Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a pity we are discussing this now rather than at the forthcoming session with the Department of Finance because it would be more appropriate to that. However, I also want to ask about the EU rules, which are a critical issue for the housing situation in this country. To clarify, is it the case that the EU rules are preventing the Housing Finance Agency from lending to local authorities? If so, is that the only reason? Can our guests clarify whether, for example, if the State were to spend more on social housing in circumstances where it raised more tax to fund that social housing, that would be in keeping with the EU rules? The wealth of the 250 richest people in this country rose by 3% last year. If one decided to bring in a 3% wealth tax, for example, or a corporation tax and used that to fund housing, if the State - the Government - took the decision to raise taxes, would that be in keeping with the rules? My understanding of the EU rules is not that they prevent spending, it is that the income must be found to justify that spending.

The net profits of the top 1,000 companies in Ireland increased by 25% in the past year, so a corporation tax increase could be considered for the homelessness emergency. I am interested in hearing the witnesses' views on this because it will be critical. I met the Minister with responsibility for housing, who told us NAMA cannot be directed to build social and affordable housing because it is a special purpose vehicle and it would be on balance sheet. With regard to the issue of on and off balance sheet, it seems that off balance sheet is becoming increasingly impossible to achieve. Irish Water and PPPs are being recategorised as being on balance sheet. For years, the Department has been looking for ways to be off balance sheet but it cannot be. If this is a straitjacket the EU has imposed we need to be able to tell the public.

In the past, Dublin City Council raised bonds to fund social housing. This was said at a meeting this morning by Dr. Michelle Norris of the Housing Finance Agency. The local authority was self-financing through rents, because in the past local authority housing estates had a diversity of people with low and middle income workers and not just low income workers. It was possible for the local authority to be self funding and get higher rents. Is it plausible that if the income threshold qualification for social and affordable housing was raised, and there is a need for both, we could do something like this again, rather than keeping the income limits for social housing very low with the result that the rents accruing to the housing agency or local authority would also be very low?

I wish to clarify something I said at a previous meeting. I said NABCO had not repaired windows but I understand it has done so since. I am very happy it has done so and I would not like to give it a bad name. There is a problem with the Housing Finance Agency simply funding housing agencies because not many people believe they have the scope and ability to provide social and affordable housing on the scale that is needed. It must involve local authorities.