Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is always welcome to have our former Seanad colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, here with us and I thank him for that. My party's finance spokesperson, Deputy Burton, set out clearly in the Dáil the Labour Party's position on the budget and on the Bill, as the Minister of State will be aware. In keeping with what she stated, I have to say there was not much with which I agreed in his contribution. I agree with him in respect of his comment that Brexit is the immediate threat, as the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, noted, which we all accept. It is clear it is the largest immediate threat to the economy. We fully accept that the Minister and the Government were in an uncertain position when devising the budget and that it was especially uncertain in October, when we did not know whether Brexit would happen on 31 October, or with or without a deal. We still face a precarious position, not least given the state of the British opinion polls and the fact that we do not yet know the shape of the new British Government or whether Brexit will happen at the end of January 2020, although I think we can agree that the threat of a no-deal Brexit has receded somewhat since October.

I also agree with the Minister of State that climate change is another significant threat. It is the defining challenge of our generation, although it is of a different order to Brexit, which poses an immediate and direct threat to our economy. It is a much broader, global threat.

Having accepted those two points, one would have to be broadly critical of the budget for the Government's failure to deal adequately with those two severe challenges, namely, the immediate, pressing challenge of Brexit for this island and the broader, global challenge of climate change. The budget has failed to deliver on both counts, as Deputy Burton argued. She noted little justice, equality or progressiveness in the budget, and it was on that basis that our party has opposed it. She pointed out that given the likely impact of Brexit on consumers, there are likely to be price rises on household goods and on the cost of living. In that regard, it is a very regressive budget because there has been a failure to take account of those rises or to ensure that those on the lowest levels of income would see their income rise sufficiently to take account of such increases. In particular, the failure to index tax bands means that for the majority of ordinary workers, the budget will be highly regressive, while the failure to increase social welfare rates will lead, in real terms, to incomes falling as the cost of living rises.

This is not just an assessment from Deputy Burton or the Labour Party. The headline commentary of a scarcely publicised report of the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, published on 11 October, stated that budget 2020 would hit poorer households harder. It outlined a clear metric, stating the budget would reduce the incomes of the poorest households by 3% but leave the highest earning households worse off by just 1%. The ESRI's point was that the budget would have a much more severe impact on the incomes of poorer households. Given that wages and prices are rising, those on welfare, who will not receive increases, will be left behind. It was a fairly devastating assessment from an independent body of the impact of the budget and its regressive nature. It is most unfortunate that more provision has not been made for the likely cost-of-living increases. An alternative approach was available, and the Labour Party's alternative budget proposed increased investment in public services. There is a fundamental problem on the right throughout Europe, whereby spending, whether on public services, health, education or housing, is viewed as money going out, whereas it should be viewed as investment in services for all of us. It is not empty expenditure but rather investment in assets for all of us to share, and in future generations and their assets.

With that in mind, we proposed a major programme of investment in public housing, but again there was little in that regard in the budget. There was little to address the serious, chronic shortage of housing in Dublin and throughout the country. I acknowledge that the Minister of State is not a Dublin resident. I live in the south inner city, on the South Circular Road, where there is a great deal of construction but it is all student accommodation, with tiny spaces for students. While it is fine and welcome for derelict sites to be used to provide accommodation for people, it is all student accommodation or hotels. Within 1 km of my house, all the construction is concentrated on those two types of accommodation. There is no construction of houses or apartments that families, individuals, people on the homeless list or people seeking to move from the private rented sector can buy. It raises the question as to why we cannot incentivise the building of houses and homes in the same way that, clearly, somebody is being incentivised to build hotels and student accommodation, which are springing up in various parts of the city but especially in the inner city. It is a specific critique of the budget that there were no targeted measures to address the chronic housing shortage.

Similarly, the budget fell short in respect of dealing with climate change. There is nothing like the sort of proposal we had put forward for a just transition, a new green deal, or serious investment in alternative energy production or in addressing our emissions. Ireland is uniquely placed to promote a model of sustainable farming, a matter that is probably closer to the Minister of State's heart than the issue of inner city Dublin accommodation. There are interesting and valuable models throughout Ireland. I am especially familiar with the Burrenbeo Trust in the Burren, which is led by some incredible people such as Brendan Dunford who have rolled out a model of sustainable farming that is highly productive on small areas of land. It produces high-end, organic food produce that could point the way forward for Irish agriculture and food production. Bord Bia promotes that vision of Ireland, and the organic and sustainable model of food production is in keeping with an environmental and green vision.

There also needs to be increased investment in transport. I was a strong proponent of the model to allocate funds for cycling. Senator Higgins mentioned the idea of schools rolling out the equivalent of the bike-to-work scheme. I proposed to the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, that there should be a bike-to-school initiative, with tax breaks for the purchase of bicycles and training of schoolchildren in cycling. It would be a highly beneficial scheme. There should be far greater investment in bicycle lanes in Dublin and other urban centres, to make cycling a much more attractive and safe proposition for children. I cycle every day and have worked hard with the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to try to secure provision for cycling in Leinster House. There has been a great deal of obstruction and resistance, however, which is unfortunate because we should lead on the issue.

They are some areas of the budget in which there should have been far more leadership from the Government. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, of which I am a member, pressed for commitments on overseas development aid to ensure we will meet our targets. We have been repeatedly assured by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, that we will make those commitments but it is difficult to see that pathway as clear, given the low levels of increases year on year.This budget could have done much more and it is very disappointing. It has failed to meet some of the greatest challenges we face as a country.