Paul Bradford (Renua Ireland) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and I apologise for missing his initial presentation of the amendments. I have heard him make the case in this regard previously. I agree with Senator Sean Barrett's comments on the broader scope of the industry and on the problems affecting so many families who are on various housing waiting lists. I recall asking the question of the Minister of State in this House some months ago, whether he had responsibility for housing or for the construction sector, and I was happy with his response at the time. I recoiled with horror when, upon the Minister of State's appointment, I read a construction industry magazine pronouncement.It was glad that it had what it called its "own" Minister again.

I stress that what we need is for the Minister of State to be the Minister for housing, people in need of housing and the building of homes for families, rather than a Minister providing for the construction sector. Senator Barrett has spoken about this issue on many previous occasions. Something has gone absolutely, profoundly, deeply and morally wrong with the construction industry in this country. There was a time when builders built houses, but builders seem to have been replaced with developers. Developers and bankers played a not insignificant role in the near ruination of this country. It appears that there are people who believe that the past few pages of the history script can be torn up and that we can move back to business as usual. There is still a fear, which I share, but perhaps the Minister of State can dissuade me, that housing policy is still being led and set by the construction industry. I look forward to the Minister of State's observations on that.

When the multiplier effect of the cost of homes and houses relative to family incomes continues to increase, we have to accept that things have gone very wrong and we have to attempt to reinvent the wheel. If the recovery in our country, society and economy simply means that we go back to where we were in 2007 and 2008, then it is a question of shame on all of us. We must not attempt to return to the construction industry position as it existed in the midst of the so-called Celtic tiger. That led to disaster on this island for Irish people and we need a new model of housing policy. As a society we have to rethink our view on housing and the amendments on tenancy, rent increases and all of that are important. We could debate them at length, but until such time as we put a housing policy and philosophy in place, changing the current model, such as not seeing a housing estate as a weekly lottery win for a developer but rather as a place where families and communities live and thrive, we are going down the wrong road.

Long after the passage of the Bill, it is important that we fundamentally review the Irish philosophy and approach to doing business vis-à-vishousing. We pride ourselves on home ownership, yet we and Britain stand alone and almost isolated in Europe regarding how we look at home ownership and how we view the rental market and long-term leasing in a very negative light. In the Minister of State's broader approach to housing, it will be very important that he tries to change that equation because what we have previously done has not worked. I support the words of caution on the setting of policy by construction moguls, as outlined by Senator Barrett.

I refer to the series of amendments before us. Much of the talk following the protracted and relatively phoney war between various Ministers related to rent certainty. The Minister of State cannot be blamed for the hand of cards he was dealt and is presenting the Bill before us today. No matter what side of the House one occupies, one has to try to be fair and reasonable. The Bill is possibly as good a stab at a short-term sticking plaster solution as is possible.

However, in advance of the passage of the new rules, regulations and legislation, we have already seen rent increases, certainty will have a very small "c" and capacity still exists in the crucial short-term period for significant increases to occur. That is quite understandable because of the main problem, namely, supply. Where there is a demand and supply imbalance, the person with the supply holds the aces. We should not be surprised that this Bill cannot, by way of a magic wand, solve the issue of rent certainty.

It is funny how in Irish politics phrases we had never used before take on a new currency. If one had spoken about rent certainty 12 months ago, people would have looked at one as if one had two heads, but now everybody is talking about it. We need to talk about housing certainty and put it on the agenda. I and others have suggested that we at least reflect on the concept of a constitutional entitlement to housing - that does not mean a constitutional entitlement for everybody to live in a mansion. The Constitutional Convention sat at some length a few years ago and brought forward many recommendations and spent many a lengthy Saturday in the Grand Hotel in Malahide proposing ways to improve and enhance society.

Elected politicians should be setting the agenda. I would like us to contemplate matters such as a constitutional provision for housing. If such a provision was enshrined in our Constitution by the Irish people, the hand which politicians, Government and the State would be allowed to play would ensure negotiations with developers would be very different - they would not go against them - and would be rebalanced in favour of citizens and communities.

I thank the Leas-Cathaoirleach for his latitude. I apologise to the Minister of State for being relatively aggressive, by my own standards, on this matter but we have to learn from the Ireland of the past decade. When people refer to the restoration of pay, society or the political system, we have to ask ourselves whether we are suggesting that we should try to restore this country to the politics, economics and imbalances of 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008. That would be a shocking legacy for which to plan. Our housing policy must be entirely new in its scope, breadth and vision, and housing certainty must mean that every citizen has a fair opportunity to have a home or family home of his or her reasonable choosing, be it purchased or provided by way of suitable long-term rent.

New models must be considered. My party has suggested a major programme of social and community housing funded by public-private partnerships and pension funds. There are billions of euro in pension funds, most of which - I understand the figure is in excess of 90% - is invested overseas. It should not be beyond the scope of Governments, politicians and public servants to devise a scheme whereby people who have a lot of money to invest would be allowed to invest it at a reasonable return of 5% or 6% in a housing fund or programme which could provide long-term accommodation for tens of thousands of people.

When all is said and done, housing is the great leveller. It is a valid argument that education is the great leveller, but if children or parents are not sure where they live or do not have certainty of accommodation or housing, education is very much down the list of their concerns. If as a society we want to offer opportunities and whatever equality we can - we can get carried away with the term "equality" in debates at times - housing must go to the very core of that because the people who tonight are worried that they will lose their homes tomorrow, next week or next month and those on endless housing lists are not able to plan for the future or provide for their children. It can be done.

When I joined Cork County Council in 1985 it was in the midst of another great period of recession. It was a deeply dreary time economically and politically. I can only speak for my membership of the council, but the northern committee of the council covered a territory of 60,000 or 70,000 people. The local authority built 140,000 or 150,000 houses per annum in just one small section of County Cork.That was at a time when we were in deep recession. There was no money, yet housing was seen as a fundamental priority. Now between local authority housing, public private partnerships and the housing associations, all of which have worked quite well, we can surely come up with a solution. The Minister of State, his colleagues, and all of us must be driving that solution for the housing of people and the provision of homes. It is not the philosophy of the Construction Industry Federation that the Minister of State has to take on board; it is the arguments he hears in his constituency office, in his constituency and from all of us. I regret that I am not as knowledgeable on this piece of legislation as I should be. I am sure it will be a help, but it is a very small step while there is still a supply imbalance. The supply imbalance will only be dealt with by very different and radical thinking. It is a debate for the weeks and months ahead. Until we have housing certainty, issues such as rent certainty are a drop in the ocean. I wish the Minister of State well with the longer term project, but our thinking has to be much bigger and different. As a starting point, there can be no going back to the policies of the Celtic tiger era, which have left too many wounded people in mortgage arrears, on housing lists and with shattered lives. We have a shattered economy as a result of it as well.