Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the contributors. There is so much to think about and we are covering so much ground that it makes the head spin. The idea of targeted measures is a mantra that has been trotted out but we need to spell out what it means. I would not mind hearing a little more on what the witnesses think it means. If targeted measures were to mean, for example, having lots of means-tested payments and a massive administration deciding thresholds and who is entitled to this or that, it would not be a good way to do things. Is that what we mean? Do targeted measures mean we should not give loads more money to corporations that are making super-profits? The interesting thing about this crisis, which is inflicting huge misery on ordinary families who are facing bills and rents they cannot pay, is that some people are doing well and the economy is doing well. The reason corporate tax receipts are up is that corporate profits are at record levels. Some people are, therefore, doing very well.

If targeted measures mean that we should not give further handouts to already super-profitable companies and already super-rich people, I am all for targeted measures. However, if it means that ordinary working people who, if we take all of the cost-of-living increases we have seen over the past year or two, are probably €4,000 or €5,000 less well off than they were a year ago in real terms just have to suck it up, then I am not for targeted measures because that would be unfair. It would also be economically and environmentally damaging.

As somebody said to me in the corridor today, when the demand for solid fuel wood is going up, we are not very far away from people chopping down trees - this is not a joke - to get fuel for their homes, which is not very good for the environment. That is where things are going if people cannot afford to heat their homes. What do we mean by targeted? I believe that as a minimum in this budget, pensioners and people on social welfare have to get increases up to the level of inflation, that is, of around 10%. Anything less will be unconscionable because in other words, we would be saying they are going to be poorer this year through no fault of their own and that when the economy is growing and super profits are being made, they must accept they must be poorer. That is not acceptable. I want to understand what the council means by "targeted". Is it saying those sorts of people - pensioners, students and ordinary workers - will just have to soak it up to some degree or by "targeted", does it mean we should not give handouts to those who are super-profitable or super-rich? Unless we start to define what we mean by "targeted", we are talking nonsense.

Regarding what we do with the bonanza corporate tax revenues, again, I want to understand exactly what the council is saying. If we say we are vulnerable in that regard because we are dependent on a small number of companies, as I agree we are, we are, however, facing an emergency, so it seems to me that we must use that revenue to address the emergency and protect people and get us from an unsustainable situation to a sustainable one, including in the medium term, as Professor McMahon was referring to, to have a sustainable economic plan. Is there anything wrong with saying we should be investing in areas that will help people now but also make us sustainable in the medium to long term? Housing is an obvious one. The current housing crisis is draining current Government revenue to a massive degree - by about €1 billion per year. Putting more money into building direct public and affordable housing would both help address an immediate crisis and make public finances more sustainable in the medium to long term. That is just one example.

Given that we have labour and skills shortages all over the place, if we removed obstacles to people getting into further and higher education, that would be good now and in the medium to long term. If we invested in a sustainable form of forestry, that would create employment, help shore up the rural economy in a difficult situation and be a good long-term investment from an environmental point of view. Those are just three examples. If we made public transport free, it would be a cost-of-living measure that would help now and would also move us in a positive direction from an environmental point of view and build up our infrastructure. Could Mr. Barnes comment on that? Is this a reasonable perspective?