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

Cinnte go bhfuil an buiséad seo níos dearfa ná na buiséid a bhí againn ar na blianta deireanacha. It is obvious that we are emerging from very difficult budgets of recent years. I would first like to make some general points on the Bill. The attempt to spread the positivity widely was an opportunity lost to have a constructive impact on a particular section of society. A little given to a lot of people will not have a significant impact in the same way as a lot given to a particular sector would. I wish to speak about one particular sector whose needs have rarely, if ever, been met in budgets, namely, those with disabilities, either physical or mental or both. We all know that the cost of living for people with disabilities is much higher than the cost of living for those who are abled bodied. The Disability Federation of Ireland sought a €20 increase to meet that extra daily cost. This €20 increase would have gone some way to meet that need but that did not happen. People with disabilities continue to be disadvantaged.

While positive measures such as the preschool provision for children with disabilities, medical card cover for all children and domiciliary care allowance measures were welcomed by the disability sector, as Senator John Dolan pointed out, disabled people "need measures to ensure that they get out of the spiral of poverty and exclusion." There was an opportunity in the budget to kick-start recovery in the disability sector but it was not taken. This means that people with disabilities will continue to comprise one of the groups most risk of poverty. We know that 30% of people with disabilities work but more of them could work if the necessary supports were in place.

What I am talking about is the principle of living with dignity, to which the Disability Federation of Ireland and the Centre for Independent Living constantly refer. The late Martin Naughton who passed away recently was a tireless advocate, campaigner and voice for those with a disability. I met him in 1971. His passing brought a great deal of sadness to his family and friends as well as to the community he served.

Various organisations are telling us there is a crisis in relation to people with intellectual disabilities. The figures for those in need are startling, particularly those in need of residential support as a matter of priority. There are people who need additional resources because of their changing needs. There are 150 adults per month who require respite, but only 3.8 beds are available per night. That means only 27% of respite needs are currently being met. We hope that budgets will make a positive difference and have an impact. Looking at it from the perspective of the disability sector, including the intellectual disability sector, the opportunity to make a difference in this budget has been lost. I highlight this in the hope that next year these might be the groups whose needs are given priority in the budget. Unfortunately, very few of the measures in the Finance Bill will make an appreciable difference to the lives of people with disabilities.

Reading through the various tax measures, I was thinking in particular of communities in my constituency. I was at an event in a community earlier this evening which was a very sad one. This is a community like many in my constituency where there is a high incidence of lone parents, addiction, early school-leaving, overcrowding and unemployment. If I had brought a copy of the Finance Bill with me and asked the people there to have a look and see what was in it for them, I am sure that first of all they would have found the language totally alien. They would also have found that there is very little in it for them. Who is benefiting from the measures, then? Once again, it is landlords, developers and property speculators as well as farmers and fishermen. I certainly do not begrudge fishermen the advances they got in the budget because we have seen the failures of successive Governments in the past as well as at EU level which brought about increasing difficulties for those of our fishermen who were trying to stay in the industry as Irish waters were opened up to super-trawlers. What we will see as a result of the various tax measures in the Bill will be an increase in the number of wealthy people in the country.

We all know the extent of the lobbying and submissions before the budget. As such, I ask myself whose hand or influence we see having the greatest impact in it. Do we see organisations like St. Vincent de Paul, Social Justice Ireland, TASC or the European Anti Poverty Network? Unfortunately, we cannot see their imprint on the budget. What we see is the hand of business and the wealthy, albeit there are measures for small and medium enterprises as well as for those starting their own businesses. It brings me and many others to the acknowledged need for an independent budget office that can do the equality proofing and social impact analysis in order that there will be a real change to budgets which make a real difference to the lives of those who most need it.

On 17 October, we held the annual event at the Famine statue on the quays to commemorate the UN's end poverty day. There was testimony from people who expressed real poverty and social exclusion. The slogan of the group is "Leave no one behind". Listening to those testimonies and the reality of the lives of those on the margins, we saw the need for a budget committee to focus on how change can come about in their lives so that no one is left behind. We need an economic policy that ensures equality and does not exacerbate inequality.

The universal social charge, USC, was introduced as a temporary austerity emergency tax. Certainly, it caused hardship to those on lower incomes. At least, however, the principle was there that those with more paid more. The changes in the USC, however, appear to mean that the more one earns, the more one will benefit. We never seem to consider a financial transaction tax and what that could bring in for much-needed services and resources. Looking at the housing aspects of the Bill, we see benefits for landlords. The rent-a-room allowance is increased and the renovation and living city schemes have been extended.

While the long-range housing plans to build 47,000 houses by 2021 are very welcome, they will make only a small dent in the current waiting lists. What is needed are the financial resources to get local authorities to start building social housing because we cannot continue to rely exclusively on the private rented sector. I note the impetus on student accommodation. I see it in Dublin Central where considerable building is going on. There is more that will start. There was an announcement just this week of plans for the docklands. Part of the rationale is that there is a shortage of student accommodation which means that students are taking up much-needed private rented accommodation. Therefore, if students can be moved out of the private rented sector, it would free up accommodation for families, couples and single individuals. While that is fair enough, I wish the urgency I see in Dublin Central to build student accommodation could be applied to the building of social housing. We need building companies, developers and the private sector and they are entitled to make a profit. However, lessons must be learned from the excesses of recent years.

Unfortunately, the budgetary measures are not addressing the needs of those requiring loans. We look at the deposit situation. Who can rent and at the same time save the level of deposit that is needed on what Social Justice Ireland reckons is the median salary of €36,000 a year, but which the Minister reckons is €70,000 a year? The crippling rents being paid in the private sector are preventing people saving. Many people are paying a rent equivalent to, if not more, than they would pay for a mortgage. We are paying lip service to the principle of rent certainty because rents are increasing. Some suggest they are increasing at a rate of up to 40%. Telling people who face this rent increase even though rents are not supposed to be increasing to take their issues to the PRTB is not the answer at all. Serious issues are being raised by economists and stockbrokers in relation to the section 8 first-time buyers scheme. They expect house prices to rise by 7% rather than by 5%. It is unfortunate where the Minister has tried to do something, but we all know about the law of unintended consequences.

Sadly and disturbingly, wealthy people can use a loophole in the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act to gift houses to their children. I do not know whether the Minister of State agrees, but the estimated loss to the Exchequer is of the order of €100 million because inheritance tax does not apply. It is the lack of accountable and transparent tax systems internationally that is creating inequality and exacerbating existing poverty. Tax justice involves addressing tax avoidance and tax evasion, the cost of which is in the billions. The OECD figures on lost revenue are startling. The Revenue Commissioners report that €3 billion has been recovered in additional tax, interest and penalties that would have been lost through tax evasion. As such, the question is how much more could be recovered if we worked more stringently on the illicit tax flows. Ireland has gone some way recently by adopting country-by-country reporting which is vital for tax transparency. However, we could have gone further to support the calls by various NGOs and civil society groups for an intergovernmental body on tax under the UN. Instead, we went with the OECD model. While that is positive, it means the reporting will not be public.

We still do not know what the effective corporate tax rate is. It seems to vary from company to company. Everybody knows the level of income tax paid by most people in this country but we have a different rule for the corporate sector. The Minister for Finance said the progress made over the past 12 months highlights how our corporate tax regime meets the highest standards in tax transparency. If the commitment is to transparency, why can we not know what is being paid by corporations? That is not an attack on foreign direct investment.

See this speech in context