Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The focus of attention by media and individuals will be on the detail of the budget and how it will impact on people. However, to understand why cuts and increased taxes are being imposed we need to consider the big picture. The big picture is the astronomical cost of servicing the debt. Some of that debt was legitimately built up but other elements were imposed on us as a result of the bailout. We are paying slightly over €8 billion in interest. A bailout gives the impression that we are getting something and it will be something positive, but in fact it is a very expensive loan to pay for dead banks and to pay back bondholders. It pays for things we should never have incurred in the first place. For that our EU partners call us "special".

Both Government parties promised to renegotiate the debt and free up money for a stimulus. We were going to get a strategic investment that was to create tens of thousands of jobs.

If I remember rightly, the target was 100,000 jobs. There are jobs initiatives in this budget which are welcome but they will have a tiny impact on the level of unemployment. The reduction of three months in respect of jobseekers' payments makes me wonder what people are paying PRSI for, yet lower income workers are being drawn into that system. We are getting more TUS schemes when what we want is more jobs.

In its manifesto, Fine Gael told us that it was not going to impose a property tax because it would impose a tax on people who are income poor and asset rich, mainly elderly people. It spoke about people in negative equity who are most affected by this budget and this tax. A property tax takes little account of ability to pay. The value of the home may be considered without any consideration of the level of debt attached to it. People who have paid stamp duty and development contributions now see a facility in the budget for someone to buy the house next door for half the price being exempted because he or she is a first-time buyer. That will create significant resentment. I do not believe it is about first-time buyers. Rather, it is about the property market first and foremost.

There is a trend here that we saw before. It seems that this will be a slush fund for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to shore up a dysfunctional local government system that delivers a tiny range of services. If we look at some European systems, we can see that everything from child care to policing to leisure facilities is paid for by property or poll taxes or rates. The inequitable distribution of the fund has been a feature for decades and I have no confidence that this will change in centralised environment. Other charges will be imposed, such as those for water and waste water. People are paying for the maintenance of roads through their motor tax and paying bin charges. What will they get for paying this property tax? It is a valid question for people to ask. We must remember that the reason for this is an decrease of just over 40% in the income of local authorities since 2009. This has been taken from the local authorities to pay back this significant debt.

The silo-by-silo based approach to the budget ignores the cumulative effect of its impact. This includes the imposition of a property tax, cuts to child benefit, increases in the cost of solid fuel, the fact that people will no longer be exempt from paying PRSI on the first €127 of their weekly income, the now annual increase in third level registration fees and the increase in the monthly threshold for the drug repayments scheme from €132 to €144 per month. Some families pay this every month. If one pays this every month, that comes to €1,700 per year, which is a very sizeable amount. The cumulative effect is affecting possibly the same households with all those measures having a major impact on them. People are already struggling and the cumulative effect of this will in some cases take the food off people's tables. Some are just about keeping the roof over their heads. I am very concerned that the level of personal debt has not been considered in this context.

I welcome the vouching system for political expenses which should have gone further. Had the leader's allowance provided to Independents been at the level it is now and the other allowances reduced to that level, it would have generated savings to the Exchequer of €1.197 million. The travel and accommodation allowance should have been tackled. I do not believe the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is the appropriate body to oversee any kind of review. It should be an independent review as the commission is not representative and the process is not transparent and not good enough.

See this speech in context