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

I was horrified to hear a Minister deny in a budget speech that inequality had risen and equally, to hear Government speeches stating it had protected young people, old people and the vulnerable because the statistics from the Central Statistics Office tell a different story. Moreover, all the non-governmental organisations working with those in vulnerable situations have acknowledged that inequality is rising and is doing so because of decisions in recent budgets.

The European Anti-Poverty Network put it succinctly when it said that the resource measures are welcome but not nearly enough to undo the damage of eight years of policies. The ESRI has shown that the poorest 10% have paid more than any group. In its post-budget analysis, Social Justice Ireland indicated that a €6.50 increase across all social welfare payments was needed to combat inflation and that the value of the minimum payment of €188 per week, which has been at that level since January 2011, has been eroded because of a 4.5% increase in inflation. This is simply taking into account the cost of living as the economy recovers but only for some. According to one family, the budget did not respond to the lived realities of one-parent families and resources are not targeted at the poorest of children.

I acknowledge that social welfare payments have increased and are going in the right direction but there is an element of giving with one hand while taking back with the other, including the increase of €3 in pensions while the cost of fuel, coal and briquettes continues to rise and the €5 increase in child benefit, which is paid to parents of children in emergency accommodation and to parents on six figure salaries. The statistic in relation to the number of children living in consistent poverty, which is one in eight, is alarming. We know that single unemployed people will gain approximately €95 per annum while single employed people will gain in the region of €900 and that an unemployed couple will gain €157 per annum while an employed couple will gain €1,500 per annum. While all gains are welcome, it is important they are proportionate to need.

The increase in the minimum wage is also welcome. This means a full-time worker on the minimum wage will get a gross increase of €1,000. However, we know that low pay affects many workers. Currently, there are 80,000 people in employment who are living in poverty. The new minimum rate remains more than 25% below the proposed living wage of €11.50 per hour.

I always look to see how disability groups react to the budget. Unfortunately, that group has not welcomed this budget. The people concerned are bitterly disappointed and deeply concerned. While acknowledging that there was some long-awaited relief, they believe the budget is not likely to lead to employment for anyone with a disability over the coming years, resulting in an increase in inequality for them.

The community platform issued a statement containing four tests for budget 2016, which are interesting. Will it redistribute income towards the poorest 20% of the population and compensate those who have lost most over the last seven years? Will it strengthen access to quality employment? Will it provide the funding needed to restore and strengthen services of vital importance to people on low income? Will it put in place mechanisms to ensure that all areas of policy addressed in the budget will reduce poverty and inequality? Sadly, there is no positive answer to those four questions from this budget.

There is need for a return to full financial transparency from multinational companies. We have made a step in this direction through the agreement on country to country annual reporting but not in the public domain. We need a stronger commitment to closing the tax loopholes in this area and to addressing tax avoidance and tax evasion. We saw the increase recently from the multinationals. While in theory 12.5% is the tax rate, in practice, it is much less than that. It is reckoned that a minimum effective tax rate of 6% for corporations would bring in an additional €1 billion in tax revenue. We need that revenue. If we had it, the answer to those tests by the community platform would be different. One can only imagine what the Minister could do if she had that €1 billion at her disposal for social welfare. We know that some of the multinationals take the perks and the breaks and then move on. I referred previously to the situation at Medtronic and the 150 to 200 employees who will lose their jobs this week. During Private Members' time some months, I put forward proposals around new ways to draw up budgets, including human rights analysis and equality proofing of budgets prior to their introduction. In that way, the four tests from the community platform could be answered.

See this speech in context