Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The word "austerity" has been used so much by the media, in this House, and by figures in financial and banking institutions that to many people it seems to have lost all meaning. Many ordinary people in the street hear about austerity, and to a large degree, lose interest in what is being said, as if it is something that does not apply to them but a mere political phrase and something technical about which they should not have to worry when, in reality, it affects them very deeply. What austerity means to ordinary Irish people in the street is doing without. For many it is more than that; it is poverty, which is often quite severe. It is the inability of a family to pay a bill in a given month, having to do without presents for a birthday or going months and months into arrears on a mortgage simply to be able to put food on the table or turn on the heating. It is about being unable to access key services one had relied on, whether local community services, the bus into town or being able to get in to contact with local gardaí. It means hardship and suffering and people looking at what is coming in and what is going out and deciding that maybe they would be better off making a life for themselves somewhere else. Specifically, austerity is the decision made in Government that this suffering is necessary, that there is no other way, that the burden cannot be picked up except by those at the bottom, and that those well-off bankers and speculators, who laughed at us to each other, cannot afford to take a hit. Austerity may have become a sanitised and technical term, but for what it truly means it ought to be an obscenity.

This is a deeply flawed Bill which not only fails to tackle the massive disparity between the wealthy and the not so wealthy in the State, but which furthermore punishes the least well off yet again. The most obvious example is the hit the single parent tax credit has taken, which will be very hard on separated parents. Many parents in this category have been in contact with me on foot of this They are angry and feel they have been targeted in a very cynical way. There seems to be a sense that in these situations the cost is borne by one parent, and that the other parent has nothing to do with the life of the child, and that they may never incur any cost due to having a child. Perhaps this is true in the occasional case, but in the vast majority of cases it is certainly not the reality. Children will spend weekends with the parent, who will contribute to their children's life financially, whether in terms of educational needs or sports, or, as Deputy Doherty mentioned, Christmas presents. This is a blunt approach which is regressive and entirely lacking in fairness.

The other big injustice to my mind, though it comes as no great surprise to me I am afraid, is that the Government has not abolished the family home tax. The recent controversy caused by the letters circulated by the Revenue Commissioners illustrate very clearly that people are very worried about their ability to pay the tax. Last year it was half a year's tax which had to be paid and next year it will be for a full year. Many families simply do not have the money to pay this tax - it simply is not there - and to find the money for it they will have to do without essentials. Even aside from the hardship, it has been demonstrated quite clearly, here in Ireland and across Europe, the more that is taken out of the real economy, the more local economies, retail and services suffer. The property tax is unnecessary. It is likely to cause severe hardship and will continue to prove a drag on the economic recovery of our high streets.

I will touch briefly on the aspects of the Bill, and of the budget generally, which affect my portfolio. There are some positive aspects to the Bill. I was happy to see the Minister bow to reason on the issue of the 9% VAT rate for the hospitality sector. I was vocal on the need for this, and worked with the campaigners who organised such an effective lobby. I pay tribute to them in this regard. However, while this is positive, I have criticised the Government for what is a very short-sighted approach to tourism spending, in particular in terms of promotional budgets.

Let us not be fooled. This was no tourism budget. To attract tourists to Ireland and heighten awareness of Ireland as a destination, marketing and promotion are essential. It is a competitive market, so we need to invest. We have very low market penetration in emerging markets such as China, India and Brazil, which should be central to the future industry. Tourism Ireland's target is to increase the number of Chinese visitors from 17,000 in 2012 to 50,000 per year in the next five years. How can that be achieved without investment in promotion?

The position is similar with sport. We were all delighted with the great performance of Jason Quigley and all the rest of our boxers in Almaty. However, Paddy Barnes, our two-time Olympic medalist has said that without more money, Irish boxing is going nowhere. He said:

It's the Sports Council's fault because they need to put money into the IABA in order for them to put boxing out there. It's the best sport in Ireland but with the budget we get, we can't even afford to send the girls away to the World Championships... We're training in a 1970s gym more or less and everything has to be modernised. The Sports Council promise this and that but we put in a proposal for €1.2 million and they only gave us €800,000... We need the money. Without the money, boxing is going to stay the same it as it is.

The cutbacks to spending on sport will hit across all sports, such is the scale of the cutback to the Sports Council. They are not getting the support needed, which will result in less success, no doubt about it.

I have long been an advocate of protecting our heritage, and I have seen the value of protecting our built heritage in my own home town of Youghal. I am not sure if the Minister for Finance is familiar with that particular example, but the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht will be, and it is an initiative I have been keen to support. I also recognise the considerable value of the Georgian heritage of Dublin and of our other main cities. It was truly an act of cultural vandalism that so many of our great Georgian terraces and mews in Dublin were demolished. However, we are not particularly clear yet as to how the Living Cities initiative will work in practice. More detail is needed. Indeed, as my colleague, Deputy Pearse Doherty, noted last night, it is peculiar that before the pilot which was announced last year is even begun, the initiative is being rolled out across other cities.

We have a very bad track record on property reliefs in this country and, while this relief is dressed up in the context of preservation and of heritage, I am yet to be convinced. It appears to be very broad. The document which accompanies the scheme states: "There will be a broad definition of 'refurbishment' and the types of activity that will be covered." We need to hear more about the type of work covered and the rationale for it, and I am open to hearing these arguments.

As well as mistaken approaches, there are many missed opportunities in this Bill. The most significant among them is the failure to introduce a wealth tax. The same public I spoke about earlier, which is exhausted and fatigued from hearing the word "austerity", should be asked what they think about a tax on wealth. They will not be long in telling the Government what they think about it. It registers with them because it just makes sense. It fits with their sense that those at the top, the wealthy, do not contribute their fair share. It is a widely held view. The need for a wealth tax is unanswerable.

It is not just us. It is SIPTU, many in the wider trade union movement and many economists. However, the Minister dismisses it and says it is unworkable and will raise nothing substantial. He has no evidential basis for this; he is simply worried about taking on the real vested interests in this country. That is the case for this Bill as a whole, and that is a case for the budget as a whole - more austerity and more hardship.

See this speech in context