Skip to main content
Normal View

Committee on Budgetary Oversight debate -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 2023

Post-Budget Engagement: Economic and Social Research Institute

Some committee members are present in the committee room and some are joining online. The next item on our agenda is post-budget engagement. I welcome Dr. Karina Doorley and Dr. Dora Tuda from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI. I understand their colleague Dr. Conor O'Toole, who was due to address issues in the macroeconomic context, is unable to join us today. If in his absence any issues outside Dr. Doorley's and Dr. Tuda's expertise arise, we will gladly accept their offer of reverting with written answers if necessary.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses with regard to references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentation they make to the committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I again remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

I invite Dr. Karina Doorley to make her opening statement.

Dr. Karina Doorley

I thank the Chair for the invitation to the ESRI to appear before the committee. I am joined by my colleague, Dr. Dora Tuda. Unfortunately, our colleague, Dr. Conor O’Toole, cannot make it today. We are grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee to provide our views on budget 2024.

On the macroeconomic context, let us first provide our latest macroeconomic assessment taken from the autumn 2023 quarterly economic commentary. This contextualises our understanding of budget 2024. The Irish economy emerged in a strong and resilient manner post the Covid-19 pandemic but it now looks set to experience more moderate, normalised rates of growth. This moderation of economic growth is coming through two differing channels. First, the international economy is weakening; inflation remains elevated, interest rates have continued to increase, and demand in countries such as Germany and, in particular, China, has faltered. Ongoing geopolitical tensions and a reappraisal of international supply chain linkages are also providing headwinds for international economic integration and trade. Over and above these general developments and more specific to Ireland, we are also currently experiencing slowdowns in key multinational export sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, which have lowered our overall growth rate for this year. We believe modified domestic demand, MDD, – a more accurate reflection of domestic activity – is likely to grow at 1.8% in 2023, while GDP is set to decline by 1.6%. We expect growth of MDD next year of 2.4% and GDP growth of 3.5&. Notwithstanding the normalising of activity domestically and the slowdown in international trade, the domestic Irish economy is currently operating at capacity, in particular in relation to employment intensive sectors like construction. The Irish labour market continues to perform robustly, with unemployment stabilising at approximately 4% over the past year, indicating the economy is close to, or at, full employment. In this environment, additional domestic pressures are likely to feed through to prices in the short term. However, targeting expenditure towards addressing infrastructure bottlenecks and improving the productive capacity of the economy can alleviate capacity constraints in the medium term.

Within this context, from a macroeconomic perspective, the total budgetary package is substantial. With the consumer price index, CPI, likely to increase by 6% this year and unemployment at 4%, the budgetary package does risk adding to inflationary pressures. In terms of long-term fiscal planning, the introduction of two savings funds, the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, are welcome, in particular as a store of windfall corporate tax gains. These funds set a positive precedent in terms of providing for future liabilities such as ageing and the climate transition but also providing targeted funding to deal with capacity constraints. However, it could be argued that a greater level of windfall transfers could have been made to the funds. The specific deployment of the infrastructure capital, coupled with investments under the national development plan, will have to be cognisant of short-term inflationary challenges while attempting to deal with capacity bottlenecks.

On the distributional impact of budget 2024, every year, the ESRI carries out a distributional impact assessment of the budget using SWITCH, the ESRI’s tax-benefit model. This work is possible thanks to core funding provided to the ESRI by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, and funding for the SWITCH work programme provided by the Departments of Health, Finance, Social Protection and Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. We compare the effect of the budgetary reforms to a scenario in which policy reform keeps the distribution of income constant. In practice, this implies comparing changes in the parameters of the tax and welfare system to an ‘indexed’ baseline, in which these parameters change in line with forecast income growth. This year, we found that measures announced as part of budget 2024 will result in average gains to real income for households next year. The package of tax cuts, welfare increases, one-off payments and indirect tax cuts is worth around 2% of household disposable income on average, with higher gains for low-income compared to high-income households.

The total budgetary package is progressive and our research estimates that it will result in reductions in the at-risk-of-poverty rate of most groups, compared to a budget pegged to income growth. However, this reduction is accomplished mainly through the temporary measures in the budgetary package. For example, without the one-off measures, the at-risk-of-poverty rate for elderly households would actually increase by close to 1 percentage point. With inflation moderating and wages growing strongly, policymakers should now consider moving away from one-off payments and benchmarking social welfare payments to provide more certainty to those dependent on them.

The increase in the universal component of the national childcare scheme of 74 cents per hour – which takes effect next September - will reduce the out-of-pocket childcare costs of those using formal childcare, potentially increasing female labour supply. However, the effective freeze to the thresholds for more generous means-tested supports through the national childcare scheme, NCS, may result in lower income households who experience wage inflation receiving less support with their childcare costs.

We assessed the distributional impact of budget 2024 on two equality grounds: gender and disability. We estimate that budget 2024 provides higher income gains for households with disabilities, compared to households without disabilities.

However, this is wholly due to the package of temporary measures. Looking at permanent measures alone, we estimate that households without disabilities gain more in real terms than households with disabilities. Budget 2024 is mostly gender neutral, with both men and women gaining 2% of disposable income on average.

I will speak on the medium-term perspective. Taking the last four budgets together, many tax and welfare changes since 2020 have been below price and wage inflation over the same period. This trend is somewhat reversed by budget 2024. However, compared with a scenario of budgets pegged to income growth, households will have lower purchasing power in 2024 compared with the beginning of 2020. This amounts to 0.5% of disposable income on average, with larger losses for middle-income households.

Does anyone wish to comment or raise questions?

I thank Dr. Doorley and Dr. Tuda for their presentation and their insights on budget 2024, as well as the analysis of the budget, particularly in certain sectors and income deciles.

(Interruptions).

I wish to touch on the health allocation, which we just discussed briefly in private session. It is an area of great concern following the announcement of the budget. The HSE and the head of the Department both stated that the expenditure required in a standstill scenario for 2024 was between €1.9 billion and €2 billion. We can see from the estimates provided in the expenditure report that what has been provided for existing levels of service is €708 million, €100 million of which is defined as new measures and €432 million provided on a temporary basis as a health resilience fund. Has the ESRI had a chance to look at this issue? Has it arrived at any conclusions on the issues of the adequacy – or not – of the funding provided for health in a standstill scenario? This dreaded thing we used to talk about was fiscal space but is now ELS, that is, existing levels of services, and the fog and confusion that exists around that. Has the ESRI had a chance to look at it from a budgeting perspective? Does it believe the health allocation is transparent? Does it believe it is accurate? I have been spokesperson now for many years. The presentation of the budget is now more confusing than it ever has been because we are doing one-offs and non-core expenditure. It is playing with numbers, in a way, to try to fit into certain targets that certain parties set themselves.

Dr. Karina Doorley

The short answer is “No”. I do not think anyone at the ESRI has looked at how the current allocation will affect services next year. However we, as well as many other commentators, would share concerns that the budget might not be enough. I know the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council would echo what the Deputy just said, that the standstill budget alone may have been just about met but there does not seem to be any provision for our ageing population and long waiting lists. Those do not seem to have been budgeted for, which means that what the health budget will actually look like next year is unpredictable. Our health team at the ESRI has done much work on forecasting demand for healthcare services over the next few years. It has a model that is forward looking. Basically every projection that comes out of the model shows that demand will exceed supply in the years to come because of the ageing population and the fact we are living longer with a better quality of life, but the services will be required to cover that. It is a concern but there has not been any concrete work on what this actually means for services next year.

The rationale for establishing the Committee on Budgetary Oversight is to have a greater understanding, not just by ourselves as parliamentarians and therefore allowing for better decision-making but also a greater understanding by the public. One of the biggest challenges is to question a Department with regard to what ELS is and how it is calculated. We were told in this committee up until a week before the budget was announced that it would stay within the parameters of what was in the summer economic statement, and the ELS was at, I think, €3.2 billion. We know wage components and different costs make that up. On budget day, it was reduced by €500 million. There is no rationale as to why that happened bar, I presume, that they needed the €500 million somewhere else. There is a rule of thumb within the Department that ELS is calculated as a percentage of core expenditure. Could or would the ESRI look at the health expenditure and how ELS is calculated? If there is no transparency in relation to it, then there are questions about what to do. Do we allow Departments to go over budget and fill it with Supplementary Estimates each year?

The other issue I wish to chat about before I go into the presentation is that I thought the ESRI did an excellent report, and quite a shocking report to tell the truth, entitled Interest Rate Snapback and the Impacts on the Irish Economy. I am not sure if the witnesses are familiar with it. It was published in August and laid out a range of scenarios, which included the interest rate shock of the past year and more. It projected that dwelling completions could fall between 8% and 10% in 2024 compared with the baseline scenario. Is the ESRI holding firm to that? Does it have any view of where we are in terms of dwelling completions in 2024? I say that in the context of the budget not providing any additional capital above what was already planned for new housing.

Dr. Karina Doorley

I have to admit this is not our area of expertise. In the latest quarterly economic commentary, our colleagues in the macroeconomic side said that commencements were increasing. I do not think they were seeing or forecasting a massive increase in completions. There is the risk that with interest rates rising, it makes it harder to get finance. These things could take a little bit longer and there is less value for money to be had. If the Deputy would like, we could provide more information on that via written response after the meeting.

Perfect. I thought I would take the opportunity. It was an excellent piece of work.

Regarding the presentation the witnesses provided, I wish to focus on the at-risk-of-poverty measure across specific groups when temporary measures are excluded. In the ESRI’s post-budget briefing, it found the at-risk-of-poverty measure increased across adults, the elderly, children and those with disability once temporary measures were excluded. Am I reading that properly? Is that the ESRI's conclusion? Will the witnesses provide more detail on the ESRI findings? Do the witnesses accept that the continual use of temporary measures to support households is storing problems for the future, given that the real permanent rates are now falling compared with pre-pandemic levels? It is cushioning and hiding what is a real issue given the core rates are not increasing in line with inflation.

Dr. Karina Doorley

Those two issues are very related. The continual use of temporary measures makes it difficult to model what the poverty rate is. Should they be included or not? It is kind of an open question. We do not have much evidence on how lump sum payments are spent, for example, whether they are treated as current income by households or spent on one-off purchases. The framing of a payment can have a lot of influence on how it is treated by the household. We do not have much good evidence on how that is currently playing out in the Irish context.

Then there is the question of whether those payments should be included in income when we are estimating poverty and inequality rates. What we have shown in our post-budget analysis is both, really, but I would very much focus on the change in the poverty rate brought about by the permanent tax and welfare system, for two reasons. The first is that when we are modelling these changes, we do not have temporary measures in our baseline. We are therefore comparing the effect of permanent and temporary changes to a baseline that does not have any temporary measures in it, so it is not really reflecting a change in living standards, if we accept these payments are improving living standards each year. It makes more sense to focus on the change in the poverty rate brought about by permanent changes to the tax and welfare system.

While there might have been a very good case for relying on temporary measures during the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis, because we did not know how long inflation was going to last or if indeed it would unwind quickly, there is much less of a case for that now. We are in a situation where we have a permanent higher level of prices and there is no need to use temporary measures to cushion household incomes in that scenario. We are not really doing it for higher income households. We are permanently changing the parameters of the tax and welfare system so there is no fiscal drag. I do not see a good reason not to do that for lower income households and for social welfare rates, because it affords certainty to those households. If people are relying on temporary payments from year to year and do not know if they are coming, it is very hard to plan and hard to smooth consumption. We should be focusing on the permanent tax and welfare system and how that is changed because when the temporary measures run out next year and if there is no repeat of them, we are likely to be in a situation where income inequality has risen compared with a couple of years ago because while the permanent features of the income tax system have progressed, more or less, in line with inflation, that is not true for the permanent features of the welfare system.

I agree with Dr. Doorley's points. She made a very valid one about not knowing how that money is spent because if we look at it across a model, it could be said poverty has not increased, but if it is spent on a one-off that may not have been spent if it was spread out, then it causes real pressures for those families.

The last question I have - I am conscious Dr. Doorley's colleague is not here - is on inflation. The ESRI says inflation is now being driven by food and housing costs. We know mortgage interest has been driving inflation over recent years, but what other components of housing costs are at play? Is it solely mortgage interest that is pushing up inflation or are we still seeing pressures from rent pushing it up as well?

Dr. Karina Doorley

My reading of my colleague's work is that most of the extra inflation coming from housing cost is interest rates. That is my understanding of it.

Perfect. I thank the witnesses.

I thank our witnesses for being here and for their time. We really appreciate it. The aspect of the budget I would like their opinion on is the increase in the minimum wage. It is of course something we are all concerned about because the ever-increasing cost of living makes it harder for people to balance their household budget and an increase in people's take-home wages is something we all want to see. However, when the Government says it is increasing the minimum wage, it is doing nothing. All it is doing is getting people who are creating employment, especially small employers, to pay more money that in many instances they do not have. The aspect of this I am raising relates to the small, struggling businesses that are very grateful and thankful for their employees, without whom they could not conduct business. However, in many instances those businesses are barely keeping their doors open and now it looks as if each employee will be costing maybe €50 or €60 per week more, which is quite simply money these employers do not have.

Another thing that has happened at this time, which I am certain the Cathaoirleach will be acutely aware of in his constituency, is that people have decided now of all times is the moment to do a review of the rates. On Monday night when I was doing my round of clinics in County Kerry, many people came to me about this. Some of the places I was holding clinics have fallen foul of it. Their rates have been multiplied not once or twice, but three times. Consequently, people who had a rate of €4,000 per year, which they were struggling to pay, are now being asked to pay €12,000. Businesses, therefore, have the rates, the increase in the wages and the increase in the fuel costs we all know about. It is fine to say the last set of costs are coming down, but that is like good weather in that it is coming every week but not exactly coming at the same time.

These people are really struggling to keep their doors open and I am fearful about the number of businesses that are closing. I have seen it in my county and I always say if I can see something happening in my constituency, then it is happening in the Cathaoirleach's constituency, in Deputy Doherty's constituency and happening everywhere. I think of the small shop, the small pub, the small grocer, the little post office in the corner and the hardware shop that is now trying to compete with all the multinationals that are coming in here with fanfare and glory and to hell with the local indigenous businesses. These people are really struggling. I respect very much the CVs of the witnesses before us and I wanted to hear their position and get their take on what it is going to mean in the Ireland of the future. Are we going to be an Ireland where the villages, and indeed the smaller towns, have no small businesses?

I will give one last example. In a town in County Kerry that is very dear to my heart, a certain family have for 70 or 80 years had what we will call the local jewellery shop. If you broke your watch or needed a new strap, if people were getting engaged or if it was Christmastime, you could go to this terribly reliable family and buy those jewellery goods. Very sadly, the announcement came this week that after 70 or 80 years of trading, always being there and providing an excellent service, that beautiful little shop is going to close and that town will have no jewellery shop going forward. In all honesty and all sincerity the town will probably never again have a shop like that. Are we just going to be a poorer place because we will not have services and facilities like that? It is awful and horrendous. I would like the ESRI's view on that aspect of the budget and of life in Ireland today. I thank the Cathaoirleach and hope I did not go on too long.

Dr. Karina Doorley

The minimum wage is something we do not model in our post-budget analysis for the very reason the Deputy picked up on, namely, it is not paid by the Government but by businesses. As such, it is not in our distributional impact analysis. Having said that, the minimum wage is probably one of the most controversial topics in the economics literature. It might have the most articles written about it in labour economics. There is a trade-off. It is an excellent anti-poverty tool as it affords a certain standard of living to workers, but on the other hand there is this potential employment effect. My colleague Dr. Tuda might talk about the employment effects in a minute.

We have a very strong social welfare system. It does a lot of work in sheltering the consumption of low-income households or households that are not in the labour market. If social welfare provides a certain amount of income to people who are not working, the market rate for work needs to go up accordingly to provide an incentive to work. Otherwise, we have the possibility people choose not to work because they prefer to be on social welfare as there are not enough financial incentives to work. That is one reason the minimum wage is there. It is about balancing setting it at a rate where it is an effective anti-poverty tool but not so high it is going cause employment effects. The Low Pay Commission, which recommended this rate increase, recommended an increase of €1.40, I think, for next year.

This is quite a high increase; it is higher than we have seen in recent years and it reflects the level of inflation in the economy. It is also putting us on this path to get to a living wage over the next four years. As a policy, the Government has decided that the minimum wage should be set at the level of the living wage by a certain date. To get there, we need these large increases in the minimum wage. That is not to say that there will not be knock-on or negative effects on the local economy. Dr. Tuda may want to talk about the research on that.

Dr. Dora Tuda

Our colleagues from the ESRI, Paul Redmond and Séamus McGuinness, did a lot of work on the minimum wage in Ireland. Obviously, we do not know what will happen next year once this increase comes in. However, what we do know relates to the big increase that was brought in in 2016. Essentially, they found almost no effects on employment. They have a recent paper where they looked at the minimum wage increases from 2016 to 2018 cumulatively. Basically, they found that a little bit of reduction in hours worked. This was maybe two hours per week on average. However, the participation did not. That can come from two sides. Either, as the Senator mentioned, some businesses might fire their employees because the cost of labour might be too high or, on the other hand, employees had met their financial needs so they could work two hours fewer per week. Our colleagues did a follow-up study on that and they found that from the 2016 increase in the minimum wage, there was a 5% increase in the labour cost. However, this was only for firms that had 100% of their employees working in those companies. In their sample, only 3% of those firms were fully made up of minimum-wage employees. That adjustment in hours worked or employment essentially happened mostly through overtime hours and not really through lay-offs. We are therefore hoping that will be the case next year as well.

Can the witnesses deal with the matter that was raised by Deputy Michael Healy-Rae on rates and so forth?

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Dr. Karina Doorley

I honestly do not have an awful lot of expertise in that area. Again, I feel like I will repeat that a lot this evening. We can ask our colleague, Conor O'Toole, to come back to the Deputy.

The Deputy had been saying at the beginning of the meeting that in the event that some questions remained outstanding that written responses will suffice.

Yes, but finally on the matter of the rates, I would like to think that I am speaking on behalf of many people the length and breadth of the country. I really think that reviewing the rateable valuation of businesses at a time like this is not good. A person could then argue and ask what a good time for this would be. It is never a good time. However, everybody knows that small businesses in particular are now struggling. A combination of a number of factors leads me to believe that the Government should take a longer, more intelligent view of this issue. It should say that it would be better to collect a smaller rate from a business now, rather than this being the straw that breaks the camel's back, shutting the business and indeed getting no more rates from it ever again. Any business where the door is open and the light is on is worth something to someone, somewhere, somehow. However, when a door is closed and a business closes, it is extremely difficult to get it back up and running again, whether that is under new management or under the same management. It is easier to keep plodding away, but it is a momentous occasion when one shuts a door. When one tries to get it open again, to comply with all the regulations and everything again and to start off anew in six months, a year, two years or five years down the line, to be blunt about it, it very rarely happens successfully.

Under the Cathaoirleach's excellent stewardship of this committee, I think we should be saying this somewhere. I am not saying this in an argumentative or knocking way of the Government or any nonsense like that. I would go to whoever is in power or leading the country at the moment to tell them, in the most plausible possible way, that they should be doing something to help at this point in time. I am sure the members of this committee would share my views, in particular on the ratable valuation issue. It is just too much, too fast at this time and it is unbearable.

Is Deputy Michael Healy-Rae saying that notwithstanding the provision that was in the budget on the rebate for those rates of €20,000?

Yes. I want to very briefly answer that. Take, for example, the case that I cited. If a person was paying €4,000 previously and is now being told they want €12,000 from them-----

Wait now, it is only-----

-----but they are going to give them back half of that next year, they will still be losing.

Yes, but they are losing by as much as they had initially thought. However, I hear what the Deputy is saying and we will raise that with the secretariat with a view to managing a way in which it can become part of our work in the coming months to make recommendations in that regard.

I would be very grateful for that.

I thank the Deputy. Does Deputy Conway Walsh want to come in?

I thank Dr. Doorley and Dr. Tuda for their statements and analysis of the budget. It is useful for us here in trying to weed it all out. In their opening statement, they say that there is a result in the reduction of the at-risk-of-poverty rate for most groups. Are there any other groups besides the elderly that do not see a reduction in the at-risk-of-poverty rate? I want to speak about the elderly piece to start with, because we know that the number of renters in the elderly population has increased. I would like to speak about poverty for older people as well. What is the impact that might have on any other groups at risk there?

Dr. Karina Doorley

For the first time this year, we showed policy effects by disability status as well. That was actually one of the groups that came out as not seeing a reduction in the poverty rate, once you exclude temporary measures. In the permanent changes to the tax and welfare system, the elderly and people with disabilities emerged with a slight increase in their at-risk-of-poverty rate when compared with others. All the other changes were very marginal. They were either at zero or were very small reductions. The child poverty reduction was the biggest, at 0.5%. Therefore, really, these are very small. The increase in the at-risk-of-poverty rate for the population with a disability was small as well. It was approximately 0.5% as well. However, it is a difference across groups that may have been unintended. We hope it was unintended.

Does that take into account the cost of disability?

Dr. Karina Doorley

No, it does not.

Is it the case, therefore, that if you put the cost of disability on top of that it would be much larger?

Dr. Karina Doorley

For the first time this year we are estimating the poverty rate for people with disabilities. If you put the cost of disability into that - if you adjusted their income with regard to the fact that they have higher out-of-pocket costs for their consumption need - you would get a higher disability rate for that group. I do not know if the change in the rate would be higher or lower but, certainly, there would be a higher base rate. In fact, that group already has the highest rate of poverty of all the groups we analysed. I think it was 23%, which is very high.

On the issue of the elderly poverty rate, the Deputy is right that we have been seeing an increase. This is quite a change from what we have seen in the preceding years. The social welfare payments to pensioner households had been relatively protected during the financial crisis when compared with other payments. Their poverty rate as we were coming into the pandemic was quite low when compared with other groups in the population, such as children or working-age adults. We are seeing that creeping up now. Our latest simulation of the poverty rate for 2023 shows that they are now just below children. Children still have the highest poverty rate, followed by the elderly, and then working-age adults.

Does the ESRI intend to do further analysis in terms of the elderly and disability?

Dr. Karina Doorley

We have some analysis planned on disability for later this year. This is a work programme that we are doing with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC. We are going to incorporate the cost of disability into these estimates and try to come up with a sensible way to account for the fact that those households have higher out-of-pocket costs than other households.

We are working on that.

In the context of the budget and disposable income, what people have in their pockets and what they will get for what they spend is the bare bones of it. Dr. Doorley stated that purchasing power in 2024 is now lower, with larger losses for middle-income households. I ask her to expand on that.

Dr. Karina Doorley

In that exercise, we took the pre-pandemic 2020 tax and welfare system and applied it to the population in a representative example for 2024. We do that using the survey on income and living conditions and making it look representative of the 2024 population, given forecast income growth for the next period. When we apply the 2020 parameters of the tax and welfare system to a 2024 population, we must account for the fact that incomes have grown in that period. We index the parameters of the system in line with income growth. That means adjusting them for the growth in income in the previous four years, which keeps the distribution of income constant. It means people are still paying the same proportion of their income in tax and welfare is at the same relative level compared with labour incomes. In terms of that thought exercise as to what the 2024 population would look like if the tax and welfare system had just been indexed in line with income growth and the distribution of income had been kept constant, we compare that with what will actually happen in 2024 for that population. This only relates to permanent changes to the tax and welfare system. If one likes, it is more a look towards the next budget. It is what the permanent system will look like in advance of the next budget when all the temporary measures have expired, compared with four years ago. We found that the only group of the population that gains in that scenario is the lowest income decile, that is, the lowest tenth of the population. The other lower and middle-income deciles are all losing approximately 2% of disposable income compared with that scenario, and there are no losses at the top of the income distribution; they are sort of on par. That is the effect of policy changes alone, abstracting from everything else that happened in the period, such as demographic change, different labour force structures and so on. It is just the effect of policy change on people's real incomes.

The top deciles are unchanged, the very bottom decile gains and those in between lose. In light of the amount of money that has been spent, that could be cited as a failure. If prices do not come down next year - we are looking at inflation next year - will we need even bigger one-off payments to protect people from poverty? This obviously causes uncertainty and distress for individuals and families but it also complicates the national finances and the budget process. What are the risks to the budget planning process of creating an even greater need for once-off payments next year as a result of the budget this year not addressing things on a more permanent basis?

Dr. Karina Doorley

We are not expecting prices to come down. We are expecting inflation to level off but we will still have this higher price level. The fact that social welfare payments in particular have been topped up by one-off payments for a couple of years means that if and when the adjustment comes - we would be greatly in favour of it coming - it will be larger than it otherwise would have been. It will need to be a large change next year if we are to catch up on those losses. Our suggestion is for there to be a benchmarking exercise. That can take many forms. The last benchmarking exercise took place well over a decade ago. Policymakers decided that in order to reflect an adequate standard of living, this payment should be approximately 30%, 40% or whatever percentage of a particular metric. In the intervening years, successive budgets have tended to increase the rate of these payments by €5 or €10, or sometimes not to increase them, on an almost ad hoc basis. The rate of increase from year to year has not necessarily related to the rate of payment. Pensioners in receipt of higher payments may have received the same increase as people on the lower rate of jobseeker's assistance, which is a much lower rate. The rate at which the payments were set initially is diverging almost accidentally from what was considered the correct standard of living at the time. We need to get back to something like that, where we purposely set the rates of payment to a level where we expect people to have a decent standard of living. We are in favour of some sort of indexation mechanism where policymakers at least compare what the actual changes will be to an index baseline to ascertain what the changes look like compared with the situation if people's purchasing power had simply been kept constant.

Dr. O'Toole may wish to submit an answer to my next question to the committee. This relates to the national development plan, NDP, which is the multi-annual plan. As the multi-annual plan, it is important that we take inflation and economic growth into account. For example, the EU multi-annual financial framework is a seven-year budget. The EU institutions in negotiation always provide detailed figures in constant prices and current prices. They explicitly outline the deflator they use for projecting the current costs into the future. What does the Government need to do to improve the way it does the present or multi-annual planning there? There have been examples of it. The recently published Building for the Future document on the Defence Forces calls for a level of ambition based on constant 2022 prices. Should this be the norm in multi-annual planning? Would it be better to use spending in constant figures or in percentage of GNI, rather than just in current costs? What we saw in budget 2024 was the Government staying within the NDP. The core capital spending is below NDP targets. With the non-core capital, it is just above but, in essence, in line with the NDP. Obviously, the NDP was reviewed in 2021. That reviewed NDP set out departmental capital ceilings to 2024 and those ceilings have largely been adhered to. However, the reviewed NDP also sets targets for the percentage of GNI* for capital investment. The targets it set for 2023 and 2024 were 4.9% and 5.1% respectively. Now it is estimated by the Department to be 4.1% and 4.3%. That is a 0.8% shortfall, or more than 15% behind profile, in both years. By my calculations, that equates to a shortfall of approximately €2.3 billion or €2.4 billion each year. Does that mean the Government is far behind on capital investment in real terms? Does budget 2024 go anywhere near recognising the severity of the situation in terms of investment through the NDP?

Was there provision for €2.25 billion, allowing for approximately 6% to 10% varying on the year, for the next four years in respect of increases in the development plan figures?

I do not think it covers that. Dr. Doorley may not have an answer for us now. When we get the answer back we will have analysis there.

Dr. Karina Doorley

I will have to ask Dr. O'Toole to revert to the committee on that matter.

I appreciate that. It would be useful to the committee in terms of our assessments.

To summarise before the meeting concludes, the report states the budget is progressive and there were higher gains for those on lower incomes compared with those higher-income households. There were higher gains for households with disabilities compared with those without disabilities. It was gender neutral, with a 2% gain for males and females in terms of disposable income average. One-off payments played a role, but we would not have been able to make such one-off payments if the economy were not performing well or the public finances not protected. There must be scope for those payments to diminish in future years, however. That is against the backdrop of the global economy slowing down.

It is also against the backdrop of geopolitical an other issues which can impact on trade. Nonetheless, the Government has taken the decision that the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, had recommended - as indeed we all had collectively - a sovereign wealth fund. That now is in the form of the Ireland Fund and the low-carbon, nature and infrastructural funds. This is in addition to the other point about the increases in allocations as originally provided for from the windfall taxes to the tune of €2.25 billion over the next four years.

There is one point I would like to hone in on specifically. Dr. Doorley stated that, "Notwithstanding the normalising of activity domestically and the slowdown in international trade, the domestic Irish economy is currently operating at capacity, in particular in relation to employment intensive sectors like construction." Dr. Doorley is saying construction is at capacity at present notwithstanding the record levels of funding that have been applied to social housing and the wide range of financial assistance that is available to assist people to purchase their homes, for example, the first home scheme; the help-to-buy scheme; the waiving of development charges last year and again next year; the funding that is available to bring derelict and unoccupied properties into use via Croí Cónaithe; and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, grants on retrofitting. If one were to take some of them away, would we be at full capacity?

Dr. Karina Doorley

This is a good question. We believe that the economy is operating at full capacity in many areas - construction, healthcare, childcare, etc. In the construction sector, there are some policies that are influencing this. One could think of the vacant home tax. That is working to increase supply but at the same, if one does not have enough workers to renovate these houses, it is hard to get them back on the market. The issue with just throwing money at the problem is that it increases the price that-----

Some people would tell you they would do away with the first home scheme and the help-to-buy scheme. With those in place, we are at full capacity. Without them, if we are not at full capacity, we are losing ground and many would say we are not making enough ground in housing.

People talked about this not being a housing budget. The biggest obstacle to housing targets being met, or being increased and being in a position to be met, notwithstanding what Dr. Doorley said about capacity and the constraint in relation to employment, is non-financial. It relates to planning and the logjams that exist with planning at present. Various projects could be up and running if planning was not the obstacle that it is. There is a planning and development (amendment) Bill in the offing which we hope would address that but this measure is non-financial. I would make that point. I do not know whether Dr. Doorley wants to comment on that. It is something her colleagues said to us in previous meetings.

Dr. Karina Doorley

Coming back to the capacity concerns, the help-to-buy scheme is a good example of something where if one took it away, if one took that money out of the economy, it would probably have an impact on house prices. It would probably bring down house prices slightly because there would be fewer.

If there were enough being constructed----

Dr. Karina Doorley

If there were enough, yes.

-----but they are not being constructed because the capacity is not there in employment and the planning issue is a logjam that is holding back on the provision of much housing. I do not know what the budget could have done per se as a financial measure to address the issues that are there.

Dr. Karina Doorley

Those measures are nothing that would drastically improve capacity if they were taken away but they would potentially impact house prices.

Exactly. I thank the representatives of the ESRI for their time. I thank them for responding to the various queries and questions, and comments. As always, we appreciate their expertise in these areas. I look forward to the other responses that are in the offing, in reference to Dr. Tuda.

The select committee adjourned at 6. 44 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 October 2023.
Top
Share