Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his time.

I will not be overly-cynical of the budget. There are some elements that I will speak positively about, but perhaps with caution in terms of how they will work in implementation.

I will start by noting that I always struggle not to get upset around this time of year. Being a community worker and someone who has worked in addiction and with poverty all these years, I always remember the fear of budget time in deprived communities. When I hear language such as, "There is something for everyone", there is only really something for everyone if they are starting from a basis of some sort of stability in life. What if one's life is so far in the red in terms of health, poverty or a house falling down? I work with people with holes in their walls, with mould in their house, addiction and problems such as alcohol use. Arrears increased so much during the years of austerity that even though it might look like there is something for everyone, if people are so far in deficit in their own self and in their health and community, it actually does not feel like anything at all. It is about being mindful of that when we talk about how somebody will benefit in any particular way from something. I would like to add that to the whole USC debate. In the areas that I talk about regarding the community sector, I would have much preferred to see no cut in the USC and see that targeted towards the most vulnerable groups. There are marginal benefits for individuals but they would make a big impact for groups as a whole.

I welcome the increase in higher education and the capital spend, and the national training fund levy. The capital grants were such a loss to the university sector. As we do not know what the landscape for FDI or research and development will look like after Brexit, we need to be able to expand the university infrastructure so that we can entice research and development into the country in the wake of Brexit.

The ring-fencing of and increase in the national training fund is welcome. However, I was stopped in my tracks by the next sentence of the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, when he mentioned the central role that employers would play in this. This would be a red flag for me. Although I welcome the increase, in allowing employers have a strong hold on the curriculum and on the way courses will develop, it can become very specialised in particular areas of the labour market. One might see arts and humanities and other faculties fall down if employers have too much of any input. It is likely to result in a push for more specialisation to meet existing labour market needs when broader, more flexible entry-level courses are what is needed to improve student retention rates and tackle drop-out rates. Employers are already a partner in the educational sector and increased influence would lead to an unfair industrial balance between employers and employees and unions. The focus of employers is likely to be on their particular graduate needs over individual personal development to which college is vital. It is about striking a balance and maybe having more conversations around exactly what a central role for employers looks like in the national training levy.

I wish to flag an issue involving the key employee engagement programme, KEEP. Perhaps the Minister of State can follow up this matter with me. I understand the logic in encouraging employee financial participation due to the positive effect on increasing competitiveness and staff retention. However, I am a little concerned about what this means for tax reliefs. If we begin to tax shares and stocks differently, does this then incentivise employers or employees to be paid more of their wage in stocks and shares? If someone is on €200,000 and then decides to be paid a large portion of that in stocks and shares instead of gross annual income, is there a bit of room there to erode the tax base and how will this be monitored?

Obviously, I welcome any increase in the area of lone parents but what has to be critiqued is the fact that the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection only yesterday published the Indecon independent review of the amendments to the one-parent family payment since January 2012. This should have been published weeks ago so that it could have informed the budget. I understand it was supposed to be presented to the Oireachtas on 19 September. The Department missed the boat in terms of addressing poverty in lone-parent families and working families. Although the figures in the report show that there are more working families, they are still living in deprivation and poverty. This report would have been central to being able to address that fully in the budget this year.