Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In discussing the budget, I will look at more than the question of what and how much we are spending. The problem is that we have missed the opportunity in this budget to spend better. The fiscal rules have been suspended for years and we are allowed to do things for the long-term benefit of the State. The balancing of the books is no longer a constraint because the fiscal rules have been suspended. We are always told we cannot do certain things because we would have to create a special vehicle to do them and the State is not allowed to give much in terms of public investment. Those restrictions did not apply, so this was the budget where we could have spent better on strengthening long-term public services and public supports.

The budget should also have been used to spend better on gender and equality proofing. Remember that. Five years ago, we supposedly made the decision to gender and equality proof all budgets. This used to get referenced but now seems to have vanished because I do not see evidence of gender and equality-proofing in this budget.

We should also be spending in a way that will allow us to achieve our commitments such as implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and our international climate commitments, to name but two.

The suspension of the EU fiscal compact rules was not only a response in terms of the emergency measures to deal with Covid but also a recognition that the constraints on public investment had left EU states in a situation where their social fabric was not as resilient and their public services were not as robust as they should have been facing into a crisis. We talked about recovery, restoration and repair. I worry that the language all seems to be about bringing back what we had before. The challenge at European and international level is to create resilience, build and protect ourselves from the next crisis, have services and infrastructure that are better and reimagine. This is the "better" in "build back better" and it seems to have been lost.

On housing, we still see the routing of public money into private profit. If we want to talk about the figures, we see it specifically in the €1.37 billion for the delivery of 2,600 houses through leasing schemes. That figure includes local property tax, and I wonder why this local revenue is being included in the national figures. Despite what we have heard, leasing schemes are still at the centre of housing provision planning, even though we know that the plan for five more years of signing leases, with implications for perhaps 20 years, is a problem because it is doing out the next generation and giving a profit when, in fact, we could be creating a public asset. Dermot Desmond has described this as investment funds "having a laugh". The rationale given for leasing in the correspondence released this week was that it had to be off balance sheet. That does not apply. Leasing should be nowhere in this budget.

Senator Moynihan spoke clearly about the land valuation tax. The vacant site levy is a cut for land hoarders. The levy was not being collected and it should be collected. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister of State on what plans are in place to collect the €21.5 million that is still owed. This change in policy should not get that money out of the mix. It still needs to be collected.

The idea is that we will move from a 7% liability to a 3% liability. If the Government will not impose a levy of 7% or 10% for all, as has been proposed, a 7% levy should be paid on strategic housing developments for which fast-track planning permission has been availed and which have not been commenced or built. That is a failure to deliver not only on land with potential zoning for development but land which has received active planning permission and has not been delivered. Where does this leave apartment buildings which have been built and are lying empty? A vacant property tax has been called for. There is a crisis with vacant properties. Is this measure, a new rebranding and a slight dilution, another way of getting owners off the hook? The capital flight arguments we usually hear when the Government is busily reducing the tax that we ask for do not apply in this case. I do not see the rationale for a reduction rather than an increase in liability.

People have said there is nothing in this budget for renters. I would disagree to the extent that there is one thing, which is a big warning sign in terms of inflation. We heard in the Minister for Finance's speech how inflation can spike and be driven by external factors. There is a concern, if we end up with rent tied to inflation, that unusual spikes in inflation will be allowed to become an opportunity for landlords.

It is extremely disappointing that the opportunity to address the shameful exemption from stamp duty liability for apartments was not taken. That measure is the product of lobbying on what developers want. In fact, the measure has been extended. We heard this week that own-door apartments will somehow also be exempt from the stamp duty. That is what is happening this week. Yet again, we see more giveaways rather than the Government seizing this moment for the State to be the leader in this area.

Let us be clear on the issue of tax avoidance and the 15% rate we are proudly boasting of having reduced. The measures from the OECD will not address global tax inequity.They still will not address the issue of the carve-outs and the exemptions and the fact that the developing world is losing $100 billion to $200 billion every year in terms of tax breaks. I commend Christian Aid and Oxfam on their detailed analysis of the OECD measures. We are aware that those exemptions include research and development and the research and development knowledge box, which has so little information.

I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy Fleming, one last thing as I conclude. I will be speaking to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform about pensions. Why we are still seeing the variable rate tax relief for private pensions? Why have we not addressed the gender inequality bit? In the modelling of households, given that lone-parent households comprise 20% of the households in the State, why are they not there in the sample families that we look at?

Lastly, I note that climate financing is entirely separate to overseas development aid, ODA. It would be a disgrace and a shame if there is any attempt to reframe ODA as delivering on our climate financing obligations to the developing world.