Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Let us look at health. Where is the money that will follow A Vision for Change? Where is the money for mental health? The former Minister of State, Kathleen Lynch, did battle internally and with our friends in Fine Gael to protect a mental health budget but I see no real monetary mention of in this budget today. Let us look at what the Labour Party would have provided for €375 million. We would have reduced prescription charges. We would have looked at the recruitment of early intervention teams for all children with disabilities. We would have put in place an extra 780 staff across the disciplines every year to clear the backlog. We would have employed more occupational therapists. We would have put €18.2 million into home care packages and built out an extra 1.3 million home help hours at a cost of €20 million. We see no evidence of real increases in the number of home help hours provided by this Government. We do not know what to tell people who are caring for others. If they look at the budget, they will find nothing in it of benefit to them. That is extremely disappointing.

I referred to mental health earlier. We would have provided €7 million for better mental health, which would have provided more access to counselling for 16 to 25 year olds. We would have extended the Jigsaw programme to five further locations at a cost of €4 million and we would have ring-fenced mental health funding. For €200,000, the Government could have hired 25 specialist suicide prevention nurses. We are not seeing evidence of that in this budget today. We do not even see a nod towards the issue of mental health in terms of real and concrete proposals. Do we have to wait for the national service plan, of which the HSE has ownership through the Department of Health, for that? What we would have loved to have seen was some degree of exploration of the vision around mental health from either of the Ministers who spoke. Deputy Joan Burton referred to sport, which is inherently tied to mental health. If one looks at the figures of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, one sees an actual net decrease in the investment in sport. The Minister said he was going to announce a sports capital scheme. While such a scheme would be very welcome in most communities throughout the country, it can only go so far. We must align a greater degree of investment in sport, including minority sports, with mental health. We must also ensure that A Vision for Change is implemented in full.

Let us look at health in the round. There is €15 million for the National Treatment Purchase Fund, which is a negligible figure. I wonder if it will really have an impact on waiting lists. There is only €10 million for 950 home care packages, 58 transitional care beds, expansion of the community intervention teams and 55 acute beds. That will not clear the backlog. It will have no impact at all in real terms and it goes to the point I made at the outset of my intervention that if one spreads oneself too thinly and tries to be all things to all people, one will deliver nothing in terms of real impact for the vast majority on the ground. If the budget had focused on significant investment in child care, it would not have pleased all the people but it would at least have gone some way towards effecting societal change. It would have gone back to the idea that people should derive some benefit from the hard-earned taxes they pay. They are not feeling that now.

Let us look at education. There is provision for 680 new teachers to meet demographic demands. That is not new and, as such, I would not be trumpeting it as an innovative measure. More teachers are needed as the population increases in any event. There is provision for 900 extra resource teachers and 115 SNAs from January 2017. Deputy Burton outlined the €35 million for higher education. Fianna Fáil said it wanted €100 million. I am not sure how the figure went to €35 million but I am sure there will be some engagement on it in future. For the €268 million we were going to provide through our costings, we would, inter alia, have reduced the pupil-teacher ratio at primary school level by one point at a cost of €6 million and reduced it at second level to 18:1 in general and 17.25:1 in DEIS schools at a cost of €15.7 million. This year, most school principals contacted Members of the House because they are finding themselves increasingly constrained in trying to teach while also handling administration and increasing numbers of pastoral issues. For €4.2 million, the budget could have provided every teaching principal with one administration day per week. It is a modest amount in terms of the impact it could have had.

The national training fund has been increased by €21 million to address demographic growth at third level. Additional funding could have been provided for the technological universities along with €30 million capital for minor works and the investment in equipment. Something beyond the mere demographic adjustment was required. We all recognise that every budget allows for demographic changes but it is necessary to be a little bit more imaginative than that. That is why there is a sense of disappointment on this side of the House in regard to education where more could have been done. Postgraduate grants could have been reinstated for instance. It would have cost €40 million and had a tremendous effect for taxpayers throughout the country. For €10 million, 2,000 additional apprenticeships could have been created. The schools building programme could have been expanded by €50 million. We talk about climate change and the greening of our economy. For €24 million, solar panels could have been provided to schools. The full cost of that measure over time would be approximately €100 million.

This is a budget which has failed to deliver a significant impact for most people. It was telegraphed to us early this morning and most people will have found that it fails to deliver much by way of a societal impact. It is not delivering a whole pile in terms of their incomes. They will not feel an increase in their incomes as a result of the budget and they will not feel an increase in the levels of services for which they have paid heavily through taxation.

That is why we are saying it lacks imagination in terms of what could have been done.

In terms of the concept of decency at work, the Government could have changed the mandate of the Low Pay Commission. We proposed a target of a minimum wage of 60% of the median earnings by 2021 to deliver a living wage for all. Instead, what we got was a 10 cent increase in the minimum wage, which will be eroded by inflation in 2017. More imagination in this area could have resulted in an amendment to the terms of reference of the Low Pay Commission, which would have had an impact.

We wanted to do more in regard to transport. The Government has announced €15 million in current expenditure and €55 million in capital expenditure to increase the subvention, which is welcome on one level. However, at a cost of €1.2 million, the Government could have delivered a 2% increase in the subvention to Dublin Bus, to Bus Éireann at a cost of €1.8 million and to Iarnród Éireann at a cost of €2.2 million.

In terms of the immediate approval of all national road projects where planning has commenced, we proposed a spend of €61 million and for the road network from Cork to Limerick and Galway, an additional €10 million this year to bring the project to a planning stage. If the Government is serious about regional development - the Action Plan for Jobs states it wants to create 350,000 jobs outside of Dublin - then proper infrastructure is required. We need to develop the Atlantic corridor, which includes the line between Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Cork, Tralee and Kerry. It is very important for regional development and nationally as well.

In my remaining time, I wish to discuss the help-to-buy scheme. I took some soundings from first-time buyers who cannot get on to the first rung of the housing ladder. The couples to whom I spoke are young. They come into our constituency offices and tell us they cannot get on the first rung of the ladder. Their early analysis of the help-to-buy scheme is that if a sunset clause of December 2019 was applied to the scheme, in real terms it would mean that more people would seek to take advantage of the scheme which would result in a system whereby first-time buyers would be competing against each other. It is a Darwinian theory. The scheme is unworkable and unfair on those couples. They are already stressed to the hilt by virtue of the fact they cannot get on the first rung of the ladder.

I do not know what €600,000 would buy in terms of a starter home. I do not know what the logic of that figure is. Maybe in south Dublin or in the bastions of Fine Gael, there are such price ranges. The people we represent will not be buying starter homes for €600,000. The scheme needs to be worked through.

I am always inherently suspicious when I hear the Construction Industry Federation welcoming a scheme. One could argue that it will have an inflationary effect on the cost of housing, which is something we have to prevent. We need a bit of equity. Information we have states that no rebate will be paid on house purchases in excess of €600,000. I do not know the logic of the Minister's position on that.

The threshold for rental income in the rent-a-room scheme has increased by €2,000 to bring it from €12,000 to €14,000. What will the effect of that be? It will increase rents for people who are renting rooms in houses right across the country. Where is the logic in that?

This is a do nothing budget and has been designed by a do nothing Government and a do nothing Dáil. It will not provide any real material benefit for the vast majority of people. It will actually work against a large swathe of people, in particular young people who want to get on to the first rung of the housing ladder. They will look at the budget and say there is nothing here for them.

See this speech in context