Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)

I particularly want to speak to resolution No. 4. However, I welcome No. 3 and the continuation of the 9% rate of VAT for electricity, which is very welcome. While in some people's view it does not do so entirely, it does in some way mitigate the removal of the measures to help people pay their bills. I agree with others that maybe it should have been continued for another year. I note the Fiscal Advisory Council's advice that if we take out the corporation tax receipts that were very tight, it is possibly spending beyond our means. We have to try to get the balance. I believe that the 9% VAT rate on electricity strikes that balance and I support it.

For the first time, this budget looks at the medium term. As I said in my earlier contribution, it is not multi-annual funding but the Fiscal Advisory Council did say that we also needed to look to our medium-term projections, which is in line with best practice in Europe. I noted the €12 billion medium-term expenditure on water, but it is just over €1 billion in this budget. If we are trying to deal with the infrastructural issues - and housing needs water infrastructure - we should be front-loading it.

Similarly, we need massive investment in redefining the electricity grid, in investing in offshore wind and wave energy, and in putting more into R and D. We are in a kind of wartime situation. We need to look 15 years down the road and start changing the way our Civil Service operates. We have to change the way various Departments and Government agencies operate starting right now. I did not see any of that type of vision even referenced in the budget and we need to have it.

I regard resolution No. 4 as a bit of a waste with €250 million going to investors and developers. On paper, it ticks a few boxes and we might get a few more apartments built but I do not believe that will actually happen. There is a greater risk of the VAT reductions inflating the value of land because - this will be borne out when this actually comes in and what state it comes in at - developers are going to make profits that could be described as supernormal profits, in which case they will see land as a more important commodity. The Government has said that in development plans, which are turning into ten-year development plans now, more land needs to be zoned for housing even though they are not building on the existing land. Developers will see this as a much more valuable asset and it may drive up land values, which would have a knock-on effect on the value of property.

One thing that was not addressed in any commentary on housing was the impact of industrial policy. As Deputy Hayes would know because he sits beside me on the economic committee, we have an industrial policy that tries to get the likes of software companies to relocate around the country. However, the software companies like to locate in Dublin. The problem with that is the employees of these companies who are not essential workers are pushing up the price of housing in my constituency and elsewhere. One of the top companies in Europe - I forget the name but it was mentioned during the committee debate - was quoted on the IDA website as saying that if companies could not get enough workers here in Ireland, there were plenty more in the EU who would come to Ireland to work. This means we are getting localisation-type jobs that are not creating any homegrown Irish jobs. I am not talking about Irish people, but about the types of job we need to be filled by people from abroad, such as construction workers, doctors and nurses, all the ones who make a great contribution already. We do not need localisation jobs to be located in Dublin or any of the major cities. With the remote working capability we have and with broadband being rolled out, if software companies want to employ people in Ireland for localisation, let them move around the towns and villages of Ireland and regenerate those areas that are currently dying, with vacant units above shops in many towns and villages. In my constituency, I have seen areas where 90% of the people who have bought the expensive housing were not born in Ireland. They are working in very well-paid jobs and fair play to them for that. However, a garda, a teacher, a nurse or somebody who grew up in the area cannot even afford the affordable housing because every time the baseline price goes up, that person's threshold is moved and he or she needs to apply again. It is heartbreaking for people who are making a fantastic contribution to this country but their wages are not commensurate with top-end software localisation jobs and they lose out as a result. We need to look at our industrial policy in terms of spreading those types of jobs around the country. Ultimately, it is about overall supply.

We are talking about the planning process, speeding up the tendering process, and making more investment in the likes of apprenticeships so that we have people to build those houses. There were some good suggestions made before about setting up a number of factories to build modular or prefabricated housing. As others have said, the State should be the biggest construction company in the country. It does not mean that it has to build it but it can certainly tender for the work to be done. That is a way to move on the supply issue rather than depending on the investors who are only trying to cream off the high-end profits.

I note the Social Democrats amendment and I am inclined to support it.

See this speech in context