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

I thank all my colleagues in the Technical Group for their contributions, and all the people who contributed to this discussion. I do not want to spend a lot of time on the global picture in terms of Europe, Greece and so on except to say how right Deputy Ross is about the outrageous stab in the back this Government has given the Greek people when they are fighting to improve a dire situation. If they had succeeded it would have benefited everybody in Europe, including the citizens in this country, yet the main concern of the Government seems to be not to get embarrassed by any success the Greek people might have because it would put it in a bad light. That is disgraceful.

Whatever happens in Greece and in Spain, it is a beacon of hope that, finally, there is some movement challenging the austerity agenda which has done such awful damage and which has the European economy on the floor. It is stagnating, and at last somebody is challenging it. I will leave that aside because many of the responses from the Government have been dishonest and disingenuous. There have been diversions and red herrings, but it is not addressing the issue.

The motion I put forward was not a comprehensive alternative economic strategy. Many of the responses from the Government about costings and so on were disingenuous. It was not about growth.

It was very specific. If the Minister of State wants to see our document on jobs, growth and costings for an alternative economic programme, he should look at our pre-budget submissions and quiz them. We put another one in this year, but that was not the point of this motion.

The point of this motion was specifically to address deprivation, poverty and inequality. We are pointing out that the levels of all those things in society are unacceptable. It is not a defence to say they are even worse somewhere else, because they are unacceptable here. The levels of inequality and deprivation are absolutely shocking.

The Government's idea is to reduce consistent child poverty to 4% by 2020, but it will not eliminate it. The policy formally announced by the Government is that the poor are always going to be with us, but that is not good enough. We do not believe the Government when it is in its fourth year of office. This motion served to point out that deprivation and child poverty have got worse under this Government. In addition, the housing crisis and homelessness have also got worse. The age profile of poor people has risen under this Government, so can Ministers at least acknowledge that? They should admit the problem and address it, instead of giving us a load of nonsense announcing plans for three, four or five years' time, which mean nothing.

Even the ESRI and EUROSTAT have said the budgets in 2012 and 2013 were aggressive, hitting those at the lowest level hardest and disproportionately. They have driven more people into deprivation. That is a fact. What is the Government going to do about it? Is it willing to reverse the measures that have indisputably contributed to that situation?

Whatever justification the Minister of State may give for water charges or property tax, is he saying they are not regressive compared with an income tax system for funding the same thing? Is he also saying that a person on or below the poverty line will not be driven further into deprivation through having to pay for those things? That is self-evident. The Minister of State could possibly argue that those charges are justified on other people, but he cannot say that the situation of somebody who cannot currently pay his or her bills and receives a property tax bill through the letterbox has improved. It is obvious that such a person's situation has disimproved.

It is also obvious that child benefit cuts have hurt lone parents, while rent allowance cuts and caps have contributed to homelessness and the housing crisis. It is obvious that the Government's policy adopted in its first year in office, for whatever reason, to abandon the direct provision of social housing construction by local authorities and outsource it to the private sector has contributed to longer housing waiting lists. A few years ago the delay was six or seven years but now it is 14 or 15 years. Those on the waiting list will not get a house any time soon.

Can the Minister of State seriously say that cutting the jobseeker's allowance for young people under 26 has not contributed to homelessness? Perhaps he could argue that if young people happen to be living at home then it is bearable. I might disagree with him, but he would have an argument. If someone under 26 is not living at home, does not have a job and has only €100, then they are homeless. One cannot get a house on that kind of money. The rent allowance cap means it is impossible.

We are asking the Government to reverse the cuts that have indisputably contributed to a growth in deprivation for children, lone parents and others on low incomes. The USC has crushed the low-paid sector. While the Government's policies have gone too far, there has been some acknowledgement that the USC has been an intolerable burden for the low paid. Ireland has the second highest level of low pay in the OECD. The Government partially acknowledged that with some of its recent budget measures, but the matter has not been fully addressed.

Other measures, as Deputy Halligan said, are actually moving things in the opposite direction. Jobs that were lost when the crash occurred have been largely replaced with less well-paid jobs, schemes or internships. The Minister of State may argue that that is best he can do, but he cannot seriously suggest that somebody who was working in construction on €700 or €800 a week but is now on a Gateway scheme, is in a better position. That is a joke.

One Government myth that needs to be dispelled is that we do not care about jobs or growth. The Government says it will cost €4 billion to do what we want, and the money will be poured down the drain. The Government says it is responsible in caring about jobs and growth. I will make an obvious point. If we built more council houses it would put people back to work and save the State money. The Government does not factor that into its €4 billion figure. It would save all the money currently going to rent allowance, as well as reducing the social welfare bill. If money were put back into the poorest people's pockets, it would boost the high street. If young children were not living in poverty, they would have more chance of getting work or education. However, none of those multipliers is taken into account in the Government's figures, so it is disingenuous.

Similarly, the Government tries to blur the issue of wealth concentration, which is shocking. The Minister of State said the reason net household wealth has gone up is because property prices have risen. I am sorry but he should read the Central Bank's quarterly report which said the rise in household wealth over the last year was a result of increased financial household assets. There was a €3.6 billion increase in financial household assets, not in property.

The top 10% has either 40%, or maybe up to 58%, of the wealth totalling €508 billion. That is €260 billion but is that in property assets such as a family home? Of course not. It is the people who own multiple properties. They are the big corporate investors who bought up all the property at rock bottom prices. Is that not a visible example of the increased concentration of wealth? Big corporate investors bought up the homes of all the people who were repossessed. The super-rich waited for prices to hit rock bottom and then moved in to buy, before jacking up all the rents. Only rich people can afford to rent now. Those on low incomes seeking to rent property are in danger of becoming homeless, even if they are working. That is how bad it is, yet none of this is acknowledged by the Government.

I am not being prescriptive in detailing how to reverse these cuts and regressive charges. Let us agree with the principle that these are regressive and have contributed to deprivation. We must eliminate poverty and deprivation, so let us examine the options for finding the funds to do this in a way that will not worsen or perpetuate deprivation. We should examine corporate profits, the super-high earners and the financial transaction tax, but the Government will not even look at those things, despite that this is all this motion is asking the Government to do.

See this speech in context