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

I thank the Dublin Chamber of Commerce for its input at the committee today. There is a great deal to talk about in all of this but I will try to touch on a few things.

I welcome the emphasis on joined-up integrated planning, public transport infrastructure and the critical importance of investing. I agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan that such matters are critical. It is possible to provide more quality bus lanes and buses quickly, but we are going in the opposite direction by cutting orbital bus routes or by privatising them, which will amount to the same thing in many cases. I do not know whether the chamber is speaking out about this. There has been a pattern of slashing subsidies to public transport. They have increased slightly in the last year, but they are well below what they were before the crash in 2008. I do not know whether the witnesses agree with my view that if we are serious about affordable public transport, a much higher level of public subsidy needs to be provided not only for the development of public transport infrastructure but also for the affordability of public transport to make it an attractive option. Subsidies are needed. Our public transport subsidies are well below the rest of Europe. I ask the witnesses to comment on that.

I welcome the witnesses' emphasis on the critical urgency of providing housing to accommodate the people who need it. Investment in this city will stall if we do not have enough affordable housing. I agree that we need to increase densities, but I do not agree that this necessarily involves massive heights on the scale alluded to by the witnesses. Would they agree with me that we could start looking at all the derelict sites that could potentially be developed? I can think of three such sites off the top of my head - The huge site at Apollo House, which was occupied recently, is just sitting there. The motor tax office behind the Four Courts has been derelict for last six or seven years. The Ormond Hotel on the quays is also derelict. I am sure we could think of many more. I have mentioned three examples off the top of my head. We know there are 55,000 empty units in Dublin, which is shocking. We do not know how many of them are under the control of NAMA. God knows what was going on there. The number of empty units is larger than the number of people on the housing list. There are 44,000 people on the housing list in Dublin. We could start by doing something about the empty units. There is also a need to build some more units.

The witnesses seem to be nodding as they listen to many of my ideas. I think there is broad agreement on many of these issues. I am glad everybody agrees there is a need to bust through the self-defeating fiscal rules. I take it from their presentation that the witnesses agree that this is needed. Similarly, the state aid rules are far too restrictive. I think the state aid rules are a major problem for our capacity to make the necessary strategic decisions about strategic industries or strategic infrastructure. This is also of relevance to rural areas that will be affected by Brexit. If we are going to diversify our economy to deal with things like Brexit, the State needs to be able to make strategic decisions to invest in key areas without being hampered by rules that are somewhat irrational.

I have a bone to pick with the witnesses regarding their emphasis on PPPs. I do not see the rationale for such arrangements. Could the witnesses explain what it is? Many PPPs in the housing area collapsed in recent years. Mr. McGibney referred to the idea that all the risk is transferred to the private sector, but that is not what happens in a PPP. The private sector gets the gains if it goes well and we take the hit if it does not go well. We pay and we still take the risk. If it goes well, the private investor runs off with the profit. This applies to PPPs in areas like toll bridges, toll roads and housing. Deputy Barrett will be interested to know that I recently discussed the need for student accommodation with officials from Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology, IADT. They have been told by the Government that no money is available for capital investment in student accommodation. I was shocked to hear that no money is available for such accommodation in the teeth of a massive housing crisis. Student accommodation is part of the housing crisis. The provision of such accommodation would take pressure off other areas of the rental market. The IADT personnel were told that no money is available for infrastructure of this kind and that even if it were possible, it would have to be a PPP. I do not see the rationale for that. If student accommodation is built 100% by the institution, funded by the State, the rental revenue will come back to the college. If it is a PPP, the rental revenue will go to somebody else and not go back into education. If the private company goes bust, we will still end up picking up the tab. I do not see why we support these PPPs. They do not have a good record. They tend to cost more. Money is put in by the public sector and, if any gains are derived as a result, money goes out to the private sector. Most of the companies involved in PPPs are big investors rather than the small and medium-sized businesses that the chamber mostly represents.

I would like to conclude by asking about the big corporates with which the chamber engages. Do the witnesses agree that we need to start making the case that these should start paying a bit more tax? They benefit from and need some of the infrastructure about which we are talking. I think our educated workforce is one of the biggest reasons the American multinationals are here. In fact, the representatives of the IADT confirmed this to me when I met them the other day. They said the big IT firms contact them all the time looking for the IADT's graduates because they are of such a high quality. This tells me that investment in education and in people has all sorts of positive spin-offs. However, these companies do not want to contribute towards investment in such infrastructure. Equally, their employees need affordable places to live, but they do not want to pay the taxes needed to fund the kind of affordable housing infrastructure that could accommodate those employees.