Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are a number of measures in the budget that I welcome. They are small measures but welcome nonetheless. The main ones include: the extension of BreastCheck; the increase, however small, in the living alone allowance; a partial return of the Christmas bonus, which is very small at 25% but better than nothing; the proposed family dividend, which I look forward to being rolled out fully; and some USC relief for people earning between €10,000 and €12,000. I also welcome the ending of the "double Irish" mechanism. With the exception of the "double Irish" measure, the other measures are all quite small. They are welcome but, in the context of the overall budget, they are just crumbs and do not go anywhere near compensating for the very regressive nature of this budget. The overall thrust of the yesterday's budget is regressive. It is not in the best interests of the country and it certainly is not in the best interests of creating a fair and cohesive society.

The handling of the budget was done through the usual, secretive process, in spite of the fact that we were told the process would be opened up. There is no reason it should be kept under wraps. Indeed, if anything, the process has become more secretive and more exclusive over recent years with the establishment of the Economic Management Council, EMC. Essentially, the process is very undemocratic. Four people and their advisers decide the budget, and it is rubber-stamped by the Cabinet and then rammed through this House. There is no element of democratic input into it, and that should not be the case. It does not happen in other jurisdictions. The figures should be laid out and we should be able to have a full discussion about what we are trying to achieve with the budget, what the aims and objectives are and the outcomes of the decisions that are taken. However, there appears to be no room for that type of open discussion.

The other point about this process, of course, is that it takes a long time for individuals or agencies to carry out an analysis of the budget so we can know what impact it has on different sections of society. The poverty proofing that had previously taken place has been ended, which is also a regressive step. We have a right to know who will be affected negatively or positively by any budgetary measures.

This was the first budget in a number of years in which there was some leeway to do something creative. Unfortunately, however, it has been a missed opportunity. The opportunity that presented to undo some of the worst excesses of austerity, such as the damage that has been done to the health service and to the education system, the under-funding of community child care and the running down of community services, was missed completely. There was not even a recognition that those services have been cut to the bone and that we must try to reverse some of those appalling cuts. There was no reference to that by any Minister yesterday.

With regard to income, the evidence is clear that over the course of the recession the people who paid the highest price in terms of cuts to their income were people in the bottom 10% and people in the top 10%.

As the latter were comfortably off in any case, they were well cushioned against the impact of austerity. Those in the bottom 10%, on the other hand, bore the brunt of income cuts and were also most affected by cuts in services. Instead of tackling this issue, however, the Government chose to avoid it entirely.

The Taoiseach signalled from an early stage that his priority in this budget was to cut the top rate of tax. It is difficult to understand this approach as it completely ignores the evidence which shows who was damaged most in the recession. The Government appears to have chosen to ignore the fact that only 18% of income earners pay tax at the top rate. It seems it does not regard the other 82% of the population as a priority. Having had a two-tier recession, it will now have a two-tier recovery.

I propose to speak briefly about the presentation of the budget figures. The Department of Finance has produced a book on the budget that includes eight illustrative cases. These provide the usual breakdown of different family types and different income levels and how are they are affected by the budget measures. Of the eight examples provided, seven relate to people in the top 18% of income earners, while only one relates to those who could be described as ordinary people, namely, the 82% of the population who do not pay tax at the top rate. It is clear from where the Government is coming in its budget measures. What I object to is that a document produced by the Department of Finance should support the Government's distorted portrayal of the effects of the budget.

I was struck, in particular, by the eighth example in the Department's book, which relates to an individual, "Laura", who has an income of €120,000 per annum. In her fortunate position she benefits from the budget to the tune of €687 per annum. I will cite an example that does not feature in the Department's book. Let us take a woman, "Maura", who earns €10,000 per annum as a cleaner. She will not receive any benefit from the tax changes in the budget, whereas Laura, who earns 12 times as much, will receive a benefit of more than €600. How on earth can that be regarded in any way as fair? It should also be noted that Laura, with her salary of €120,000, will receive relief on her water charges, whereas Maura-----

See this speech in context