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

Tháinig mé isteach anseo in 2009. Bhí na buiséid roimhe sin agus na buiséid ó shin amach uafásach ar fad. Caithfidh mé a admháil go bhfuil feabhas tagtha ar an scéal leis an mbuiséad seo. Tá rudaí sa bhuiséad atá níos dearfaí ná na rudaí a bhí sna buiséid eile. Ach tá ceist agam; cén difríocht a dhéanfaidh sé? Bhíos anseo inné agus bhíos ag éisteacht leis na figiúirí a bhí ag dul thar timpeall le dul chuig áiteanna éagsúla. The figures - €30 million here, €1.4 billion there, €110 million there - all sound very impressive but we need the breakdown and we need the answers to questions such as "Who?", "What?", "When?" and "Where?" in order to get to the gist of what is involved here. It would indicate whether the measures will make an appreciable difference or are just a massaging of the figures.

I acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Budget Office. I refer to one of the points it has made on the need for time before the budget to really analyse the figures before we come in here to react to it so that our reactions are evidence-based. I sometimes wonder about the wisdom of the speed and urgency with which we have statements on the budget directly after the Minister's statement. We knew much about this budget before it was announced in here yesterday. Ministers have press conferences about their own particular budget but they are not coming in to tell us exactly what is going to happen in their budgets. We have a budget here that appears to give a little to many which would indicate a major deficit in the ideology of fair and progressive budgeting and consequently, an opportunity to make a real difference was missed.

While the European Anti-Poverty Network welcomed the €5 increase - and obviously an increase is much better than a decrease - I question spreading the increase so widely instead of focusing on one particular group, for example, those with a disability. We know they need an increase of €20 to €25 to make a real difference in their lives because they have extra costs and challenges that we do not have. Each year the Disability Federation of Ireland hopes the budget will address the inequality and, including this year, it has been disappointed every year. It is particularly disappointing when Ireland has finally ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There was an opportunity to address the systemic inequalities for those with a disability, inequality which has almost been normalised post crash. The Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, has a further €150 million for disability services and it will be interesting to see where it goes. The Minister of State mentioned services for those who have left school. I hope they will be quality services because I have met many people with a disability who are in services that are not addressing their needs. They are certainly not providing any stimulation for those young people.

The Minister, Deputy Donohoe, called this a caring budget in his speech yesterday and there are some aspects that are caring. In reality, the cost of living for many means this is more like a public relations budget. The USC reductions and income tax band changes might give the perception of rewarding the sacrifices of the working population after a tough decade but in reality the cost of living and the post net pay costs do not do anything to improve the standard of living of many. We have to look at the reality. The reality for workers on good salaries is that home ownership is likely beyond them and that the public health system means that private health insurance is now a necessity and not a luxury, not to mention educational costs. This low total tax intake will not be sustainable in future.

I acknowledge the work of Social Justice Ireland. One of the points it made earlier was the need for more revenue to maintain current levels of services and supports. That is not to mention the additional services when they are required. There was one figure that was interesting - Ireland's total reserve as a percentage of GDP versus EUROSTAT's mark for a low-tax economy, which is 25% to 34.9%. The reality in this budget, as it pointed out, is that those with higher incomes have gained up to ten times more than the amount gained by low-paid workers.

The Minister said our economy is growing at a healthy pace. What exactly does economic growth mean? Economists and statisticians will tell us what economic growth is about but what do those terms mean to those citizens here who are living in poverty? We know 8.3% of people live in persistent poverty and 21% of the population have experienced deprivation. We know the homeless figures, the numbers living in inappropriate accommodation, the numbers waiting on hospital appointments and the number of children and young people waiting on assessments and psychological services. I would like to ask what it means to those people who featured in a report commissioned by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice called Stories of Struggle, which was launched by the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty. Their experiences were of living below the minimum ethical essential standard of living. The stories were very clear on the implications for those families in terms of their physical and mental health and educational attainment. We have positives in economic growth. The unemployment rate is low and emigrants are returning but there are challenges in housing, health, climate change, Brexit and our debt. We need a fiscal policy that is not just about economic growth but a fair and just taxation system, sustainability, transparency in governance and decent services for all. They might be clichés but they mean a lot. They are about the vision we want for Ireland. Is our vision for a more fair and equal society? There is no doubt but that inequality is growing.

On housing, there is a role for landlords and developers but not for a total reliance on them to provide the necessary housing. Is it too much to ask that words like "ethical" and "morality" should be applied to landlords and developers also? HAP has a role but it is not the answer because HAP tenants are competing on an open market with those who can pay more. It is money down the drain. The priority has to be to prevent people becoming homeless. I see a movement of people out of homelessness but no sooner is one family out of homelessness than another is into homelessness. It is ironic that so many years after Davitt, Parnell and the Land League, we are still looking at two of the three Fs, namely, fair rent and fixity of tenure.

On the capital acquisitions tax, the increase on the band A inheritance tax threshold does absolutely nothing to tackle the basic inequality of the inheritance tax system whereby unmarried, childless, single people and same sex couples are victimised by an inheritance tax system that has 1950s ideologies all over it when it comes to the family unit.

The increase of 1% on betting tax is to be welcomed but it needs to be clarified where the 1% is going. Is it going back into the Exchequer or to the services that are needed for the increasing number of people with gambling addiction?

I will say the same about the increase on cigarettes. We know the cost to the health system, the numbers in need of care due to smoking-related illnesses and death. Will the 50 cent increase go towards the programmes and services that are needed for those who are addicted to smoking? I know it will fuel the illegal cigarette trade.

I see so much of that in Dublin Central. The pressure will be on those going on holidays to European countries to bring back hundreds of cigarettes. I have to wonder about the particular initiative. I am particularly interested in the drugs and youth projects and the services for those in addiction, whether treatment, rehabilitation or recovery but also the awareness programmes before somebody goes down that road. Those projects are still suffering from the 40% cuts. Additional funding now will only help them to play catch-up on what was lost and I certainly know the effects of that loss.

I had a dilemma last night about the 13.5% value added tax, VAT. I believe it could be more for certain aspects of the hospitality industry. It is embarrassing to learn about the cost of hotels in Dublin and other cities and in some of the particularly popular tourist spots. The jump to 13.5%, however, will hit smaller restaurants and businesses much harder. Surely there was a way for us to consider a more graded approach to that, based on the income, numbers employed, etc., rather than a one size fit all.

The Minister of State is responsible for overseas aid and the overseas development aid, ODA, increase of €110 million has been welcomed. It is moving in the right direction towards the 0.7% of gross national income, GNI, which is critical if the sustainable development goals are to be realised. We have to be vigilant about how our ODA is being used. To date it has been to a very high standard. It is untied and poverty focused but it cannot be diverted to the securitisation agenda. I hope the €110 million increase will be totally for bilateral aid because there are concerns about how funding can be swallowed up by multilateral aid. That was one of the points made by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade in its review of Irish Aid. We cannot, however, and this is crucial, give with one hand and take with the other. This is where policy coherence is absolutely essential. Unfortunately, we are seeing a very vivid example of incoherence because of what is missing in the budget in respect of climate change. There were very clear recommendations from the Citizens' Assembly and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have been ignored and we will pay the price, economically through fines and environmentally. Did anyone wake up this morning with an impetus to do something to change some element of their own behaviour to slow down climate change as a result of the budget? This budget is one of carbon omission rather than emissions.

I do not disagree with the rainy day fund, particularly as it is coming from corporation tax but why is it not beginning immediately? The exit tax is progressive. It is scary if we rely on corporation tax to fund essential services. While the receipts are significant now there is no guarantee that will continue. Although 12.5% sounds fine on paper, we know that the effective rate is nowhere near that. When the Minister speaks of global tax reform I hope that the principles of tax justice will be at the core of our policies.

I note increased supports through the Arts Council and Creative Ireland and I hope we will see some positive discrimination in favour of local community initiatives in arts and culture. Many artists do not make a living wage and we need to consider their tax situation. People have been in touch with me who go through the horrors every time they are not working. They have to be in work but why would they take other work when they are waiting for work in the artistic and cultural fields? We should try to make their tax journey easier. In respect of capital funding to the arts, I hope that we are finally going to see real progress on Moore Street starting with the national monument at numbers 17 and 18.

There is a major role for the Committee on Budgetary Oversight and the Parliamentary Budget Office to judge by the display they have in LH 2000 now. We should consider getting regular and more structured input from them on whether aspects of the budget are progressing on gender proofing, equality proofing and disability proofing because we need real transparency.

Like most people here I attended several meetings with groups before the budget. Mar shampla, bhíos ag an gcruinniú a bhí ag Conradh na Gaeilge agus tá sé soiléir go gcaithfimid tacú le infheistíocht sa Ghaeilge agus san Ghaeltacht as seo amach. I met two other groups and, when considering the big figures in the budget, we need to also think about the small organisations and the smaller figures that will make a difference. An additional €0.5 million yearly would mean that the Multiple Sclerosis Society would have more beds to provide more respite, not just for with the person with multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease or a neurological illness, it is also for the family and makes a huge difference to them. I also met the epidermolysis bullosa, EB, group organised by DEBRA Ireland. EB is a horrible illness and a small amount of funding would make a difference. That would go into ring-fencing a care package, which is vital. There is also a need for the outreach nurse to become a permanent position because the outreach nurse can go to those children who have that illness rather than them having to travel because travelling creates more problems for them.

There were positive points in the budget but it is not coming across with the radical changes that are needed in order to make a real difference in the majority of people's lives.

See this speech in context