Brendan Ryan (Labour)

My problem is that I like the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, and will, therefore, be inhibited in what I say on the motion. I always find him to be a man who responds to what one says. He does not just recite his script and ignore the issues raised. He seems to come from a family where the senior members are more left-wing than the younger members. Socialism seems to be generally popular in the Ahern family, judging by some of their utterances.

Listening to the EBS spokesperson yesterday, the most telling remark she made was when the building society switched from measuring affordability per individual to per couple. If it had stayed with affordability for the individual, the market would have gone through the roof. Affordability is now based on the combined income of two people. The problem with this is that couples tend to have children. The purpose of many relationships is to have children. The affordability measure, however, cannot be separated from that consequence. If both partners must work, they will inevitably have child care costs. This is the fundamental flaw in the methodology used for measuring affordability. If one is to measure housing and affordability, one either factors out a significant part of one partner's income or factors in the indisputable fact of high expenditure on child care. The figures quoted of 29% to 32% exclude an inextricable link between child care and housing.

I am intrigued that no Member has addressed the fact that most of our ambitious city and county managers have a singular desire to get out of the house-renting business. I am not sure whether it is because they believe they are bad at it, it is a distraction or whatever, but it is difficult to accept that city and county managers, who are notoriously uninterested now in expanding the stock of rented housing within their area of responsibility, will suddenly line up, as the Minister of State suggested, to take up all these opportunities to provide more non-ownership based social housing.

It seems that a large part of our current devices are to do with avoiding the possibility of local authority rented accommodation. There may be good arguments for that. If the Minister of State does not have a strategy constructed, however, one may end up with gaps such as the 40,000 or 50,000 households who are now on local authority housing waiting lists and who are condemned to remain so.

The issue of the cost of building land arises continually. Nobody objects to compensating people for the value of their property to the extent that they are responsible for that value. One can understand the position of people who work in agriculture. There is the idea that the fortuitous fact that one happens to own land which turns out to be rezoned for housing transfers one from a position of minimal compensation to one of a spectacular return which will make oneself and one's family rich forever, is inevitable and a consequence of the market. It is not a consequence of the market. It is a consequence of public policy, which, by a deliberate decision, makes some people rich at the expense of others.

The Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, commented to the effect that one wanting to go the route of the Kenny report may look forward to spending long hours in the courts. Of course Part V, which we all agree was a significant development to be welcomed, was challenged in and singularly and vigorously vindicated by the courts. This made it quite clear that on an issue as fundamental as the provision of housing and shelter for our citizens, the exigencies of the common good would override any special claims of property. Incidentally, there are no rights of property in the Constitution. What the Constitution contains is a right to property. Property is not mentioned as a thing of itself, other than as something that individuals have the right to own. If we want to go the route of the Kenny report, of course there will be a court challenge. There will be one court challenge, just as there was one court challenge to Part V. I believe, more than I did 20 years ago, that such a court challenge would be thrown out, in which case we could deal with the issue.

I am deeply concerned about homelessness. While it is not directly adverted to in the motion, Senator McCarthy and the Minister of State mentioned it. Voluntary organisations are entering into commitments to provide high-quality services for homeless people. Without breaching confidence, all I will say is that I would appeal to the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, who is present, and to his colleague, Deputy Noel Ahern, who was present up until a minute ago, to keep their promises and ensure, in particular, that the HSE keeps its promises. When the HSE agrees to provide multiannual funding on a particular level, it cannot suddenly discover a budgetary problem and retreat from that agreement. That is a recipe for enormous problems for well-intentioned and honest voluntary organisations and there are unfortunate suggestions that there is some sliding from what are meant to be multiannual commitments, particularly to fund services. The Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, was correct in this much at least. Homelessness is not just about housing. One cannot deal with homelessness without providing shelter and housing, but one will not deal with it just by providing shelter and housing. That is where the funding, not just on a capital basis but on a current basis, is needed and unfortunately there is evidence that there is some retreat from that.

I will really believe the Government is facing up to the issue of extraordinary profits in housing when Fianna Fáil's tent at the Galway races closes down and the assembled rich builders are not welcomed into that hospitality, as they have been every year as long as I can remember.