Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There were some positive aspects to yesterday's budget. I highlighted a number of them but, at the end of the day, every budget should either set or continue specific policy directions and underpin those policies with resources to ensure they are implemented. In that context, I will highlight two areas where yesterday's budget failed the test.

The first relates to tackling waiting lists. While additional funding was given, it will simply not be enough to deal with the massive, and escalating, numbers on waiting lists. I know it is not the same but I just checked out the Trolley Watch figures earlier and in my local hospital, Sligo University Hospital, 26 people are waiting while another 42 are waiting in Letterkenny. As I said, the problem is massive and escalating.

Part of the solution has to involve looking at the issue of manpower. We have a massive problem in this regard. I was shocked to read that, in a survey of 1,000 doctors carried out after they had read the draft Sláintecare contract, 90% said they would consider emigrating. That indicates the level of challenge we face. It is a manpower challenge but it is also about capacity within our acute services. I do not believe that yesterday's budget tackled that in a reasonable way.

I also referred yesterday to the fact that agriculture was ghosted. The budget was basically a non-event in that regard. The sector was not only ghosted, but short-changed. One small paragraph informed us that €49 million that was promised to the agriculture sector for next year as its share of the carbon tax collected was to be deferred. This sector is expected to do much of the heavy lifting of decarbonisation, yet yesterday it was told that the €49 million, which had been earmarked for it, was being deferred. It has been told it will get it in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, which I will come back to in a minute, but how does this square with the basic premise of carbon tax, which is that carbon tax is meant to incentivise farmers, and all of us, to cut emissions? The incentive has been deferred and that breaks the trust with farmers. Why was this money deferred? Were the various Departments not ready to go with programmes? What went wrong?

As I said when responding yesterday, I am sick of listening to this idea that the CAP will cure all ills. The truth is that farmers will be expected to do much more with the same money. There are significant additional requirements under the CAP. Some 25% of farmers' incomes will rely on new work under the eco-schemes. That will entail cost. There are certain issues with the eco-schemes. The principle is good but another principle is that, under the CAP, farmers are expected to do that with the same funding, regardless of the extra cost burden.

I will refer to another significant issue. Some of my colleagues in the Green Party will be aware that, under the biodiversity strategy, we are expected to increase the proportion of land that is designated from 13% to 30%. That means that any farmer whose land is designated will immediately be required to apply for consent to carry out any of 38 notifiable actions. The cost of that in itself is significant. Designation of land is positive in certain cases. However, if we want to know the impact it can have, we need only think of two words: "Lough Funshinagh". Anybody who watched the "Prime Time" programme will have seen the impact there. We are supposed to more than double the proportion of land we designate, yet there is nothing extra for farmers. Farmers were yesterday looking to the budget for a signal that they are part of this society and that they would be included. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, they were ghosted and short-changed.

See this speech in context