Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

Yesterday in our response to the budget, both Deputy Boyd Barrett and I went into detail about different areas. Today, it would be useful to have a broader look at the budget debate and at what type of society we are in favour of. The new Taoiseach likes to make shapes about having an ideological debate. He likes to throw cheap criticisms at the so-called far left. He does not want to engage in a serious debate and he does this from the mythical position of the so-called new European centre. I am happy to be described as "left wing", "socialist" and as standing for radical change but if he wants to have an ideological debate, there has to be a little honesty about where people are coming from. The Budget Statement and the budget documents drip with ideology. They are not ideology free, as they represent the ideology of the ruling class. They are the dominant ideas in our society and, therefore, they are treated as if they are common sense. However, we had a right-wing budget and that flows from the fact that we have a right-wing Taoiseach, a right wing so-called leader of the Opposition in the form of Deputy Micheál Martin, the Independent Alliance, a right-wing grouping, which on the plinth earlier described themselves as the voice of the underprivileged, which caused some amusement for those looking at the record of the positions of the Minister, Deputy Ross, in particular, and various right-wing Independents. The result is a budget written by the so-called extreme neoliberal centre of Irish politics, which is very right wing and which, instead of offering up the so-called republic of opportunity, will copperfasten a society that they stand over, which is a republic of deep inequality, deprivation, oppression of many in our society and insecurity;.

Those are the right-wing policies of the Government and the so-called Opposition in the form of Fianna Fáil. What are the hallmarks of the budget and what defines what kind of budget it is? It is a small state budget. Ireland has the lowest spending as a percentage of GDP of any EU member state at 28.7%. During the crisis, austerity was dressed up as a policy to resolve the crisis but, in reality, it was about exercising a massive transfer of wealth from working people and the 99% to the 1%, from the many to the few and, in doing so, shrinking the State dramatically and maintaining that shrunken State afterwards. That is what we are currently experiencing. The vast majority of the cuts implemented over the past seven or eight years continue. The budget is characterised by privatisation, private finance and PPPs.

Yesterday, we had a discussion about how the budget and the Minister for Finance could be characterised in a way that is memorable for people. Initially, the idea of Paschal the Pennypincher came up because the increase of €5 a week, which is really less than €4 over the course of a year, will be taken away before people even get it. The Government has performed tricks, for example, with mental health spending where an additional €11.3 million is being dressed up as €35 million, which is inadequate in any case, and, therefore, the description of the Minister as such is accurate. However, it is not so accurate to just describe him as Paschal the Pennypincher because, on the other hand, he was extremely generous to the vulture funds, which will receive a benefit worth billions of euro as a result of changing the eligibility for capital gains tax from seven years to four years, and to the so-called hospitality sector, which will receive €500 million again next year as a result of the reduced VAT rate. In total, more than €2 billion has been given to this sector. He is penny pinching in respect of ordinary people but he is very generous to the rich. We came up with something that sums him up better - Paschal the Privatiser. That sums up the budget. It is not open, blatant privatisation. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport took Oral Questions earlier. He said I always go on about privatisation and that I am just playing to my own base, seriously suggesting there was no evidence of privatisation in the public transport system.

Noam Chomsky summed up the classic strategy of privatisation - defund, make sure things do not work, get people angry and hand it over to private capital. That process has been under way for decades but it was accelerated during the financial crisis with the various attempted and implemented privatisations. This is well summed up in the tripling of funding to the NTPF, which involves the outsourcing of public patients to the private sector at a higher cost than it would cost publicly. It is about creating a health crisis because the Government and previous Governments representing the traditional extreme centre have underfunded our public health service for decades. Now it says the answer is to have a little privatisation. That sums up the approach of the Government and the establishment parties to the health service. It is the case in respect of transport whereby no additional funding was provided for public transport while an agenda of privatisation is being pursued in Irish Rail through various outsourcing contracts and, in particular, in respect of bus services with 10% of Dublin Bus routes going to a private operator, despite the Dublin Bus bid coming in lower. It is planned to tender 40% of Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus routes over the next number of years. It is the case in respect of education. A total of €200 million has been allocated for PPPs, where of course the public takes the risk and the private operator takes the gain. A small increase of 0.1% in the national training fund levy ensures employers have a central role in determining priorities in this sector in 2018 and beyond, bringing corporate influence even more to the heart of education. In every single key area, in respect of what are meant to be public services, an agenda of privatisation is being pushed by the Government. This is a right wing, ideologically Thatcherite budget.

This is summed up better in the area of housing than anywhere else. No additional money has been provided for the building of social or affordable homes. Instead, the Government has taken €750 million of workers' money from ISIF, which was traditionally in the NPRF, and given it via Home Building Finance Ireland to private developers, which Deputy Boyd Barrett has explained simply and well on multiple occasions. This is money that could be used to build houses directly. Instead, the money will be loaned to private developers who will build houses for profit with the State buying some of these houses back from them. A total of 10% of the houses they build will be bought back with them making a profit. It is an extraordinary solution to the housing crisis. The private developer in Cherrywood is trying to sell back to the State a three-bed apartment at a cost of €442,000, which includes a discount. It is complete madness. If the Government's aim was to resolve the housing crisis, clearly it would use the money to build the houses to deal with the supply crisis it likes to talk about.

It only makes sense within the framework of the extreme centre. That framework is one where the market must answer the question and provide. Therefore, we must incentivise the market and the private developer by giving them the funds and hope that something trickles back to us. In reality, that is flood up economics towards the top because it is the people there who benefit. That is their ideology and it is also codified in the fiscal rules. That is the other reason the Government is doing this with the €750 million as opposed to building directly. The fiscal rules have written those neoliberal rules into EU law and make it difficult, without stretching or breaking those rules, to do that. Instead, the Government is driven to take this roundabout and ineffective way of resolving it.

The other area where this stands out is the reliance on housing assistance payments. A recent presentation by Dr. Rory Hearne and Dr. Mary Murphy to the housing committee outlined that over the course of 30 years, more than €20 billion will be given by the State to private landlords. This is presented as if it is social housing and a resolution for people's housing problems, but it is simply a massive subsidy from the State to private landlords. Again, it is ideology, resources and money that are fuelling the housing crisis.

I spoke mainly on climate change yesterday but I wish to add a couple of points. I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett that it is a joke to pay lip service to climate change and do nothing to invest in public transport, which is a key element. The cycling budget line is one of the most pathetic items. It is €3 million. Does it really need to go into the budget? A sum of €3 million is allocated to cycling when the demand from those who are campaigning for proper investment in the sector is for at least €145 million. It is utterly pathetic and shameful to put that €3 million in the budget. There is also a lack of investment in green energy, in particular. That will not be done by the private sector. It can only happen through massive public investment.

Of course, €5 million has been allocated to the spin unit which, so far, mostly appears to be funding the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, arriving at different places for various appointments. I believe that one of the jobs of the spin unit is to limit this debate and to use the fiscal rules and the consensus that exists among all the big political parties about the fiscal rules, that it is a choice between a little more public spending or a little more tax, to ensure that no debate can take place. Throughout most of the media yesterday and today we were presented with this bland debate because everybody agrees on the essential parameters and everybody is arguing over crumbs. We must break out of that framework. It is a framework constructed by the extreme neoliberal centre and reinforced by the fiscal rules. It is an extremist framework because it means we cannot resolve the housing crisis, the crisis of low pay, the crisis of insecure, precarious employment or the crisis where one in four people are facing deprivation or social exclusion. It is a straitjacket that must be broken. The rules of the EU fiscal treaty, the six-pack, two-pack and so forth must be broken and a radical alternative must be built.

That is what we set out in our budget statement. We outlined how people's lives could be transformed on the basis of the wealth that already exists in our society. We set out how to provide child care, homes, a decent health service and so forth. The money to do it is there, but it is a question of who owns the resources, how they are allocated and used and the economic system. It points out more generally that our problem is capitalism, a system whereby the profit of the few is prioritised. That is ideologically and economically dressed up as the best way for things to happen. However, the housing crisis demonstrates that capitalism does not work. We must build a socialist alternative based on public ownership and sustainable growth, both economically and environmentally.

To make that happen, it is not enough for us to be in this House to give out about this and that. We are not speaking to anybody who is going to be convinced on the vast majority of things, to be honest. It is a question of struggle. We won a massive battle on the water charges which we were told we could not win. Massive people power, mass self organisation, demonstrations and mass non-payment won a victory we were told we could not win. We must do that again. The Government will not take action on the burning housing crisis because it is completely locked in by the fiscal rules and its own ideology. There must be a mass movement to demand action on the building of homes. The trade union movement has a particular responsibility, and an opportunity, to take that action. If the trade union movement were to call a massive demonstration on the housing issue, there would be a response, as happened in the case of Apollo House. We simply say that enough is enough, people will not take it anymore and build a mass movement to demand action on housing, health and child care. In doing so we would be building a political force that can deliver the type of change we need.

See this speech in context