Government’s housing boasts ring hollow

The Government appears to think that completing 26,833 homes in nine months is something to boast about, despite the scale of the housing crisis facing the country.

That was the tone of a press release issued last Thursday (29th) in which Housing Minister James Browne welcomed the latest Central Statistics Office figures as evidence that Government policies were working.

His department highlighted a 10.6 per cent increase in completions compared with the first nine months of 2025.

It also emphasised that this was the highest January-to-September total since the CSO series began.

There is an obvious question here. If these figures are grounds for such encouragement, what exactly would the Government consider inadequate?

Because judged against the scale of housing need, rather than the previous year’s performance, there is considerably less to celebrate.

The Government’s own revised National Planning Framework sets out a need to plan for approximately 50,000 additional homes annually.

With 26,833 completed by September, another 23,167 would be required in the final three months to reach that level.

That would mean completing more than twice as many homes in the final quarter as the 10,154 delivered between July and September.

The 50,000 figure is a planning requirement, rather than a specific completion target for 2026.

Nevertheless, it provides essential context for assessing whether current construction is anywhere near sufficient.

That context was missing from the department’s announcement.

Readers were told how much output had improved, without being told how the total compared with the number of homes needed.

Of course an increase is welcome.

The additional 2,577 completions compared with the same period last year matter, particularly to the people who will live in those homes.

But welcoming additional homes and accepting the Government’s assessment of its performance are two different things.

Ministers should expect to be judged against the problem they are supposed to solve.

For someone unable to afford a home, the relevant question is whether their circumstances are likely to change.

Will there be somewhere suitable within reach of their income? Will they be able to move out, settle down or stop worrying about their next tenancy?

A percentage increase cannot answer those questions. Nor does it tell us whether construction is catching up with demand or whether the shortage is continuing to grow.

The emphasis on a “record” also deserves examination.

The CSO series begins in 2011, during the aftermath of the property crash, when housebuilding had collapsed.

The department qualifies its claim, so this is not an invented record.

But a record within a series beginning at such a disastrous point needs to be understood properly.

We should expect substantially more homes to be built than during the years when the construction industry was on its knees.

Surpassing the years of collapse and recovery does not establish that present delivery is adequate.

There is a much bigger task here than improving on previous annual totals.

Ireland must accommodate new housing demand while addressing the needs of people who have already spent years waiting.

Research published by the ESRI in 2024 estimated average structural housing demand of approximately 44,000 homes annually between 2023 and 2030, across the scenarios examined.

Crucially, that research excluded existing pent-up demand.

It was not an estimate of everything required to meet future needs and resolve the accumulated shortage.

That distinction should be central to any honest discussion of housing delivery.

Even meeting new demand would leave the question of how to help those whose housing needs remain unmet.

Thursday’s press release does not explain whether current delivery is making meaningful inroads into that problem.

Instead, it points out that completions are traditionally strongest towards the end of the year.

The department argues that the first nine months provide a solid basis for strong delivery across 2026.

There is a fair argument there. Nine-month figures are not a full year’s result, and the final quarter must be allowed for.

But putting numbers on that argument makes clear how much work remains. In the final quarter of 2025, there were 11,959 completions.

Repeating that output this year would bring the annual total to 38,792.

That is an illustration, not a forecast.

This year’s final quarter could be stronger.

Even so, it shows why assurances about a late surge deserve scrutiny.

There are also questions about what the completion total means for people trying to secure a home in Dublin.

How many of these properties are social homes, cost rental homes or affordable purchase homes?

How many are available at prices working households can afford? Are they being delivered where the shortage is most acute?

These are national completions across different sectors, not 26,833 homes built directly by the Government.

Ministers can reasonably argue that policy influences construction, but a total alone cannot demonstrate that their approach is delivering the right homes, in the right places, at accessible prices.

To be fair to Minister Browne, he did acknowledge that the job is far from finished.

“Momentum is strong, but we cannot ease off,” he said, adding that he was taking nothing for granted and would continue working to increase supply.

His statement recognised the need for further action, even if the department’s headline emphasised the record.

That qualification matters, but it does not answer the central question about whether delivery is sufficient.

The minister should explain what annual total he now expects, how that compares with assessed need and when construction will reach the required scale.

Where infrastructure, construction capacity or other obstacles are holding projects up, the public deserves specific answers about what is being done and when it will produce results.

Nobody expects this crisis to disappear in a quarter.

However, people are entitled to expect urgency and an assessment proportionate to the difficulties they face.