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

Tá cúpla rud le rá agam sa díospóireacht seo. I notice some of the terms and the phrases used in the summer economic statement include that the Irish economy is growing at a healthy pace, an economic recovery, raising living standards and that the public finances are in better shape. All this can be acknowledged, provided what is in the speech matches the reality in our constituencies, regardless of whether they are urban or rural. All too often, the replies to parliamentary questions will give the theory of what is supposed to be there, but the reality does not match. This is where the difficulty lies between officialdom and real lives. I hope the phrases translate into a better life for people.

The economic statement also acknowledges significant sacrifices were made by Irish people, but we all know the sacrifices were not proportionate and sections of society were not unduly aware there was a recession going on while other sections suffered considerably. We know the effects of the budget cuts certainly on parts of our constituencies. When the Minister said in his statement he wants to spread the fruits of recovery more widely, I hope it will be a reality and not just a paper phrase.

It is disappointing that even though a commitment was made on a budgetary office, it has not realised reality just yet. There had been a plan for the Oireachtas committees to have more of an impact on the budget for Departments, but we have not seen this yet. There is also the need, which some of us come back to year after year, for equality proofing and social impact analysis of decisions before their implementation.

11 o’clock

Those three factors - the budgetary office, greater involvement by committees and equality proofing - would make a real difference.

We know that housing supply does not match demand and there is over-reliance on the private rental sector. We hear so much about what will happen, what will be built and what vacant sites will be brought back into use but we see the impact of the lack of social and affordable housing. While I acknowledge there is some movement, with individuals and families coming off the housing list, as they are coming off it there are others going on. Some of those coming on are pushing those already on the list further down. We are seeing a great level of private house building. There is one new development on the north side in respect of which there seems to be no problem selling four-bedroom houses for €750,000.

As the Minister knows, we see how quickly student accommodation is being built, especially in Dublin. We do not witness the same urgency and speed when it comes to social accommodation, however. Students need the accommodation for perhaps eight months of the year so during the remaining four months there is massive profit-making potential, be it through Airbnb or other types of accommodation for those coming to Dublin or other cities for concerts, conventions and sports events.

One of the groups most affected, which is further down the pecking order on the housing list, comprises single individuals, particularly men. I do not understand why, with all the student accommodation, a small number of units could not have been included for those single individuals.

The co-operative housing scheme recently opened in Ballymun was extremely positive. I recognise the kind of work that Habitat for Humanity does with couples and families whereby they take over housing in need of repair and work together to bring it back into use.

I read some of the task force report on equality in Ireland. It highlights disturbing trends. It considers the underlying distribution of income. It stated it was imperative that there be no further erosion in real terms of middle-income earners' salaries and wages and that low incomes be raised to the level of a living wage. The statistics show there is a relatively high proportion of those at work on low earnings. I was struck by the quotation, "[I]f we continue on the current path of maintaining a low tax regime, of subsidising low pay, and landlords and developers to provide homes via the market, we are sowing the seeds of ever deeper disenchantment with our political system [and exacerbating inequality]".

I acknowledge the uncertainty associated with what lies ahead, particularly in regard to Brexit. The committees have had much discussion on this and heard many presentations. One of the committees of which I am a member, that on the Good Friday Agreement, launched its own report. It was very obvious that the one certainty is that there is uncertainty over Brexit. A rainy day fund certainly makes sense, particularly after the excesses of the Celtic tiger years, which involved a philosophy of spend, spend, spend.

I must issue a cautionary note regarding where Ireland could lose millions of euro it cannot afford to lose and which the Minister needs in the budget. There seems to be a lack of awareness over aspects of CETA, particularly regarding the investor clauses. We are sleepwalking into accepting all aspects of CETA, which could prove really costly in terms of jobs, small and medium enterprises, and the beef and dairy industries. It would make us vulnerable to multinational companies and corporations suing Ireland for imagined losses of profits. Let me give some examples. In Bolivia, there were attempts by a particular company to privatise water. Between NGOs, civil society and international campaigns, pressure was put on that company not to sue the government, so the case did not proceed. If it had proceeded and the company had won - there was every likelihood it would have - it would have cost the Bolivian Government €50 million. The amount the company had put in initially was €1 million. The facts are evident. From the 1960s until 2000, there were ten investor court cases, but from 2001 to 2015, there were 700 cases. What I describe is a commonly used tool for corporations and multinationals and we do not seem to be alarmed by this. Ecuador faced several cases like this. It carried out an audit, a risk analysis of exposure to ISDS. Its conclusion was that the perceived need for those clauses to attract investors has been proven a myth. South Africa had a similar process and found no correlation between attracting investment and having these clauses. In a recent US-Australia trade agreement, there was no ISDS clause. Those audits did find that the ISDS undermines national development. Therefore, if we ratify, we are exposing Ireland, through these clauses, to being sued by multinationals, with the possibility of losing those millions the Minister has been outlining he will be spending on various services. I ask him to consider a risk analysis of what this could mean for us in the various Departments so we know what we are doing. I very much agree with investment and trade but not with these clauses being included.

Instead of spreading resources too thinly, budgets should make a real difference for those suffering the most inequality. These are the people with the disability, mental or physical, or both. I note there is to be a special committee to form a joint committee on the future of mental health care that is going to agree on a single long-term vision for mental health care. It is opportune, therefore, that we examine health care. There is an opportunity in the budget to address the inequality being experienced by people with a disability. Budget 2018 should really address the poverty and exclusion experienced by those in question so they can participate and contribute fully in society. That would complement the work of the new committee. It is ironic that, outside the Dáil today, there is to be a protest by people with disabilities. They are highlighting the series of broken promises, not just by this Government but also by others. They feel the HSE has too much power over their lives. They are still waiting for developments such as the personalised budget.

Corporation tax features in the Minister's statement and also the commitment to the headline rate of 12.5%. What is the effective rate? The Minister made a speech yesterday about base erosion and profit shifting and country-by-country reporting, but we still do not support public country-by-country reporting.

Economists should do philosophy at the same time. The philosophy is about the kind of society in which we want to live, in addition to the values and principles. I am always struck by the quotation from Nelson Mandela to the effect that vision with action is required to bring about real change.

See this speech in context