Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

As one of those who spoke loudly and vociferously about the degradation of our towns and the level of damage being done during the recession to them, I welcome this opportunity to bend the Minister's ear on the issue.

I welcome the living city initiative as it is a timely reminder of some of the positive measures that were taken in a similar vein during the 1980s. During the 1980s, for example, tax incentives were used to prevent the destruction of the inner city of Dublin. I know we could look back at some of the properties built during that period and say that many of them were not the kind of dwellings we would like to live in, particularly some of those built along the quays by some developers. However, if we cast our minds back to Dublin in the late 1960s and 1970s, there is no doubt that without the measures taken during the 1980s, the city would be in a much worse position.

Philosophically, I disagree with Senator Barrett. The debate so far has been very one-sided and is very much along the lines that any interference with the market is a distortion and should not happen. The market is not perfect and it is our duty not to allow it to have free rein. If the market had free rein, people would be living on the streets because they would not be able to afford housing. I believe the time has come to take stock of where we are today and to decide that as a result of the imperfections of the market, it behoves us to take certain steps to remedy the exigencies of the market. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider some developments to follow on from the living city initiative.

First is an initiative to try to reverse some of the significant and serious damage that has been caused to some of our towns. Recently, I had reason to drive through Arklow and some of the towns of Wicklow and Wexford and found it truly shocking that so many businesses have closed down in these towns. A few green shoots and a few extra bob into the economy will not solve the problem. There are deeper issues, such as upward-only rent reviews. It is not just the fact that people do not have money in their pockets; there are other difficulties and problems. I believe the tax code could be used productively to try to relieve some of these difficulties.

There is an issue coming down the line in regard to housing. Every time there is any mention of providing help or assistance to the construction sector, Senator Barrett gets up to argue against it. It is like a red rag to a bull. However, it is normal in any developed economy for the construction sector to constitute approximately 10% of the economy. Our construction is way below that level at approximately 3%. We are in serious danger of having a sector that will not be able to respond to increased demand when the economy recovers. It is not just a matter of when the economy recovers. Statistics show, particularly our recent census statistics, a significant rise in population at a time when we have no social housing being produced by local authorities and no private sector housing supply. As Senator Barrett knows, the difficulty with regard to construction is that it cannot be turned on and off at will. It is something for which we must plan.

We now have a difficulty with rising rents and people on low incomes who cannot access housing. I urge the Minister to consider seriously the use of the tax code to alleviate this, bearing in mind that a construction sector that falls below a certain point is a danger for any developed economy. It would also be useful to use the tax code to stimulate the construction of housing specifically for people on low incomes. I am not just talking in terms of voluntary housing associations. I suggest commercial construction using the REITs mechanism be introduced in the legislation to incentivise housing for people on low incomes.