Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, before section 5, to insert the following new section:“5.—The Minister shall within 3 months of the passing of this Act prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann an analysis of the tax increases in this Act, and the total of tax increases and spending cuts of Budget 2013, setting out the continuing impact on people based on their gender, income, age, marital and disability status.”.

We had a discussion earlier about the Minister citing the Commission report and Opposition Deputies citing the ESRI report. At the end of the day, neither makes an in-depth analysis of the impact of budgetary matters on different sections of society. The amendment calls for an evidence-based approach in respect of what the Government does at budget time. It calls for the Minister, within three months of the passing of the Act, to prepare and lay before the Dáil an analysis of the tax increases in the Act, and the total of tax increases and spending cuts of budget 2013, setting out the continuing impact on people based on their gender, income, age, marital and disability status. It calls for equality proofing of the legislation and it should be done prior to a budget. The budget should be independently proofed before enactment. Just up the road, in Stormont, that takes place under section 75 of the Equality Act, where Departments are required to independently scrutinise proposals and ensure they do not adversely affect one section of society or another. There is much talk about fairness and it is a word that has been bandied about by the Government. The budget is not fair and it hurts people on low and middle incomes. It has not dealt with the issue of excess, whether with regard to high-income earners under the Croke Park agreement or asking those with high incomes in the private sector to pay more.

The Minister mentioned salaries of €100,000 per year and how such people are finding it difficult to get by. That may be the case but if one subscribes to that view, people on €20,000 are finding it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get by. This Minister must realise that reality.

A third rate of tax at 48% would guarantee the income of every individual up to €100,000. Anyone earning €100,000 would not be affected by the proposal. It would apply only to the income in excess of €100,000, on which they pay 7 cent on every euro. Incomes up to that level would be protected, which is generous. The amendment refers to income assessment, proper equality impact assessment and examining groups such as people with disadvantage and women. If the Minister does such analysis, he will see his budgets have negatively affected categories such as women and those with disabilities. This should not cost any money or only a small amount of money. It is important and it is the way we should do this analysis. No one should fear facts and figures and we should not rely on the European Commission or the ESRI to tell us whether the budget is progressive. I made this proposal before and I hope the Minister is open to it. I am not sure if Fine Gael supports the idea but, in opposition, the Labour Party argued for equality proofing of budgetary matters. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, was one of the advocates at the time, along with Sinn Féin. There is a campaign to have budgets equality proofed and it would be a mature reflection on the Parliament if we were open enough to say that these are the decisions and to measure the impact on the disabled sector, the low income sector, women and other groups in society. The template exists and it can be replicated in the State. Hopefully, some of the independently equality proofed analyses will show budgets in the future have improved the lot of these sections of society. It is equally important to provide hard facts and to lay them before the House for its perusal.

Such a measure would also allow Members in opposition or Government Deputies to make better informed decisions. There is no resolution to the debate on whether last year's budget was progressive. We contend it is not, the Minister contends it is. We are just going around the houses and we will not get anywhere. If there was proper equality proofing of the budget, we could say that we had done the evidence-based analysis and that the budget has, for example, benefited women, marginally decreased the welfare of the disabled and worked out in a particular way for higher earners. The Government should not be afraid of this although I can understand why the Government may be afraid of it at this point. If such equality impact assessment was done on the budget, it would be embarrassing for the Minister, for his party in government and for his coalition partners. I commend the amendment.