Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Bhíos i mo shuí anseo tráthnóna Dé Máirt ag éisteacht leis na hóráidí ó na hAirí. Bhíos ag tnúth le hóráidí dearfacha ón Rialtas seo.

It was to be expected that the Government, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform would make the speeches they did, speeches that would present their work over the past four years as positive. There is no doubt about the situation inherited from previous Governments, the crisis, the mess and the catastrophe. Their speeches acknowledged difficult decisions had to be taken with significant sacrifices made by the people.

The problem I have, however, is that not everyone made sacrifices and the pain was not experienced proportionately. Yes, there have been repairs to the economy and the outlook is brighter. People, however, do not feel statistics in their pockets or wage packets. It is claimed the economy is growing at the fastest rate in Europe with 4.8% in 2014, a predicted 4% growth this year and a stable economic growth of 3.75% on average for the rest of the decade. This is meaningless, however, to many people unless they see an improvement in the money they take home in wages or in their social welfare benefit or pension and until they have disposable income after the bills are paid. Until then the percentages and the statistics come across as pure rhetoric and propaganda. To what effect will 4% growth have on those public servants whose salaries generally are down 14%, on those whose pensions have been decimated, those other groups in society who have really suffered, such as those with disabilities and housing issues, and in the areas especially of health and education?

I have no difficulty with a spring, summer or winter statement. I like the idea behind this of standing back and taking stock of where we are, how we got here and where we are going. Maybe we do not have enough philosophical debates in this Chamber. I have heard several speeches on the spring statement. They are glowing from the Government’s side but critical from the Opposition. I have also heard criticisms about the amount of time given to this debate. There would be a criticism if there were not enough time, however. It is important everyone who wants to contribute should have an opportunity to do so.

The disappointment is the way in which we approach this debate. It is the same old, same old with no debate or real engagement on the issues. We are still rooted in the traditional roles of them and us. We had a small example of the alternative during Private Members’ Business on Tuesday night on mortgages, with contributions from Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly on this side and the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, on the other side. There was almost a glimmer of how it might be in this Chamber if we had real debate.

Another disappointment with this statement is the use of phrases such as, “We must never again repeat the boom-and-bust economic model” or “Prudent policies support growth and job creation”. Where is the engagement with the Opposition on how to work on this? There has to be another role for the Opposition besides just opposing. There are good ideas on this side of the House but politics continues to be adversarial and confrontational. We are all public servants in this House. I do not know any other sector in the public service, in health and education, where teachers, nurses, social workers or doctors work in an adversarial and confrontational way. Everything is done in a congenial atmosphere with consensus building and working together. That is the rational human being in me speaking rather than the political. I will be dreaming of and hoping for a new way of doing politics.

No one expected a pre-budget statement of who is getting what. I would have liked to have heard more, however, about a vision that will guide us forward on the values that are going to be uppermost, as well as an acknowledgement of the areas and people who were hardest hit and the areas of crisis that would be prioritised. One of these areas is housing. I was disappointed we do not have a vision or an action plan included in this economic statement on this matter. The largest number of calls coming to me every day is about housing. Rents in the private rental sector are increasing between €100 to €400 a month for individuals, couples and families. Many of them cannot pay the increases, even those in employment.

We have had our scandals in the past around child abuse in industrial schools, the mother and baby homes, the Magdalen laundries and, in recent years, children living in direct provision.

The next scandal is the way in which children are being treated when their families become homeless. They have to live in bed and breakfast accommodation or a hotel room and rely on takeaway food. There are also issues regarding their education, physical and mental health, the lack of social events and sports facilities. I hope it will not take a tragedy involving one of those children before the issue is seen as urgent.

Landlords cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, ethnicity, religion or colour, but they can discriminate against those who are offering rent allowance. Deputy Donnelly's motion last week contained commonsense and practical solutions for mortgage arrears. Many of them had been agreed with the Government at the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to try to deal with this mortgage crisis. When will we see action to make a real difference in preventing people from becoming homeless?

The size of families is increasing and we also see adult children returning to the family home. Making money available for home extensions, which can be erected quickly, could help to alleviate the lack of residential space.

There was an opportunity to recognise the housing crisis in the spring economic statement, thus giving real hope to people, especially families with children and also single men. Some of them may never get a local authority flat or apartment in their lifetime. Rhetoric and fine words will not build houses.

Government Ministers have spoken about job creation and everybody wants to see jobs, but we have a working poor. The use of zero hour, dead-end contracts is a worrying trend. Such payments do not allow people to live in dignity. In recent years, employers have taken advantage of the economic crisis to phase out staff on pre-recession contracts, while phasing in contracts that offer no stability or any prospect of a dignified life.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, spoke of his plans to increase employment, replace lost jobs and attract returning emigrants. That is all great, but significant segments of society must accept poor working conditions, low pay, few or no benefits, and ridiculous contracts. Jobs are being created but they are not economically viable enough to allow people to live in dignity. There is a disparity between the growth on paper, which the Government highlights, and the lack of growth being felt by ordinary people.

Whatever about able-bodied people weathering a recession, there is one group that finds it extremely difficult. They are the people with physical or mental disabilities, or both. They should not have suffered in this way. Over 600,000 disabled people and their families were not protected during the worst recessionary times. A guiding vision is required for them to move forward.

I am sure that other Members of the House have also received the letter from St. Michael's House about issues of concern for severely affected school leavers. The school completion programme took massive hits and it also had to make up for the shortfall from other cuts to Traveller teachers, career guidance and counselling. Their work was not really appreciated. I took hope, however, from the most recent reply I received about this matter from the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Reilly. The Spring Economic Statement should have included a vision for the most vulnerable sections in society.

The effects of the recession, including cuts, have been felt in my constituency of Dublin Central. For many months, we have had a major battle over community development programmes for the most marginalised. I am aware of the stress, anxiety and tension that has created. There have been some positive outcomes, however, for the Inner City Co-op and the Tolka Area Partnership.

Drug addiction is not confined to Dublin Central but it is an ongoing issue there. I wish the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, well in his new portfolio. There have been issues concerning drug-free accommodation and detox beds.

We have also seen the effect of cuts to community policing. Major work was done by the community policing forum in building up relationships between local authorities and the Garda Síochána. Cuts to community policing have resulted in open drug dealing on so many streets in the north inner city. Although it is a cliché, it is true that we can judge a society by how it treats vulnerable people. I do not think we have done well in that regard.

Ireland is respected overseas and despite the recession we have been able somewhat to maintain our overseas development aid. We are a major contributor in times of disaster, as can be seen currently in Nepal. However, we are moving further away from the 0.7% target figure of gross national income for overseas aid.

We could be a strong advocate for human rights, workers' rights, tax justice and preventing illicit flows of capital. We must ensure that Irish firms doing business abroad are totally transparent in their negotiations.

Nobody enters politics to damage their country; we are all here because we love our country. We want to do our best for the country and its citizens. Any recovery and growth is welcome. However, the facts for people on the ground belie what was said in the spring economic statement. I have tried to outline those facts in my contribution.

The recent TASC report showed that there is a growing inequality gap which is approaching US levels. That problem has to be taken on board. There are other parameters to measure success besides economic ones. They include quality of life, especially for the most vulnerable.

The holy grail of a 12.5% corporate tax rate is fine, but can we be transparent about it? Can we see exactly who is paying what, and are we getting the full 12.5%?

See this speech in context