Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for sharing his time. We in the Labour Party are acutely aware that on the cusp of Brexit, the Government had to set out some robust measures to protect jobs in the economy as a result of Brexit but it missed opportunities to promote economic equality and to significantly invest in climate change measures and social housing in particular, as well as to make provision for people with disabilities and our children in order to build a more equal and inclusive society. People have waited long enough for a full social recovery to follow the economic recovery. We have to address clear inequalities, for example, issues such as low pay across services and society in general, not least in our Defence Forces or the fact that many people cannot keep up with ever increasing costs in housing, childcare and health services, as alluded to by Deputy Brendan Ryan.

A no-deal Brexit clearly places existing jobs at risk. The precautionary moneys put aside by the Government is appropriate to deal with this in an anticipatory fashion. It is easier to save existing jobs and businesses rather than create new ones and where jobs are lost, it is essential to help people to get back into work as soon as possible. Loans to such businesses vulnerable to Brexit and which provide essential liquidity should be allocated at a 0% rate so as to assist those businesses in a very positive way and prevent them from going bust. Extra funding for retraining and upskilling initiatives is vitally important to support workers, particularly in the agrifood and tourism sectors as they prepare for the future, if Brexit becomes a reality.

There is no point in the Minister for Finance simply talking about this being a Brexit budget, the economy is bigger than that and the society is wider. He cannot completely ignore the concern of those who will be most impacted by the burden of a no-deal, which is what happened last Tuesday. They were totally disregarded. Pensioners, vulnerable groups in receipt of welfare payments as well as working and farming families have been completely left behind, while the banks interests have been protected yet again by Fine Gael with Fianna Fáil's consent. Why were the corporations that bankrupted the economy able to escape an increase in the bank levy? Why were the uses of losses to reduce their tax payments to zero over many years not examined, reviewed and curtailed so as to secure additional tax from them? That is an important issue.

The ESRI has predicted that in the case of a no-deal Brexit - which the Taoiseach has admitted is now is a likely scenario - the cost will be up to €1,360 per household. Let us be clear, this will add up to €26 per week to the cost of the weekly shopping for families, pensioners and those who are less well off. Specifically, households in the lowest income group would face a 4% increase compared to 2.4% for the highest income group. The price rises will not be on luxury goods. The will be on the children's cereals, bread and the pensioners' tea and biscuits. These are normal day-to-day goods that we all need. The reality is that a no-deal Brexit would predominantly affect low-wage workers, pensioners and those in receipt of welfare payments who spend disproportionately more of their money on these basic items. Yet, if a deal is arrived at in the end and we avoid a no-deal Brexit, the price of inflation alone next year is estimated to be 1.5%. Whatever way we look at it, it is disgraceful that there will be no social welfare increases for the likes of pensioners and those vulnerable groups in society.

The targeted interventions championed by the Government simply do not go far enough and, yet again, it is those who are most in need who have been abandoned. The Labour Party proposed in an alternative budget a €5 per week increase in welfare payments across the board and I strongly suggest this be implemented to ensure that no one is left behind by a chaotic Brexit. I know €338 million has been provided in the social welfare budget for an increase in unemployment which may arise as a result of Brexit. If that does not happen, a supplementary budget should be introduced to ensure that a social welfare payment is paid out next March to provide for those people who have been left behind.

I welcome the provision in the budget increasing the number of hours from 15 to 18.5 per week that carers can work or study outside the home. It is important we continue the focus upon and improve the lot of carers. As I have said previously, the abolition of the means test is the only way to go. I will not rest until this is achieved.

As Deputy Brendan Ryan mentioned, the Labour Party would have increased the minimum wage by 30 cent to €10.10 regardless of Brexit. I recall the first thing I did in 2011 when I was in government and given charge of this matter was to reverse the cut that had been made to the minimum wage in 2010. People forget those things that the Labour Party did. Those receiving the minimum wage are predominantly female, young people and migrants. They are also predominantly employed in the hospitality sector, in restaurants and hotels, and in the retail sector which will be directly impacted by Brexit. As recently as July, at the ICTU conference, the Taoiseach stated that the minimum wage would pass the "psychological barrier" of €10 in 2020. Yet, on budget day, we saw no action. Yesterday, we heard the Taoiseach admit that minimum wage increases do not result in job losses. Yet in almost the same breath he stated the reason for delaying the increase was due to the potential of job losses in the context of Brexit. It is nonsensical. The reality is that Brexit is being used as an excuse to avoid giving a decent pay for a decent day's work to those who deserve it. That must be tackled head-on.

With respect to community employment and Tús schemes, we need to give people opportunities to work in the community and voluntary sector, especially people who have been unemployed for a long time. The Tús scheme needs to be extended for those participating on it to a two-year period. We need to cut out the nonsense of placements being for one year. It is a load of bureaucracy. The participants should be allowed to have two years on the scheme. I know a man who has to leave his placement under the scheme today. He is a person who is wanted in his position and the whole community are begging for him to be kept on. Because there is a shower of bureaucrats in place who do not know the price of anything, regulations such as that one are brought in.

With respect to the reform of the means test, we in the Labour Party believe in the universal provision of the public services. The current means test processes applying to people's eligibility for social housing, disability support, carer's allowance, social welfare payments and medical cards involve a maze of complexity. The whole system needs to be reviewed, root and branch, and merged into a single means test that would apply across all Departments and facilitate the streamlined availability of services. The carer's allowance payment, for example, is calculated as part of the assessment of rent payable by people in receipt of the housing assistance payment, HAP. I cannot believe it. All grants and entitlements should be simplified. The Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection should take the opportunity to ditch JobPath on the next contract renewal date. It has failed to meet its targets and is a disaster.

None of us seriously doubts the need for Ireland to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but this transformation must be done gradually and in a way that creates new sustainable jobs, especially in the regions such as the midlands region, where I come from. I welcome the allocation of €31 million as a start to help the midlands area where more than 2,000 people are employed in Bord na Móna and many are employed in the offshoot industries and are engaged in harvesting and producing peat and supplying it to the ESB. This is only a start. The midlands region has most to lose in the shift away from fossil fuels and people had better know that.

As we have almost 140,000 council houses nationally, the Government has to invest in a more ambitious programme of energy efficiency retrofitting, which is why we have always stated in our election programme that we would commit to a €100 million per year in carbon tax revenues to bring all council housing up to the appropriate standard.

In order to encourage people to use utilise public transport there must be a 10 % reduction in public transport fares. That would cost €54 million. We need to increase the public service obligation subsidy for public and rural transport. With respect to the Minister, Deputy Ross, we have a railway station at Thomastown, Killucan that would also serve Raharney. An investment of €1.8 million would put that back in use. We have platforms and everything there. Thousands of people travel eastwards past the constituencies of the Deputies' opposite every day as make they way to work. They travel from Mullingar, east Westmeath and the surrounding areas to and from Dublin to go to work or college. The Minister is as stubborn as a mule. He hears or sees nothing, particularly anything that is right. If Iarnród Éireann was given a push, it could use some Border, midlands and western regional money and put that station back into use. In terms of decarbonisation, how many cars would the provision of that rail service take off the road? It would reduce the number of cars clogging up the N4 and M50 and it would give people a bit of peace as they travel to and from work. It is a nonsense not to do that. It just shows the lack of joined-up thinking and the stupidity sometimes of bureaucrats and sometimes of Ministers.

4 o’clock

If Deputy Ross is a Minister worth his salt at all, he will do his own thing. Of course, as he is only into photo opportunities and photo bombing, he does not know what is going on. I am sick and tired of looking at him. This might be my last chance at a budget speech to tell the truth to those guys, although I will have a lot more to say when I am leaving. There are a few people I want to have a right shot at.

Farming is an area about which I know a lot. This budget provides €650 million for a Brexit fund, with €110 million going to farming, to be triggered immediately in the event of no deal, and a similar level of funding being secured from the European Commission. There is an €85 million fund for beef farmers. We all know that beef farmers have suffered over the past three years and that prices have dropped again, with €3.45 per kilo being quoted, so prospects are very poor. There is €45 million for the beef data and genomics programme, €40 million for a target scheme based on the beef scheme, which is about €40 per calf, a €10 million vaccination programme at €20 per calf, and a €10 million calf-to-beef weighing programme, which in its new form will be some €10 per calf.

Let us take a look at the beef exceptional aid measure, BEAM, where only €80 million of the €100 million was utilised this year. It is a scheme designed to fail. Do not get me started again about the bureaucrats. This seems anything but user-friendly. I have received a letter from a father and son who are farming in Mayo, the part of the country from which the Acting Chairman comes. He knows a great deal about farming and it is a pity he is not in the Department because he might get something done. The letter is from people who are doing everything right. Some 90% of their heifers calved between 22 and 26 months, they had ICBF calving reports, they are members of the local Teagasc knowledge transfer discussion group and they followed Teagasc's advice and increased investment this year. They are struggling financially on the beef farm because the merchant credit will have to be carried forward to 2020, which is almost unprecedented on the farm. Like many other firms, the beef crisis has hit this farm hard. They applied for BEAM because this is an exceptional period of their farming careers and the compensation is badly needed to pay off the merchant credit. However, their main concern with the scheme, which I mentioned to the Minister, although he must put plugs in his ears because he hears nothing, is that it requires a 5% reduction in organic nitrogen based on a reference year from July 2018 to June 2019. Farmers like this father and son have been building stock numbers during this time and they were cleared this year when their ICBF report was furnished. However, the 5% reduction that is to take place between July 2020 and June 2021 would be a 20% reduction in their herd because they have been building stock numbers since then. They are building a sustainable farming system based on Teagasc advice and funded by the Department through TAMS, and they are now asked to reduce stock by 5%, which will reverse the farm to where it was five years ago and lead to a far more unsustainable system.

I request the Department not to impose this 5% reduction in organic nitrogen and allow the exceptional aid measure to do exactly what it said on the tin and to be used for what it is meant to be used, which is to compensate farmers for poor beef prices and help beef farmers to raise the price. The Department has been providing TAMS funding to keep their current stocking rate and to meet bank repayments. They are at a loss to know why they have received funding, on the one hand, to develop the farm and then, on the other, why they are asked to reduce their stock. BEAM was to compensate farmers for the beef crisis of 2018 and the scheme should be allowed to do that and nothing more. I only hope that some of those officials up there, some of whom went to college with me and are getting near retirement age, will listen to what I am saying about the BEAM programme, remodel it and remove that 5% reduction. It is a disaster. That is why nobody is taking it up and some €20 million is being handed back. Mother of divine intervention, what is the Department doing bringing forward schemes when it knows they are not going to work and the money is going to come back?

I could speak for an hour, like the Acting Chairman can. When he is in full flow, he is very hard to stop.

See this speech in context