Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Budget 2018, like any budget, presented choices to Government. Those choices centred around how best to distribute available resources. It was clear in the run-up to this budget that there were not significant resources to be spent but, nevertheless, we must always endeavour to spend what is available in the fairest way. However, much of the conversation by the Government in the run-up to this budget was how to cut taxes for higher earners while forgetting those most vulnerable and those on the lowest incomes.

We face huge pressures in the areas of housing and health, in particular, with 8,000 people in emergency accommodation, more than 3,000 of whom are children, while there are 680,000 on hospital waiting lists. It is incredible to think that we had to fight to convince the Government parties of the need to maintain a 2:1 ratio of investment in public services to tax cuts. I was deeply concerned by the overwhelming focus of the Government and, in particular, the Taoiseach to increase tax bands at all costs. It was the key tenet of the budget and appeared to be the most important thing for an Taoiseach, more so than investing in our public services. No one opposes alleviating the tax burden on citizens but when the ESRI warns against such cuts in the context of a housing and health crisis, we have to ask whether the right choice was made. On the contrary, Fianna Fáil advocated for, and was successful in achieving, a reduction in the USC. This tax reduction will reach far more people, in particular those on the lowest income. This is clearly a much fairer way to apply a tax reduction.

The key revenue raising measure in this budget is the increase in commercial stamp duty from 2% to 6%. I have a concern about this measure and I acknowledge that I am not the first to raise it. This tax is being used to fund permanent spending on public services but it cannot be said to be a reliable long-term source of tax revenue. One of the criticisms of budgetary policy during the boom was the over-reliance on unstable tax revenues from the construction sector to fund long-term spending on public services. I am concerned that using commercial stamp duty to fund an increase in spending on public services is similar to the budget policy once criticised by Fine Gael. We cannot rely on commercial stamp duty providing a sustainable return to the Exchequer and it is also difficult to predict the annual yield because such a tax is based upon a transaction rate that we cannot be sure of.

There are glaring omissions and failures on the part of the Government to address key expenditure issues in the budget. The Minister for Finance has described as "bonkers" the ongoing pension issue for many women who find themselves in a position where their pension entitlements are severely reduced because they took time out of work to care for their family. Some women are losing as much as €35 per week. It is worth noting that some of them, due to the old marriage ban, were forced to give up their job but now they find themselves being punished while the value of their work in the home has been diminished. Those women deserve an answer from Government as to why this issue was not addressed in the budget. This brings me to the issue of affordable child care, which affects many women and families across the country. I welcome the improvements in this regard but the Government is moving at a snail's pace in addressing this issue. For many families, child care can often be a greater expense than their mortgage, which is difficult to believe, and it is often cited as the greatest barrier to women remaining in the workplace or returning to the workplace. Financially, families are often better off if one parent stays at home rather than footing a colossal child care bill. As I said earlier regarding choices, the Government parties, despite all their talk about helping working families, chose to focus on increasing the tax bands and, by their own admission, the average family with two working parents might secure an increase of €600 per year in their pockets. This amounts to approximately €4 each per week per person. Given some families fork out €2,000 per month on child care, could better choices have been made to distribute resources?

In the area of housing, there is no doubt that the legacy of this and the previous Government will be their abysmal failure in providing homes for our people. Under their watch, they have allowed record numbers of individuals, families and children to become homeless, the social impact of which will be felt for many years. They hid behind the excuse that there was no money and, therefore, houses could not be built, whereas at other times in the State’s history when resources were limited, houses were built. In the 1930s and the 1960s, we made choices to prioritise housing above other areas and homes were built. People of my generation have given up on ever owning their own home. I do not say that to be dramatic or to over-egg this but it is the reality. I say this in the context of spiralling rents, lack of rent controls and an assertion that an affordable starter home should cost between €400,000 and €500,000. That is not an affordable home and the sooner people stop suggesting it is, the better.

Where do I start on health? I refer to my constituency of Mayo. Currently, more than 500 children are waiting for speech and language therapy, and 393 are waiting for physiotherapy appointments. This is due to a lack of staff. Even if the vacancies were filled, demand would still not be met. Once again, the children of the State are being let down when it comes to accessing basic health services.

I refer to my portfolio of defence. I am deeply disappointed at the lack of investment in this area. A 2% increase in the day-to-day defence budget is pretty derisory, especially when the 4% increases in Army pensions is taken into consideration. The budget means that our defence spending will yet again fall relative to national income. GDP growth is likely to be at least 4% next year, which is welcome. In 2012, defence expenditure amounted to 0.55% of GDP compared with 1.17% in Sweden and 1.47% in Finland, both neutral countries. That total, of course, includes Army pensions. When they are excluded, defence spending amounts to just 0.25% of GDP, which is exceptionally low. Ireland lacks the minimum conventional capability to provide a credible defence and with the mass exodus of soldiers from the Defence Forces, the budget says to them that the Government does not value them, it will not invest in them and it is not taking the crisis in defence seriously.

See this speech in context