Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)

This proposal is basically to kick to touch until next March. There is no cohesive Government strategy that I can see. The Government was put in place in January. Almost six months later, we should have a proper, far-reaching plan, but we do not. We have this proposal, which no one can disagree with in the first instance, to extend the rent pressure zones across the country. I comment the Ministers for doing that much but we are not looking at the bigger picture. What type of landlords want to get out of the market? It is the smaller landlords who inherited properties and who rent them out at a reasonable price. They want no-hassle tenants who they can keep there for ten or 20 years - no bother, lower rent and everyone is happy. These people are being forced out of the market. Meanwhile, a new investment fund can come in from abroad. The Minister is saying we need to have outside investment to build houses, but these funds set the rents at the top end of the market. They are the ones who push it up. The Government's over-dependence on the HAP scheme means that the taxpayer will be footing the bill for these higher rents for years to come and for those families and individuals who have been evicted and who may find newer properties down the line. The Government is actually subsidising these funds on the double.

Many Deputies have asked why the State cannot be the single biggest construction company. It would not have to directly employ builders, but it could set up a scheme whereby it would be in charge and would have a strategic plan. In terms of targeting housing and putting certainty into the market, every housing development should be part of a strategic development zone. This would give certainty as to what communities are going to have. It would give a push to Government. These zones are not always perfect. Clonburris was not as good as Adamstown in my constituency. It would give a little bit of certainty about where areas are going to be built.

Six months ago, I mentioned a couple of things. I referred to the issue of allowing people to build in their gardens. There was some talk that the Government was going to move on that, which is very welcome.

Aside from Croí Cónaithe, which I do acknowledge has been welcome, there are still barriers to redeveloping derelict units over shops in towns and villages around the country. They could be rented out or purchased, for example where post offices and banks are closing. I still cannot see the logic whereby someone who is on a Dublin council housing list cannot move down the country, try out living there, try those better pupil-teacher ratios in schools and see if they can get a job working from home or in the local community. If they do not like it, why can they not have a five-year period on the housing list in order that they come go back to Dublin? No one is going to take a risk for a potential opportunity that would spread the load and put new homes into the market, with incentives for people who own over-the-shop properties. It would be a win-win situation for all. We do not have that. We have restrictions every step of the way.

I do not know what the legal parameters are - I would like to know - but when it comes to these investment funds coming in, why can the Government not enter into a 50-50 partnership? The Government would then get the return that could be used to purchase more properties down the line.

See this speech in context