Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This will be the last time I mention fiscal space, I promise. If, for example, the AHBs were to spend in a given budgetary year €100 million on private borrowing, that would take up €25 million of fiscal space. Does the Department know how much of the €100 million private borrowing facility was spent by the AHBs? What would be the advantage to the Government in terms of that available extra fiscal space if they were off-balance sheet? From everything Mr. McKenna says it seems that would be a small sum of money. If it has not spent the €100 million or has spent only €50 million in a given year it is a quarter of that. Do we know how much of that private borrowing has been spent? Post-rebuilding Ireland this is fictional because we do not know who will be in government or what the plan is. It is in the development plan but many of those things are questionable. Even to the end of rebuilding Ireland do we know how much of the capital spending by the AHBs in 2020 and 2021 will come notionally from private borrowing?

I agree with Mr. Lemass that if it is a question of good quality or off-balance sheet regulation, we go for good quality. Likewise, if it is a question of good-quality, subsidised, not-for-profit housing within the context of Government policy versus the British sub-market model to get off-balance sheet, I am for the first option. Notwithstanding that, I would have thought the Department would like to know - not from the regulator but from the CSO and the Department of Finance, because they have a level of expertise the rest of us do not have - if the provisions of this Bill a help or a hindrance? It is not a question of removing them from the Bill but it would be good to know if they were a help or hindrance in the context of reclassification because if it is the view of the Department not to opt for reclassification because the policy costs are too high and its recommendation to the Minister or the view of Government is that they are not policy changes it is willing to contemplate, we should just say that. I am not stating that this is what Mr. Lemass is saying but it does sound as if that is the direction this conversation is potentially taking. There is no point in our talking about reclassification if from a policy point of view the Department is saying the loss from the social housing provision is too great to bear.

We know how many new households come onto the housing list every year because that is published by the Housing Agency and there were approximately 14,000 households last year and the year before, which is twice the output of real social housing. I absolutely respect the fact that Mr. Lemass must outline the Government's policy decision on HAP and people’s housing needs being met. If, however, we take all the people on the housing list and add the people on HAP and RAS, the number is 140,000. The problem is that the NDP targets are based on an assumption that the long-term housing needs of households are met by HAP and RAS, but they are not. I am not looking for a response from Mr. Lemass but he should feel free to respond if he wishes. Short-term housing needs, two years for HAP and four for RAS and all the 50,000 on HAP are entitled to social housing. The NDP targets only work if we assume nobody comes onto the housing list even though 14,000 have come on each year for the past two years and the Department is assuming that the people in receipt of HAP will not want to take advantage of the transfer list. When those are added in, it is producing approximately half of what it needs over the course of the NDP. That is why those figures are kind of tricky but that is for another meeting.