when former Minister, Paschal Donohoe, who was developing this proposition, and the Government saw it through, I imagine the advice from the Department was to at the very least tread cautiously on this because of the lack of availability of any evidence whatsoever that this would have the desired effect the Minister said it would have on supply and affordability.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this support will be absorbed by developers. This has been the case time and again. We are dealing with two amendments in this debate. Help to buy is a case in point. From the original Mazars report commissioned by the Department a number of years ago and the advice issued to the then Minister when the scheme was in its infancy, it was very clear that there was a deadweight effect in terms of help to buy.

Those of us on this side of the House said time and again that developers would pocket the difference. That has had an inflationary impact. It is not the only reason house price inflation is such an issue but the help-to-buy scheme has contributed to inflation since its inception. The deadweight effect is very clear. All the evidence shows that the vast majority of people who are accessing this support already had the deposit to obtain their homes. It probably is not responsible for the building of a single home that would not have been built in any case. We expect the same will apply in terms of the impact of the VAT reduction on the development of apartments.

The help-to-buy scheme will continue to cost several hundred million euro between now and the end of 2030. It has been described as giving certainty to first-time buyers and developers. In fact, it gives certainty only to developers that they will absolutely coin it in. It will contribute to house price inflation at a time when we should be doing everything we can to increase supply and ensure the supply that is there is affordable. We would be better served using all the resources we have to introduce genuine affordable housing schemes and backing cost rental, for which there is huge demand, to a degree we are not currently doing. We will oppose these resolutions.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These resolutions are to fix the serious flaws in the financial resolutions brought forward on budget night. Those mistakes the Government made just a few weeks ago were highlighted to it on budget night but it ploughed ahead regardless with its flawed financial resolutions. The effect of the resolutions before us today will be to put more money into the pockets of developers. This is another example of the policy capture of the Government by developers and their lobbyists.

People are struggling to keep food on the table. Disabled people are €1,400 worse off as a result of the budget, according to the Disability Federation of Ireland. A recent report by Barnardos found four in ten parents are either skipping meals or eating less to enable their children to eat. As we speak, there are people in cold homes afraid to turn on their heating. With these resolutions, the Government is giving more money to developers at a time when their profits are already booming. Profits at Glenveagh Properties, for example, more than doubled last year. Rinne an tAire na roghanna míchearta. The CEO of Glenveagh had his salary increased by 80% in 2024 to a whopping €2.7 million a year. That is not a struggling developer in need of taxpayer subsidies.

Just over 5,000 children are homeless in this country and there is an entire generation locked out of home ownership. Yet, the Government is intent on prioritising boosting the profits of developers. That is what is happening. When we brought this up in committee, the former Minister for Finance, Paschal Donohoe, admitted it would have the effect of increasing profits further. We put it to him that profits of developers are already extremely high. The profits of the publicly listed companies are approximately 21%. How much higher does the Government think developers' profits need to go? They are at an extremely high level as it is. According to the former Minister, these subsidies will make them higher again. He said in February this year: "What I am not going to do is reintroduce or propose the very tax reliefs that did such harm to our economy...".

In the battle that went on during the year, those within the Government pushing for these reliefs clearly won. VAT for developers is being slashed, at a full-year cost in future years of €390 million. That is without any affordability conditions, no price caps and no guarantee that a single home will be more affordable as a result. This is an unheard of kind of measure in a European context. In other European countries where significant investment goes into housing, whether through tax expenditure or more direct investment, which is, of course, better value for money, it is always done with the aim of securing affordability. Here, we see subsidy after subsidy that boost the profits of developers and do not make housing more affordable.

There is a key problem with this in terms of productivity in the housing construction sector. Tax incentives are not addressing the capacity constraints in the sector, the infrastructure challenges or the workforce shortages. We have had warnings previously from the ESRI that these kinds of tax expenditures are dead weight and should not be pursued by the Government. It is not just the ESRI saying that. A spending review by the Department of public expenditure stated that any reductions in development costs through tax breaks are "priced into what developers will bid for land, thereby increasing bidding rates, and dissipating any savings in costs achieved elsewhere". That is what the Government's economic evaluation service has warned the Tánaiste about and he is not heeding its advice. It is saying clearly that cutting VAT on apartments will simply increase the price a developer will pay for land. It does not make apartments more affordable but it does make land speculators richer. That is the advice coming from within the Government.

There have been a number of Government subsidies and initiatives in recent years but they are not having the effect we should be seeing on affordability. Instead, land prices are increasing. Figures published recently by the CSO show the price of residential zoned land increased by 42% since 2018. As the Tánaiste knows well, any Government subsidies should be well designed and well targeted. This is not happening in the housing sector. The range of subsidies are masking over inefficiencies and a lack of productivity in the sector. That is what happens when poorly designed subsidies like these are introduced.

Looking at productivity in housing, the Central Bank quarterly bulletin No. 2 of 2025 states that the relatively poor productivity performance in the construction sector in Ireland is also evident in a cross-country setting. In 2024, Ireland was the second lowest across comparable European countries in terms of productivity. Is the Government addressing that productivity problem? No, it is bringing in more subsidies that will act as an incentive against those underlying issues in the construction sector being tackled. According to analysis by the Central Bank, investment in capital stock in the sector, that is, machinery, equipment and technology, has been declining every single year for the past decade. Profits are going up and Government subsidies are going up but the investment in capital stock needed to make the sector more productive is declining each and every year by 2.5%. It is going in the wrong direction. That is what the Government's policy of subsidies to increase profits for developers is doing. Are those developers investing the extra money in making the sector more productive? No, they are pocketing it by way of increased profits. That is exactly what is happening and it is the wrong approach. Profits and subsidies are up and productivity is down, with the hard-earned money from Irish taxpayers going into the pockets of developers. That is why we will oppose these measures.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A headline from RTÉ earlier this year stated, "Half-year profits and revenues at Glenveagh Properties soar". The company's revenues were up in the first six months of this year by 125% from the previous year, more than doubling from €152 million to €341 million. Gross profit in half a year was €66.8 million. Profits at Cairn Homes were €63 million in the first half of 2025. Yet, the Tánaiste wants to give them more. It is not enough that Glenveagh's profits go up by 125% and that Cairn, the other big builder - just to name the two largest and most profitable - is making eye-watering profits, with shareholders enjoying bonanzas year after year and executives enjoying absolutely obscene salaries. The Government wants to give them €340 million more.

I was just flicking through the prices they are charging for the houses they build.

A one-bedroom house by Glenveagh in Donabate is €345,000, a two-bed is €440,000, a three-bed is €480,000 and a four-bed is €700,000, with a similar picture in the rest of them. These are completely unaffordable for the vast majority of working people who go out and work hard but would be absolutely incapable with their own income to afford those kinds of prices. We are giving them a subsidy on already massive profits to deliver housing that no working people can afford. Does the Government honestly think that is justified and is a strategy to deal with the housing crisis? It begs the question as to whether Government is serious at all or whether this just reveals the truth that it is there to represent the interests of the property developers and the profits they want to make because that is the consistent story and, in my opinion, it is the dirty secret of the housing crisis that has persisted now for more than a decade. The only thing that explains Government's failure to deal with the housing crisis is that all along, its only interest was to ensure the profits of the speculators and the property developers. The vulture funds and hedge funds that got all the NAMA lands at discount prices, made massive profits, controlled the supply of housing and then sold it on to these gangs or gave them land - that should be the public land bank - which should be in public control and where we drive, in the public interest, the construction of housing.

In the area around Helsinki in Finland, one of the few places where they have improved the situation of the housing crisis, the land bank is completely controlled publicly. It does not mean there is no private building but it does mean the only housing that happens is housing which is actually going to contribute to addressing the housing crisis and the housing needs of the people and, therefore, it has seen homelessness go down. Whereas, we have seen homelessness go through the roof, every year worse than the last, with the vast majority of working people priced out of the market while the developers, hedge funds and landlords are making eye-watering profits.

Either it is incompetence on a scale that is simply staggering on the part of the Government or the truth is that what it is actually doing is very deliberately benefiting the profiteers at the expense of the people who are suffering. Under no circumstances can the Government justify saying companies making that level of profits need more profits to stimulate the situation and to be convinced to build. Government should not be in a situation where they have the State over a barrel because that is what they are doing. They say, "Do this for us" and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael jump to the tune. It is absolutely shocking.

If we controlled the land bank, stopped all the speculation and developed a State construction company and started to build on a not-for-profit basis, we could stop and solve the housing crisis. How do we know that? When this country had nothing in the thirties, forties and fifties, when it was an impoverished virtual third world country, we were able to build housing at affordable levels for working people in this country. How can we not do it now with record budget surplus? We can but the Government is having its policies dictated to it by the people who are profiteering from the housing misery. It is as simple as that.

It has got to stop. The fact the Government's Department of Finance, which the Tánaiste has entered into, has said in a report that on a no policy change basis, we are facing another 15 years of a housing crisis. It is unbelievable and yet Government is not proposing to change policy. It is proposing to continue with the policies and the priorities that have failed to address the housing crisis for 15 years and have caused the housing crisis. The Tánaiste's Department is now telling him the crisis is going to go on for another 15 years. It is unbelievable or it is totally believable if you understand the Government is simply doing what the speculators and profiteers want and has no interest whatsoever in the people rotting in emergency accommodation or in the lives, hopes and aspirations of young people and working people in this country who have been completely locked out of any hope of being able to afford the house prices these guys who are making obscene profits are charging when they control and manipulate the entire housing sector. It has got to stop. The young people and working people of this country cannot continue with this stuff.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Government has been an absolute disaster when it comes to building homes. It is by far the biggest failure of this Government over the past while and it is hitting families massively and especially young people hard.

House prices are now eight times the average earnings and the average house price sold last year was €426,000, an amazing figure. The average rent currently for a two-bedroom home is €2,000 and the availability of homes has crashed since pre-Covid levels. Incredibly, we have 16,600 people languishing in homes in this country, with 5,200 of those citizens being children. Some 402 people have died in homelessness just in Dublin in a five-year period. The figure is far higher throughout the country but that figure is not even measured in any other local authority outside of Dublin.

There is a great character in Meath who I knew for years. In his words, "This Government is improving worse." The Government is in reverse in terms of its projections. A total of 30,000 homes were built last year, down from the year before and far lower than the targets. Planning permissions are falling and we predict worsening figures. There are several key reasons for this. The first is this Government's bureaucracy and red tape. Planning, permits, licensing, tenders and judicial reviews are all way too slow and are all delaying homes. I was talking to a builder in Meath just yesterday who has been waiting 20 months for his application that is still stuck in An Coimisiún Pleanála. That is 20 months he has been waiting for that application to come back. The State is slowing the building of homes.

The second biggest issue is missing infrastructure. Uisce Éireann was in with the committee a while ago. I asked when all the gaps in the water infrastructure that are stopping the building of homes would be complete and it said 2050. That is an incredible statistic. The third issue is available zoned land. Builders are not able to find the available zoned land that is serviced to be able to build their homes but there is a big issue of viability here. In the vast majority of counties across the country, many builders are simply not working. They are not building homes and if they are building homes, they are building extensions and a few one-off houses. They currently cannot make money building homes in this country.

Construction companies are sending their workers abroad for contracts at present. Some 30 of the top 50 companies are sending their workers abroad to work because they cannot make projects viable here. We need €20 billion to build 50,000 homes. There is €9 billion going in for social housing, which is great and Aontú wants to see significantly more, but there is still a gap of €10 billion in the building of homes.

For years, this Government has only had the idea that the private sector should build homes but the truth is the critiques on this side have only had the proposal of building public sector homes. This bird needs two wings to fly. It needs public construction but it also needs private construction. The only way we can do that is to make it viable. Currently, I cannot understand parties holding back in tools and levers, which would make the building of homes more viable.

I used to work on a construction site 25 years ago as a labourer and I remember we had a Donegal builder at the time. Many people used to come in and tell him "This is wrong, that is wrong, this cannot work" but his attitude was "Just build it up." Sometimes I think of this Dáil like a busy place where everybody can think of why things should not be done but let us just get building it. Let us get ambitious and let us release the levers in terms of making sure it is viable.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the decision to cut the VAT on apartments from 13.5% to 9%. It is a practical step and one that will help reduce costs and encourage the construction of homes we so desperately need. Let us be clear: cutting VAT alone will not solve this crisis. I hear speaker after speaker condemning the landlord. Lord God almighty, where do they think we are going to get houses from? It does not appear like that. They are putting down landlords who own one house or two houses. I was speaking to a man in west Cork this morning who said if he could get out of it, he would be gone long ago. He said all the pity is for the tenant and there are new regulations coming in regarding six years and all that.

There is nothing for him. They could wreck his apartment and they would not have to pay him. It could take 18 months to get them out. He said there is no protection for the likes of them and that he wishes to get out of there. Why?

There are also other issues in relation to isolation in terms of infrastructure needs. Today we learned that Uisce Éireann missed its leakage targets by a mile. A total of 176 million litres were promised. Only 90 million litres were delivered. Now it faces a €20 million penalty, while €13.6 billion is being sanctioned for water investment over five years. This is reality. We cannot keep pouring billions of euro into utilities without accountability. While families wait for homes, cutting VAT is welcome, but it is not enough. We need joined-up thinking. Housing and infrastructure must go hand in hand. If we fail to connect the dots, we fail the people who are counting on us. I know that.

I meant to bring this issue up last week but unfortunately my question did not get picked. In relation to the people of Adrigole, I was at a public meeting the other day. Fine Gael Senator Noel O'Donovan was there. Fianna Fáil Minister of State, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan, was there. The three of us knew three weeks in advance that a meeting was coming up. We asked Uisce Éireann to simply give us an honest deadline. There were 14 breakages in the water supply at Adrigole. The crèche and school had to be closed. The businesses had to close down. People who were doing the Airbnb had to hand money back to customers in the morning because they had no water to shower. Filthy water was coming through the taps. There have been 14 breakages since July and we could get nothing but a generic scandalous answer, the same as I got again this morning after I went back in there. We asked for a meeting with the organisation - three or four people - to find out what the plan is and what it intends to do. Fourteen breakages in any community would not be acceptable anywhere else, but it seems to be acceptable because it is Adrigole. It is a rural community in west Cork. They are the same people as anywhere else and they deserve their water. It is scandalous to think that they are facing a winter of breakages and worse and they are getting a generic answer stating it was a very dry summer in some places and a wet summer in other places. That is nonsensical. It is time for Uisce Éireann to put its hands up in the air and say something is wrong.

The Government has to take responsibility. It cannot be handing a €13 billion budget over to Uisce Éireann with no accountability for it. That is what I am angered by. I ask the Tánaiste to intervene on our behalf and at least meet with the local community in Adrigole and give us the right because we are facing that meeting again in Adrigole in a couple of weeks' time. I will give them the same answer that I gave them the last day - that there is no accountability and I cannot do anything for them. It is just a scandalous situation that we find ourselves in as public representatives.

It is the same situation with Shannon Vale, Dunmanway, Rosscarbery, Ballydehob and Goleen. Uisce Éireann's wastewater treatment plants are pouring raw sewage into the water. My God, every farmer in the country is held accountable for any drip that goes out of his farm. Mother of God, Uisce Éireann and the EPA. The EPA turns a blind eye. It spends every day drawing up reports about agriculture and farmers, but it forgets about the very people it is responsible for. It is failing to address these issues in all these communities and to have a proper wastewater treatment structure in order that we can go back and say to the people that something is going to happen and that they can build more houses, not a token response but a real response.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank colleagues for their contributions and interventions. First, on the issue raised by Deputy Collins, I will certainly make contact with Irish Water. I have a clear view that State agencies should meet public representatives. There is a thing called democracy. It is important that State agencies engage respectfully, regardless of where people are on the political spectrum, and respect the mandate of people in this House and at local level. Uisce Éireann should meet with the Deputy and the other representatives in relation to that issue. I thank the Deputy for highlighting it.

On this issue, it comes down to whether we accept or do not accept that there is a viability gap when it comes to construction, particularly of apartments, in this country. I heard many references to what my Department estimates or predicts, but here is something else my Department predicts and estimates. It estimates that there are approximately 98,000 properties in this country that have planning permission in place but remain uncommenced. Around 42,000 of them are apartments in Dublin. We have a situation today where there are apartments that could be built but have not been built because they have been deemed unviable. This Government and I refuse to be prisoners to ideology. It is about adopting measures that reduce the viability gap. Contributors and colleagues are right. Deputy Collins is right. This measure in and of itself is just a measure. It needs to be seen alongside a range of measures that we are taking regarding housing.

Deputy Boyd Barrett had to head off, but he made the point around if there was no policy change. There has been a policy change. It is called the Government's new housing plan. It is called the revised national development plan. It is called the national planning framework. It is called the infrastructure delivery proposals that the Minister, Deputy Chambers, will bring to Cabinet shortly. It is called the budget that was just delivered and the Finance Bill that is working its way through this House. I accept that standing still and hoping that everything is going to work out all right on the night is not going to get us to where we need to get. That is why we are taking decisions that may not be popular with everyone in this House, but I genuinely believe they will result in more apartments being built for our young people, the very people that all of us want to see with a roof over their head and an ability to buy a home again. I say to the young people who watch these debates and hear these debates, this measure is for you. It is not for any developer; it is to make sure that more apartments are built so that you have an opportunity when you go onto websites and search to buy somewhere. When I meet young people across this country, that is what they want. If you want to see a reduction in price, you need to see an increase in supply.

I reject that this is about any sort of correction. This is actually about clarifying and expanding further the provisions the then Minister, Paschal Donohoe, announced. I accept the point that there are different views in relation to these measures, but I also accept the point that colleagues in opposition engage constructively, saying if we are going to go down this road we must make sure that approved housing bodies are included. This is an effort to ensure that happens. There has been much reference to developers, developers, developers. First, developers are not bad people. They are the people who build things, and we need to build things, by the way. None of us in this place build things. Good luck trying to build a house without a developer. It is not just about developers, however. Social housing will benefit from this because approved housing bodies will qualify. Affordable housing will benefit from this because approved housing bodies will qualify. Students will benefit from this because student accommodation will qualify.

I note that there have been lots of suggestions made in relation to when this is commenced and the likes, but ultimately VAT is a consumption tax. It is placed on a product whenever value is added at each stage of the supply chain, from production to the point of sale. If legislation was introduced that sought to apply different rates of VAT to the sale of identical goods at the same point in time on the circumstances or timing of when work on those goods began, we believe it would likely breach the principle of fiscal neutrality. I am advised by my officials and by Revenue that they are satisfied that the principle of fiscal neutrality would not allow for VAT to be applied in the manner that some Deputies might have suggested earlier on and that Deputy Doherty's amendment suggests as well.

There has been a lot of reference to first-time buyers and help to buy. This is a scheme to make sure that those who avail of help to buy can avail of the apartments that are produced as a benefit of the reduced VAT rate. There is a lot of talk about help to buy and what help to buy has done regarding the price of new houses. The Mazars review in 2022 found that there was no definitive evidence that help to buy pushed up the price of new homes. It actually also found that the prices paid for new homes by people who received help to buy relief were slightly lower than new house prices in the economy and generally, likely because of the price cap. We all know there are many factors that contribute to the rise in home prices, ultimately the lack of supply being the most compelling one. When talking about first-time buyers, I should also say that while we have a long way to go and we are living through a housing emergency, we have this year thankfully seen the highest number of first-time buyers since 2007.

I agree with those, including Deputy Tóibín, who say that there are other serious blockages here, including the infrastructure delivery, the judicial reviews and the planning system. They can expect the Government, through the work of the accelerating infrastructure task force, to come forward with proposals on how to accelerate the delivery of infrastructure, including enabling infrastructure for housing, in the coming weeks. I commend these two resolutions.