Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The legacy of a Government can be seen in how its budgets shape society. Before the current Government commenced its work, much was said about what this country would be like when its term was completed. The budgets so far are not shaping things in the way most people expected and this is part of the reason people are becoming worn out by the process.

It is evident that it is essential we try to create a more equal society. The work of Wilkinson and Pickett, which made international comparisons around the world in a range of areas, demonstrated, from the outcomes for people in regard to health, crime levels, happiness etc., that a more equal society is a better society. They stated that within each country, people's health and happiness are related to their incomes. Rich people tend, on average, to be healthier and happier than poorer people, even in the same society. They also pointed out that what matters in determining mortality and health of a society is less about the overall wealth of that society and more about how evenly the wealth is distributed. Wilkinson and Pickett's body of work spanned 20 years and is well recognised internationally.

What has been very discouraging about what has happened over the past few years is that the budgets that have been produced by the Government have not been progressive nor have they provided opportunities.

They have not tried to create a more equal society. For me, the true test of a Government lies in achieving equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Tim Callan of the ESRI has taken measurements of how progressive budgets have been and concluded that they have not been progressive; in fact, they have been more aggressive than their predecessors. That is the wrong way to go.

Some of us produced a menu of options. I fully accept that the Minister inherited an absolutely appalling set of financial figures, but it is about the choices to be made and expectations. We all had an expectation that a hard approach would be taken to the level of debt, particularly the level of banking debt which costs so much to service. Approximately €2.7 billion will be spent on servicing the banking debt, while approximately €9 billion will be required to service the overall debt. I cannot think of any word to describe this other than "unsustainable". Even in this context I do not see why people on low incomes are being targeted when there are options to place the burden on those with bigger shoulders to carry it. Some of us proposed an increase in the rate of PAYE on the portion of income above €100,000. It is too easy to dismiss the idea of a wealth tax. There are prospects to take in additional income from such sources which would help to equalise opportunities and produce a more progressive rather than regressive budget.

The Minister spoke about the importance of creating jobs and I completely agree with him. Nobody in the House does not agree with him. I do not have any criticism of the amount of money being invested in a range of initiatives, except that it is not sufficient. More than €400 million was spent this year on providing rent assistance, but in some parts of the country there is a need to provide social housing in order that the requirement for rent assistance would not continue. The social housing programme is not directly carried out by the State and there is the prospect of leveraging European funds for organisations such as Respond!, Circle or some of the other housing associations. We are not doing enough in this regard.

There are many areas in which we could invest and get a return such as e-governance which would require investment, but it would bring a return. I was particularly drawn to a model in Norway. Savings of NOK 7 billion were made in a fairly short period, while a 17% reduction was achieved in the number of administrative hours required. This programme continues to deliver. It produces an opportunity to spend money on front-line services. Much more needs to be done and there are areas in which we can invest which would bring a return.

I draw particular attention to the single person's tax credit restrictions. The Minister has stated he will make some change in order that it can be either-or because in some cases only one parent is working. Parents have come to all of us with details of their own experiences. A man spoke to me about being a very dedicated parent. He is working and paying his way, which is what he wants to do. He has stated we are putting parents already in conflict in further conflict if they must choose who will take the tax credit, particularly if both are on low incomes or it would bring one of them into the tax net. The people concerned, particularly those with young children, are already struggling with costs and in some cases part of the reason a break-up occurred was the burden of covering the cost of very large mortgages and child care. More needs to be done in this area and the social consequences must be considered. Parents have rights, but they also have responsibilities. They should contribute towards the cost of rearing children, but we should recognise there is a different burden on separated families because they must maintain two homes. It is unfortunate the change made will have such an impact. Even the amendment suggested by the Minister does not go far enough.

With regard to young jobseekers, some of the measures in the budget make it look like unemployment is self-inflicted for a certain proportion of the population or that families can assume responsibility for adult children up to the age of 26 years. People ask me at what age they now become an adult. A constituent came to me with a job offer her son had received from the Department of Social Protection and she was heartbroken at the idea that it was sent. He was offered a job as a metal fabricator in Canada. The Department might be trying to be helpful, but when everything is put together, the amount to which people are entitled is being reduced and they are being sent job offers in places such as Canada. What message will they draw from this other than to get out and that they are part of the problem by virtue of the fact there are no jobs available for them? This is entirely the wrong message to send to a generation which will be critical in putting the country back on its feet. The targeting of young people is one of the awful aspects of the budget and sends all the wrong messages.

See this speech in context