Skip to main content
Normal View

Committee on Budgetary Oversight debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 2023

Post-Budget Engagement: Discussion (Resumed)

I welcome Mr. Fergal O'Brien, executive director, and Ms Hazel Ahern-Flynn, economist, Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC; Mr. Owen Reidy, general secretary, and Dr. Tom McDonnell, co-director of the Nevin Economic Research Institute, NERI, Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU; Mr. John McGeady, CEO, Ms Susanne Rogers, research and policy analyst, and Ms Michelle Murphy, research and policy analyst, who will be joining online, Social Justice Ireland. I thank them for accepting our invitation. Some members unfortunately are on committee business abroad, and some apologies have been received.

Before we begin, I will 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. The evidence of witnesses physically present, or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. However, some of today's witnesses are giving their evidence remotely from outside the parliamentary precincts and as such may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceeding as a witness physically present. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name, or in such a way as to make him, her, or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. 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.

Members are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice 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 Mr. Reidy to deliver his opening statement on behalf of ICTU.

Mr. Owen Reidy

We thank the Cathaoirleach, members and staff of the committee for the invitation to appear before it and present our views on budget 2024. I am accompanied by Dr. Tom McDonnell from the Nevin Economic Research Institute, which is part of the ICTU delegation. We acknowledge there were a number of positive measures in the budget, but we also believe the budget contained a number of measures that will make it even harder to address the present and future challenges facing our country.

I will look at the positive measures first. We welcome a number of measures we think will benefit workers across the country. The 25% reduction in childcare fees from September 2024 will help to lower what are still among the highest childcare fees for parents in Europe. The extension of the provision of free school books, workbooks, and copybooks to junior certificate level from September 2024 and the reduction in third-level fees are steps towards the provision of a genuinely free education system, which we will support. The announcements about savings funds, the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate, and nature fund are prudent and welcome. The first of these funds will eventually generate a new revenue stream to help offset the immense future fiscal cost of our ageing demographics. The second of these funds should help protect spending on green infrastructure over the economic cycle to make it recession proof, and may even turn out to be an important counter cyclical tool. We also welcome in principle the announcement that Government is to bring forward proposals on a new pay-related unemployment benefit and we await the details. The recent issue in Tara Mines in County Meath brings the need to do it now into critical focus.

I will turn to areas where there was modest progress. The Government has only partially addressed the enormous challenges facing households, in particular the cost-of-living difficulties facing low-paid workers and households on low incomes. The €1.40 increase in the hourly minimum wage to €12.70 from January represents some progress towards a real living wage, but still leaves the minimum wage well below the rate of €14.80 per hour for 2023-24 as estimated by the living wage technical group. The €12 weekly increase in welfare rates is below the steep increase in prices over the past year. The deprivation rate rose sharply in 2022 from 13.8% to 17.7%, and we are concerned there will be another increase in 2023. The higher prices year-on-year will recur going forward. If, therefore, the once-off welfare measures were necessary to ensure income adequacy, they should logically be made permanent. The tax cuts are permanent so why should the once-off welfare payments not become permanent as well? The ICTU position is that welfare rates ultimately need to be benchmarked against the median earnings of full-time workers. We note the Commission on Taxation and Welfare strongly recommends benchmarking. We very much support the recommendations of that body.

If we look at concerns, the budget will mildly add to inflation. We have the Central Bank’s monetary policy and the Government’s fiscal policy acting in opposition to each other. We also take issue with some of the specifics. In particular, the budget contains a number of measures that make it even harder to address the major challenges the country is facing and will face over the coming years. In our view, net tax cuts now will eventually need to be reversed. In this context, the move to increase the PRSI rates in October is likely to be the first step in a long multi-annual process of increasing rates. Our view is that this process should emphasise increasing employer PRSI and self-employed PRSI. This is clearly where the scope is as employers in Ireland are under-taxed by approximately 50% when it comes to PRSI, compared with their European counterparts and those in other wealthy countries. The Government’s tax cuts will primarily benefit the better off, further fuel inflation and narrow the tax base. The big losers in absolute cash terms are those earning less than €40,000 per year, with the big winners being those on €70,000 and above. The tax breaks for landlords are quite frankly bizarre. They will do almost nothing to increase rental supply and will make the taxation system even more regressive. It is difficult to conceive of a more ineffective and regressive tax break. Do we really believe that a landlord on the same income as a nurse, for example, should pay a lower effective tax rate on his or her passive income? Retention of the help-to-buy scheme also makes little sense and is regressive. Is it Government policy to artificially inflate house prices? Genuine hardship cases arising from mortgage interest costs are better dealt with through the social protection system than a new tax break. Housing policy overall seems to be muddled and going the wrong way. The tax cuts ultimately run counter to the widely acknowledged need for government revenue as a share of national income to increase to enable the country to meet the challenges posed by a growing and ageing population and by climate change and climate action. The Government seems determined to ignore the advice of the tax commission and of most economists that government revenues will eventually need to rise and be put onto a sustainable footing.

ICTU acknowledges that a number of measures announced on budget day will benefit workers and households across the country and we welcome that. However, we believe the regressive tax measures will make it even harder to address major challenges facing the country in the coming years. There needs to be a reassessment of priorities. For example, the decision not to introduce a second tier of child benefit payment to take a quarter of affected children out of poverty was disappointing and puts the decision to award tax breaks to landlords and tax cuts to higher earners into perspective. In summary, this budget was a lost opportunity. Dr. McDonnell and I are happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

I thank the Chair and the committee for their invitation. I am joined by IBEC's economist Ms Hazel Ahern-Flynn. IBEC welcomes the Government’s investment ambition set out in the budget, in particular the establishment of the national Infrastructure, climate and nature fund. We believe that fund of up to €14 billion has the potential to significantly enhance social, economic, and environmental infrastructure over the coming decade. The fund will ensure the protection of public capital projects during cyclical downturns and reduce the need for catch-up spending, provide improved value for money and offer greater certainty to sectors downstream of infrastructure delivery.

This, in turn, will enable organisations to build capacity and retain much-needed skills in both the public and private sectors.

In addition, we welcome the introduction of the increased cost of business scheme, as set out in the Budget Statement. This support is critical to helping businesses navigate the significant labour cost increases that are coming through. We await the specific details of the support measures, however, to see how they will work in practice. The biggest challenge for business currently is these rising cost pressures. Given the broad range of businesses that will be impacted by legislation-driven increases to costs in the coming months and years, ensuring the scheme is well designed in order that it is both accessible and delivered quickly to those businesses facing squeezed margins will be essential. The current sustained high rates of inflation and labour demand suggest we are at or close to the top of the economic cycle. It is essential, therefore, that as a country we maintain a stable footing and remain as cost-competitive as possible. The €250 million business package should provide much-needed relief for firms facing substantial Government-imposed increases in labour costs, but more work needs to be done in this area. It should serve as the starting point for a broader conversation on the transition to a living wage, pensions auto-enrolment and other significant labour market changes in the coming years and their knock-on impact on cost competitiveness. Although the budget takes significant steps in providing appropriate supports, ongoing labour challenges and cost issues will continue to be significant obstacles in the years ahead.

Against the backdrop of challenged cost-competitiveness within the economy, ensuring we have a highly skilled and highly productive labour force to continue to attract investment and support growth will be essential. In this regard, IBEC was disappointed not to see the €1.5 billion surplus in the National Training Fund, NTF, put to use through measures brought out in budget 2024. This was a significant missed opportunity. In a highly competitive global environment, we cannot afford to be complacent on education, skills and innovation. Significant investment in life-long learning and upskilling of workers will also be needed to meet the twin challenges of climate and digital transitions. However, IBEC welcomes the commitment to examine measures, including legislative changes, that were set out by the Minister on budget day to help unlock the fund. Going forward, businesses will continue to work closely with the Government to find a practical and pragmatic solution to unlock the €1.5 billion surplus in the NTF to ensure education and training remain essential components of Irish competitiveness.

In summary, budget 2024 struck the correct balance between investing in urgently needed capacity within the State, providing certainty for longer-term public investment and addressing immediate needs while working to enhance social cohesion. While many of the measures announced in the budget are welcome, their success will ultimately be measured by the effectiveness of their implementation. Ms Ahern-Flynn and I are happy to take questions from members.

Mr. John McGeady

Gabhaim buíochas leis an coiste as ucht an cuireadh. Given the challenges faced by many households, particularly those on the lowest incomes, much of the assistance provided in budget 2024 is welcome and badly needed. There is a marked difference, however, in the distribution of gains. In time, temporary measures will disappear, while permanent changes will remain. Counting permanent and temporary measures, the budget gives more resources to lower income households in the short term, but once these temporary measures are discontinued, the gains to welfare-dependent households will fall by 35% to 46%. These one-off measures are a response to cost-of-living pressures. However, although the rate of inflation may fall, a fall in prices would require deflation. High prices will remain but the one-off supports will not.

Budget 2024 has provided least for lower-income workers. There are well over 500,000 people earning €15 to €20 per hour, which is above the minimum wage but too little to really benefit from tax cuts. For example, a couple with one earner on €30,000 has gained just €1.62 per week from this budget, whereas a couple with two earners on €100,000 is up nearly €30 per week. Overall, the budget's legacy will be to widen further the gap between the better-off and those on the lowest incomes.

Budget 2024 was pitched as an anti-child poverty budget, a goal we welcome. Approximately 190,000 children in Ireland, or one in seven, are in poverty. Child poverty is, in essence, an issue of low-income families. Solutions hinge on adequate adult welfare rates, decent rates of pay for working parents and adequate and available public services. The budget, however, failed to adequately resource those areas. We are disappointed that child benefit, a key tool for tackling child poverty, was not increased.

As regards housing, an increase in housing stock is essential. Between 2012 and 2022, residential property prices rose by 75% and private rents by 90%, while wages rose by only 27%. In the context of inadequate supply, the extension of the help-to-buy and first home schemes will simply maintain high house prices. Meanwhile, the commitment to build 9,300 social homes in 2024 fails to take account of the 1,500 shortfall on the 2022 target and the likely shortfall in 2023.

In terms of tax, raising the threshold for the higher rate only benefits those on incomes above €40,000. Changes to the USC will only benefit those with incomes above €22,920 and are negligible for workers on €15 to €20 per hour. Social Justice Ireland again recommends refundable tax credits as a means of making the tax system fairer, especially for those in part-time low-paid work.

Regrettably, the long-term strategic investment required to build and deliver the services and infrastructure to support a just transition was absent from the budget. While we welcome the infrastructure, nature and climate fund and the future Ireland fund, we are concerned that there is limited information as to how these funds will be used.

In conclusion, there is considerable evidence to show that the cost-of-living crisis hits low-income families hardest. Budget 2024 was an opportunity to address this but, instead of doing so, it contained a range of temporary measures for the poorest, while favouring the better-off with permanent tax changes. Social Justice Ireland does not accept the aspects of the budget that ignore the most vulnerable and will leave them poorer when one-off measures are discontinued early next year. We call on the Government to revisit its decisions in these areas and make the necessary adjustments in the forthcoming social welfare Bill. We urge it to increase core social welfare rates by €25 a week. Anything less is a failure to do what is necessary to address poverty.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions.

I thank the witnesses for their statements. Some of those statements conflict but I understand why that is the case, given that they have different perspectives. If the once-off payments were taken out, would they deem the budget to be progressive or regressive? That is a question for each of the representative organisations.

Mr. John McGeady

In the long run, once those one-off measures are taken out, the budget is regressive.

It is progressive, then.

Mr. John McGeady

The rich-poor gap-----

The Cathaoirleach should not prompt the witness.

Mr. John McGeady

-----was reduced in the budget-----

I should not prompt him? What is the Deputy doing?

Mr. John McGeady

-----but once the one-off measures are removed, it will increase again. Our concern is that it provided one-off measures and did not take account of the need to ensure there is an adequate standard there.

I get that. When the ESRI appeared before the committee last week, we examined many of the figures and that point was coming through. I very much hear Mr. McGeady's point in respect of the one-off payments, which absolutely have to be made, and I know all present agree they have to be made. However, as he pointed out, once we get past April 2024, we will still have high prices even if the rate of inflation decreases. It leaves us in a trap where we are working our way through budget 2024 and it is not progressive in the long run. I invite the other witnesses to speak to the regressive or progressive nature of the budget.

Dr. Tom McDonnell

As Mr. McGeady stated, it is about timing. Obviously, the once-off measures are real and will impact on incomes in 2024 and late 2023. If those once-off measures were permanent, it would be a progressive budget. They are not permanent, however.

Prices will again be higher in 2025 so people will be even further behind if their incomes do not increase. All that will be left then will be the non-once-off measures. Once the tide goes out on those measures, people will be even further behind in many cases. The concern, therefore, is that deprivation rates are not necessarily going to come down. I believe they will go up slightly in 2023 but hopefully that will be reversed in 2024. We believe that real incomes will increase in 2024. In the short term, the budget is progressive, but in the medium term it is regressive. It is the medium term which matters in the long run. That is the perspective I would take.

I ask Mr. O'Brien and Ms Ahern-Flynn the same question. From a business perspective, what is their assessment?

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

I will not add to the evidence base the committee has heard from the ESRI with regard to its analysis of the distribution impacts of the budget. I will make two observations. First, we need to be conscious that if it was not for the exceptional revenue stream coming through from our corporate tax receipts, we would be running a deficit at the moment. Clearly, we very much see the limits of what the Government can or should be doing, particularly with regard to permanent expenditure increases. Second, as we are commenting on once-off measures from a business perspective, a particular focus of ours has been the cost increases which have been placed on business. There is a one-off package to support business with those increases. As those increases are permanent, we would argue that we need a much more effective transitionary support for the challenges which businesses are going to face in the years ahead.

I believe all our guest speakers have referred to housing. I would like to ask Mr. O'Brien about the restraining impact that housing is having on business and on the labour force. What is his opinion on how housing was not dealt with in the budget? Does he believe that some of the initiatives that have been referred to will address any of the problems with regard to housing supply?

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

We have discussed the scale of the problem in this committee and other committees on a number of occasions. The degree to which the housing factor is constricting and restricting labour market employment growth and employers' ambitions to grow and expand their businesses can be seen in every part of the country. The very sharp end of that from an economic and employer perspective is that we definitely see the challenges in the private rental sector as a real problem when it comes to employment. That is only one aspect of the housing crisis but it is particularly sharp from an economic and employment perspective.

The budgetary measures are not significantly material but we have been looking for some time to have certainty and consistency in overall housing policy. While we believe there are changes that can make a long-term permanent improvement, and they should be proceeded with by all means, we have to be careful with continuous tweaking around housing policy. From our perspective, there is no game-changer in budget 2024 with regard to the impact on housing. There is some support for landlords. The failure of the private sector rental market is a real problem. What came out on budget day will probably have a marginally positive impact but it will be marginal.

I want to ask Mr. Reidy a question. He has referred to the tax breaks for landlords as being frankly bizarre, which is quite a strong statement. He has spoken about the inflationary impact of the help-to-buy scheme. The argument that would be put forward for the help-to-buy scheme is that it has helped thousands of people to buy homes. How many people has it prevented from buying homes, however, given that it has put prices further beyond their reach of people? Is that difficult to tell?

Mr. Owen Reidy

I will put my remarks in context. We do not doubt the earnest desire of the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and his colleagues in trying to address what is an incredible challenge. If we are honest, for over a decade the State has done nothing and we are trying to catch up. However, there needs to be a 180° change in approach. We sit on the housing, labour and employer economic forum. When we meet the Government at plenary level, we constantly hear talk about supply. It is not about supply, however; it is about affordability. There is no point in supplying homes in this city, or across the country in members' constituencies, if the price of those homes is 250% more than 20 years ago and wages have gone up by much less than that. I will use as an example a house in the constituency of the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, where I used to live. A four-bedroom semi-detached house in Donabate cost €200,000 in 2020. Today, it is probably €550,000 or €570,000. That is not a market. That is dysfunctional. The State needs to be a supplier rather than a consumer. It needs to stop using its limited resources as a bandage to put over a wound that is seeping. We need a completely different approach.

The private sector approach has failed utterly. We need a public sector-led approach. We should look at other places in Europe that do this much better, such as the Netherlands or Vienna. I am 51 and have older siblings who left this country in the 1980s because of the employment crisis. I have two children who are probably going to leave. They are in a home where both parents are working and are well paid, but they will probably go because they do not want to live with their parents forever. We are going to be exporting our youngsters. We need a completely different approach. I do not believe we are going to get that. Maybe we will get it in the future but we have to stop doing what we are doing.

Mr. McGeady gave the analogy of how rents and house prices have gone up compared to wages. It seems that we are digging the hole deeper. I am not saying that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has all the answers. Far from it, but the current approach of focusing on supply and not even thinking of affordability is simply not working.

I believe the emigration has already started. I come from Belmullet in County Mayo. In the local football club, we counted ten players who have gone to Australia in recent months. That is just from one small football club. When we started to count the wider area, it was quite shocking. This is not because people cannot find a job, but because people cannot find a house or somewhere to live.

I want to ask Mr. McGeady about his statement on housing. He said that the Government has failed to support those most in need in favour of subsidising property owners. Could he expand on that from his perspective? Perhaps Ms Rogers would like to comment.

Ms Susanne Rogers

I might take that question as somebody from the Belmullet diaspora. My mother is from Eachléim. Like that, all her family are gone. Everybody left because there were no jobs; there was nothing there. When I think of urban and rural, that is where my mind goes immediately. This is a real problem. The Parliamentary Budget Office has provided figures showing a 90% hike in rent, a 75% hike in housing and a 27% hike in wages. That is a statistic we can all stand over.

We are talking about this housing crisis as if it is a recent thing. For a certain section of Irish society, there has always been a housing crisis. Professor Padraic Kenna wrote a paper in 2022 in which he looked at 100 years of Irish housing. When a social housing need assessment was done in 1919 - I wrote it down because it is such a stark fact - it found that there were 61,648 households in need of social housing. Some 100 years later, in 2020, the figure was practically the same figure, with 61,880 households having a social housing need. We would argue that this does not even reflect the real need but we have had long enough to deal with this. We are talking about constraints on building, constraints on this and constraints on that. I am at a loss to understand this. If we do not start somewhere, we are going to be having the same conversation in 2032, in 2052 and in 2100. We have record homelessness. Every single month's figure is breaking a homelessness record. It is shocking. Many children - 3,800 at the last count - are spending years in homeless accommodation. We do not even know where the damage that is doing is going to end up. The health issue will never be fixed unless housing is fixed.

The mortgage interest relief measure makes no sense whatsoever. We already have a mortgage arrears resolution process and a code of conduct on mortgage arrears. This new measure is something you will be able to access regardless of your capacity to pay your mortgage, but if you are in mortgage arrears you might not be able to access it. It make no sense. I believe the Department of Finance has done its own review on the help-to-buy scheme and has found it is not doing what it is supposed to do. On the landlord credit, again I do not understand how it will bring anything to the market. We have to question the idea of an exodus from the rental market, given that at a committee meeting the Residential Tenancies Board and the Central Statistics Office provided two very different sets of figures on that issue. It needs to be looked at. If there is an exodus from the rental market, one can think about it in this way: we are both of a similar age and we were told 20 years ago to buy a second house for our pensions.

That was the thing. Everybody went out and bought a second house. People who bought a house then are almost at retirement age now and their houses are back in equity. If landlords are exiting the system, this was always meant to happen once the mortgages were paid. I do not necessarily know then if this is a squeeze. How can landlords be exiting the system while rents have gone up 75% at the same time? I do not understand this conversation. These are two opposed things happening at the same time.

As far as we are concerned, there needs to be increased levels of social housing. Our current level stands at 9%, but this needs to be near 20%. Regarding the 90,000 houses to be built over the lifespan of the House for All policy, this total needs to be up nearer to 250,000 units to really make a dent in where we are now. We have had such a large influx of people into the country as well and this is also not going to end anytime soon either. We will have more and more people coming here because this is a safe, secure and stable country where people's children can be educated. There are opportunities here and people are going to come here. This is a real story of success and we need to be able to factor in this context as well. We are not, though. We are not counting the demographic changes occurring in the overall perspective.

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

I call Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

Can the committee hear me?

We can, indeed, fire ahead.

I am going to be brief because I have been called into a Dáil debate where I have speaking time.

I thank our witnesses very much for being here today. I believe it is important. I have been listening intently to what they have been saying. I wish to come at this subject from two perspectives. First, and most importantly, as a politician who holds approximately 50 clinics monthly, I would like to think, like everybody else, that I am very much in touch with the needs of the constituents of County Kerry whom I am here to represent.

One thing that has been happening is that we have people who are newly financially pressed. I refer to situations where both parents are working. They have two incomes, but they are paying between 50% and 60% in tax on those incomes. They are also paying a mortgage, repayments on loans for two cars and paying for education, including maybe college. These people are being hit for everything. On the one hand, I very much welcome the increase being given to employees. On the other hand, what drives me mad is when I hear the Government saying it is giving money to employees. It is not. It is not doing any such thing. It has, instead, told the employers that they must pay for this increase. As a small employer and a person who pays a not inconsiderable number of people wages weekly, in several different fields, and I have been doing so for many decades now, I can see that it has become increasingly difficult to run a business now more than ever before. The bottom line seems to be less and less. With the high costs of energy, paying a week's wage to people, running a show, paying for insurance and everything else, it is just very expensive.

I would like to try to come at this matter from several perspectives. Talking about this whole aspect of the cost of paying wages, Friday comes around very quickly. Regarding the supports given to small businesses, I am not a knocker of government, no such thing. I would be the first person to say that if it had not been for the measures taken by the current Government during the pandemic, I and many other small business people throughout this country would have closed up and the jobs we have and are creating would have gone and been lost for ever. This has left us in a position, however, where we are really worse off now than we have been at any time in the last 30 years in respect of trying to keep a business going.

The other scenario is the payments being made to people. Let us take as an example the energy supports. When I see people in the Government saying it is doing so much in giving people a once-off payment, this once-off payment pales into insignificance when we see the high bills people are receiving in their houses every week. It is frightening. This is one aspect.

Of course, there are things that are welcome, including the measure concerning cost of schoolbooks and third-level fees. Again, however, we have people slipping between the cracks. These are people who are working and who, from the outside, might appear to be well-off. Their disposable income, the amount of income they really have, to pay their bills weekly is becoming less and less. I would call these people a new poor in society. From the outside, they look fine. My God, though, it would be a different story if we knew what was going on inside their heads. I know all the witnesses do know this. People of whom we would not think it are actually in this position.

I wish to talk briefly about housing. I will be brief. The Cathaoirleach knows I always declare an interest in this sector of society as well. I do not want anybody to think I am coming at this topic just because of what I do myself. I am coming at this matter because I like to think that I know a share about it. I refer to housing, its supply, the costs involved and the rents being paid. I have heard people in the Opposition say this has been a budget that has favoured landlords. Just for everybody's information, it must be 100 years ago now since we got rid of the landlords. There is no such thing as a landlord in Ireland today. There are people who own property and their business is renting it out to other people. This then is what they are: they are property owners who are in the business of renting out property. Whether this is commercial or private, residential or whatever type of property, this is what they are.

These are the property owners who are now supposed to be getting what we will call a tax break from the Government. This is the biggest load of nonsense that has ever happened. I say this because when we are talking about supply, people who own property were waiting to see what type of measures would be in this budget. We thought a measure of this type might have come last year. Up and down the length of the country, many people held on because they thought the Government was waking up to this issue. I ask everyone to please never forget that if a person receives €1,000 in rent, the Minister for Finance gets €560 of that amount. The person who owns the property gets €440 of that €1,000 to pay his or her obligations to the bank, to pay the insurance on the property and to pay for the upkeep of the property. That money received is also required to cover situations when the rent is not paid at all and it is necessary to try to make the property wash its face without getting in any money whatsoever, and it might be necessary to do this for a year or two while supplying a property when it is not being paid for.

These property owners were holding on in the hope that the Government would wake up to what was happening and bring in a measure to apply a 20% tax take across the board on people supplying accommodation. This did not happen, though, and what came was actually nothing. It is of no help whatsoever. What was done has tipped the scales. The people who had been waiting have now realised that the best hope they had was whatever might have come out of this budget. It did not transpire as hoped, so they are now leaving the sector in their droves. I hear people saying this is not the case and that, instead, it might be because a second house, or whatever, was intended as a pension. No, these people, whether they are accidental property owners or people who got into the sector over the years, people who were working hard and took on a second or third mortgage, or whatever they are doing, have now realised that no political assistance or support is going to come to them. They are now saying to themselves, "Fine, we will get out of it". This means the supply will diminish. Of course, then, when the supply is reduced, the rents will be higher. If there was a plentiful supply of property, the rents would not be as high. The reason rents are going up is because of the reduced supply.

Then there is the cost of doing any building. If anyone here decided tomorrow morning to put an extension onto their house, they would get a bad fright because of the prices of steel, concrete and labour, including electricians, etc. The cost of building has gone through the roof and is astronomical. I would rather be building something in New York tomorrow rather than trying to do so here in Ireland. I believe it would be cheaper to build something in the middle of Manhattan than to build something in Ireland today.

The first obstacle we have is that of planning. It seems like there would be a better chance of winning the lottery than of getting planning permission, or of getting it easily anyway, because of the way the system is all in favour of the objectors' point of view. Just in case our witnesses do not know this, if they were ever to be looking for people to object to the awarding of planning permission, they should come to the Dáil and I will introduce the witnesses to them. The majority of them are spokespersons for political parties. They object to planning permission for thousands of homes in their own constituencies. To our credit here in Dáil Éireann, we have individuals who, on their own, over several years, and I have one person in mind when I say this, have lodged 5,000 objections to houses being built in that person's constituency. We have a spokesperson on housing who has lodged 2,850 objections to housing being built in his constituency.

Tell me then how hard it is to do business in Ireland. Let us think of the irony here. We have people jumping up and down here in Dáil Éireann saying they want housing and then when people come along and want to provide it, they object to the building of that housing.

That includes student accommodation, private residential and any type of development, indeed anything that is going into the ground and being built up. They are objecting to it wholesale.

These are some of the things that are bothering me. I am sorry if I am like a broken record. I thank the witnesses for coming and would appreciate any response from them either individually or collectively in the time we have.

I thank the Deputy for being brief, as he outlined initially. He has said a lot there. There is much to take in and respond to. There was much commentary and some questions. I ask our guests if they wish to respond accordingly. I will begin with Mr. McGeady.

Mr. John McGeady

The Deputy raised some very interesting points. On landlords leaving the market and a fall in supply, it is important to remember the houses still exist. They will become occupied by people who wish to live in them or become vacant, in which case they are subject to a vacancy tax, or somebody else will buy them and they will continue as part of the rental market and provide supply that way. There is a serious point here about the distribution of this budget. Something we noted was tax relief for landlords of €600 in 2024 is equivalent to the aggregate €12 increase in core social welfare payments over the course of the year. That comes to €636 over 52 or 53 weeks, including the Christmas bonus. There is therefore a question about how the money and resources are being distributed and it is question of social justice in our view. That is important to raise. Again, we come back to the point about the €12 increase in social welfare. We do not believe that was adequate and feel it needs to be increased by €13 to bring it to a €25 increase in 2024.

Mr. Owen Reidy

I will make a brief comment on the whole tax piece. The Deputy made a really important point about how all of us, that is, workers, citizens and businesses, saw the value of a resourced state during the Covid crisis because we all relied on the State. Right across the western world, whether countries had centre-left or centre-right governments there was furlough, supports for businesses, supports for workers and supports for people not in work. It was really important.

That has generated a bit of a debate in society about who pays for what and our tax system. We have a very progressive income tax system. We are an all-island organisation with 200,000 members north of the Border and about 550,000 south of it. A worker earning X amount here is paying much more tax than they would in Northern Ireland if they are earning a significant amount and that is as it should be. The Deputy is a parliamentarian who is very close to his constituents. I would like to think we are quite close to our members and the feedback we were getting from what people call "the squeezed middle", many of whom we represent, is they did not want €15 or €16 back in taxes, but better childcare, better social services and better public services that are more affordable. People realise the State needs to be resourced. We did a piece of work with Dr. McDonnell's organisation, NERI, a couple of years ago looking at what Irish workers contribute, and Irish workers pay European taxes in that they pay about 98% of the taxes workers in wealthy European countries pay. The distribution is different as we have made a decision to take the lowest-paid out of the income tax net. That is just a political choice. However, when it comes to what employers pay, Irish employers pay about 48% of what wealthy European employers do. That gap has to be bridged. It cannot be done overnight but it should be done over two terms of government. That would be an extra €9 billion in revenue just to get to the norm. Mr. O'Brien quite legitimately makes the point there are costs in doing business and there are increased costs, but a lot of the things we are talking about here, like auto-enrolment, sick leave and other statutory measures are about catching up rather than leading the charge in Europe. There has to be a rebalancing. Workers working in Ireland pay European taxes but do not get European services, or not yet.

We acknowledge some of the progress that has been made, but some of the things that have been temporary need to be permanent and we need to look at the report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare very seriously and start to endorse it. It is not about taxing labour as such, but more about taxing other elements of wealth. That body was a fairly sober, middle-of-the-road group of people rather than a bunch of radicals and we need to take the report seriously. We endorse it. To Deputy Healy-Rae's point about the two people working who are paying 50% tax, if people are paying their taxes they want to get value for the services they pay for and that is the gap, not giving a reduction in tax to people on €50,000 a year so they have an extra €15 in their pocket. Wages and wage-bargaining should deal with that in the private and public sectors. I will leave it at that.

Mr. Fergal O'Brien

I thank the Deputy for his observations and questions. I will comment on some of the tax issues Mr. Reidy has raised but be more specific on the costs of doing business. Ms Ahern-Flynn might comment on some of the housing issues.

I was a member of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare with Dr. McDonnell and we were a pretty sober bunch. I fully agree with the main thrust of Mr. Reidy's point that it is a missed opportunity in terms of taking long-term structural reform decisions around our taxation system. I go back to my earlier point to Deputy Conway-Walsh on the reliance we now have on our corporation tax base. We would be running a very significant deficit in the economy if it was not for that surge of €5 billion to €25 billion, essentially, in our tax base. None of us can have any certainty about how that is going to evolve over the coming years. Part of it is income tax. We must have a broader income tax base, but other parts of our tax system matter as well. We are not building a tax system that is going to sustain us into the future with the costs of ageing, future health provision and probably decarbonisation to a degree as well, although we welcome the opportunity to put some of that once-off money aside in the form of the infrastructure and climate fund. I am not going to get into the details of taxation save to say there is broad agreement our overall taxation system needs very significant structural reform and we should not be allowing the once-off surge of the current corporation tax glut to postpone those decisions.

I wish to talk about the costs for small businesses the Deputy raised. We are sleepwalking into a real issue here. IBEC has not opposed the concept of a living wage. We have not opposed the concept of auto-enrolment in pensions. We see the merit of statutory sick pay. We now have an new earnings-related social welfare payment. All these things make sense in isolation, but there is an absolute cascade of cost coming onto business. Sometimes when we talk about the minimum wage costs on an hourly basis we lose sight as to the overall cost base we are going for in the economy. Within two years we are going to have a wage floor of €30,000 full-time equivalent when we benchmark to our 60% of median earnings with respect the aspirations of where we want to take a statutory minimum wage, also known as the living wage. I do not think the agencies of the State have in any way done an impact assessment of what the €30,000 floor is going to mean for employment structures across the State with regard to social care, home care and all these sectors where many workers are probably currently earning less than that €30,000 threshold. This is not about workers on minimum wage, but about the whole relativity and ratchet effect we are going to see across the economy. This is a transition we support over time, but as for doing this in a period of three years, to our members doing the costings on this it looks like a 25% to 30% cost increase over three years. I am worried, given the margins at which some businesses are operating, about their capacity to be able to cope with that. We are going to see a lot of this back in inflation. Obviously, firms in the domestic economy are going to have no choice other than to put this back in the form of higher prices to consumers, so we are going to see inflationary impacts as a result of it.

I already know about this from some of our direct engagement with companies in probably labour-intensive manufacturing sectors.

Many of them would be trade unionised employments where they genuinely fear that they will not be able to sustain that employment going forward because they are operating in a global environment where a cost base such as that, particularly in such a short transition period, without effective Government support, will ultimately mean that their Irish operations will not be viable. In particular, I would worry about some of those employments across rural and regional Ireland. We are directly aware of a number of employers that will struggle with a cost base that is this much higher.

I reiterate that jumping to a €30,000 wage floor across the economy and all the relativity impacts of that would have a serious competitiveness shock for the Irish economy and probably at a time when it looks to us like we are at the top of the economic cycle, given the geopolitical issues, the normalisation of interest rates and the inflation that we have come through. I would encourage the committee to look at that. What impact will this have on agencies of the State, care services and other related sectors, and their ability to deliver services when that cost base starts to impact? I will hand over to Ms Ahern-Flynn to address the housing issues that the Deputy raised.

Ms Hazel Ahern-Flynn

I will quickly address some of the comments that Deputy Healy-Rae made about construction of housing. He correctly flagged that the main bottleneck in the sector is the labour and skills issue, which is significant. It is not limited to just the construction sector, but it is particularly acutely felt in it. The next bottleneck is backlogs in the planning system. I know work is being done in that area but there is much more to do. The last matter, which he touched on briefly, is a rapid increase in construction costs that we are feeling on this island. Comparing now to before the pandemic, basic steel and concrete is settling at about one fifth higher than it was even a few years ago, so that is baking into construction costs. Regarding how this relates to the budget, there is much that we can do about the input costs for construction as an island. The things that we can impact are the labour market, the skills issue and the planning system, which urgently needs to be addressed.

IBEC welcomed and is happy to see supply-side measures for housing in the budget. Additional resources need to be made available to State bodies, including An Bord Pleanála, to make sure the capacity is there to absorb some of the new planning so that we can see the significant resources going into the sector, on the demand side, actually translate into commencements and housing delivery. We would welcome the initial step to meeting some of our labour demands, particularly 3,000 new craft apprenticeships being funded this year. Neither of those steps will solve the housing crisis or put us on target for the significant housing delivery that we need in the coming years, but they are two positive steps in the right direction for supply-side measures that we noted from the budget.

I thank the witnesses for their extensive presentations and responses. We as a committee greatly respect their opinions, views and comments on the budget. We are obliged, as a committee, after having received the budget, to analyse and scrutinise different aspects of it. To fill the witnesses in on where we are with our preparations to do that in the coming weeks, we will have specific meetings to deal with the existing level of service costs, the issue of demographics and its impact on core spending annually. We will be talking to the Department of Finance, the ESRI and the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council about that. We will also speak to the Department of Finance to discuss tax expenditure specifically laid out in the budget, particularly regarding landlords and mortgage reliefs, to investigate those further, analyse them and to see the impact we hope and expect that they can have, based on the commitments that have been made. We will also speak to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform about Supplementary Estimates and the specific overruns associated with this budget and to analyse the ongoing issues with the Department of Health. We will investigate the quantifying of recurring expenditure which is not quantified until late in the day. We will also ask the Government to expand on its commitments regarding the Ireland fund and the climate and nature fund.

Another issue I have picked up on in recent days is corporate receipts, the corporate tax rate and the global tax rate being set at 15%, and the failure to date of the US to sign up to that agreement. Some would say, as has been reported recently, that it is because the OECD only supplied the legal text in recent weeks. Others would say that in the US Senate debates about the issue, it did not meet with universal approval. That is slightly worrying. Because of that and the commitments we are making in the Finance Bill regarding the European agreements that are in place, it might not be great for Europe with the US, China and other blocs not adhering to the agreements that we hoped would be honoured. Because of that, I will seek the committee's approval to speak to the Ministers for Finance, and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and also the IDA, to get their impressions, understandings, appreciations and maybe worries about that too. As has been alluded to, while our economy is going reasonably well against the backdrop of significant challenges in recent years, whether regarding Brexit, Covid, or the cost of living, we have responded and dealt with those issues amazingly well as a State and as a people, but the background is the substantial returns we have had from that sector.

Between the economic statement earlier in the year and the budget delivery, the 6.1% net spend and the breakdown of €1.1 billion in taxation and €5.3 billion in core expenditure remained constant. The only variation was that the corporate tax receipts began to level. There was a global downturn and geopolitical issues which impact on that too. It is a worrying issue in the background that we need to not lose sight of and to hold those who made commitments to account to honour those commitments and not leave us high and dry.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions, presentations, perspectives, impressions and asks. They were made in good faith. We appreciate and understand that. We do not want to treat them with any political bias at all. We are members of all parties and none and we have a responsibility and duty to other Members of the Dáil to make sure that we analyse and critique the budget in a way which can only improve its presentation in the future.

The select committee adjourned at 6.38 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 November 2023.
Top
Share