Will the Government bring forward legislative proposals to implement the all-party committee on building land and, if so, when? We have had the report on this matter for a number of months but no action on foot of it has been taken by the Government despite the fact that since 1997 the price of houses has trebled from €97,000 in 1997 to €300,000 for an average new house today. As the Tánaiste is aware, the most recent figures show that 50% of all new families cannot afford a house of their own. They show that the number on the public housing waiting list has increased from 26,000 in 1996 to 60,000 now. We know that the price of a new house has increased at nine times the rate of inflation, at five times the rate of average earnings and at four times the increase in the cost of building a house. The single factor that is fuelling this spiral is the cost of building land. The contribution of the site cost to the cost of a house is between 40% and 50% while it was between 13% and 14% in the past.

For all these years the Government has prevaricated. It has not made an intervention that has not made the situation worse. The Taoiseach dawdled for three years indicating that a constitutional impediment might exist and that he might put forward a constitutional amendment. He did not do so, and the all-party committee has borne out the submission the Labour Party made to it. In other words, it is possible to intervene in the common good to control the cost of building land at current use value plus a premium.

What is delaying the Tánaiste in acting? She had no difficulty with the citizenship referendum in rushing an amendment through this House and the other House, yet no action has been taken on this, although the situation is getting worse. The all-party committee confirmed there was no constitutional impediment, notwithstanding the fact that the Government recruited further consultants, Goodbody consultants——

The Deputy must conclude.

——who reported a number of months ago on who owns the building land around this city. I do not know why the Government would want to know that. It already knows, or if it does not, that information is available in Mount Street.

It is true that one in every seven houses in this State was built in the past six or so years. Therefore, there is a major demand issue in addition to the points raised by the Deputy. I share his view that we need to act on the all-part committee report. Windfall gains that owners of land or developers get as a result of a planning decision of a local authority should be bestowed more on the public or the community interest rather than on the personal interest of the landowner. I understand that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is reflecting on this report and he is due to bring proposals to Government. As the Deputy said, it is an all-party committee report. As he may be aware, the representative of my party on that committee supports action along the lines the Deputy suggests. I hope we will be in a position to do that relatively soon.

I am grateful to the Tánaiste for saying that her party supports it because when my party advocated it, the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, described the notion of capping the price of building land as "gift wrapped in an ideology somewhere to the left of Stalin". That was the view of the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon.

That is what was in his script.

Where the incidence of homelessness has doubled, the price of houses has trebled and the number on the waiting list is two and a half times the number who were on it in 1996, the only measures the Tánaiste's party in government took was to abolish the first-time buyer's grant, bring in tax incentives for investors, ensure rents were hiked, cut rent allowance and sabotage the affordable housing scheme. The Government was committed to the provision of 10,000 net additional new affordable and social houses under Sustaining Progress, not one of which has been built.

The Deputy should conclude.

How long does it take the Tánaiste to confer on this subject when there are other matters she can railroad through this House at a few weeks' notice?

I am sure the Deputy is aware we made a number of interventions in the market to try to take the investors out and he knows what were the consequences of that — they drove up the price of rented property. One thing we have learnt is that there are no easy answers here and when one intervenes in the market, it does not always have the consequences one might desire.

I strongly favour the notion that windfall gains bestowed on owners of land as a result of a decision of a planning authority should not go simply to the owner of the land but rather to the public or the community interest. That is more or less along the lines of what the all-party committee suggests. We can legislate for that. For a long time there was a view that a constitutional referendum was required in regard to property rights, but that does not now seem to be the legal position. I hope we will be in a position sooner rather than later to bring in the necessary legislation in this area.