Cian O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay North · Social Democrats · Ireland
“Unification presents distinct challenges that need to be carefully planned for and managed. The analysis done by Professor Doyle shows that the cost of pensions would be unlikely to transfer to a united Ireland straight away. Following Brexit, the UK and Ireland signed a bilateral convention on social security in 2019.”
“Ireland spends less than that defending a much larger territory and has decades of underinvestment to catch up on. We need increased investment, particularly in systems and technologies, including sonar and air surveillance radar.”
“I welcome this important discussion on the topic of Irish unity and its fiscal implications. It deserves analysis and fundamentally respect for the people, who will ultimately decide the future of this island. There are real challenges in any transition to unity but there are also very significant opportunities.”
“These are highly skilled jobs with union representation and apprenticeship programmes. They are of fundamental importance to the local economy and community. They should never have been left exposed in this way.”
“The Tánaiste must surely know that these exports are feeding Putin's war machine. Does he not think it is unusual that Ireland is one of the very few European countries where our exports to Russia have increased since Russia invaded Ukraine? That has been driven by the exports of alumina that have more than doubled.”
“We know from the investigation carried out by The Irish Times and the organised crime and corruption reporting project that alumina from Ireland is ending up in Russian owned smelters in Krasnoyarsk. Krasnoyarsk is Russia's only smelter producing high purity aluminium.”
The complete record
Every one of 897 lines we hold for Cian O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 18.
“Does the Tánaiste not see something fundamentally wrong with producing a budget that leaves disabled people €1,400 worse off, pushing disabled people even further into poverty? It was a €9.4 billion budget package and that is what the Government produced. That is a huge problem that it needs to address now. For years, the Government has promised a cost-of-disability payment but where is it? We have had years of promises on this. There was huge disappointment in the disability community that there was no permanent cost-of-disability payment this year when the Government abolished the temporary supports. The removal of the disability support grant is regressive and shameful. The budget "locks disabled people and their families into another cycle of exclusion".”
“The Irish Wheelchair Association, Access for All and the Disability Federation of Ireland will hold a protest outside Leinster House on Tuesday. They want the Tánaiste to live up to his commitments, put his money where his mouth is and introduce an emergency winter payment for disabled people. Will he do this? When will he introduce a permanent cost-of-disability payment?”
“Taken together our package would have meant an additional €2,200 for disabled people. That is what targeting resources looks like, not slashing payments to disabled people already living in poverty. There is cold fury in the disability community about this Government's treatment of them. Services are threadbare, waiting lists are endless and now even the temporary cost-of-disability payment has been abolished. The Daily Mail today reported today that the Tánaiste promised to put money back in the pockets of people, yet with the stroke of pen he took €1,400 out of the pockets of disabled people at a time prices are rising. Disabled people have had enough of this Government's broken promises and duplicity.”
“Not only did the Government get rid of energy credits, it cut all the once-off payments. This included a once-off payment that for the first time recognised the additional cost of having a disability. Does the Tánaiste think that the costs associated with having a disability just disappeared overnight? Does he think those costs are temporary? It was a cruel and callous cut. We have heard a lot from the Government about the need to target resources at those who need them most and the Social Democrats agree. Nearly 40% of disabled people live in forced deprivation, a staggering figure. They are precisely the people that resources should be targeted at. That is why in our alternative budged we included a permanent cost-of-disability payment, an increase to the disability allowance of €15 a week and a targeted energy credit of €400.”
“In advance of the last election, the Tánaiste said disability was "an absolute priority issue". He said, "We've got to look after people with disabilities". He could not have been any clearer. However, those words now ring hollow. That is not me saying that; that is the assessment of disabled people who feel forgotten, abandoned and betrayed by this Government for good reason. The Disability Federation of Ireland called the recent budget a devastating setback for disabled people that leaves them poorer, unsupported and excluded. In a €9.4 billion budget package, the Government managed to leave disabled people worse off. They have lost €1,400, an enormous sum for people who are living on the breadline. The budget was a deliberate attack on people with disabilities by a government awash with cash.”
“I agree with the comments by Deputy Mac Lochlainn. That is unacceptable. On the occupied territories Bill, there were media reports at the weekend saying it is being scrapped. The Tánaiste then said those reports were not true. He had promised that the Bill would be brought to the House by the end of November but we have not seen it. There was a promise during the election that it would be passed. When are we going to see the occupied territories Bill?”
“Are all those powers going to be in place in the next couple of weeks? Why has the Government delayed on this? Will the food regulator get the full powers? Will the food regulator now start going after price gouging? There is clear evidence of price gouging and profiteering taking place and of food prices increasing way above input prices. When is the Government actually going to act on price gouging?”
“The food regulator asked for these powers over a year ago. Why is it taking the Government so long to give it the powers it needs to do its job? When we go into a supermarket, we see people at the checkout not being able to buy items and having to return them or leaving the supermarket stressed and worried about how they are going to meet their other bills during the week. This has gone on for well over a year without the Tánaiste's Government acting. Is the Government going to sign these extra powers in this year? Is it going to happen in the next couple of weeks in this year? Will the Tánaiste give us the detail on this? Are all the powers the food regulator needs to compel supermarkets, processors and anyone else in the supply chain to hand over the data required going to be in place to allow it to do its job?”
“Dunnes Stores has already refused to co-operate with the regulator's investigation on the price of eggs, fruit and vegetables. The regulator's chair, Mr. Joe Healy, has pleaded with the Government for stronger powers since last year. He is still waiting. Families are still waiting. We in the Social Democrats are not prepared to wait any longer. My colleague, Deputy Jennifer Whitmore, will be bringing forward a Bill to give the regulator the power it needs. I urge the Government to support this Bill. Parents are eating less and skipping meals so their children can eat. Pensioners are cutting back on heating and living in fear of the weekly shop. They deserve answers and transparency. Will the Government stop protecting profiteers and start protecting the public?”
“What was once the simple routine of the weekly shop has now turned into a painful choice between essentials, between putting food on the table and heating the home. Impossible choices are being faced daily. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, and the Central Bank have found that food prices are increasing way beyond the costs of producing food. In other words, price gouging is taking place. Somewhere along the supply chain, someone is pocketing the difference and people are left to carry the burden. We have a food regulator whose job it is to shine a light on this but the Tánaiste's Government has tied its hands. Right now, it can only ask for information. It cannot compel supermarkets or processors to hand over data.”
“Pricewatch compared 25 supermarket staples over three years. In 2022, a basket of everyday items cost €87. The same basket now costs a whopping €135. That is a 55% jump in just three years. The price of bread is up, the price of eggs has increased by 50% and chicken has more than doubled in price. These are not luxuries; they are basics. Ireland now has the second highest prices in the eurozone, 12% above the EU average. Families are being fleeced. The skyrocketing cost of food is not just visible in euro and percentages. We can see it in the stress and anxiety etched into people's faces when they are at the supermarket till. People are wondering how much further they can stretch their pay packets.”
“I join others in welcoming the group from the Shankill Shared Women's Centre. It is great to see them. I welcome also Commissioner McGrath. I join the Tánaiste in saying our thoughts are with all those affected by the devastating fire in Hong Kong. The cost-of-living crisis may have ended for Fine Gael but for ordinary families it is getting worse day by day. Food, heating, electricity, rents and college fees are all more expensive than they were last year. The CSO found recently that food prices alone are up 4.5% in the past 12 months. People are paying more, getting less and wondering how they will stretch their wages to the end of the week. Everybody outside of the Government can see what is happening. The fact the Tánaiste cannot see it is astonishing, so let me spell it out for him.”
“I welcome what the Tánaiste said about spending reviews. On the profits, profit levels are 20% and 21%. The Minister's predecessor is on record saying that this will increase viability and output, and increase profits. That is what we were told in Committee. How high does he think the profits have to go? Profit levels of 20% and 21% are double what they were in the previous year for one of those companies. How much higher do they need to go to make this viable? Does the Minister accept that these measures will increase profits even further? Of course when the private sector is involved in construction, it is going to have to have a profit level, but 20% and 21% does not need additional tax relief.”
“That is worth thinking about. That is why this review is needed urgently, namely within three months. If the Tánaiste was in a position to state that the Department is doing the spending reviews and the proper analysis that it used to do and publishing the results, he would have a case not to accept the amendment. However, that is not happening.”
“Where that has worked - it can be seen in large-scale developments like Clongriffin, where apartment planning permissions were not getting built out for years - is where the LDA has come in and built out planning permissions quite fast, incidentally. These are developments which have stalled for well over a decade or almost two decades. They are being built out now quite fast by the LDA. We can debate the affordability of those apartments, but they are certainly somewhat affordable. They are below the full market price. That is working. The money that is going into that is working, whereas there is no evidence that any of the money that is going into the various different tax expenditures is delivering. Not only is what the LDA is doing delivering in terms of build-out, but, as I said, there is an affordability element as well.”
“On the spending reviews that have been stopped, we need to do something to fix that because those reviews are important in terms of value for money. I understand there is work going on, but that the results of that work are not being published to the same level as previously. As a result, we are not seeing the benefit of that analysis publicly. Of the 90,000 planning permissions that are not being built out, more than 40,000 are in Dublin. The latter mainly relate to apartments. The one thing that has worked in the context of getting movement on apartment planning permissions that have been there for years but that have not been acted upon does not relate to the different tax expenditures.”
“That should be ringing alarm bells for the Minister in terms of his approach not being the correct one. If that was happening in another sector, he would rightly point it out as being the wrong approach. I urge him to accept this amendment.”
“That is its Department giving it advice about how best to use public resources in this area, and for some reason it is not being taken on board in terms of this measure. The fact that those kind of spending reviews have not been taking place in the last few years is highly problematic as well. Detailed spending reviews used to be carried out by the Department of public expenditure and reform and then published, but that practice stopped in recent years. That needs to be addressed as well. As I said already to the Tánaiste in recent days, we have a situation where profits are up, subsidies are up, tax expenditures are up and productivity in the sector is going down, as is the investment in productivity year after year. That is not right and it does not make sense.”
“That applies in the housing sector the same as any other sector. That is simply considered to be, in terms of good governance, a good use of resources. They are considered to be the basics. A very wide approach is being taken by the Government in its approach on housing and tax expenditures. I understand that there is a need for action in this area, but the resources are not being used well. I recently mentioned to the Tánaiste what the spending review from the Department of public expenditure said about these approaches. It said the tax breaks are priced into what developers bid for land, thereby increasing bidding rates and displacing any savings in costs achieved elsewhere. The reviews done by the Department of public expenditure and reform should be taken seriously by the Government.”
“That is why this review is needed urgently. As the Tánaiste knows, a huge amount has been invested by the Government in housing, through a range of measures, including tax expenditures, but it is clearly not working and we are not getting the value for money that is needed. We are taking an approach that is way out of kilter with other European countries in terms of putting so much into tax expenditures. Most other European countries that are more successful in providing more affordable housing use the money much more directly to help build affordable homes rather than by having indirect tax expenditure measures. As I am sure the Tánaiste knows, tax expenditure measures should be targeted and very carefully used. When they are too wide, and they go on for too long in any sector, there is a huge amount of deadweight and waste.”
“The fact that profit levels in the two publicly listed companies are 20% and 21% and that we see growing tax expenditures that will boost those profits further is completely unjustifiable. The former Minister for Finance, Paschal Donohoe, when pressed on this in the committee, said that further tax expenditure in terms of VAT reduction would lead to an increase in further profits for developers. He was very upfront about that, and that it would not lead to more affordable housing. He said that the way he was going to boost viability was by increasing profits for developers even further, when we know the profits are already at very high levels - 20% and 21%. The problem with a lot of these tax expenditures as well is that they are not connected with affordability conditions. They are not tied in with making housing more affordable.”
“At the same time we see people struggling with the cost of living and more than 5,000 homeless children, yet the prioritisation here is tax expenditure that boosts the profits of developers. The wrong choices are being made here and the wrong priorities. Tá na tosaíochtaí míchearta ag an Rialtas. We need to have a review of all the tax expenditure. We have had multiple tax expenditures for developers over the years and it is clear they are not working. We are seeing profits increase, house prices and rents increase, and homelessness increase. While these measures are very costly, it would be much better to invest the money directly in more affordable housing rather than measures that boost profits for developers who already have very high profits.”
“I move amendment No. 24: In page 64, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “Report on tax expenditures for property developers 42. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the fiscal and housing-market effects of tax reliefs and incentives available to property developers, and on alternative approaches to achieving housing-supply objectives without such tax expenditures.”. The situation with tax expenditure for property developers is that profits in Glenveagh more than doubled in the last year. The CEO of Glenveagh properties saw his salary increase by 80% in 2024 to a whopping €2.7 million.”
“I welcome that the Tánaiste has brought forward this amendment. I ask for a couple of clarifications. First, why has it taken this long for Russia to be taken off the list? Why did it remain on it in 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, given the invasion of Ukraine started in 2022 and there have been brutal attacks on civilian populations there? Second, does the amendment the Tánaiste has brought forward mean people will still be able to claim the relief until the end of this year? Why is 2025 included for claims? I acknowledge that he said the latest data show no claims were made by Russia, but why make provision for people to be able to claim this tax relief this year, given that sanctions have been in place for several years? What is the logic for doing that and how does the Tánaiste justify doing it?”
“I wish to speak in general support of the amendment. This is a dire situation families are in due to a lack of regulation and oversight. There is nothing more traumatic than for people to see their homes crumbling in front of them and to go through all this stress over years. They need somewhere to live when these works are taking place and their houses are being demolished and rebuilt and I do not hear from the Tánaiste what the Government's solution is. If the Government is not supporting the amendments, what is the solution? What is it going to do about this? This has to be tackled. People need a place to live in when they have to move out of their home.”
“Anything that is going to drive up productivity and make a better workplace for the people working in it is to be welcomed and supported.”
“In terms of problem solving, you hear from different businesses that problems they have not been able to solve for a number of years are solved because there is extra buy-in from the employees who now own the company. You get that extra buy-in and resourcefulness in terms of solving problems and productivity. That is a win-win for everyone. It is good for the economy as well. I think this makes sense in terms of promoting better workplace democracy and it is better for employees. It helps to retain skills and it is better for the economy as well. We have an issue, as the Minister knows, in terms of productivity in our economy. We have some strong sections of our economy in terms of productivity but some weaker sections as well.”
“The long-term planning and sustainable planning that went into that start-up from the founders is sometimes thrown out the window. We do not necessarily get the value from that mentoring support in subsequent years. It is a real economic loss to do the job so well as a country in terms of supports to the founder and to get us to that point for an awful lot of that to be eroded. Different companies go different ways but that is what can happen. What this does in terms of where it has happened and the one recent example in Ireland is that it leads to substantial increases in terms of productivity because the people who are working in the place are extra invested. They own it.”
“I briefly want to speak in support of this amendment. As the Minister knows, Irish start-ups receive a huge amount of support through Enterprise Ireland and through mentoring. A massive number of the founders of Irish start-ups put up a massive amount of their heart and soul into building up an enterprise, company or business. There are huge success stories from that. Then what happens is they get to a certain scale after maybe 20 years of doing that and it is no longer sustainable for the person who founded it to do it. They want succession and who is knocking on their door but these international private equity firms. When they are sold to the private equity firms, which is usually what happens, there are different outcomes but sometimes it is an asset stripping or a market charge stripping.”
“The level of unemployment among disabled people in Ireland is among the worst in Europe. I recently met with a number of disabled people in my constituency who have excellent qualifications and skills and who are willing and eager to work but who are stuck in unemployment. There are a number of barriers to employment that need to be removed. We are far behind other European countries in this regard. In 2021, the OECD released a report that made a number of recommendations as to how to tackle this. Those recommendations have still not been implemented. When will they be implemented in full? What is the Government doing to tackle the scandalously high unemployment levels for disabled people in Ireland?”
“Public bodies are expected to accept anonymous disclosures under statutory guidance. However, this has to be extended to employers in the private and not-for-profit sectors. There is a huge amount that needs to be done and this needs to be taken very seriously by the Government. The response by the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, did not show an intent by the Government to take this with the seriousness that is needed. It was really disrespectful and a slap in the face to whistleblowers who have been persecuted and penalised. I hope that the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan, shows them in his remarks the recognition that is needed and that he shows the urgency needed to address this.”
“They are often ignored or the recipient declines to take action. Recipients should follow up in circumstances where there is proper information and where it shows there could be relevant wrongdoing. This does not necessarily require a change to legislation. It could be enough for the Minister to revise the statutory guidance on this, making it clear that information must be assessed and investigated where it tends to show relevant wrongdoing, irrespective of whether the identity of the whistleblower is known. Indeed, where it happens, efforts should be made to communicate with the anonymous whistleblower in order to build up trust. This can be a particular issue and can take time, particularly more so with women where it can take maybe more time to move from being anonymous.”
“That needs to be addressed. Furthermore, some prescribed persons, public and private, are failing to ensure that their protected disclosure channels are clearly visible and readily accessible. That is a major failing in the implementation that needs to be addressed. There is the issue of bodies failing to act. For example, if a person making the protected disclosure is anonymous, serious allegations are not followed up on. This is completely wrong, and the legislation needs to be changed to ensure that cannot happen. There needs to be a legal requirement to act on useful and verifiable information from anonymous sources. Some public bodies do that, but it is not taking place across the board and has to happen. The Act does not oblige recipients to follow up on anonymous disclosures.”
“It can also then take time for them to figure out what they need to do. Even at that, there needs to be sufficient time given. People do not expect to be in or dealing with these situations. It can take time for them to work through what is going and to realise there are protections in the legislation. Short timeframes can be very prohibitive. The Office of Protected Disclosures Commission has identified a number of areas where there are gaps in the regulatory and oversight framework. These include private congregated residential settings, home support services, non-professionals working in GP and dental practices and accommodation centres for people seeking international protection. These gaps need to be urgently addressed. Challenges in terms of transmitting disclosures in local authorities have also been identified.”
“The lack of enforcement powers means there is nothing that can be done when a body chooses not to act after serious issues have been uncovered. The issue of continuous penalisation needs to be addressed in the legislation. Workers can and often are penalised beyond the six-month or one-year in exceptional circumstances that is allowed for in the Act. However, when that happens, there is no protection or provision for them in the legislation. This time limit should run from the date of the last instance of penalisation. That would make it fairer, but even then, you have to take into account that it can take time for people to come forward. When they are penalised, it can be shocking and traumatic. It can take time for someone to process that and then take time for them to talk to friends, family, the union or workplace supports.”
“There should be proper training around whistleblowing and protected disclosures law for adjudicators in the Workplace Relations Commission. There is clearly insufficient knowledge of the legislation there. Fundamentally, we need to enact the long-awaited public sector standards Bill to provide ethics training for all public officials. That Bill was brought forward in 2015; ten years later, we are still waiting. Why is the Government doing this? It is straightforward. There is nothing controversial in it. Why has it not been brought forward ten years later? What on earth is it waiting for? The lack of enforcement powers for the office of protected disclosures needs to be addressed. For example, we have seen that the Dental Council failed to act in a very serious situation.”
“We need to be fully compliant with the directive. While there is free legal advice and counselling available, the lack of free legal aid is a major flaw. It should be brought in straight away. The cap on compensation for whistleblowers under the protected disclosures Act should be removed. Awards should be made only on the principle of what is just and equitable. That cap particularly discriminates against low-paid workers who come forward and workers in the financial services sector where significant amounts of remuneration come through bonuses. That is not taken into account with that cap. I do not think that cap should apply to anyone. It should be based on what is just and equitable, but it particularly penalises low paid workers and people who come forward from the financial services who receive bonuses.”
“It is really important that employers make their employees and potential whistleblowers aware of those supports. They are not enough to mitigate the negative consequences, but they do help. The Taoiseach's comments on 12 November on the role of Ministers in terms of protected disclosures made to Ministers were misinformed and very worrying. I call on the Minister to clarify those comments. If we have misinformed commentary on whistleblower legislation being made at the head of Government, it sends out a very serious signal to the rest of the country. That needs to be urgently clarified. There are a number of things that can be done now to improve the situation for whistleblowers. For example, legal aid to whistleblowers should be extended. That is envisaged in the EU whistleblowing directive. It has not been done.”
“The integrity at work survey in 2023 found that 50% of women and 37% of men who said they reported wrongdoing suffered consequences. They are startlingly high figures. There was no recognition of that in the comments from the Minister of State. He seems to be oblivious to it or simply does not care. That is an incredibly high amount of people coming forward and reporting wrongdoing who are being persecuted and suffering negative consequences as a result, yet we do not hear from the Government about any immediate or urgent action it is going to do about that. We know the level of persecution and negative consequences is lower for staff in organisations where there is external advice and support made available either through being a member of a union, the speak-up helpline or other supports.”
“He was incredibly quick to leave after he made his contribution. He could not leave the Chamber quick enough. He did not want to stay around and hear any of the further contributions on this. Whistleblowers have had their lives destroyed and even lost. There have been untold mental health repercussions for people who have done the right thing by coming forward to expose waste, corruption and wrongdoing. If the Government was serious about tackling waste, corruption and wrongdoing, it would be very serious about protecting whistleblowers. That is not what we heard from the Minister of State earlier. We owe a debt of gratitude to whistleblowers. At the very least, there should be strong and proper protections for all whistleblowers.”
“I thank the Independent Deputies for tabling this motion. This is a very important area that needs proper scrutiny and debate. I very much welcome the whistleblowers who are with us today in the Public Gallery. I thank them and indeed every whistleblower for the service they have given to the country. Their bravery and courage should be supported by all of us. They act in the public interest and their role in democracy is incredibly important. I do not think that was recognised sufficiently in the comments made by the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. There did not seem to be any recognition from the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, that whistleblowers are often penalised, smeared, blacklisted and persecuted. Is he and the Government not aware of this or simply not concerned about this?”
“If this is the Government's way of doing business, and if it thinks this is an acceptable way of doing business, why did the Government not give us notice last week at the Business Committee? Why was it just sprung at the very last minute? The Government is trying to pull a fast one here by evading accountability. That is what the Government is doing. There is a much better way of doing this. There is an established way of doing the Estimates, which all the other Revised Estimates go through, which is that the line Minister - in this case, the Taoiseach - comes to the committee. That is not happening on this occasion. It is not acceptable. It is pulling a fast one and we are calling the Government out on it.”
“It is utterly unacceptable and all the more so when this Government is being propped up by Deputy Michael Lowry and, of course, there would not be a Moriarty tribunal were it not for the findings that were made against him. Evading accountability on that is utterly unacceptable. There is a fundamental question here. Where are the millions of euro of additional funding for the Moriarty tribunal going? We should not be in the Dáil Chamber without this having been trashed out properly with proper information at the committee and with the Taoiseach present. Where is the detailed breakdown of that? Why has it not been provided to the committee? Why has the Taoiseach not come in to answer questions? Will that detailed breakdown be provided at this stage? Why were we only given a few hours' notice of this? Why was it just sprung today?”
“It is all the more unacceptable when we look at what is going on here with millions of euro still going to pay for the expenses of the Moriarty tribunal almost 30 years after it was set up. That is extraordinary and it is extraordinary that the Taoiseach is evading accountability on it. This is exactly what is happening. He is evading accountability. We wanted him at our committee to answer questions on this. We asked him to come. We said we would accommodate him at any time or date that suited him. I know he is a busy man but surely he should be able to schedule a time and date to come into the committee to answer questions on this. He has declined to do so.”
“These Estimates should be getting discussed at the committee with the Taoiseach, so that when we ask for the detailed breakdown as to what is happening here, he should be able to answer in a back-and-forth exchange. That is the normal process on Estimates and Revised Estimates, and which is done with all the other Revised Estimates but is not being done here. That is completely wrong. The Taoiseach should come to the committee to answer our questions on this. The Taoiseach's absence today, his not coming to committee today and the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, bringing them forward today with a few hours' notice without the Taoiseach answering questions is utterly unacceptable.”
“This is quite extraordinary. A tribunal was set up in 1997 and millions of euro of public money is going in to paying expenses related to that tribunal in this Revised Estimate this year. The person responsible for answering questions to the Oireachtas about this, the Taoiseach, refused to come to the finance committee to answer questions. He did refuse, because we wrote to him and we said we would accommodate him at any time or date that suits him. The Taoiseach has not come to our committee. He has declined to come. With a few hours' notice, these Estimates have come in here without being discussed at the committee and without us having the opportunity to ask questions, as we should have been able to do and as we wanted to because we want to do our job in scrutinising them.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”