Mr. Liam Berney:

I shall make a couple of points. Our proposals were not meant to be fanciful or unachievable. From our perspective, we face a situation where there is a limited amount of fiscal space and, therefore, we must prioritise how best to spend the available money. ICTU has tried to identify priorities in its pre-budget submission. Congress has thousands of members like those described by Deputy Lahart. We have tried to improve their incomes through the collective bargaining process. Hopefully, those who are employed in the public sector will benefit from the increases they will get through the wage increase that forms part of the public service pay agreement. ICTU has launched a campaign to increase pay in the private sector as well. We are trying to ensure, as best we can, that the traditional and most effective way of increasing wealth through collective bargaining is maximised.

ICTU has tried to emphasise that the scale of the problem is so great that we need a new response to address the homelessness and housing crisis. The only way to do this is to present the challenge accurately. That is why we have clearly stated that we need 10,000 new houses per year. I accept that we will not magic them out of nowhere. ICTU emphasised the problem in order to draw attention to finding solutions. That is why I made the point that local authorities must take a lead. There are significant gaps in the capacity of local authorities to do so. That does not mean we cannot look at ways to provide adequate resources to local authorities to meet the challenge. We must tackle the problem in some shape or form. The local authorities are best placed to understand the problem. For example, land that is not currently in use and is lying idle should be used to meet the housing need. ICTU believes that local authorities should take the lead in tackling the housing crisis. The purpose of the pre-budget submission by ICTU is to highlight the extent of the challenge we face. ICTU wants to focus attention on the political and policy-making systems in order to find ways to meet the challenge. Congress, as an organisation, can only point to the challenge and suggest ways to meet the challenge, which is what we have tried to do. Ultimately, the solution comes down to the political choices that are made by the people in these Houses on how to spend the available resources. We believe that the Government, in the 2018 budget, should, instead of cutting taxes, use whatever money is available to invest in the key infrastructural deficits that exist in the economy and our society. It is our view that this is the best way to spend the money. We are not unsympathetic to the point made by Deputy Lahart.

I shall respond to the question of dispensing with the 9% VAT rate in the hospitality sector. The Deputy said that the initiative would lead to the tax being doubled. That cost does not necessarily have to be passed on to consumers. ICTU has seen evidence that suggests that the hospitality sector has increased its profits due to the increased money generated by the reduced rate of VAT. Those in the sector can simply reduce their profits rather than pass the cost on to consumers.