Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Unlike the previous speaker, I dare to take as a hopeful signal the fact that the Minister has not rushed the Estimates through the committees. Let it be borne in mind that there is now a substantive dialogue in respect of the public sector and the Croke Park proposal as it was a proposal that was defeated. Unlike Deputy Fleming, I would say we cannot have it both ways. I was very critical of the Minister when he moved the Estimates for his own line Department through committee and it is only prudent and appropriate that he does not rush in that manner.

Providing for multi-annual Government expenditure ceilings as part of a medium-term expenditure management framework brings us in line, as the Minister has indicated, with other European states. This Bill gives legislative effect to our international commitments, and goes some way to put in place medium-term safeguards for public spending, falling as it does within with the EU's agreed two pack framework, bringing the annual budget announcement forward to October, which is welcome.

Fianna Fáil’s "If I have it, I spend it" approach did not serve this State very well. Annual budget announcements have traditionally been used by outgoing Governments as a pre-election giveaway with the harshest measures reserved for the beginning of a term in office. Multi-annual budgeting and medium-term budgetary processes are a step in the right direction. The legislation includes the necessary flexibility to accommodate unforeseen budgetary demands. We could usefully discuss that further on Committee Stage. Like all plans in life, we need to stick to them but we must also allow for the necessary fluidity to alter the plan as needed. This will be a challenge to any Government but a balance must be struck between budgetary safeguards on the one hand and an ability to ensure public spending serves the public needs on the other. However, what is in this legislation is certainly not a revolution or revelation of reform, and despite the work of the Minister over the last two years he has fallen far short on his Programme for Government commitments.

Does the Minister remember that Fine Gael and Labour on entering Government promised to "open up the budget process to the full glare of public scrutiny in a way that restores confidence and stability by exposing and cutting failing programmes and pork barrel politics"? Fine words, but completely contrary to what was delivered last December for the announcements in respect of budget 2013. The Minister rowed back on this commitment in way not seen before. The Expenditure Report 2013 did not include a full breakdown of spending for a number of Departments. Unlike previous years, where key departmental spending would have been detailed, we got the sparsest of information. The health Vote, bad as it was, was not the worst but let me give it a particular mention.

A summary of €1.2 billion in cuts to the health budget was detailed over ten lines. Where was the public scrutiny or the glare of the public in that? There were no specifics on savings on the Department Vote of €60 million or on other changes to primary care schemes to save €44 million. Fast forward by five months and we discover that, for instance, the assessment criteria for the under-70s had be changed. We discovered that months later. It is not said up-front. There were no specifics on increased generation of private income amounting to €115 million. That is no way to proceed.

Cuts to the Garda, prisons, other areas of justice and equality, local government funding and education were all astonishingly short on detail. All provided less information in the budget document than previous years. So the public was left in the dark about where exactly the impending cuts were coming from, as were the Opposition Members. All this falls far short of the Minister's statement in the Dáil last December that the setting up of his Department of Public Expenditure and Reform "represents the Government’s commitment to more effective and open Government". Transparency requires that one actually submit the data to the public domain for public scrutiny. During the same budget speech the Minister told us he intended to bring proposals to Government for Ireland to participate in the global Open Government Partnership, reinforcing our commitment to progress in this area. This global Open Government Partnership initiative requires a commitment to fiscal transparency.

Last year's expenditure announcements not only were not transparent but were a step backwards for this Government's aspiration for open government. Last February the Minister stated that Ireland's participation in the open government partnership had "a clear potential to contribute to the continued recovery of Ireland's international reputation". Huge strides are needed if we are to bring ourselves up to the base-line of best practice but we should also see ourselves as potential champions of open government. What we appear to be seeking at every turn, however, is the bare minimum or, as happened during the budget 2013 announcements, a step backwards.

This legislation should be a statement of intent from the Minister that he intends to make radical changes to the budgetary process, as called for by his own party colleagues. Last year at the Labour Party conference or Ard-Fheis - I am not sure what it is called - calls were made for the annual budget to be equality proofed by undertaking a distributional analysis of proposed budgetary measures on all income groups, and for the evidence generated as part of the proofing process to be published as part of the budget documentation. That is a very strong and worthy idea. Labour Party members, colleagues of the Minister, went on to demand that the measures to be implemented be subjected to an equality audit that would quantify the impact of budgetary measures on all income groups, and for this information to be published within six months of the budget.

The programme for Government commits to ensuring that the rights of women and men to equality of treatment and full participation in society are upheld. The ultimate measure of any reform agenda will be the experience of citizens in seeking and accessing services. The people will be the jury and they will decide ultimately the success or failure of any administration and its reforms. Whenever I put the straight question to the Minister, as I have done several times, asking whether he will equality-proof the budget and publish the data, I am told time and again that the primary objective is to reduce the deficit and return public finances back to a sustainable footing. I never understand this response as it suggests equality budgeting and sound public finances are somehow opposed objectives, which is not at all the case. In reality, they are two sides of the same coin.

The Minister has told us Cabinet procedures require that proposals put to Government must indicate clearly whether there is any impact of the proposal on, among other things, gender equality, persons experiencing or at risk of poverty or social exclusion and people with disabilities. However, whenever I and, I imagine, others have sought this same information I am told the information cannot be released due to Cabinet confidentiality. The Minister tells us he champions the reform agenda yet when real reforms are put to him, not only by the Opposition but by his own party colleagues, he balks and refuses to countenance them. In light of successive reports detailing the outright failure of Government to put in place the required policy responses and resources to tackle deepening inequality and systemic unemployment, my advice to the Minister would be to open his ears and his mind.

The latest reports of the ESRI and the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, on the impact of the economic crisis on young people and families are damning. The author of this week's ESRI report describes the impact of the crash on younger groups as "large, both by international standards and in a historical comparison". The report asks how policy can best address the disproportionate impact the crisis has had on Ireland's young households. The NESC report notes that the succession of harsh budgets since 2008 has had the hardest impact on families with children. Some 22% of all households are now without any work and the report notes that a quarter of all children are living in jobless households. Youth unemployment is a shocking 50% in Limerick, 49% in Donegal and 47% in Wexford, and is at intolerably high levels in Dublin's inner city.

These reports are not news. The ESRI's Distributional Impact of Tax, Welfare and Public Sector reporttold us that last year, following budget 2012, the greatest reduction in income was to those on the lowest incomes, with a fall of about 2% to 2.5% for the poorest 40% of households. This compared with a fall of about 0.7% for the top 30%. Square that circle. These results reflect the truth that increases in indirect taxes are regressive and cuts in welfare have a greater impact on low income groups. That is logical. A study carried out by TASC revealed that the group most at risk of poverty in Ireland, namely, lone parents, lost the highest percentage of income in budget 2011. Clearly, this situation will have worsened in light of the ESRI report findings from earlier this year, and given the increased cuts to supports in the following budgets. There are years of evidence, yet the Government, like previous ones, doggedly refuses to make the link between equality budgeting and public expenditure.

The Campaign for Equality Budgeting in Ireland, which I wish to commend in the Dáil today, has done some constructive and positive work on setting out proposals for the implementation of equality budgeting. Just last month the campaign submitted a detailed proposal to the Minister for Finance. In light of Labour Party members' support for equality budgeting, it is deeply disappointing that the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has failed to grasp not only the value of but the necessity for this approach to expenditure planning. Equality auditing and impact assessments can provide information to Government on how different sections of society are affected by its economic and social policy measures. How else can Government tackle inequality in wider society, or take informed decisions, if it does not have the necessary data to inform such decision making? Under the Government's current budget process it cannot achieve the very best equality outcomes for society, particularly those hit hardest by disadvantage and unemployment.

We know the crisis is hitting families, women, youth, and people with disabilities but the Minister's current approach to expenditure does not include impact assessments and analysis detailing how specific sections of society are affected by public spending. The Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform both continue to look at fiscal planning from the bottom line up, thereby deliberately restricting their own analysis and, indeed, the analysis of those measures they have put in place as the Government's checks and balance. Equality budgeting would increase the level of information available on public expenditure, have an impact on equality markers and increase levels of transparency. The concept of equality budgeting is not new. Since the 1980s more than 60 countries have embraced some form of equality or gender budgeting. Some positive work has been done in this area by previous Governments in as much as strategies were developed and a small number of initiatives saw the light of day, some only very briefly.

The equality budgeting campaign specifically detailed the Scottish model in its submission to the Minister for Finance and I urge the Minister to consider it in detail. The Scottish budgetary process involves the publication of a draft budget which allows for public consultation and debate before final publication. An equality statement is issued with the draft budget, outlining the equality implications of the budget. However, this is just one model - there are many more that can be drawn upon internationally. It might be worth the Minister's while to look up the road to the North of Ireland, at its section 75 provisions, and see how equality requirements are processed there. The measure is not perfect but is infinitely better than the system we have down here.

Proposals for equality budgeting could include, for example, setting up a unit with responsibility for integrating equality horizontally across all economic policy processes and planning, with particular reference to the nine grounds of the Equal Status Acts and to socioeconomic status.

This equality budgeting unit must be adequately resourced to undertake or commission research on the impact of the economic crisis on differing sections of society and to ensure data used in policy making are disaggregated on the basis of gender, disability and other relevant socioeconomic indicators. At the very least it should publish impact assessments alongside the budget to allow members of the public and elected parliamentarians to see how the budget affects different sections of Irish society. The Minister has repeatedly indicated this information is provided to Government by Departments through expenditure-related budget submissions and proposals. I am simply asking him to put it in the public domain and be guided by it in making budgetary and expenditure decisions.

At the outset of his contribution, the Minister spoke about positive, sensible and prudent reforms. I will always support such reforms but I fear the Minister and his Department are not so much prudent as overly cautious and timid in respect of overhauling the budget process. I accept the need for discipline in expenditure and that we have to cut our cloth according to our measure but we must also ensure the services we provide meet the fluctuating needs of people. Crucially, the issue of equality and fairness should not be located in the budget process in a whimsical sense but firmly rooted in practice and regulation through a system of equality budgeting. The Minister indicated that he intends to introduce additional provisions on Committee Stage. I am not in a position to comment in detail on such provisions until I see them but I look forward to debating them on Committee Stage and I urge him to make equality budgeting a reality.

See this speech in context