Fiona O'Malley (Independent)

I realise we are running out of time. Senator Buttimer brought home with graphic accounts the human misery involved for people who have to conduct their lives in ghost estates. It is something on which we must focus. Safety is a major concern if one is in a difficult situation and one is forced out of one's home under those circumstances. People might decide that it is unfortunate to live in an unfinished house but what can one do if one is told that a building is likely to collapse and one has no insurance. My heart goes out to that family. It brings home what we are faced with.

I take slight issue with the contribution made by the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, because we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Tax incentives were good. The Minister of State should recall Dublin in the 1980s. There was nothing in the docks area. Tax incentives changed that in the area beside the Four Courts all up along the quays. I accept it is not high quality building but what was there previously was dereliction. The new docklands areas on both the south and north quays was where we learned. Architecture of high quality is evident there. It is a joy to walk around that area.

There is stagnation of building projects now. We are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that tax incentives were helpful in regenerating areas in my native city of Limerick for example. It is wrong to say there was not some good in tax incentives just because it is now fashionable to kick developers. For the sake of consistency, people are crying out for stimulus packages to generate income and transactions in the country. That is exactly the purpose of tax incentives. We must be careful about the language we use because it is what is being sought to get people to buy cars and do whatever else. A flexible taxation system is one that allows people to invest in other people's opportunities, be they for motor manufacturers or others. Tax incentives are not of themselves bad. The problem was compounded when there was cheap money and there was no need for tax incentives in the property sector. Inappropriate tax incentives do no one any good at all.

I agree with Senators Buttimer and Norris. One could not disagree with the Labour Party's side of this motion, but neither could one disagree with the Government's side. It should become a composite motion. I applaud the Minister of State and his Department, as they have conducted a survey with facts. This is useful because we can do something with that information.

In terms of the establishment, I am glad that the second meeting of the expert advisory group has been held. The Minister of State mentioned that we are where we are, but we must consider what we will do. I do not disagree with the Government which wants to show what it plans to do. In this light, one could not argue against the Government's amendment. For this reason, we have an opportunity to table a composite motion. As Senator Buttimer stated, it is about people. Something must be done about the properties in question and people need homes. Mixing the two is not an exact science, but solutions could be reached.

The Government's amendment clearly outlines what work will occur and how it will happen. The appendix to the terms of reference states: "To report to the Ministers on the above and on such other issues as are relevant to the subject matter no later than 31 January 2011". The Minister of State should not let this deadline pass; it is far too important. I have every faith in him in this regard as the problem is manageable, but in light of Senator Buttimer's illustration regarding people stuck in certain situations, we must keep the foot firmly on the pedal and ensure the problem is resolved. We can do it if we work together and tabling a composite motion would deliver a resolution.