Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank him for outlining the summary of the main budget measures. I will refer in a moment to the measures in the budget that I find positive. I agree with the Minister of State's comment that this last, or fifth, budget from the Government must be taken in the context of previous very regressive and most unfair budgets whereby those who could afford the least paid the most.

The extension of the early childhood care and education scheme is certainly welcome. The emphasis on allowing full access for children with disabilities is also very welcome. I have spoken about this, along with my colleagues and many Senators across the House. How confident is the Government that the €15 million set aside in this regard will actually meet the demand in this area?

To stay on the subject of education, the reduction in the pupil–teacher ratio at both primary and post-primary levels is also welcome. I hope that when the Minister for Education and Skills examines this in more detail, there will be a particular emphasis on primary education. It is most important to give our children the best start that they can possibly be given.

Putting two weeks' paternity pay and leave on a statutory footing is certainly welcome. Colleagues on many sides of the House have called for this. Senator D'Arcy should note that, based on the statement of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, in the Dáil, there is no getting away from the fact that some men will not be able to excuse themselves from carrying out their responsibilities.

With regard to the local property tax, my colleague in the other House, Deputy Michael McGrath, and I have been calling consistently for a freezing of the revaluation in 2016. The fact that the Government has announced this is certainly welcome. Since the tax is value-based, it is important that there be mitigation in urban areas, such as Dublin, Cork and Galway. There is an extension of the exemption for homeowners whose houses are affected by pyrite. Again, this is a matter that my colleagues and I have raised here on numerous occasions. I have included this in the submission my party made. I am looking for clarification on this because the Minister of State referred to houses with significant pyrite damage. I put it to him that any house with pyrite is valueless. Until such houses are actually fixed, they should be exempted on a self-assessment basis. I would like to see how the exemption can be put into practice. If people are required to have a main test of their house, the exemption from the property tax will not pay for it. This is a matter we can tease out in more detail.

The €3 increase to the old-age pension will not even cover the Government's increase in the prescription charge and the abolition of the telephone allowance and the bereavement grant. The Government has increased the fuel allowance somewhat. A €3 increase in the context of the cuts the Government has made over the past few years is miserly in the extreme. This should be revisited.

Having mentioned positive aspects of the budget, I will outline the aspects of which I am critical. The employment figures are good; we all want to see increases in employment. When the Minister of State concluded his statement, he mentioned the Government's policy platform over the previous four years. The previous Government, in making 70% of the adjustments that were required and in making some of the very tough decisions required to rein in spending and increase tax, also laid the foundations for some of the recovery that we see. We need to see a fair recovery. The proportionate increases in net take-home pay for low- and middle-income families by comparison with higher-income families owing to the reductions in the universal social charge need to be re-examined. Those on low incomes will have a 0.8% increase while those on higher incomes, earning between €50,000 and €75,000, will have increases of 1.7% and 1.9%. This seems to be somewhat unbalanced.

In the statements of the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, there was no reference to those in mortgage arrears. I cannot see any mention of reinstituting the mortgage interest supplement, which would help those who now fear losing their homes. A legacy of this Government will be that it has allowed repossessions to take place and has made it easier for banks to repossess. One of the direct supports that was seen as very effective was the mortgage interest supplement, but it has not been reinstated. No measure has been taken in real terms in regard to variable mortgage rates. Thousands upon thousands of people are paying over and above the odds. I hope the Government will seek, perhaps in the context of the Finance Bill, to beef up the code of conduct on mortgage arrears that it watered down over its term in office to afford proper protection to those affected.

The Minister of State said the proposal for NAMA to deliver an additional 20,000 residential units by the end of 2020 was very welcome. I hope he does not mind my being a little sceptical about that, because NAMA has not delivered in this area to date. Any future Government will need to take this on board because, if we are to depend on NAMA to address the imbalance in the housing market in Dublin and the rest of the country, we must realise it will not happen.

The Government has stated it is to deliver 14,000 additional social housing units over the next five to six years. I remind the Minister of State that in Dublin city and county over the past four years, the Government has delivered 388 social housing units. In my area, Fingal, the Government has the fantastic honour and record of having delivered two social housing units in the past four years.

The Minister of State did not mention the waiting lists for social housing when he said he hoped to deliver 14,000 houses. Some 90,000 people - some would say 120,000 - are waiting. What I am looking for is a bit more vision. We have had proposals in the past on social housing and the delivery of housing that have not come to pass. I hope that any future Government will see through the promises made in the statement this evening.

There is a massive housing problem, including in terms of homelessness. I have not seen any reference to raising the rent supplement, although I could be wrong. I have looked for one in the short time I have had to go through the budget statement and documentation. Perhaps this is a matter that the Minister for Social Protection will implement. It is of grave concern, given that there is a rent crisis in the country, particularly in the area of rent supplement.

The Minister of State referred to 600 additional gardaí. That figure in itself is welcome, but it will only just make up for the number who retire in the period in question. Last year we had 300. There is no mention of bringing back parity of salary and allowances for new gardaí who pass out of Templemore with their colleagues who may have been there for two or three years at the same rank but who are earning less. It is about fairness. These are the matters I would like to see addressed. Despite this budget, which I acknowledge contains good measures, I would like a better focus on those who need assistance, such as those who are struggling to pay their mortgages right now, those subject to repossession orders and those who have civil bills lodged against them in the courts on a weekly basis. I am surprised that there was no mention of them in either speech. They are the people who really need this Government's assistance.

I would welcome the Minister of State's comments on my contribution this evening and look forward to the continuation of this debate on budget 2016.