Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

We have all had time to digest yesterday's budget. It is absolutely certain that most of the Fine Gael Deputies and candidates will be up in arms about the inability to produce the now annual, bog standard "what the budget means for you" leaflet because in reality, the budget means very little to most cohorts of Irish people.

The budget has been framed against a no-deal Brexit and it was a judgment call to produce one budget. The Social Democrats alternative budget recognised that a no-deal Brexit was a possibility but we advocated a supplementary budget when there is more clarity around the issue in order that the major issues could be addressed and not put off for another year for another Government after the next general election.

What Ireland is this budget for? There is no doubt that people who are financially sound and who have the luxury of waiting to see how Brexit plays out will regard this budget well. A person earning more than €75,000 a year, who is a special assignee from abroad and can avail of the special assignee relief programme, SARP, and who has had his or her very favourable tax status extended will be very happy with the budget. If a person is on the Irish Greyhound Board, he or she will be relieved and very happy to see €17 million coming its way. A private landlord will be relieved that renters have not been given the assistance to lower their rent costs or even to keep the costs static at what are already ridiculously high prices.

The Minister for Finance made quite the song and dance yesterday about what he referred to as good governance and responsible politics. He even had the audacity to go so far as to claim credit for the responsible management of the public finances and somehow managed to do it with a straight face. Perhaps that is because he studiously avoided any reference to the billions of euro wasted on cost overruns at the national children's hospital and the upcoming national broadband plan. I heard the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, say this morning that the intention was to sign the contract for the latter within the next couple of weeks. It is difficult to say it is a prudent decision when facing the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. The Budget Statement did not discuss how the glossy Project Ireland 2040, the national development plan, had been fundamentally undermined by the fact that the billions of euro supposed to pay for the projects listed therein had been used up in funding cost overruns at the national children's hospital and on the national broadband plan. These points underline the lack of prudence, which is something the public sees clearly. In the vein of the old adage, actions speak louder than words. One can use the words "prudent" and "responsible", but people will make up their minds when they look at the reality. Essentially, they have already done so, from which there is no rowing back.

In the housing allocation the Government added €80 million for the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme. When added to the projected budget for this year, it brings the total HAP budget for 2020 to just over €500 million, which is a fortune. It is €500 million of public funds transferred directly to private landlords in a move that will do nothing to curtail the spiralling unaffordability of rents and everything to exacerbate the problem. The Government has also ignored the urgent need to freeze rents nationally and address the affordability issue by implementing a proper, affordable and secure rental scheme. Renters will be impacted on by Brexit. They are terrified by it because of the precarious lives they are living.

The budget announced yesterday is yet another step in the galloping commodification of housing that is an ideological hallmark of the Government. It is about the Government outsourcing responsibility and individualising the problem. This is writ large in the public pronouncements by vulture funds that Ireland is the gift that keeps on giving and in recent comments by high earners who said they were shocked to see what tax rates they would be paying if they did not have favourable tax schemes to protect them. The budget underlines the Government's ideological politics of big business and big money. That is the Ireland at which the budget aims.

Yesterday the Government continued the now daily tradition of greenwashing by once again making all the right sounds about climate change. On radio this morning the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, lauded the extension of the retrofit scheme. He argued that if someone was unable to change to an electric vehicle, he or she could undertake a home retrofit instead. While that sounds good, not everyone has thousands of euro just sitting around waiting for him or her to think up ways to spend it. A pay-as-you-save scheme would have been essential for people looking to retrofit, but they have not been given the opportunity because the Government has not put such a scheme in place. Its approach is about individual action and individual responsibility, but we need a collective approach. That is why the Social Democrats have called for a front-loading of the retrofit scheme, whereby the work could be undertaken and the money repaid via a pay-as-you-save scheme.

Carbon tax has been a feature of budgets for the past ten years, but none of the revenue from it has been ring-fenced so far. Most of it will still not be ring-fenced next year either. Only revenue from the new increase announced yesterday in the existing carbon tax will be ring-fenced, but a song and dance has been made about carbon tax this year as though it were a new initiative from the Government to try to sell itself using environmental opportunities. Since 2010, €3.34 billion has been taken in in carbon tax. This year €440 million was taken in. All of it went into the Central Fund to pay off our enormous national debt or run services. It has not been used to change behaviour. Next year's €90 million increase will be ring-fenced, not the €90 million, plus the original €440 million. If the tax is about changing behaviour, why is all of it not being used? Otherwise, it is just greenwashing.

The budget contains one or two welcome changes. One initiative, one for which I have argued year in, year out, will impact on the small number of people under 25 years of age who are exiting care. If they are in receipt of the HAP or a couple of other types of payment, they will now receive the adult social protection rate instead of the lower rate. This is an important recognition of vulnerable persons. However, the non-means testing of the social protection budget means a de factocut.

Other news of particular interest to young people is that there will be a noticeable lack of investment in the third level sector. Students face significant increases in the cost of living, a rental market that ensures they cannot afford accommodation and inadequate public transport. This means that many are dropping out of third level education, deferring or not taking up places in the first place. We know that there is this crisis, but the Thirty-second Dáil will not deal with it because the budget is the last in this Dáil.

I cannot conclude without referencing what essentially amounts to a pretend health budget. There is a great deal of spin about curtailing the annual Supplementary Estimates and so on, but no reference is made to the fact that there is de factoan embargo. We have all heard about people who, having found jobs, are just waiting for their start dates, but the House can be sure they will not start until 1 January. Their employment has not been factored in to the overrun. The Government is postponing the real cost for inclusion in next year's budget.

Almost 1 million people are on healthcare waiting lists. While I welcome the re-announcement of new therapist posts, the allocation of these resources must be strategically targeted to ensure areas such as Meath, Kildare and Fingal will catch up. During a previous recalibration on foot of a system being put in place by my colleague, Deputy Shortall, before she left the Department of Health, they were the areas that gained most, but they are still far behind. Where there are large young populations, how their futures are determined cannot come down to a postcode lottery.

Other than that from the financially comfortable, most commentary has described the budget as a damp squib. The majority of the country cannot afford it to be a damp squib, including those who rely on disability services and supports.

Those facing eviction notices from landlords cannot afford a damp squib. Those who struggle to put food on the table or to heat their homes cannot afford a damp squib. The Minister of State, Deputy English, knows them because just as they come to my constituency office, they also go to his. Those who get up early in the morning, who work very hard and are doing everything society expects them do, find themselves left with mere pennies at the end of the week if they are lucky. They struggle with the cost of living and they cannot afford a budget that is a damp squib. This is the last budget this Government will deliver, and it is a damp squib.

It is worth remembering that doing nothing has an impact in a continuing crisis. Those crises have hidden behind the curtain that is Brexit and we can see them worsen year on year. Health and housing are the two big areas but the provision of disability services continues to be a problem. In addition to underfunding, there is a lack of strategic thinking in the area. That is the reason we wanted to see a two-budget strategy. We have all spoken to volunteers who work with sporting bodies and the arts community, among other groups in the voluntary sector. Very small amounts of money would make a very big difference to them. It was important that we could see how Brexit played out and see what the opportunities are, but we have postponed those measures for another year.

One allocation that looks very vindictive in the budget is the fact that the Data Protection Commission did not get the expected income it sought. Now, it is facing a fight with the Government with inadequate resources. That seems very targeted and vindictive and could be counterproductive. We all acknowledge that a crash-out Brexit is a very real danger and we must be prudent in managing the situation. For that reason, we thought a two-budget strategy would be the right way to go. Is this about the timing of Brexit or is it about the timing of the next general election? We all know there will be a general election within the next six or eight months. Brexit is the curtain behind which many of the domestic crises have been hidden. They will not be ignored when it comes to knocking on doors. It was evident in the local elections that people are concerned about how public services are being delivered or not being delivered. That is a message the Government will hear loud and clear when it comes to knocking on doors whenever the election takes place.

See this speech in context