Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

The Minister of State has been honest and transparent in laying out his stall. He is correct in pointing out the extent of the problem. As is evident from today's debate, there is no easy fix for this problem but I hope we can contribute towards the search for a way forward. I recall going to America in the late 1960s and the early 1970s and meeting members of the first generation of Irish emigrants, some of whom were quite elderly. They spoke to me about the homesteads they left behind in certain parts of Ireland and which were being left to crumble. Some of my colleagues are old enough to recall driving through Mayo and other parts of the west and wondering about the human story behind these homesteads. The general feeling at that time was of despondency. There was no hope for rural Ireland and it was virtually a desert. Subsequently, various people came forward with their vision for the future, such as Canon John Hayes, the founder of Muintir na Tíre, Fr. James McDyer in Glencolmcille, who came up with the co-operative movement, Monsignor James Horan, who decided to build an airport in a soggy, boggy part of Ireland. One can see the effect these movements had in their time and we need to take a similar approach. However, when the resurgence came to rural Ireland, with young people trying to build one-off houses in rural areas and emigrants in America, Britain and Australia wishing to return, all kinds of problems, difficulties and ideologies were put in their way. They were pushed into congested areas, often destroying the character of the villages and towns in which they were made to live.

History has an obscene habit of repeating itself. This can be seen in our discussion of the housing developments that are left standing as a monument to greed and the lack of constructive vision. We will have to live with the legacy of the building frenzy which spawned the Celtic tiger for many years to come. We have to solve the multifaceted problems these sites give rise to, including safety and anti-social behaviour. This anti-social behaviour is spilling over to terrorise adjoining communities. We must also think about the unfortunate people who wanted homes of their own and bought at fixed interest rates at the peak of the boom. When interest rates came down, they did not benefit and they are stuck with 8% or 9% interest rates on houses that are not worth half of what they paid for them. Furthermore, the estates in which they live are not even sufficiently developed to justify the money they are paying on their mortgages.

Unlike the rural difficulties, which largely arose from deprivation, the urban issue is the result of the availability of cash from the banks. I will not address the issue of the banks or the unfortunate elderly people who are suffering from the destruction of their pension funds. However, if we do not take a radical approach to the problems we are discussing we will not solve them. We must have joined-up policies because this is not about a single issue. There are many factors involved, with some Members correctly making reference to people currently on housing lists. Some of these people have an income and a vision or ambition to ensure they have a family home. They must be brought into the equation. I will return to the issue of developers in a moment and the responsibility lying with them. We should have a radical policy that puts aside some of the legal constraints, and we can do this in a legislative manner. If we do not act, we will tinker with the issue for the next 50 years. The Land Commission, which has already been mentioned, exceeded 100 years. This is not a fallacy; it will happen.

Our current bad position will get worse. I recall sitting on a town council in the bad old days when money was pretty scarce. People paid rent on council houses but those with a vision within the local authority system, and those who were elected with much to offer, came up with the idea of giving an incentive to tenants to look after a house. When people paid rent, even if there was a scratch on the door a tenant would ask the council to repair it. We had a constant stream of people with such requests. The idea was to give such people ownership, allowing the rent to become part of a loan to be repaid for the house, so that at the end of a period the tenants would own it. That is exactly how we should be thinking.

There are people currently on housing lists and I hope we can lay aside legal constraints to tackle this issue. A skilled tradesman on such a list could be prepared to work within a policy framework to finish a house. We do not like personal ideas in the House but I recall at one stage the urban council in Cashel purchased the local dance hall in order to make it into a community hall. It was bought for £14,000 but it was in a bad state of repair and there was no way we could get money to refurbish it. Our idea was that anybody who wished, such as electricians, painters or carpenters, could donate hours of service. This was overly subscribed and the hall was finished to a standard to use as a community centre.

If we brought this idea to the individual we can only imagine the enthusiasm that would exist if somebody was allocated a house at a cost but on the understanding that it would be finished to a particular standard. Members may believe this is off the wall but what other options have we? How often have we seen communities act when people have seen enough, with tenants sweeping outside their own premises when the council did not do it, for example? Whole areas were cleaned up as a result. Why is there a Tidy Towns competition, which we can be so pleased with and happy about? That has elevated the people of the country. We have trusted the individual and individual idealism.

I go back to Fr. McDyer and others who have been mentioned. Unless we return to such idealism we will not succeed with policies that do not have courage, vision and ambition built in. I am with the Minister of State, although I know he has a difficult task. He has an enviable record at local level and we are probably preaching to the converted. He knows the problems. As I noted at the outset, I hope in some way that the contributions we make will give some idea of a new form of thinking. We do not want partisanship in the Chamber at the expense of human ambition, and we must all work together to a certain timescale.