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

I will use my time to focus on the housing, planning and local government elements of the budget, areas for which I am responsible within Sinn Féin. All Members of the House know that we are in a housing emergency. Every part of our housing system is in crisis. The scale of the human cost, particularly on children, means that politicians must be focused on solutions. It is not enough to shout from the sidelines. That is why Sinn Féin proposed the setting up of the Dáil Committee on Housing and Homelessness, the report of which made very substantial recommendations to the incoming Government. It is also why we brought forward the rent certainty legislation, which unfortunately was rejected by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in this House, and was rejected also today in the Seanad. It is why in the Dáil and in committees we seek to play a constructive role. Where we make criticism we do so because we believe Government policy is not adequate. When we oppose Government policy we always propose costed alternatives. I say this because I am deeply disappointed by the housing elements of the budget. My disappointment does not come from a desire to score political points but from my view that what was announced yesterday is not enough to address the causes of our housing crises. Not only is the housing programme unambitious, it repeats the many policy mistakes of the previous Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments. This means that the housing crises will continue.

I am increasingly concerned by the gap that is opening up between the words of the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Coveney, who clearly understands the scale of the problem, and the actions and inactions of his Government. In his press conference yesterday the Minister made five key claims about the housing budget. The first claim is that the total spend on housing next year will be up 50% on 2016. On the face of it, and from the budget document, that appears to be true but figures provided to me by the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, suggest that the increase may be much more modest. In a parliamentary question answered on 5 May 2016 the then Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, said the projected spend on housing for 2016 would be €933 million. If this figure is correct, and it is different to the figure in yesterday's budget document, then the actual increase announced yesterday is only 23%, not 50% as claimed. The then Minister also stated in reply to the parliamentary question that capital spending, which is crucial in housing, for this year would be €528 million. This means that according to yesterday's announcement the 2017 increase would only be 19%. These are not trivial differences and it would be helpful if the Minister, Deputy Coveney, would put the correct figures on the record - those of his predecessor or those contained in yesterday's budget document. Even if the 50% increase is accurate, given the level of cuts to social housing budgets since 2008, it still leaves local authorities chronically underfunded and unable to meet the growing level of housing need in their administrative areas. Capital spending on social housing remains less than half what it was in 2008. The €150 million announced yesterday is not only insufficient: it is an affront to those families, especially homeless families, in desperate need of social housing.

The Minister will claim that the Government simply does not have the money and that this is the best he can do. I do not accept that. Sinn Féin has shown in its alternative budget that it would be possible to increase capital spending by as much as €491 million next year. We would double the proposed increase in the allocation for local authorities. We would restore the Traveller accommodation budget to 2008 levels. We would double the allocation to the Housing Agency for purchasing vacant units. In addition, by facilitating a modest investment of funds available from the Irish League of Credit Unions, we would unlock an additional €360 million, which, crucially, would be off-balance sheet. In total, this would deliver more than 8,000 real social housing units, twice what the Minister, Deputy Coveney, announced yesterday. It is not that the Government does not have access to the funds for a more ambitious programme, it is that it is choosing to fritter them away on meaningless USC cuts rather than investing them in housing.

The Minister also said yesterday that he will meet the housing needs of 21,000 households next year. Again, this is simply not true. A total of 16,600 of the housing units referred to by the Minister are subsidised private rental units and not real social houses. The overwhelming majority of these are in short-term two-year HAP tenancies. That is not social housing. Yes, the scheme has some advantages over rent supplement, particularly for those in work, but it does not meet the long-term social housing needs of the families involved. It is bad housing policy and runs contrary to the Government's stated commitments to build sustainable communities. Almost 80% of the housing to which the Minister referred yesterday is private sector housing subsidised by the State. This is the fundamental flaw that has been at the heart of Government policy for decades. Over-reliance on the private sector did not work in the 1990s, it did not work in the 2000s and it certainly will not work now.

The same can be said about the promise to fund 3,000 exits from emergency accommodation next year. We know from international best practice that private rental accommodation is the least appropriate and least secure exit from homelessness. It does not provide the long-term security that homeless people, especially those with a history of repeat homelessness, need. However, this is what the Government is proposing in the majority of cases. An exit from homelessness is only meaningful if it is into secure, permanent housing.

The Minister's other keynote proposal is the misnamed help-to-buy scheme. It was interesting to see how irate the Minister, Deputy Coveney, became yesterday when being put under pressure by the media at his press conference. He, as a Minister, cannot on one hand state that he wants to listen and hear the views of other people on his proposals while, on the other, rubbish those opinions as "academic" - to quote what he said - because he does not like what people say. The overwhelming majority of expert opinion is telling the Minister that this scheme will not work and, in many cases, that it will actually make matters worse. There is nothing academic about fuelling house price inflation or pushing ever greater numbers of people out of the first-time buyer market but, unfortunately, in its isolated wisdom, is what the Government is seeking to do. This is not a transformational housing budget, as the Minister claimed. It is a status quobudget which does nothing for the vast majority of families on council waiting lists suffering with excessive rents or locked out of the first-time buyers market.

I am also concerned by the significant cut to the local government fund. This is a 7% drop, or approximately €22 million, as outlined yesterday. I would like to hear from the Minister about what he thinks will be the impact of this cut on council services and about which services he believes councils should cut as a result of his decision.

I am also concerned about the paltry €2 million allocated for improving water quality and what appears to be a very small overall capital investment programme for upgrading the water system. I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions - I appeal to him again to clarify the position now - how much of the €533 million capital investment programme next year for Irish Water will be direct Exchequer funding as opposed to borrowing. Will the Minister tell us why no provision has been made in next year's funding for the consequences of the possible abolition of water charges? We know it is not the Government's preferred option. If, however, Fianna Fáil keeps its word on this matter, the money will have to be found and, on that basis, it should have been included in the financial Estimates.

Genuinely, I would like to be able to welcome the housing budget of the Minister, Deputy Coveney. People elected me to effect change. There are no votes to be had in criticising purely for the sake of it but the housing policy in budget 2017 and the anaemic level of investment underpinning it are simply not enough. This is why I cannot and will not support the budget.

See this speech in context