Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I have two questions. The IFAC has said that it is imprudent to spend money the origins of which are uncertain. There is this unexplained jump in corporate tax revenue which was not in the initial budget projections and it would be unwise to merely go on a splurge and spend it. The IFAC has said that the Government is imprudent in this regard. Would it be less imprudent to spend it if one knew that the expenditure was guaranteed to give one back revenue and the spending, if you like, would wash its own face in the medium to long term so that there is not a risk associated with the expenditure? The reason I ask relates to my second question in respect of housing and the financing of housing, which I have already touched on but the importance of which I cannot overemphasise. It is often said - but we do not think through the implications - that the question of housing and the financing of housing is at the centre of the economic crisis, domestically and internationally. Buying a house is the biggest expenditure that anybody ever has in his or her life. On an ongoing basis, it is the biggest investment. It is central. It links to so many different matters. Is it a serious risk if the State is vulnerable to the volatility of the financing of an essential sector?

I highlight for the IFAC this danger of which it should be aware. The vast majority of the Government's housing strategy, even in its social housing provision, is dependent on outsourcing to the private sector. The State will have to pay for that. It is money out - in the form of leasing arrangements, rent allowances, etc. - that will not come back in. The cost is running at approximately €1 billion per year. If property prices and rents continue to rise, the State could be in a really serious position. Is it not, to use the IFAC's word, "prudent" to reduce our risk in that regard? The way in which we would do that is to have a bigger stock of State housing which generates revenue. That would not be money out, it would be investment which guarantees money coming back in. There would be less current expenditure than there is at present. Through upfront capital investment for which we could use this €2 billion we would reduce the current expenditure going out on the private sector that is just money literally going out the door. Would that be prudent because there is no risk associated with it? The rents will come back, if the State builds this housing. I say that because one of the features of a more stable period of the world economy was in the post-war era when there was a much bigger stock of state housing across the western world. At certain times in Ireland, 40% to 50% of all housing would have been provide by the State and that created stability at the centre of the economy. Now the State provides less than 5% and its stock of housing is much reduced compared to what it was at that period of much greater stability. Is this something that we need to consider and that must be a much bigger feature of the IFAC's analysis?