Last week, I raised the issue of the so-called cuckoo funds, which are basically large corporate funds in receipt of tax incentives that are buying out complete housing and apartment developments before they can go on general sale or, in the case of a development I mentioned last week, even where booking deposits have been made. The deposits in question were subsequently returned. In this morning's edition of the Irish Independent, Charlie Weston reports about Leopardstown in south County Dublin, where a development of 295 units will be sold completely to one of the funds. The Tánaiste was not entirely uncomfortable with the practice last week when he spoke about redesigning the rental market. I saw the Minister for Finance out this morning cheerleading for the funds, so it is pretty clear that Fine Gael is on the side of the cuckoos in respect of this matter.

They have gone cuckoo.

If the Tánaiste needs reminding, this is a practice that has removed from the market thousands of units, and equivalently thousands of houses, which could have been available to first-time buyers in 2018. Three thousand units might have been available to hard-working families who are struggling to get on the housing ladder and 3,000 units might have made a commute a lot shorter for hard-working people who are being forced to live farther from where they work, yet 3,000 people - and potentially 3,000 families - are being elbowed out of the housing market by corporate landlords with Government encouragement.

We are all aware that supply in the housing market is far below the desired level. There are not enough affordable houses being built. Not enough local authority houses are being built, yet, where housing is being built, the funds are sweeping in with the Government's encouragement to take them away from people who want to get on the housing ladder. The United Nations has excoriated this policy. It has spoken about the financialisation of housing in a damning report by one of its agencies. Ireland has been chosen as one of six countries where this practice is rampant.

Two hundred and ninety-five units in Leopardstown are affected, as are units in Dundrum and Citywest. Nearly every week, there seems to be another development. Is it not time to shout "Stop"? Is it not time to limit the ability of the funds to buy entire developments? Does the Government have any plans to review and restrict the taxation incentives that are available to the funds to use their corporate muscle to elbow out people who want to get into the housing market?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue again. He is mixing up a number of policies and reports but let me respond on the broader issue.

We have not heard the cuckoo yet.

The Government is absolutely committed to increasing the supply of all types of homes, including social, affordable and private housing. We believe in homeownership and want everybody to have the opportunity to own his or her own home. Institutional investment in the private rental sector is just one aspect of increasing supply. Although such investment is growing, institutional landlords comprise a very small minority of landlords overall. Fewer than 5% of landlords own over 100 units. The vast majority of landlords, or just over 70%, own just one property, as I outlined to the Deputy last week.

Official statistics of the purchasing activity of institutional investors will be available from the CSO in the summer but in 2017, the latest year for which we have data, combined purchasing activity of property funds, real estate firms and REITs accounted for a net 1% of transactions. Crucially, institutional investment is adding to supply. This year, it is expected that the vast majority of professional landlord investments will be through forward-purchase arrangements, i.e., the forward-purchase of yet-to-build stock. Much of this is new supply that would not be delivered without the availability of this capital. Increasing the supply of urban apartments is essential if we are to reach our national planning framework targets and meet our commitment to more sustainable living generally in our cities. The number of apartments granted planning permission in 2008 was up by 130% in 2016. Large-scale investors are likely to be a driving force behind such a welcome increase in the supply of apartments.

I share the Deputy's concern regarding the fact that we need to watch this market closely. I share his view that we need to consider the taxation approach to increasing investment, particularly in apartments. To try to paint this as a matter of institutional investors versus others who want to buy their own homes on an individual basis, however, shows a misunderstanding of what we need to do collectively to try to increase supply across all areas. The latter is what we are trying to do. Without institutional investment, there are many apartment developments that simply would not be happening or would not be financed. We need more available rental properties. This is part of the way of doing it.

I assure the Tánaiste that there is no mix-up. Some 3,000 apartments and houses built last year could have been acquired by families and first-time buyers but were instead acquired by funds. The Tánaiste knows we have a housing crisis. A time of crisis is not a time to be re-engineering the housing market.

Of course it is.

These funds are buying the apartments and, to use the Tánaiste's phrase, they are "adding to supply" on the basis of the very cosy tax arrangements available to them. If the Government put tax or cosy arrangements in place for people who want to build homes for families, they would redirect their investment towards homes as opposed to investing in corporate units and thereby adding to corporate profits.

Hear, hear.

Is it not time to re-examine the taxation model and decide to put money into increasing the supply of homes as opposed to corporate units that add to corporate profit? The latter is what is happening. Some 3,000 units are involved. There were 295 in Leopardstown that would have been available to families. This is also the case in Dundrum and Citywest. They could have been bought by first-time buyers but they have been bought by corporate funds. There is no difference in the supply.

It is difficult for me to listen to Fianna Fáil talking about this not being a time to re-engineer the housing market. We have a fundamentally broken rental market and we have had it for decades.

The Government has been in charge of it for the past nine years.

It does not function well and we are changing it. We are increasing security of tenure for tenants. We have effectively introduced rental caps in areas where there is real pressure. We are introducing institutional landlords that manage much larger portfolios so we can achieve consistency in standards in our rental markets. We must increase the supply of affordable housing, social housing and homes to purchase. All of that has to happen at the same time.

It is not.

It is. That is why we built-----

It is not. The Government has squeezed out first-time buyers.

We have not.

The Tánaiste, without interruption.

How many affordable houses did the Government deliver last year?

If the Deputy examines the statistics-----

I asked the Tánaiste one question.

-----he will see that the percentage of homes purchased last year and the year before, since the introduction of increased supports for first-time buyers, has risen dramatically. Therefore, builders are building homes for first-time buyers again. They were not two years ago. It was part of the broken housing market that we are fixing piece by piece.