Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment. I compliment the Labour Party on tabling a Private Member's motion on a most important topic for our people. I concur with Senator Hayden that there has been a failure of policy over many years. We have reached the stage where there is over reliance on the private sector to resolve the issue. That is not going to happen. We should examine the past to see where the various mistakes were made. The property bubble began in 1996 with the introduction of the coastal resort schemes. I had investigated whether the schemes would be a good investment.

The developers added the tax break to the price of the house. Given that everybody thought they would get a bigger tax break, houses that would have been bought for approximately €150,000 were suddenly priced at €375,000 with the tax break. This inflation of house prices was enormously damaging.

We were involved in many of the section 23 projects which were introduced in the early 1980s. An investor who bought a section 23 property could write off all the interest against his or her tax bill and the capital cost over 10 years. While doing that, we were starting to deprive people who were struggling to get on the property ladder by reducing the tax breaks on their mortgages. I could never understand it, and at a parliamentary party meeting I argued that it did not make sense. I have enumerated many examples of such failure of public service thinking and experience regarding what needed to be done. I place some responsibility on our “permanent government” and some on the governments in power.

I would have thought that after four years in office, the Government would soon start to take some responsibility for some of the shortcomings and failures of its policies, certainly in the housing area. I left local government in 2004, and throughout my time on Wexford County Council and New Ross Town Council I took a particular interest in housing. We had a building programme there and when I left, there were no hard cases waiting to be accommodated in council housing. The lists were practically exhausted. I accept the fair criticism that in the subsequent years at the height of the Celtic tiger we built too many houses and apartments and not enough council houses. I never accepted Peter Bacon's analysis that increasing supply until it exceeded demand would correct house price inflation. As Senator Landy said, while supply and demand is a principle of economics, housing is more than just an economic unit. It is a social necessity. There is an historic link, because of our history, to owning property. Home ownership is a legitimate aspiration in any country, and we had achieved more than 80%. This figure is decreasing and no policies have been put in place to address the fallout from it. I am particularly critical of this.

The Minister of State's father, who served on Waterford County Council, would be aware that we had a good, solid house-building programme year in year out at a time when the fiscal position was no better - and for many years worse - than it is today. However, we committed to building houses and provided tenant purchase schemes so people could acquire them. I established a housing co-operative in New Ross which brought together people in council houses with people on the council housing lists and dealt exclusively with them. In two schemes, we accommodated 25 people. People who were on the priority list and who had not been able to access home ownership were able to do it.

I would like to return to the debate because the time allocated is inadequate. It is a very important issue and I commend the Labour Party on proposing the motion. I hope, by the end of the evening, we might decide to adjourn the debate to another evening when more time could be given and people can talk more. We must address the issue and concentrate on constructing local authority houses. There is a waiting list of 90,000 and at the current rate of 3,000 per year it will take 30 years to accommodate some of those people. We have an issue in the private rented market. I have reservations about rent supplement. I have seen how it has escalated and become a burden on the Exchequer and I am not sure it is not a major contributory factor in rising rents. It needs to be closely examined. I am conscious that I am in injury time.