Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:“Poverty reduction report

2. The Minister shall, within two months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the impact the measures in this Act will have on poverty reduction.”.

We are going over some of the same ground, but it is an important area and I have some additional points to make in light of the Minister's responses to points made earlier on this side of the House. I appreciate the words spoken by the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, as they mean we can dispense with red herrings about who wants to get people back to work. We all want to get people back to work.

Many similar points have been made on this side of the House on the issue of whether we are taking sufficient action on dealing with poverty. Did the last budget take sufficient action on dealing with poverty? We must address the chronic levels of poverty we face and the growing gap between the rich and poor. As Deputy Coppinger said, there was something implicit in the Tánaiste's response to our points. The Tánaiste implied there was a choice between, on one hand, giving people an incentive to go back to work and assisting those who earn between €30,000 and €50,000 and, on the other hand, being more generous in dealing with poverty reduction for those dependent on social welfare.

That is implicit in what the Minister said. One could construe it as divide and rule, but let us suppose that is not the case. Either way, I do not accept that we should set these two things off against one another. In many cases we are referring to the same families, in which one person is working and another is not and may be dependent on social welfare. Therefore, I do not buy the distinction, nor do I believe it is an appropriate comparison.

The comparison that many of us are making relates to the benefits that have emerged from the latest and most recent budget. The give-backs to people on earnings of €60,000, €70,000, €80,000, €100,000 and more have been multiples of those that have gone to people on the lowest incomes and on what we might describe as the incomes of the working poor or those on the average industrial wage. What those earning less than €36,000, which is the average industrial wage, got back right down to the people at the lowest levels of income, was either negligible or a small fraction of what went back to people on incomes of €60,000, €70,000, €80,000, €100,000 and more. In a situation where those on the lowest incomes are living in poverty, is that fair, just or legitimate? Many of us maintain it is not.

It is not a question of us being disingenuous and it is important to state as much because this is set out in the Budget Statement. I will advert to the examples given by the Minister for Finance which set out the position clearly:

John is single and working full time on the minimum wage. John will see a gain of €173 in his annual net income due to this Budget.

Further on the document states:

Laurna is single, no children and self-employed with income of €120,000 per annum. She pays a pension contribution of 5% of her gross income. She will see an annual gain of €687 due to this Budget.

This is directly from the Budget Statement. Someone on €120,000 gets €687 more while someone on the minimum wage gets €173 more. How can one say it is fair when the person on €173 is in the poverty statistics? These people are the working poor. How can this possibly be justified?

I refer again to Social Justice Ireland and the examples in its budget critique. Social Justice Ireland maintains that a single person who is unemployed got back 90 cent per week in this budget, but a single person on €75,000 got back €14.30. The person on €75,000 got 14 times more in his weekly pay packet or income than the person who is unemployed. The critique states that an unemployed couple got back €1.51 per week, a total of €78.52 per year, whereas a couple with two earners on €125,000 will get an extra €23.57 per week or €1,225 per year, several multiples of the increases for those on the lowest incomes.

We seriously question this. The Minister asked whether we noticed the 1% extra on the universal social charge for those earning over €100,000. We did notice it. The rumour was that the 1% figure was a panic measure brought in on the Monday after 100,000 people took to the streets on the Saturday. Had that 1% not been introduced, the multiplier for those earning over €100,000 would have been through the roof. The measure curtailed the gap somewhat.

See this speech in context