Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We have visited this subject many times in the past number of years and we have analysed into infinity the problem that faces people in regard to housing. This affects first-time buyers, and all buyers, for that matter. This happened in the aftermath of a crash where property prices tumbled and properties were available for virtually nothing in comparison to what they cost beforehand. There are two concepts at play here. First, I have strongly questioned the reliance on rentals for many years. I should not say this but I know the Ceann Comhairle and I have similar views on this matter.

Owning their own homes and living in them as they see fit gives people greater security than landlords telling them that their leases are up and their rents are increasing. If we continue in the latter vein, they will never be able to buy a house. That is a fact.

Deputy Doherty has proposed a capital gains tax to hammer the people who have the money. That is not a wise route to take at the current time. We need the people who have the money to build for purchase. Banks and other lending institutions either did not have money to lend or would not lend it. They still have not and a large void remains. House building has started in full swing, though, and is increasing rapidly. Do we slow it down and, if we do, what will happen? I am not sure that it would be a good idea.

An all-party committee sat in, I believe, 2014 and debated this matter for weeks and weeks, although the issue then was different from it is now. There was a need at the time for a major investor to provide money to the State or to someone working on behalf of the State in order to build the houses that people needed. Unfortunately, people advertised on radio and television. A guy went on "Morning Ireland" to say he was for renting because it was much cheaper and he did not have to invest in bricks, mortars and so on. Wrong. That was false information and bad advice because that approach did not make a permanent positive impact on the housing market that was to people's benefit.

I am not certain it is a good idea to tax people to the extent it makes them want to go elsewhere. I do not believe it would work. It could backfire and we could find ourselves in a further recessionary situation as result of a multiplicity of factors that could happen, although I hope they do not.

We must decide how to utilise the funding that is in the hands of the people who are the subject matter of this amendment to the best advantage of the people we need to look after, namely, people on local authority housing lists and people who are paying considerable rents. I said from the beginning that I had never been in favour of the rental sector, and I am still not because it controls the lives of the people living in those houses.

I ask the Minister to consider doing something he and I have discussed previously. We need to find ways and means of encouraging the people who have the money to build houses to build them for the people we want them built for and to do so on a contractual basis. Nowadays, people talk as if local authorities would employ plumbers, plasterers, bricklayers and so on. It does not work like that anymore. There are specialists in that regard now, and they are doing the job to an extent never before known.

One should comment on the question of quality. Donegal and other parts of the country have been affected by construction quality issues due to mica and so on. During the Celtic tiger, I watched trucks bringing building products into various sites every morning and, in my innocence, thought we would have really good-quality housing. What a load of nonsense. I could not believe what had happened. With all the advantages the system had to help people build good-quality products, for example, precasting and concrete floors to tie buildings together, nothing happened. In fact, the paint had not dried on the walls when the flaws began to show up. That was not a good idea.

I encourage the Minister to examine ways of utilising the funds in question to build the houses we want built for our citizens. If funding is not available from the banks, my next question needs to be answered. Is it more efficient to tax the major investors to the extent that they might leave or to employ them directly in funding the construction sector to build the number of houses that are needed?

There is a market for one- and two-bedroom houses and apartments, but it is only a temporary market in the life of the householder. People still like the security of a house. In their innocence, they even like having a small garden where they can play with a dog or whatever the case may be.

I will pick up on a point made by Deputy Lahart. We have investors who have proposed developments in the middle of existing housing estates. The new developments are virtually being superimposed on top of the existing houses as if from a helicopter above. That is bad planning and should not be allowed. It is treating the current residents as if they were second class citizens who have to move over because the "real" men and women have arrived and space needs to be made for them, and to hell with the current residents and their one- or two-storey houses.

We need to learn from the mistakes of the past and put into operation the ways and means of achieving what we need to achieve for the people who need delivery.

See this speech in context