Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Tá mé buíoch go bhfuil seans agam labhairt faoin mBille Airgeadais. Is cinnte go bhfuil rudaí dearfacha sa reachtaíocht seo.

It was clear that Ministers would accentuate the positive aspects of the budget. According to the Minister, members of the public would be astounded by all the good news in it. Businesses and investors were certainly astounded by how well they did and the farming community also benefited from it. Those who have more got more in the budget, while others, namely, sections of the older community, young people and lone and separated parents, were astounded by how badly they did. The budget placed further stress on those who are most in need of protection.

Owing to my particular interest in people with mental and physical disabilities, I noted that, in acknowledging the positive aspects of the budget the Disability Federation of Ireland also pointed out that plans for social inclusion have been weakened. As a member of the Oireachtas group on mental health which made a pre-budget submission, I note the budget contains a commitment to provide an additional €20 million for mental health services. What is the relationship between this funding and a previous allocation of €35 million to mental health services, much of which was not spent? Those with physical and mental health issues are still waiting to see what further cuts will be imposed on them in the health budget. Some of them have already been affected by the loss of the telephone allowance announced in the social protection budget. I refer, in particular, to those who depend on a telephone connection for access to the Internet.

The question one must ask is how the measures in the budget and Finance Bill will contribute to the ability of people with mental and physical disabilities to live their lives independently and with dignity. It would be amazing if the organisations which are most involved with people with disabilities and those on low incomes, for example, Social Justice Ireland and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, stated the budget was fair and proportionate. As we all know, budgets do not tend to be proportionate and do not reflect the principle that those most able to absorb cuts should be most affected by them. The many calls for equality proofing of budgets and social impact analysis continue to be ignored.

Debt lies at the heart of all recent budgets and finance Bills. Ireland is paying the highest cost for the banking crisis. While no one denies that we should repay lawful debts, unlawful debt is crippling sections of society that must endure austerity for the benefit of the financial markets. I do not have a background in economics but I know that we have more debt that we can pay or be expected to pay. The Minister, in his Budget Statement, pointed out that "excluding the interest burden, we are paying our own way again." We can only imagine what could be done if we did not have the burden of paying exorbitant interest rates. The budget deficit may have declined but it remains the highest in the European Union. How can we have real recovery or achieve significant economic growth when we must make interest payments of this magnitude?

One measure that has caused considerable difficulty is the change to the one parent family tax credit. Almost immediately after this measure was announced, One Family, the organisation most involved with single parent families, made its concerns known. It described the change as a retrograde step on the basis that the one parent family tax credit facilitates the collaborative approach of parents who have separated but have agreed to share responsibility for their children. Deputies have received numerous telephone calls and e-mails highlighting the impact of this cut on families which must already cope with the stress of marriage or relationship breakdown.

The change to the one parent family tax credit constitutes the single largest cut in income for separated fathers who wish to take responsibility for their children while not living in the same house. The measure has implications in terms of the Equal Status Act. In light of the many changes in society, we must examine the way in which parents are designated and the move away from having one primary carer towards the principle of shared responsibility where parents are joint carers. It is not fair that the behaviour of some parents who are not willing to support their children and wrongly avail of the tax credit is being used as a reason for discriminating against many fathers. The Minister has indicated he will re-examine the issue. The loss of income arising from this measure could have serious effects on the relationship between children and non-resident parents. The One Family organisation has pointed out that this may be an unintended consequence of the budget.

The cut cannot be justified, especially as everyone knows separation costs money. If the measure is implemented, it will create further problems for people in cases where maintenance cannot be paid. One Family suggests that, to avail of the tax credit, a child and parenting agreement should be in place between parents. This is a written agreement between parents setting out the amount of child maintenance to be paid after separation and an agreed plan on parenting issues. One Family is willing to engage on this proposal for a shared child support credit. I hope the Minister takes up its offer to discuss the proposal, under which the tax credit would be targeted specifically towards families who are in shared parenting arrangements and where child maintenance is being paid.

The Minister's proposal to replace the current tax credit with a single person child carer tax credit will be problematic and will result in a financial loss to parents of between €1,600 and €2,500 per annum. If the primary carer is a woman who is not working, she will not receive the new tax credit and it will also be denied to the father on the basis that he is not the primary carer. Everyone loses in such a scenario.

I will make one further point on the impact of the budget on lone parents. Surveys on living conditions show that single parent households are the most deprived of all households and have the least amount of disposable income available to them. In Dublin, for example, there are more than 52,000 lone parent households, with Dublin city having by far the greatest number of such households. I see little in successive budgets or finance Bills that will improve the lives of such families. We are told the economy is growing or that this percentage or that statistic is moving in the right direction. None of this is filtering down or making a positive difference in the lives of a significant number of people. This is where we have a disconnect between theory and reality.

On foreign direct investment, Ireland has much to offer besides its 12.5% corporation tax rate. Significant taxation issues arise in respect of multinational companies which avail of tax loopholes and havens to avoid paying just taxes. The massive profits earned by these companies are not reflected in the amount of corporate tax paid here. As a result, our effective tax rate is much lower than 12.5%. Multinational corporations may be regarded as sacred cows but they should be required to contribute to the economy.

Billions of euro are leaving developing countries. While this outflow has been assisted by corrupt governments in some developing countries, other governments in the developing world do not have sufficient negotiating capacity. I acknowledge the work being done on this issue by Irish Aid and the Government.

The Minister stated that Ireland wants to be part of the solution to the global tax challenge, not part of the problem. We were part of the problem. My question is, how much have we lost because the full 12.5% corporate tax was not collected? We need to be far more transparent on corporate tax and ensure full collection. I note there is a levy on the domestic banks, but why are we not looking at a financial transaction tax, which would make a massive difference?

I welcome the Living City initiative. I particularly welcome that Dublin has now been included because there were people in certain parts of Dublin - certainly on the north side - who were concerned that they had not been included originally. I know there were reasons for that because I discussed it with the Minister. My plea is that we remember that the north side of the city has a strong cultural and historic tradition and that this should be recognised in the Living City initiative. There will be people who will be looking for that.

It is disappointing, given that people were encouraged to save and did their best to save - and, presumably, part of the aim of encouraging people to save was that they would not be an additional burden on the State when they got older - that they are now being penalised for that. The Government is clipping away at savings and there will not be an incentive to save.

I spoke previously here about the massive housing crisis, particularly in Dublin. I will be looking to see the practical implications and the difference that the suggestions and the plans in the budget and the Bill will make. At the end of the Minister's budget speech, he stated that Ireland would leave the EU-IMF programme and would handed back her purse. Obviously, that is positive, but that in itself cannot be seen as an end. It must be a process towards something that will be much better. I hope that what is much better will be more equitable budgets.

See this speech in context