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

I thank the Minister and his team. In light of everything the Minister has said and some of the discussion we have had here today, are we not heading into a do-nothing, change-nothing budget? When people shout out on behalf of particular sectors, the Minister acknowledges that in an ideal world we would have greater spending or investment in those sectors but he goes on to say we do not have the money because we are working within the envelope or the fiscal space. He says we are not going to have the funds to put into everything that should be funded. I do not think that is a very happy prospect, especially in light of the legitimate claims for extra investment or expenditure under a series of headings. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to this. I would say that in most cases, such extra spending would actually be good for the State, from a financial perspective, in the medium to long term. Are we being constrained by fiscal space to the point where we are not capable of doing things which would be good in the medium to long term but which we are not allowed to do because of the short-term cost involved? To me, that is just bad economics. It is not good for the future that we are in this straitjacket.

I will give an example. The Minister and everybody else says that even though we should move towards funding the arts to the tune of 0.6% of GDP, which is the EU average, we cannot afford to do so. By the way, we were the only people to allocate extra money to the arts in our budget submission last year. We know from the contribution the arts make that there is a sure-fire return at every level from investment in the arts. The costs that ultimately arise in all sorts of areas like crime and policing are the knock-on consequences of children and young people not benefitting from investment in areas like the arts in their local communities. I could also speak about the benefits of such expenditure for our reputation in the arts and for tourism, etc. It is a sure-fire winner.

I will mention housing as an another example. The Minister can come back to me on this. As a result of the constraints on having an upfront, major, direct public programme of building local authority houses, as we used to do once upon a time, the vast majority of the Government's housing plan - between 70% and 80% of it - depends on sourcing social housing from the private sector via the housing assistance payment or leasing arrangements. The Minister will argue that the Government cannot afford to provide entirely for local authority housing, as we are suggesting, because that would breach the expenditure limits and we do not have the money to pay for it upfront. I suggest that such an approach will prove to be completely stupid in the medium to long term. If we do it our way, there will be a greater upfront cost, but the State will end up with an asset and the rental revenue from that asset will come back to the State. If we do it the Government's way, most of the rental revenue that is going to derive from the State's investment in social housing, but not local authority housing, will go out.

In the end, it is not very good economics. The rental revenue is not going to go to us. It is going to go to the vulture funds or private developers from whom we lease stuff, for example, under the Part V arrangements, or the new 30:30:30 arrangements I understand we will have on public land. That is what the housing plan is saying. Previously, public land was used for 100% public housing. Now it is going to be used for 30% public housing and 60% private housing. We will be leasing it back off the vulture funds and private developers. Rather than investing in something that will lead to money coming back in the medium to long term, we are providing for a system in which money will be going out every year. I do not think that is prudent. I think it is stupid. This stupidity is being imposed on us by those who are obsessed with staying within the fiscal space.

I would like to mention a few other areas, such as forestry, that I do not have time to go into in detail. I do not understand why we do not have a massive afforestation programme. We would get a sure-fire return if we were to upscale our efforts in that area. The Swiss invest in banks, forests, chocolate and a few other things. That is seriously what they do. Banks buy up forests as a sure-fire investment. When the last Government was considering the sale of our forests, banks were trying to buy them. We are not able to expand our forest estate. I would like to comment on this. As far as I am concerned, it is madness that Coillte is essentially constrained by European rules from expanding our forests.

This country's approach to public transport seems to involve its delivery by means of privatisation. If we are going to deal with the threat of climate change and get more people to use public transport, surely we need lower fares and a model of public transport that is not driven by profit. That means a higher level of subvention for public transport and cheaper fares. This is essential if we are to avoid the penalties about which Deputy Ryan spoke. That would be a critical start. We need to invest in the public system. That means a higher level of subvention. Instead, we are relying on the privatisation model.

I could go through a whole series of other examples, but I do not have time to do so. We are told that we spend more than any other country in the area of health. I want to know how much of that is going to the private sector. I suggest the amount is very significant. If the money going to the private sector were stripped out, it would be evident that it is not the case that more money is being invested in this country's public health system than in the health system of any other country in Europe. In such circumstances, we would probably find that the level of investment here is about the same or possibly even less. A huge amount of money is being sucked out of the system by private profit-taking.

I will conclude by asking why we cannot expand the fiscal space. I would say there are many ways of doing this. I know the Minister will not accept some of my suggestions. He will not break the fiscal rules. He will not agree not to pay back several billion in interest on loans next year. We believe such repayments are odious. The Minister could look for extra tax revenue from sectors that can afford to pay more. If we do not take such measures to expand the fiscal space, every one of the key sectors that is being short-changed will not get the investment or expenditure it needs. That is just a fact.