Rory Hearne
Dublin North-West · Social Democrats · Ireland
“I thank you, a Leas Cheann-Comhairle, for your work and support during the year and thank all the staff here. I wish my colleagues in government the best of luck over the summer and respite from our robust engagement. We look forward to going at it again in the autumn.”
“The Dublin public will be very upset when they realise their fire fighters and emergency response service are at risk of being split and downgraded.”
“I thank the Labour Party for bringing forward this motion. It is important to have a discussion about the context of education costs and back-to-school costs. Of course, the context is massive inequality in this country.”
“However, what it is actually doing is throwing families into even more stress on top of not being able to pay the basic bills. In my constituency to respond and support families struggling with back-to-school costs, the Finglas voluntary food and family support service, Feed Our Homeless, last year organised help for families with a pop-u…”
“A second tier of child benefit would lift 55,000 children out of poverty but the Government will not do it. It costs the same as what it has given in tax breaks to developers, investor funds and large fast-food giants. Childhoods pass quickly. No child should have their future limited by poverty.”
“The Government is ramming through planning legislation this week that will exempt sheds out the back without proper scrutiny. It is satisfied with handing our young people to vulture landlords. The Government is now offering a future of renting a shed out the back with no rights whatsoever.”
The complete record
Every one of 986 lines we hold for Rory Hearne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 20.
“There is an open chequebook to a certain extent and that is what councils should be told. If there is someone facing homelessness, they should buy the property and say they will cover it. Instead, the Taoiseach inserted his own view, which came from someone who was lobbying him on the idea that if the councils were buying up properties, home buyers could not buy a property and we do not want to be seen as removing properties that could be bought by home buyers. This is a completely flawed argument because when someone is evicted from his or her home and goes into emergency accommodation, the costs are put on the State and it becomes a zero-sum game in terms of what is actually there. The tenant in situ scheme should be reinstated, completely and in full. That is something the Minister could do.”
“Dublin city councillors tell me very clearly, as have other councillors from counties Kildare, Wicklow and Cork, that the councils do not have funding to buy up the homes people are in so as to prevent homelessness, in the same way as before. The change the Minister made did something that changed the way the councils were doing this and created huge uncertainty. Dublin city councillors have told me the scheme has been suspended and the council is not buying additional properties in cases where people are being made homeless. If the Minister genuinely feels this is an emergency, he should reinstate the scheme and go back to the councils and tell them what I understood the previous Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien told them, which is to buy what they need and if someone is facing homelessness, to buy it up. The councils have the money.”
“It is completely unsustainable and we have created, once more, the Celtic tiger situation whereby house prices are completely out of whack with incomes and we will see rents continue to rise, as they have been. It is absolutely economically unsustainable. We are pushing ourselves into more economic instability as result of housing and economic policy that is built around continually rising house prices and there is no questioning of that. There is no questioning of how these rents are economically sustainable and socially sustainable. It beggars belief. I want to raise the issue of homelessness again. I still cannot get my head around the change the Minister made to the tenant in situ scheme. He argued in favour of it and then went back on that. It is still not properly reinstated.”
“It is always the case that any alternative idea is something that will not deliver homes for years so there is no point in doing it but, of course, when it comes to a VAT cut for developers, the Government does it straight away. There is still a market ideological blinker on the Taoiseach and on Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which limits the idea of what the State can and should be doing on housing and this real fear that if the State goes too far, it might somehow disrupt the market. The State does not want to build the volume of social and affordable housing that would actually bring house prices down. The ambition to bring down house prices and make housing affordable is never set out in the housing plans. I would love to see it in the coming housing plan, whenever we see it.”
“That would be additional private finance so I find it really disingenuous of the Taoiseach to go on about how we are against private finance when we have put forward a very clear solution that would involve bringing private finance in. It is months since we put forward that proposal. Is there any progress on it whatsoever? Will the scheme be implemented? The Taoiseach also said, "Oh, your proposal or that proposal would not build a home next year or the year after." That is not actually true. If we started work on implementing that scheme immediately, within six months or a year there is no reason it would not be financing the building of homes.”
“There is the opportunity cost and the missed investment in this. It is so frustrating to listen to the Taoiseach during Leaders' Questions go on about how we in the Social Democrats are against the private sector and how the State is doing all it can. The State is not doing all it can. There is still a budget surplus. There is still additional funding that could be put in. We have put forward a very clear solution that is about setting up a bank account and savings system whereby Irish people would be able to take the money in their bank accounts, put into this "Homes for Ireland" scheme and the finance would be able to then be channelled into delivering affordable housing.”
“It has annoyed me and others. It seems that the developers and investor funds said they needed the money because building would otherwise not be viable. I do not think the Government was addressing the viability of each apartment. I think it was bailing out the developers and investor funds, who have told the Government they do not have sufficient finance, or do not earn sufficient profit, to build more. We are going to funnel money into apartments that are already being built. It was a disgraceful decision, with which I fundamentally disagree. I will keep calling out the Minister and the Government for that decision. When we look back on it, the lack of evidence for it will be really called out and it will be one more decision that was made for the investor funds and developers.”
“The Tánaiste said that I was talking about billions of euro but that it would not be billions of euro. If we calculate and go through it, it will be billions of euro. Within three or four years, well over €1 billion will have gone to developers and investor funds in VAT cuts. Based on last year's figures, approximately 8,000 apartments will be completed this year. They will all benefit from the VAT cut even though building started a year or two ago. The following year, it will probably be a similar number. We are heading towards 16,000. It takes two to four years for apartment developments to be completed, from start to finish, so we are going to see in the region of 20,000 apartments or more for which developers will get the VAT cut despite the fact the apartments were already being built. I do not see the logic.”
“This Government is entirely out of its depth in taking a response to the housing crisis that will solve it. Unfortunately, the Government's response appears not to have thought through what is needed and the evidence base that underpins decisions. Its response is being driven by lobbyists from the construction industry, investor funds and developers. They clearly have a revolving door into Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. As I raised last week with the Tánaiste, the Parliamentary Budget Office stated clearly that there was a lack of an evidence base to the decisions being made on housing policy changes. I am still exasperated with the decision to give a VAT cut to developers and investor funds for apartments that are already in the process of being built and that will be built.”
“The Social Democrats are happy to support this increase to the borrowing ceiling for the Housing Finance Agency. It is the correct thing to do, but it is limited. We would like it to be higher. We believe there needs to be a significant increase in the delivery of social and affordable housing beyond what is currently being delivered and financed. Many questions are being asked at the moment about housing and the Government's housing plan, what has happened to it and where it is. We heard earlier from the Taoiseach that the Government's plans are working and it is a case of doubling down and keeping going. I disagree fundamentally with that approach and the way in which the Government is going about things. I said today that it is out of its depth in the housing task. It is not just the Minister.”
“Billions are going to be given to build apartments that no one will be able to afford to buy or rent. It is clear that, when the lobbyists came in and said "Jump", the Government asked "How high?" because it is unwilling to take the radical action needed to address this housing crisis. Why will it not ban evictions to stop children being made homeless? Why will it not implement the radical action we suggested in our alternative budget? The reason is the Government has been captured by the lobbyists of the investor funds and developers and is unwilling to take that radical action, so it will leave 5,000 children homeless and give billions to developers and investment funds. The Government's members should be ashamed of themselves.”
“In this budget, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael once again showed that they put generation rent behind the developers and investor funds, which were completely prioritised. During the election campaign, they never said that their big idea was going to be a tax-cut giveaway of up to €500 million a year to wealthy developers and funds. Today, the Government's developer VAT cut has been torn apart by none other than its own Parliamentary Budget Office over a lack of evidence and the fact that developers that have already started building thousands of apartments will get this windfall. This is utterly damning. Billions of euro are going to be given to developers and investors for apartments that are already being built, with no affordability obligations.”
“Come on; get real here. People are not being serious. It is the same with affordable purchase. The Government says it is going to build 7,500 affordable purchase and cost rental homes this year. A third of those are included under the vacant property grant. That is not affordable-purchase housing. It is time for serious politics involving serious ideas on housing. That is what we put forward in our alternative budget. It is an awful pity that Government Ministers and TDs did not bother to hang around to listen and engage in a serious debate.”
“It did so to cover the fact that so many people are being made homeless in this country every day because of failed policies. That is outrageous, and we will call it out and keep doing so. The Government can blind itself with its own spin and delusion, but the fact is that the housing crisis is worse than ever. I will give another example of the spin and bluster in the Government's housing plan. It is a pity the Tánaiste headed off to wherever he was going and did not hang around to listen to the debate. He said that the budget allocation for the Department of housing will see significant increases for the delivery of starter and social homes. What are those significant increases? Ten thousand social homes was the Government's target last year. This year it is 10,200. The significant increase is 200 additional social homes.”
“Those apartments were going to be built regardless of what the Government did with the VAT cut. However, the Government is giving out hundreds of millions of euro in any event in the form of a golden handshake. That is absolutely disgraceful; it is so frustrating. The fact that homelessness was not mentioned once by either of the two Ministers with responsibility for housing is disgraceful and shameful. It is shameful that there is one child homeless in this country, but that there are more than 5,000 is an utter failure. It is an utter scandal, but the Government does not treat it as such. There is just a postscript whereby the Government says it will do something about homelessness. The only thing the Government did in respect of homelessness in the budget was to increase the amount of money going to emergency accommodation.”
“Not one home buyer or renter will see any reduction in either the price of a house or the cost of rent as a result of the provision of this money. There is no affordability requirement. It is no wonder the Government voted down our developer profits transparency legislation. It did so because it does not want to know. This is a no-strings-attached policy of giving bags of cash to developers and investor funds and allowing them to do whatever they want with it. The Government does not care. There is an even bigger clanger. Developers are building apartments that will be completed today, tomorrow and in the coming two or three years. Work on those apartments is already in train. However, developers are going to get the hundreds of millions of euro via a VAT cut that is supposed to be an incentive to build.”
“As I said last night, this budget did not come about on the basis of evidence or radical new ideas. It is like something that was conjured up during a seance at which the ghosts of Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael's past were awoken to give advice on what to do. The Government resurrected Michael Lowry, and now it is resurrecting the failed ideas from the Celtic tiger of tax breaks for developers and investment funds. The shocking and disgraceful thing about this budget is that while one in five of our children are living in poverty after their families pay for housing costs, each year the Government is going to give more than €500 million to global funds, developers and investment funds. It gets worse.”
“The Government talks about wanting to hear views and ideas from the Opposition, but its Ministers and TDs do not even bloody bother to turn up in the Dáil to listen. The Minister of State is the only one here. It is an absolute disgrace, but in some ways it is not surprising. It is just a continuation of the cynical and misleading actions of the Government during the election campaign. The Government claimed it would build 40,000 homes. It never did. The Government knew it was misleading people. In their election manifestoes, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael failed to mention that their big, bold housing idea was to give billions to developers and investment funds. Would those parties have been elected to government if they had led with that in their housing plans? I do not believe so. We need to be straight up here.”
“The majority recommendation of the Housing Commission was very clear that there should be a referendum and the right to housing should be inserted into the Constitution, which would then guide all policy decisions and all our interactions around housing from a Government perspective. I am disappointed to hear it is not a priority for the Minister.”
“It is very disappointing to hear that. We are in a housing crisis and housing emergency now for well over a decade. One could argue in some respects that we have been in a housing crisis since the 1990s. House prices have been on the rise, then we had the crash, and now we are back into rising and unsustainable house prices. There is still something fundamentally wrong with our housing system, our housing market, the way we treat housing and the way we understand housing. Other countries, for example, Spain, have a right to housing in their constitutions. Their starting point in the creation of housing policy and the treatment of housing is that it is a human right. This matters because there is confusion; is it an investment commodity, is it something about a public good, or is it social need?”
“The majority of the Housing Commission recommended the insertion of a right to housing in the Constitution, so why is the Government not progressing that?”
“There was a very clear commitment in the 2020 Fianna Fáil manifesto in relation to holding a referendum on housing. I cannot remember whether it was in Fine Gael’s manifesto as well, but I think there was a commitment around it in the 2020 programme for Government. There was also a Seanad motion passed calling for a referendum on the right to housing and a constitutional change that would insert a very clear right to housing. That was proposed by a Fianna Fáil Senator and backed by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Senators. What has changed? Why has this new Government run away from the right to housing? The Minister's response was not accurate as regards the Housing Commission. The majority recommendation from the commission was to insert a right to housing in the Constitution. There was opposition but that was a minority.”
“Will the Minister update us on the plans to deliver the social housing projects via public-private partnerships? I understand that there are legal issues in relation to those. Is there any progress on that, particularly around the projects in Ballymun and Whitehall in my own constituency and elsewhere in Dublin? What is the status of those social housing projects? When will they be delivered? The Minister might update us on those. What are the future plans for public-private partnerships?”
“We are in agreement that we want to see as many cost rental and social homes as possible built in as quick a time as possible. I do not understand why it is coming out that there are these delays. The Minister says there are no delays. I am not satisfied that is the case because AHBs are saying there are issues of delays. The Minister also said at the housing committee that there is a finite amount of funding - which of course there is - to approve these projects. However, that has to mean that there are projects going forward that are coming to the Department's desk and it is having to decide that it will not fund them. I would like to know, and we should know, how many proposals are coming forward from AHBs for social housing that the Department is deciding not to progress because the funding is not there.”
“We need to be honest here about what is going on. Someone is spinning something or telling porkies. It was reported on RTÉ's "Prime Time" last May that there were delays. AHBs said there were delays. It cannot be easy for approved housing bodies to be publicly critical of the Department of housing and the delays in because they rely on the Department for their funding. They said it very clearly in the public domain - as well as to me and others - that there is huge uncertainty in relation to the approval of these cost rental affordable projects and the social housing associated with it. The Minister and the Department might be putting it across that these are questions relating to the different points at which projects are approved, but we need to get straighter. How many projects have been turned down for CREL and CALF?”
“Potentially, those building and developing apartments, and let us say an apartment is potentially going for sale for €600,000 or €800,000, are getting €160,000 or €170,000 State subsidy per apartment. Will the Minister clarify that please?”
“Under the croí cónaithe cities scheme, developers can get a subsidy of up to €140,000 per apartment. Will the Minister clarify for us tonight that this VAT reduction is on top of that?”
“I want to back up my colleague and others who have said that this is incredible. The Minister needs to explain the basis on which the decision was made to hand money over to developers and investor funds that are already building these homes. What is happening is illogical. What is the rationale behind it? We need an explanation. This involves significant amounts of public money. Is it another example of the Government wasting public money with no consideration? It is in the same line as the decisions made by the new Minister for housing when he got rid of the tenant in situ scheme. He had to row back somewhat on that when he realised what he was doing was pushing people into homelessness. This is another example of an ill-thought-out policy that is clearly just responding to lobbyists. I have a direct question for the Minister.”
“Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are telling young people in this country to emigrate because they are not going to offer them a home. The only big initiative the Government is doing on housing in this budget is to bankroll investor funds and developers. The Government is so devoid of new ideas, vision or ambition. The Taoiseach said he was going to make difficult housing policy decisions, but the difficult decision would have been to pump money into State construction to actually deliver homes that would bring down rents and house prices. Instead, the Government is doing nothing in that regard. It is very clearly captured by the large funds and that is what this VAT change is about. The Government is about blaming everyone else except itself. It needs to take responsibility.”
“Between 2011 and 2022, the number of 25--to-35-year-olds who own their homes has collapsed by 50%. They have turned our young people into rental fodder for global vulture funds. It is important we point this out because there is a serious lack of critical thinking and engagement in policy in the Government, the Department of housing and the Department of Finance regarding this measure. There is no guarantee whatsoever that new units will be built or that they will have affordability requirements. They will be able to charge whatever price and rent they want. What choice is the Government giving young people in this country? It is giving them the choice to either hand over the majority of their hard-earned money to a corporate landlord, stay stuck in their childhood box rooms unable to start their independent lives, or else emigrate.”
“It is absolutely incredulous that in the coming two or three years, we could be looking at over €2 billion given in tax breaks to these funds to build apartments on which there will be no requirement whatsoever regarding the price they are sold at or the rent that is charged. We are pumping billions of euro of taxpayers' money to build apartments on which there will be no affordability requirement. It is essentially providing a slush fund to these developers and investor funds to charge whatever they want. This is not policy; it is madness. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael claim to be the parties of home ownership, but now that is just a figment of their imagination. They have self-deluded themselves into thinking that their policies promote home ownership.”
“IRES REIT is another one that will be developing, buying up and benefiting from these VAT cuts. It charges €2,100 for a one-bedroom apartment. It had a rental income of €83 million last year but who are its major shareholders? Where is this money going? Kennedy Wilson, as I said, is a major US fund. The major shareholders of IRES REIT are the US-based BlackRock and Fidelity, and UK-based asset managers. It is similar for big developers, Glenveigh and Cairn. International funds are creaming huge amounts of money from this. While one in five of our children is in poverty after the family pays their housing costs, in this budget the Government is going to give €500 million to global and Irish investor funds to build even more extortionate rental apartments that no young people in this country will be able to buy.”
“We are seeing the bankrolling of global vulture funds. That is who will benefit from this tax cut. It will be multibillion global funds and big developers who will get their tax bills cut. Through this reduction in the VAT rate, they will get almost €500 million every year between the VAT cut and the other measure to reduce construction costs. This is being poured into their pockets for what? It is to develop build-to-rent apartments that they will then charge absolutely astronomical rents for, which will now have no rent controls under the Government's new housing measures. I will give examples of the companies the Government is bankrolling. Kennedy Wilson, a $28 billion US real estate fund with thousands of rental apartments here, will no doubt be developing and buying more. It charges €3,800 for a two-bedroom apartment.”
“I will speak to resolution No.4. In this reduction in the VAT rate, the Government is very clearly throwing us back to an Ireland that we thought we had left behind. It is the Ireland of crony deals and dig-outs for developers and the wealthy. I was wondering if Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael did some séance or bring out a Ouija board to design the budget? Did they conjure up the spirit of Charlie Haughey and ask him what they should do? Did he say they should keep bending the knee and rolling out the red carpet for the big money? The truth is this VAT cut is the same old Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael policy. They did it in forming the Government; they resurrected Michael Lowry. Now they are resurrecting the failed tax policies of the Celtic tiger with tax breaks for developers but now it actually gets even worse.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 Times today, 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.”
“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.”
“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?”