Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have a number of questions, some of which are specific to one organisation, while others are for all of the organisations to answer. I welcome the presentations. The aim of the alternative budget proposals put forward is one that I endorse. I am not sure who made the point during the presentations but it is true that the budgets have focused on numbers instead of people. That is something we should always remember. I recalled in my budget speech last year leaving Leinster House after the votes on budget night the previous year, walking down Grafton Street and seeing a homeless person in a doorway. I wondered about the maze of motions, resolutions that had to be passed, the Minister getting to his feet and so forth and what it all actually meant to that individual. There was much emphasis in the presentations on homelessness, but if there was one thing that the Minister could do that would have a genuine impact on that individual who slept rough on budget night two years ago, what would it be?

Do all of the organisations support the concept of equality budgeting? We had a debate on this earlier in the year and the Sinn Féin Party has drafted legislation on it. Is it something that the various organisations support?

I refer to the issue of school uniforms, which is being discussed in the media today. My party has been calling for action on this for quite a while and I am glad there is some movement on the issue now. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell schools to allow parents to buy sewn-on crests. Mention was made of school uniform programmes in the presentations.

On the issue of school meals, I have a question for Barnardos. I welcome the presentation from Barnardos, which proposes that the Government maintains the current level of support for school meals. However, as Mr. Mike Allen pointed out, we are now at a situation where we are just trying to retain what we have. The Department of Health released a report last year indicating that 21% of children go to school without a breakfast or a meal at night. How is it that we are only demanding that the Government keeps the funding as is, rather than increasing it to target those children?

A number of organisations have called for mandatory schoolbook rental schemes. The Minister issued guidelines on book rental schemes at the start of the year. I wish to determine whether the organisations are seeking the introduction of a system similar to that operating across the Border, where core textbooks are provided to pupils? The situation here is an absolute scandal. The schoolbooks market in this State is worth between €55 million and €60 million, including core and non-discretionary books. The State provides €15 million every year by way of a grant for schoolbooks and yet we still have children starting school in September whose parents are facing bills of €200 or €250 for books. I am seeking clarity from the organisations. Are they referring in their submissions to schoolbook rental schemes, which are already operating in many schools or are they proposing that the State moves in, increases the book grant to €30 million this year, providing half of all core books and builds on that in the years ahead?

Reference was made to the fact that children are being targeted. We know that child benefit is being targeted again in this year's budget. It has already been announced that the fourth, fifth and any subsequent children will be subject to a drop in child benefit this year. Is the call here to reverse that decision, given that it will only bring in €6 million?

On the mortgage-to-rent scheme, witnesses spoke about incentives and the fact that more clarity is needed. The Department budgeted for 250 mortgage-to-rent applications to be processed this year but as far as I know, only 47 have been completed to date. What additional clarity is needed? The issue of NAMA housing was also mentioned. Does that play a role in the context of social housing and in terms of those under threat of homelessness?

I am glad that attention has been drawn to the issue of tenants and rent receivers. That is an issue that has been lost sight of in the debate around repossessions. I welcome the proposals on a code of conduct for receivers, banks and tenants. Finally, we all know that capital expenditure by local authorities on housing has stopped and that the voluntary sector is not building any new housing. At the same time, we have an enormous housing waiting list of more than 110,000 families. We also have people whose homes will be repossessed in the future. Last week, this committee dealt with the banks, who indicated to us that in recent months they have issued 17,000 legal letters seeking voluntary or legal surrender of houses, many of which are family homes. Where do we need to go? Figures were provided by one of the organisations suggesting that we need to move from the current position of 7% to the European average of 20%. Where do we need to go this year?