Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Nov 2014

Vol. 859 No. 1

Human Rights Budgeting: Motion [Private Members]

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann:

acknowledges:

— that there are positive signs of economic recovery; and

— the social impact analysis and the pre-budget consultations carried out by the Department of Social Protection;

notes:

— that there are insufficient human rights aspects included in budgets which shows Ireland is not in-line with the United Nations (UN) Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee’s minimal core requirements;

— other than the Department of Social Protection, no other Government Department carries out social impact analysis and thus no adequate assessment of the impact of budgetary decisions;

— that the current process of forming budgets does not have evidence based discussions; and

— the lack of engagement by the Economic Management Council with the voluntary/community sector; and

calls for:

— agreement that the income gap between the basic social welfare rates and the income required for a minimally adequate standard of living (as measured by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice Studies on minimum essential budgetary standards) should be reduced in each year’s budget;

— the effects of budgetary impact on people be analysed by a social impact survey, before the publishing of budgets, which will be completed by a cross-Department body and recommend requirements as set out by the UN Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee's minimal core requirements; and

— a guiding vision for Ireland which would ensure coherence at the core of public policy and a commitment to the common good.”

I understand Deputy O'Sullivan is sharing her time with Deputies Boyd Barrett, Finian McGrath and Donnelly. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy O'Sullivan has 15 minutes.

Those of us of a certain age and with a certain taste in music might remember a song from way back called "Games People Play". I was struck by some of the lines in it. I will not sing it but the lines are:

Games people play every day and night,

Never meaning what they say, never saying what they mean,

While they while away their hours in an ivory tower.

That is the view of many Irish people when they come to look at the Oireachtas, that we are living in an ivory tower that does not bear much relationship to the reality of people's lives. When I was thinking of the topic of this Private Members' motion those lines kept going around in my mind. While we are in here do we say what we mean, do we mean what we say and when are we going to move out of that ivory tower and be more engaged with reality?

Private Members' time is an opportunity to stop and reflect on what kind of country we want to see develop and that we want to live in. It could be part of President Higgins's ethics initiative and the Houses, the Dáil and the Seanad, should have a debate on that topic also. There are two aspects to this Private Members' motion, one of which is philosophical. Politics sometimes neglects philosophy to its disadvantage. The philosophical debate is about our values, priorities and the principles we want to see that will guide our vision for our country for the future and that will guide us as to how we are going to bring about a more equal society.

I have been here a relatively short time compared to others, just more than five years and I have been through a number of budgets. Each year a number of us call for a social impact analysis of budgets. As the motion states, we do not do adequate assessments of the impact of budgetary decisions. We are out of the official budget season, as such, even though we debated the Finance Bill earlier. At this time of the year there is an opportunity to consider other aspects when it comes to budgets.

The newspapers reported last week that the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF - and the fiscal council as reported in today's newspapers - were all sounding alarm bells and making noises about additional measures and further cuts and macroeconomic adjustments. It is almost like they are saying there will be another austerity budget and more cuts. However, we must agree that, regardless of who is in power, there are sections of society which have borne the brunt of those cuts to date and they must be left out of any further equation on this and those sections of society which did not even know we were in a recession should contribute proportionately.

Ireland has signed a number of international human rights treaties which means we are committed to human rights and dignity. In recessions and especially in times of cutbacks and austerity those human rights must be respected, protected and realised. Under international law, human rights covers certain categories. For example, States must do everything possible so that everyone in a jurisdiction has a basic level of subsistence to live in dignity. States must take account of the impact of cuts on the most vulnerable. The cuts must be effected in a non-discriminatory and a transparent way in consultation with affected groups. Because we have signed up to international human rights treaties, that is not optional, it is obligatory.

In June 2015 Ireland will be examined under economic, social and cultural rights. The question is how we are we going to fare. Everybody wants to do well in an exam situation but there will be serious questions and serious concerns for Ireland. That makes it even more imperative that we take a human rights approach to budgeting, that we have adequate and meaningful impact assessments and that we have equality and gender-proofing. If there was a commitment to that, we would see much greater progress towards that equal society to which we are all committed.

Ireland has a place on the United Nations Human Rights Council and we are a voice, and a respected one, for the human rights of those in the developing world but we are not always a consistent voice for the human rights of Irish citizens. The motion acknowledges there are signs of recovery and no doubt those on the Government side will point out all those signs of recovery. It is fantastic to hear about jobs being created in various parts of the country but - there is a but - when the Government talks about percentages and statistics indicating recovery, it is not always felt in an equitable way by all sections of society. The reality is that we have deprivation. There are people who do not have the necessities of life. An increasing number of people are homeless on the streets or in accommodation that is not conducive to dignity. If we walk anywhere in this city, and we need not go too far from these Houses, we will meet homeless people. On 11 November more than 168 people were sleeping rough in Dublin. Yesterday Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy of Focus Ireland said she has never seen the extent of homelessness and crisis in housing in all her years working on the issue as she is seeing now. It is an issue that is worsening every day.

I want to deal with health inequality. I refer to a recent report completed at NUI Maynooth. It saw a disparity and inequality between those from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds and those at the other end of that spectrum. Recent data from it showed a fatality rate from cancer of 382 per 100,000 people in Blakestown compared with almost one third of that figure - 128 out of 100,000 - in Castleknock just a few miles away. The stage at which cancer is diagnosed has a huge impact on the outcome and again those in deprived areas tend to present later at a more advanced stage. The follow-up care is essential and again there are disparities. There are higher instances of cancers with lower rates of survival within more disadvantaged areas. The disparity holds across all stages of cancer even allowing for correction for certain lifestyle issues. The differences are very salient. I acknowledge the excellent cancer treatment we have in Ireland and the report stated that once inside acute services background has no impact on service, but the point is that there is an inequality.

There is also an inequality when it comes to addiction services. Those with private means and private health insurance can access residential treatment easily. If one does not have private means and private health insurance, the person in addiction will have to wait. Those who work with those in addiction know that when the motivation is high, that is the time to move into treatment. Those in addiction without means are sometimes put on a methadone programme but we have also seen that those in addiction can die while they are waiting to move into a residential treatment centre. One of the questions I pose is to whom does the Government listen when it comes to budgets and making decisions. What role do those in Irish civil society and the voluntary and community sector have, those organisations that know the reality and the real impact of budgets on families? We know budgets are not just about one day because their impacts are felt for years.

Organisations acknowledge the Department of Social Protection is the one Department that makes an effort to hear from affected people. Some of the organisations are invited to appear before the social protection committee and they then put recommendations to the Minister. Most organisations believe the process would be much improved if other committees, especially the finance committee, did the same and if they could have impact assessments on the effects any proposed changes would have on those likely to be adversely affected - if committees and Departments had information from civil society on the reality of the impacts and the implications, in other words, if they were committed to human rights being at the core of budgets. Many groups from all sectors of society make submissions but I have to ask are they worth the paper they are written on if there is no real engagement. We need to widen and promote genuine prebudget efforts from civil society because engagement to date has not been meaningful. We can look to Scotland's approach to equality budgeting as an example of good practice regarding transparency and equality proofing.

I have another question related to the Economic Management Council.

Who do they talk to before budget decisions are made? Do they ever speak to anybody from the voluntary and community sector?

We need a process for budgets, a human rights law framework, that is transparent, participatory and accountable in accordance with our duties and commitments under international law. We need, and Irish people deserve, budgets that are socially just and economically sustainable. The philosophies, socially just and economically sustainable, are not mutually exclusive.

Following budget 2015, FLAC organised a seminar and survey of some 38 organisations in regard to where that budget lies in relation to human rights. The organisations with which FLAC consulted include Crosscare, Focus Ireland, the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, the European Anti Poverty Network, the Disability Federation of Ireland, the Alzheimer Society, the Children's Rights Alliance, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Age Action, the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, Mental Health Reform, the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Amnesty International and the National Travellers Service, which is a good cross-section of organisations. Tá siad go léir ag obair ar son daoine ar an imeall agus le daoine ar an imeall. They know the real affects of budgets.

There were positives in the survey, including the increase in child benefit, funding for Tusla, the budget for social housing, the full retention of the free travel scheme and some progressive realisation for mental health and other measures, but there were not enough measures to address the housing crisis, rising rents, etc.. In response to the question, "Was the main issue you work on for your target group adequately allocated for financially in the budget", 76% of those organisations said "No". On the question, "Have the rights of vulnerable groups been properly respected and promoted in the budget", 49% said "No" and 43% said "to some extent". On the question, "How have human rights which your organisations work on been impacted on in Ireland since the recession", 65% said they were downgraded; 16% said there was no change; and 11% said they had been progressed. This indicates that austerity measures have seriously undermined all people's human rights in the last seven years, particularly vulnerable groups. In terms of hard evidence, income inequality has widened, consistent poverty has increased and child poverty has increased, particularly among children in low income households. We all know the situation in regard to homelessness. We know, too, that disability rights are not being recognised.

Given that there has not been a human rights approach to our budgets, certain sectors have been more affected, such as the communities about which I spoke earlier during Leaders' Questions. We are told that contractual arrangements for the powerful interests, individuals and groups could not be broken, yet cuts could be imposed on the most vulnerable in society. It is difficult for ordinary people to accept these cuts when there is little or no effect on the lifestyles of those whose greed and corruption caused the devastation. I do not know how Governments can stand over cuts to social spending and social protection programmes which have disproportionate effects on certain groups.

We are told we are moving out of the bailout and that there are signs of recovery. This means there is an opportunity now for us collectively, inside and outside the Dáil, to work on the development of a guiding vision for Ireland with, as mentioned in the motion, policy coherence at the core of all that we do. I am sure everybody will agree that the overwhelming majority of the organisations mentioned earlier work with the most marginalised and vulnerable. All of them agree that a human rights approach to budgeting will help to ensure a fair and more equal society. We are currently not a fair and equal society in that certain sections of our society are suffering disproportionately and unfairly.

The motion calls for a reduction over successive future budgets in the income gap between social welfare rates and the income required for a minimally adequate standard of living. We are asking not that this reduction be achieved all at once but that a commitment be given to it being achieved gradually over a number of years. I do not understand how that cannot be accepted by the Government. I believe commitment and agreement to a human rights based budget could form part of a guiding vision for the future. Up to one hour ago I thought there would be no Government amendment to the motion. I thought we could agree on this motion which acknowledges recovery and all the positive work being done while pointing to the failings in this area. Unless we point out those failings, we will not be able to move ahead and address them.

The Government amendment states that detailed distributional impact analysis of tax changes is already included in budget documentation. To include something is one thing, but to do something about it is another. There is no commitment to equality in what is stated. The amendment also states that a social impact assessment will be carried out by a cross-departmental group but no details are given of the criteria or principles by which this will be guided and on whether account will be taken of the organisations to which I referred earlier who form part of front-line services to those who are most affected. The amendment also states that the Government is committed to a vision for Ireland which provides for economic and social recovery. Why can it not include "that economic and social recovery will contribute to a more equal and fair society"?

The Government has missed the essential aspect of this Private Members' motion, namely, a guiding vision for Ireland that will make a better Ireland, one that is more equitable and looks after those who are vulnerable and marginalised.

I apologise in advance for having to leave the Chamber straight after my contribution but I have to attend a meeting. I also thank Deputies Stephen Donnelly and Finian McGrath for facilitating me in this regard.

I commend Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on bringing forward this timely motion. I am not sure if the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, is aware that 10 December 2014 is International Human Rights Day, which is the reason the Right2Water campaign decided on that date for the next demonstration against water charges. At the centre of that campaign is the belief, shared it is now clear by a huge number, if not the majority, of people in this country, that access to water is a human right. As indicated by the Taoiseach when he saw the scale of the recent protests, they are not only about water charges. He is right about that. In a way, this motion speaks to that fact.

For many people, water charges are the last straw. What runs behind this is the belief that this Government and the political establishment generally in this country and in Europe has lost its moral compass somewhere along the way and has forgotten the point of politics, the point of economics and the point of a society. This is not about balance sheets, deficits, debt targets and all the technocratic nonsense that is used to justify gross levels of unfairness, inequality, poverty and so on. What it should be about is what people need to exist a civil and dignified life and establishing the bottom lines for economic thinking, social policy and policy generally.

The problem is that things are being done arse about face because in dictating policy and deciding economic priority, the Government starts not with what people need and what should be their basic rights, but with profit, balance sheets, debt, deficits, what the bond holders need, keeping the markets happy and keeping bond yields down, all of which does not mean anything to anybody. It is the wrong way to do things. The most basic right is access to water, which people physically need to exist. One could also say the same about housing. If people cannot have a roof over their heads, then frankly we should forget everything else. If 20% of the children in this country are living in poverty, then forget about social stability. Talk of economic recovery is utterly meaningless if 20% of our children are living in poverty and have to exist through their childhoods in poverty.

We must set bottom lines, which must include the right to water, the right to housing, the right of children not to live in poverty and the right to access to education up to third level, without obstacle, for anybody who needs it.

These must be basic bottom lines. Everything else should come secondary, and be surplus, to that. That is the sentiment which is driving the popular mobilisation we will see manifest itself on the streets. If the Government is not willing to find its moral compass, we will see what human rights budgeting looks like in the demonstration on 10 December. While the Government talks about its bankrupt policies in this House, there will be a popular assembly outside it where people representing communities, civil society groups and trade unions the length and breadth of the country will have their own parliament.

If the Government bothers to listen to what is said on those protests, it will hear people start with the basic requirements for their children, for housing and for the right to access water without a price tag on it. Our human rights are not for sale. Access to water is not for sale and access to housing should not be for sale. That is what human rights budgeting is about and I commend Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan. Vindication of what she is trying to get across here will be seen on the streets of Dublin on 10 December and beyond.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this very important debate on the future of this country, the way we distribute the resources in our society and the urgent need to build a new Ireland, built on equality and social justice. I commend and thank my colleague, Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, on bringing forward this motion, on bringing us all together and on putting forward a reasonable and sensible view of Irish society. If the Government is serious about economic disadvantage, social inclusion and building a better Ireland, it will support this motion and accept the proposals in it. That is the key issue in this debate.

Before I deal with the specific proposals, it is important the Minister listens and deals with the huge problems in the wider society in 2014. Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned that 20% of children live in poverty but the figure is actually 28%. That is a figure at which one must look straight in the eye. It means a ruined childhood for many children. Within that group, one has extremely disadvantaged pupils and those coming from very poor and extremely dysfunctional families, which are often violent. If we do not act in this regard, these young children will be on their way to Mountjoy jail. The Minister should listen to the proposals in this debate because if we do not act and build a more inclusive and equitable society, many of these young children will be lost forever.

Cutting funding to community-based projects, in particular on the north side of Dublin, is not acceptable and that is the bottom line. When I look at the figures in regard to the cuts being made, I am really saddened and annoyed by the amount of money involved. There is a crèche in Darndale currently which is providing an excellent service for many young children. The amount of money it is seeking in order to survive is in the region of €150,000 to €200,000. Compare that with the millions and billions of euro talked about in the Dáil every day. That project is doing a fantastic job but it needs a leg up, support and these kinds of issues to be dealt with by the Government.

Currently, insufficient human rights aspects are included in budgets, which shows Ireland is not in line with the UN Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee's minimal core requirements. Other than the Department of Social Protection, no other Department carries out a social impact analysis and thus no adequate assessment on the impact of budgetary decisions. The current process of forming budgets does not involve evidence-based discussions. The motion talks about the lack of engagement by the Economic Management Council with the voluntary community sector. It is missing a valuable resource in the wider community and is missing ideas about solving many of the problems. That is a huge issue and the Government needs to listen.

A resource often ignored in this House is people with a disability. People with a disability in the Ireland of 2014 play a vital role in society and that should be accepted. However, 45% of people with a disability experience income poverty while 36% experience basic deprivation. Households headed by people with disability are twice as likely to experience unemployment as those headed by a person without a disability. This issue cannot go unaddressed if we are to reduce poverty in Ireland. Half of those living in jobless households are either children or adults with a disability. People with a disability must not become the new underclass of workers and must be afforded an adequate working wage. Let us hope the cuts in funding to respite day care and residential places stop because they are not sustainable. I hope that with the extra revenue, that will not happen. The reality is that many people are feeling these cuts in funding.

I call on the Government to ensure all people with a disability are guaranteed a quality service as a right. The Government should end all cuts to front-line services. Only yesterday I received a call from a family using the St. Michael's House service. Their daughter's transport to a particular service on the north side of Dublin is being cut. I had another case recently of a severely physically disabled young man who has no power from the neck down and who had a five-day service in the Central Remedial Clinic which was cut back to three days. Where are we going? What kind of society do we want? We need to end the cuts to front-line services.

I said previously to the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, that there are many people in our society with a disability and that there is a huge network of people and tens of thousands of families affected. I would love to see a senior Minister with a dedicated responsibility for disability inclusion. That would go a long way to providing the kinds of principles and vision included in this motion.

The Minister and the Government should prioritise funding for disability services in line with the solemn pre-election commitments in regard to disability made by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. They should also pursue implementation of agreed measures, targets and timelines for these disability services. There is a group of talented people with a disability who are being excluded. Many services have been hammered over the past four years.

I strongly support the call that the income gap between the basic social welfare rates and the income required for a minimum and adequate standard of living be narrowed in each year's budget. Before the publication of budgets, the impact of them on people should be analysed in a social impact survey which should be completed by a cross-departmental body. We should recommend the minimal core requirements set out by the UN Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee. We should have a guiding vision for Ireland which would ensure coherence at the core of public policy and a commitment to the common good.

We will all jump up and down over the next year and a half and talk about commemorating the 1916 Rising but would taking on board the proposals put forward by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and the Technical Group and doing something about these issues not be an excellent project over the next 18 months? Then we could march around the GPO in 2016 and say we did something about poverty, economic disadvantage and people with a disability. That would be honouring the men and women of 1916 rather than prancing around and letting on that everything is hunky-dory.

This debate is an opportunity for us to use wealth and resources on the more needy in Irish society. We saw the tax breaks for people on high salaries.

We could have made other choices. We should look closely at that. Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan’s motion is in line with the Tony Gregory tradition. The late great Tony Gregory fought for more than 26 years on educational, social and economic disadvantage. These are issues that people could rally around to do something over the next year and a half if we are really to honour the men and women of 1916.

It is important that the Government listen to the proposals. For those who every now and again have a go at Independent Deputies and ask what they stand for, this is an example. There is a vision for the country and a sense of social justice in this motion. It concerns the future of the country, social justice and building a new Ireland on the basis of equality and social inclusion. If we implement the proposals in this motion, we can travel a long way and bring in a fairer and more equal society, but above all we can do something for the people who urgently need our help, whether they are homeless, people with disabilities, or those earning a wage that cannot put enough food on the table. These are the kinds of people we should stand up for in the Dáil. I urge all Deputies to support Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan’s motion.

I congratulate Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan on proposing her motion. It is powerful and timely when Ireland is hopefully beginning to come through the crisis that has beset us. I am very proud as a Member of Dáil Éireann to sign the motion supporting Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan.

The motion before the House calls for three things: a change in how we view social protection so that those who have to avail of social protection, for which they have paid, can live with dignity while trying to find a new job and recover from whatever has beset them; for a socio-economic impact analysis of budgetary decisions, something I have advocated since I was fortunate enough to be elected to the House in 2011; and for a vision which would ensure coherence in public policy decisions around the common good. All of these proposals should be supported.

The issue of social protection is one for debate. I do not quite know the right answer but there should be a debate in the Oireachtas and publicly. As it stands, if one loses one’s job, one has to survive on €188 a week, regardless of one’s situation and how much one needs to live with dignity. That is an Irish solution. There are other countries in the eurozone and around the world which have a different approach to social protection. One pays in at whatever rate is agreed and if one is unfortunate enough to lose one’s job through sickness or whatever, one gets a replacement rate or close to that. It falls off over time which is a healthy incentive to get a new job. It means one does not fall into arrears on one’s mortgage and does not have to hide from the children the reason they cannot have a particular food, all of those awful changes that people, parents and families have to make when somebody loses his or her job. The rate of social protection insurance, pay related social insurance, PRSI, in this country is low. There is a debate to be had nationally which says the current rate of social protection more or less pays for €188 a week if one loses one’s job, but do we as a nation want to pay more? Do we want to move to a model whereby the amount will have to go up but if one loses one’s job one will continue to live in dignity while finding a new job? I would prefer that system for myself and for everybody I know. It is a choice. This Government and the Labour Party could take a real leadership role in holding that debate.

This extends to the State pension, which is a subsistence pension. We do not pay in enough. The policy of contributions through one’s lifetime is not enough. We are going to hit a pensions crisis. That is beginning as private pension funds fail. We will hit it in the public sector as well when the worker to pensioner rate moves from 5:1 as it is now to approximately 2:1, which will happen over the next 25 or 30 years. There will not be enough money out of current taxation to pay for all the State pensions. It is not just a private pensions issue. I would very much favour an opt-in policy whereby one’s PRSI will go up but a private pension might not be needed because one would pay into a pension at a higher rate, and could check it at any age by logging into an account to see where the fund is. It would be important to have a conversation about that and I wholeheartedly agree with what Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan says in the motion.

The motion also calls for analysis on the effect of budgetary impact on budgets and other policies. I have been calling for that for several years. After budget 2012 had been passed, I asked a guy I know in the Department of Social Protection who had been hit really badly. Obviously everyone had been hit because we were in the middle of a crisis and there were tough decisions to be made. I asked him had anyone been wiped out by the budget. He said lone parents had been. He said the Government was introducing a Bill which brought down lone parent support by reducing the age of the child from 18. It has come down every year to seven or eight now. He said that Bill was designed when Fianna Fáil was in government, when there was full employment and a single mum or dad could quite easily find a part-time job. The thinking was if the kids were out at school from nine in the morning till 3 o’clock, there was no reason for the parent not to go out and earn some money, and therefore the lone parent supplement could be reduced. The guy I spoke to said the legislation was never envisaged for a time when there was no work for these parents. That has been done in several areas with the result that the number of lone parents and children living in deprivation has gone up from one in four to one in two.

That is an example of why we need the kind of analysis we are not getting. There is a report I have cited in the House before that examined Ireland’s budgetary process and concluded it was one of the worst. On a score of one to ten on the quality of data given to parliamentarians to interrogate budget proposals and the time given to them to consider the budgets before voting, we scored zero out of ten. Before this debate we were debating Report Stage of the Finance Bill 2014. What is the distributional impact of the Finance Bill 2014 throughout the country? We do not know. What are its gender, geographic and age impacts? We do not know. Are there any small or vulnerable groups that have been hit particularly hard and disproportionately by the Finance Bill? We do not know. Report Stage of the Bill will be guillotined tomorrow and the Government party Deputies will vote for it. They will vote on things on which they do not have sufficient information to make those decisions.

We rely on organisations such as the Economic and Social Research Institute. Deputy Tuffy and I have had a public debate on whether previous budgets were progressive or regressive. Deputy Tuffy believes they are progressive and cited ESRI research and voted for them accordingly. I have seen other ESRI research that showed they were regressive and accordingly I opposed them. If Labour Deputies had analysis that showed that the previous budgets were regressive and did these kinds of things to vulnerable groups such as lone parents, while they might not have voted against them, they would have applied a lot of pressure behind the scenes to improve the budgets. They cannot do that without the correct information.

I hope this is something that can be improved. I note with cautious optimism that the Government amendment says that "a social impact assessment of the main taxation and welfare measures will be carried out by a cross-Department body". I do not know whether that is full equality budgeting. We will wait to see what the Tánaiste has to say. I am glad to see that something is happening, at least. If the Tánaiste is leading on the work involved in putting this process in place-----

I cannot do everything, but I am happy to try.

-----perhaps she can examine whether it will be possible in future years for information to be provided to the House and to the public on the same day as the budget. If that were done, it would inform those who are considering the finance and social welfare Bills on Committee Stage.

The last line of the amendment says that the Government "is committed to a vision for Ireland which provides for economic and social recovery and focuses on measures which will assist people to return to work, continue to build consumer confidence and strengthen demand in the domestic economy". It is very important to focus on increasing employment rates. It is interesting that the other two areas of policy measure that are mentioned are consumer confidence and domestic demand. It is great that we will have policies to help people get back to work, but something is lacking when an amendment to a motion that is about equality and human rights refers to increasing consumer confidence and domestic demand - basically, helping people to buy more stuff. It is just a reflection. Perhaps it is time for the Government to broaden its thinking beyond economic recovery to other things like the rights and equality issues referred to in the motion before the House.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all the words after "pre-budget consultations carried out by the Department of Social Protection" and substitute the following:

"notes:

— the provision of substantial resources set out by the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform in Budget 2015 to the Construction 2020 strategy to ensure an increased and improving housing stock which will fundamentally improve social housing provision in Ireland;

— that, in addition to the capital funding to be made available, the introduction of the Housing Assistance Payment will further support the social housing needs of 8,000 households; and

— an increase in the annual expenditure provision for tackling homelessness;

further notes:

— that budget 2015 was the first budget since 2009 in which there will be no new cuts to social welfare schemes demonstrating that economic recovery will be accompanied by social recovery, highlighted by the fact that:

— a new back to work family dividend will be introduced;

— the rate of child benefit will be increased by €5;

— the rate of the living alone allowance will be increased, benefiting almost 180,000 people; and

— the Government has decided to pay a 25 per cent bonus to social welfare and other recipients this coming Christmas; and

— the income tax reform plan in Budget 2015, which reduces the marginal tax rate on low and middle income earners in a manner that maintains the highly progressive nature of the Irish tax system and makes it more attractive to return to work, stay in work and ensures that work rewards individuals adequately;

agrees that, while detailed distributional impact analysis of tax changes are already included in budget documentation, a social impact assessment of the main taxation and welfare measures will be carried out by a cross-Department body led by the Departments of Finance, Social Protection and Public Expenditure and Reform before the publishing of budgets; and is committed to a vision for Ireland which provides for economic and social recovery and focuses on measures which will assist people to return to work, continue to build consumer confidence and strengthen demand in the domestic economy."

I wish to share time with Deputy Derek Nolan.

I acknowledge the positive elements of the Private Members' motion before the House. I will discuss the elements of it that I do not think reflect what actually happened in the budget. This debate gives us an opportunity to discuss an important aspect of the making of budgets. The motion acknowledges the "positive signs of economic recovery" and "the social impact analysis and the pre-budget consultations carried out by the Department of Social Protection". I am sure Deputies are aware that as Minister for Social Protection, I have significantly expanded the pre-budget consultation to involve more groups and made the social impact analysis much more detailed.

I will refer briefly to the famous ESRI SWITCH analysis models. As Deputy Donnelly will know, they have been around for a very long time in the Irish situation. They probably constitute the best-known form of budgetary analysis. For a number of years, the immediate post-budget analysis has included the initial results of the SWITCH model, which measures the direct impact of tax and social welfare measures on the distribution of income. I emphasise in the context of this debate that the model measures the impact of budgetary measures in that way. If we are to debate the model, it is important to emphasise at the outset that many things are not in the SWITCH model and certain things are in it. The most recent post-budget SWITCH analysis considered the combined impact of the 2015 budget and the introduction of water charges. While this analysis is very useful in tracking the impact of budgetary measures, its designers acknowledge it is a partial analysis that does not take account of everything that counts in terms of the overall impact of a budget.

Most but not all of the tax and benefit measures in last month's budget were included in the SWITCH analysis. A number of key measures were excluded from it. The model is the model. The ESRI chose the measures. The back to work family dividend was among the items that were excluded. When the dividend comes into effect, it will be worth €30 a week in respect of the social welfare payment per child. The qualified child increase will be worth €90 a week to a family with three children when someone moves back to work. As Deputies will appreciate, it is a significant back to work incentive. The effective abolition of the bank levy was also excluded from the SWITCH analysis. Deputies will recall that the bank levy was levied at 0.6% essentially on people in defined benefit schemes. It was a significant contribution to economic recovery by pensioners who rely on their defined benefit incomes. Its abolition, which was not included in the SWITCH model this year, is potentially of enormous significance for those pensioners depending on how their trustees treated the pension levy.

The effect of some other budgetary measures, such as the water tax credit and fuel allowances, was estimated in the SWITCH analysis. As Deputies will be aware, the water charges have now been capped and significantly reduced. The credit is now the water conservation grant. It has been changed very significantly. In effect, it is now a universal €100 payment to householders who apply. It is clear that consideration of the revised water charges package, which includes a significant reduction of over one quarter in the gross charges and a more substantial mitigating measure in the form of the water conservation grant, would alter the initial SWITCH results. While these exclusions or estimates are likely to make a significant difference, other more fundamental factors are also important in judging the merits of the budget.

While the social welfare package in the budget is important in scale and design - it is worth almost €200 million and provides for the first increase in social welfare rates since 2009 - it accounts for less than one third of the expenditure measures in the budget. The large increase in the health budget, which involved the allocation of over €300 million in additional resources, was excluded from the SWITCH analysis. The Deputies who mentioned the UN guidelines will be aware that access to health resources is seen by the UN as being of critical importance in terms of human well-being. The €2.2 billion social housing programme, which will increase expenditure on public housing to €800 million in 2015, was also excluded from the SWITCH analysis. This programme will have huge implications for the well-being of communities that will be affected by the provision of additional housing. The expenditure of €800 million will also produce benefits for employment and the economy. It will enable people to go back to work and stimulate spending in the economy. The SWITCH analysis does not seek to capture any of that because it measures precise items.

The increase in education spending, which will fund an additional 1,700 new full-time posts, 920 mainstream teachers, 480 resource teachers and 365 special needs assistants, is also excluded from the SWITCH analysis. Its designers acknowledge that the SWITCH model measures first-round effects only, and does not consider their impact on the labour market. Clearly, the goal of getting people back to work is absolutely central to my involvement in the budgetary process. Similarly, the SWITCH model does not consider the stimulus effect on the economy in general. In this context, the design of the budget and the scale of the adjustment are of vital importance. We need to consider the impact on the economy of the 2015 budget, which put over €1 billion of spending power back into the economy.

It included in its design a number of reforms designed to help the unemployed return to work, to facilitate the transfer of land to young farmers and to support small family business. These measures will boost potential growth, increase employment and generate a significant social dividend.

Contrast this with the Fianna Fáil budgets from October 2008 to April 2009, which took €9.5 billion out of an economy that was in free fall following the bursting of the property bubble that Fianna Fáil had done so much to inflate. In particular, it is worth considering the October 2008 budget. It relied mainly on income tax increases and levies - later replaced by the USC - and cuts to public sector pay. While these measures hit the better off hardest, they also had a devastating impact on the incomes of low and middle-income families. Fianna Fáil is not present at the moment, but it is surely cold comfort to those who are barely keeping their heads above water to hear that those on the highest incomes were taking a bigger hit. This is one of the problems with recent analysis because, while that may have been the case in 2009, the 2010 and 2011 Fianna Fáil budgets were unquestionably regressive. They included, for example, across-the-board cuts in social welfare rates of 8%. Fianna Fáil cut the carer's allowance, the blind pension, the widow's pension, the Christmas bonus and child benefit and unilaterally imposed pay cuts on public servants totalling more than 14% in February and December 2009. As Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan knows, the cuts in quite a number of the weekly social welfare rates amounted to more than €16 per week. People ask me why I emphasise the weekly rates. The answer is that, for the people who rely on social welfare whom I represent and with whom I deal, this weekly rate cut was staggering.

Contrast this with Labour's record of protecting core social welfare rates, targeting increases this year - the living alone allowance and the Christmas bonus, which I am happy to say will commence being paid next week - and reducing, then cutting outright, the impact of USC this year, in which regard we removed a further 80,000 people from the net and reduced the first two rates of USC by 0.5% each. Let us be fair. By all means, count all of the measures that make up a budget, but please measure everything that counts in judging its fairness.

A more considered judgment on the impact of a budget on the economy and on income distribution in particular can only be undertaken with the passage of time and after direct and second round effects have been worked through. Such analysis was undertaken by Professor John FitzGerald and published in the ESRI Quarterly Economic Commentary during the summer. He used a measure of income inequality known as - I have had to come to terms with its name in recent years - the Gini coefficient, involving before and after tax and social welfare measures in the period from 2005 to 2012. He concluded: "As discussed above, the effect of public policy in Ireland, acting through the tax and welfare systems, has been to produce a significant fall in the Gini coefficient." I am sure the coefficient is famous among economists and that Deputy Donnelly is familiar with it, having taken many classes on it. It measures fairness and the levels of equality and inequality in society. Internationally, it is reckoned to be the best measure of fairness. This is the reason I have raised it. The effect of public policy has been to produce a significant fall. I hope I am right in stating that, if the Gini coefficient is zero, it means there is an equality of income across society. The higher the coefficient, the more unequal that spread becomes. The Department and the ESRI are working with line Departments to improve the capacity of the ESRI's SWITCH model.

I strongly believe in the kind of consultation that is outlined in the motion. As a Minister, consultation has been of great benefit. Sometimes, the process can be difficult. One is sitting down with individuals or organisations that find some of the things that have happened extraordinarily difficult to bear. I understand why. My job as Minister is to help to reconstruct the economy and assist those in the most difficult situations to recover. It has taken a great deal of time, particularly given the difficulties in the eurozone.

The Secretary General of my Department has written to all Departments to encourage them to undertake similar social impact assessments on budgetary measures. In addition, my Department has provided additional funding to the ESRI to improve the capacity of the SWITCH model. Indeed, it was one of the first measures I sought upon becoming Minister. This kind of economic analysis is important, but it does not mention everything.

The Department publishes an integrated social impact assessment of the budget that includes the main welfare and tax measures. Its purpose is to inform public understanding on the cumulative effect of budgetary welfare and tax policies on income distribution and social equality. Unfortunately, due to the requirements of budget confidentiality, it is not possible to publish in advance the results of the analysis. Deputy Donnelly has raised this point. Perhaps the committee system should consider using the analysis as a serious tool for its own work. There is a great deal of scope in that regard.

The Department has examined the impact of the main welfare budgetary measures that were announced on budget day 2015. I was elected leader of the Labour Party on 4 July. From 8 a.m. that morning until 1.30 p.m., when I am afraid my curiosity about the count in the leadership contest got the better of my desire to stay for longer at the pre-budget forum, I spent time with a significant number of organisations that every Deputy would be familiar with, for example, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and organisations representing carers, families, older people, the unemployed, etc.

According to our social analysis, there has been a larger impact on the bottom two quintiles of approximately 0.6%, some three times the average gain. The gain for the middle and top quintiles is smaller at 0.1% to 0.2%. The largest impact for families is among non-earning couples with children at 0.9% and lone parents at 0.8%, followed by the single retired at 0.7%. The smallest gains are among working households without children. The distribution of the additional welfare expenditure is concentrated on the bottom two quintiles, accounting for 57% of the total extra spend. This is twice the share going to the top two quintiles at 27%. The percentage of the population at risk of poverty will fall as a consequence of the welfare measures by more than 0.1%, rising to over 0.2% for children.

The response of the Opposition understandably might be to ask why the Government could not do more. It was limited and restricted in the amount of the package it could deliver on both the tax and social welfare sides. Members will have seen this morning the analysis of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council. While its primary advice to the Government was to go for the deficit target, which it reached, it also repeated today that the Government really should have opted potentially for a further €2 billion in cuts. There are voices and that is why this debate on the budget is important and significant and Members should have the chance to look at all the advices.

I will mention some of the welfare measures contained in the budget, which include the back-to-work family dividend of €90 per week for people going back to work who have three children. The improvement in child benefit of €5 per month is small but significant. It usually is paid to the mother, as the caring parent, is paid universally and is not means tested. The living alone allowance was mentioned to me repeatedly by organisations representing older people and those with a disability and will increase from 1 January by €1.30 per week. The free travel scheme - another favourite item on the part of pensioners - was protected fully, while the top one was to keep intact the weekly rate of the pension. From next week, the Christmas bonus is being partially restored at a rate of 25%. This will benefit almost 1.2 million people, although those about whom we know most are pensioners and people with a disability. A pensioner couple should get something more than €100 and while this will not pay for Christmas, it will be a small help and a small step on the road to reconstruction and recovery.

The Tánaiste should conclude, as I must call Deputy Nolan.

As I stated, I certainly am happy to lend my support in government, which I have done from the outset, to having the social impact assessed by all Departments. Perhaps this could be done on a somewhat similar basis to that of the Department of Social Protection.

First, I thank Deputies Maureen O'Sullivan and Donnelly and the Technical Group for tabling this motion, which is very good. It is rare that Members get the opportunity in the House to discuss something that really is about the fundamentals of who we are, how we allocate resources and how we have that discussion on who are the priorities and so on. As Deputy Donnelly will be aware - because we have discussed this previously - I have quite an interest in human rights, how they are implemented and how I perceive them playing their way in society. This motion is asking how to work in those universal human rights to which all Members have signed up and how should they be honoured and vindicated. It asks, as the language in legal texts would say, how should they be progressively realised and how can one ensure this is done in budgets. Consequently, I accept this is a good discussion to have. For instance, there is the argument that human rights and economic and social rights should be put into the Constitution, which they are at the moment, but by therefore making them legally binding. This is a genuine legal argument that takes place across Europe and is a matter for legal debate. I must admit I am not fully settled on it. One argument is that were one to so do, one first would be narrowing the pattern and the available space for democratic decision-making. For instance, if one states housing, health and education should be put as strict legal rights into the Constitution, someone who receives an electoral mandate from the people may be constricted and restricted in what he or she may be able to do. The argument is that one actually is placing the sovereign rights of the people possibly in abeyance or in conflict with the Constitution.

There is then, however, the issue of rights and the question of where one should do this. The motion before the House suggests questioning where do human rights come in when resources are being allocated. Before that point is reached, another value judgment would be to look at the market we operate in the State, at how resources are generated and how the resources actually come into play. The question is what should be those values. One would not be actually talking about how much money we have and how it should be spent in a rights context but about what policies we have at our heart that influence the markets, businesses and community around us that generate the wealth and then allow it to be distributed. This discussion is particularly important at present and I am delighted to discuss it, having come through seven years of absolute austerity and a really brutal time for the people and having seen what happened when free-market economics and light-touch regulation were the mainstream for the 14 years before that. It now matters what values we have in the economy and what values we have as a society.

The first thing I would like to see in a value-based economy is that one would put workers at the heart of decision-making. I do not say this to be glib, as this actually means something. Over the years, it was not the work, it was speculation, who one knew, the golden circle, a clique and so forth that were making the decisions. Depending on to whom one listens, the economic priority should be business, it should be the most vulnerable - that is a phrase that has degraded public debate somewhat - it should be education and so on. However, for me the worker really should be at the heart of decision-making because one is talking about the man or woman who gets up every morning, brings the kids to school, gets out and works and creates the wealth that therefore allows us to do the nobler things in society that we wish to do. This is not what happened in the boom when we had what one might call a money-centred quick buck mentality. It was a time when the worth of someone's education and their endeavour as a human being by getting up every morning, going to work and producing was not what was important; it was how much was in one's pocket. The first thing that must be said is that those people who get up each morning to go to work must be at the centre of decision-making. This would require real action to implement and the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, who is sitting beside me, will lead the charge in this regard, because the Government will be talking about living wages and those kinds of things that really matter.

Having put the worker at the centre of the economy, the second thing is for Ireland as a State and as a people to get real about the social contract and to understand it. This also feeds into the motion because if one wishes to measure the economic and social rights as they are being vindicated, namely, education, health and so forth, unless we have a real and meaningful understanding of what are public services, how they are funded, what they mean in society and the central role they play, we will not be able to implement the rights about which we are talking. The reason I am in the Labour Party is that I am a social democrat and believe strongly that all people, no matter who they are, where they are from or what is their background, deserve the chance to prosper and thrive in society and not to be disabled by their backgrounds or their abilities. Ireland has never got to grips with a value judgment as to where we are. In the famous comment that Mary Harney made many years ago and which informed the debates, are we Boston or Berlin? Are we a low-tax, low-spending, no-service United States model or are we the Berlin model, which suggests each citizen has the right to participate? Until we, as a society, make that decision, the question will be whether we are going to resource our public services.

Will we acknowledge that it costs money to provide the services? One cannot make election promises to increase spending and cut taxes at the same time or to rely on unsustainable revenues from an industry that will not last. This matters and it is difficult to bring the Irish psyche around to the proposition that perhaps one must pay for something such as a proper health service, without being vilified as almost being a communist. To get public support for this will require people like me, my party, people who are close to the trade union movement and those working in them to acknowledge that if they expect people to put in their money - for which they have gone out and worked - to provide the public services that are needed, those services must be efficient and must provide value for money. One must be able to state we can stand over the money as it is spent and that is why the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, while it is quite a technical and bureaucratic Department, and rightly so, plays its role in ensuring efficient public services, which allow us to provide the platform, the facilities and the institutions that can provide the human rights and their advancement that we wish to see in our society. While this may be an unexpected link, it certainly is not a tenuous one.

The third point I will make is that when people pay taxes and get back services, that is a social wage. It matters and is about getting something. It is about people's belief and confidence that the tax they pay is not simply taken and gone but is something that is in their pockets.

They also believe that it is spent on the health service and within the education sector. It is not wasted but rather it is pooled with those moneys paid by their fellow citizens in order to achieve something greater. The value judgment made in this regard must be brought into the public debate.

The fourth matter to which I wish to refer is also of value in the context of this debate. We are concerned here not just with the allocation of resources on a human rights basis but also with how those resources are generated. What happens in this regard comes down to the choices we make in the context of the market. Should we return to the previous model wherein the market values dominated moral values? I firmly believe that the decisions made in the past whereby issues relating to the housing bubble and the property market trumped the needs of couples who needed to buy homes were wrong. During the period to which I refer, someone who owned a few acres of land on the outskirts which was suddenly rezoned as a result of the desperate need for development land could become a millionaire overnight having contributed little or nothing in terms of productive value. This was perfectly acceptable and it allowed market values to trump a real social and economic need, namely, the right to housing. As a result of that to which I refer, couples were saddled with enormous debts. This is another example of human rights being subverted in the interests of the market and it is an area in respect of which we need to say that a rights-based approach to policy making really can have an impact on citizens and on their experience vis-à-vis the State.

I am of the view that my final point will accord with many of the proposals put forward by Deputies Maureen O'Sullivan and Donnelly. A report compiled for the French Government by Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi states that measuring an economy on the basis of GNP, GDP, debt ratios, deficits and so on will provide an indication of the economic outlook but it will not provide information on the well-being, fitness for purpose or happiness of citizens. If society is only measured on those bases, a state will never be in a position to progress the value of a person's experience, improve his or her family life or reduce the amount of time her or she spends commuting in his or her car. Neither will it be able to discover whether parents can bring their children to the cinema on a Friday evening. These are issues with matter to people and which are of value in the context of enhancing their family life. A great deal of work has been done in this regard and I am of the view that we, as a nation, should be examining the issues to which I refer in order that we might remeasure how we define progress. Information on growth rates, national wealth and public debt do not indicate how well the nation, families and individual citizens are doing. I am of the view that the considerations to which I refer really do matter.

I thank the members of the Technical Group for putting forward the motion. This is a particularly important and valuable debate and I am glad to have had the opportunity to contribute to it.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to what I regard as a most important debate. This is the kind of debate in which we do not often have the chance to engage in the Chamber. The debate relates to the social impact of decisions made in this House. Those decisions are often assessed by way of statistical analysis and involve examining the position of different income groups and categories of citizens. At its heart, the motion involves assessing the impact of budgetary decisions made in the Dáil on the citizens who elected us and whom we are here to represent.

In essence, the motion proposes that any decisions that are made should be evidence based. Decisions which are made in this House, particularly in respect of financial issues, are not so based. Since I was elected to the Dáil in 2007, I have always been of the view that the process relating to the way budgets are framed and how budgetary decisions are assessed is dysfunctional. Budget day has been brought forward from December to October but we are still treated to the "big bang" announcement and the way in which the budget is framed remains the same. Various committees now engage in a series of pre-budget meetings but, to be frank, these represent nothing more than a box-ticking exercise. Like Deputy Donnelly, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. In July we invited a series of stakeholders with an interest in the budget to address us. We heard what they had to say and we may have given the impression that we could in some way shape and influence budgetary decisions. In reality, however, we could not do so. The practice of holding such meetings must be questioned. Members have no input whatsoever not only into the making of decisions but also in terms of assessing the options. That is a fundamental flaw in the way in which budgets are introduced.

This matter does not just relate to how budgets are introduced. The select committees meet to discuss the Estimates for the various Departments when the budget has been agreed. We go through the motions in the context of questioning the relevant Ministers on different elements of the budgets relating to their departmental Votes without having any capacity whatever to change the Estimates. As someone with a financial qualification, I find this a most bizarre way of doing business. However, we continue to allow it to remain in place.

I accept that it will never be possible to achieve a consensus on what constitutes fairness. The motion has at its core the objective of achieving fairness in the way in which budgets are framed by ensuring that they are based on facts and evidence. In addition, the motion calls for a debate on what is the guiding vision for Ireland. This is a matter which the people and the political leaders who are charged with setting out the direction this country should take no longer discuss. When the Taoiseach discusses vision, he refers to Ireland being the best small country in the world in which to do business. In doing so he touches upon but one tiny portion of what constitutes a vision for the country. Such a vision must be based on enterprise and on rewarding those who take risks but it must also be based on the type of health system we want to develop, on equality of access to the education system whereby people from disadvantaged backgrounds will have the same right as everyone else to progress through that system, on seeing to it that adequate social supports are provided and on ensuring that there is a basic threshold of decency for every citizen. The vision for Ireland should focus on these and other issues. We do not debate this matter on a sufficiently frequent basis.

Last week the members of the Select Sub-Committee on Finance debated Committee Stage of the Finance Bill with the Minister, Deputy Noonan. When Report Stage of that Bill was taken in the House earlier, Deputy Pearse Doherty pressed an amendment relating to equality budgeting to a vote. I welcome the fact that there seems to be some movement on the part of Government in respect of this matter. This is evidenced by the amendment to the motion, which refers to a greater analysis of the impact of budgets. The booklet relating to budget 2015 is in no way complete. I accept that it contains an assessment of how John and Mary and Seán and Joan are going to be affected by the budget but it does not capture all of the budgetary measures. For example, the water charges are not included. Last year, the doubling of the property tax was not included. This is because the budget booklet deals exclusively with the decisions announced on budget day. This does not capture the impact of the totality of Government decisions on the citizens we represent. That issue must be dealt with in order that we might engage in a wider assessment. This could be done either by expanding the SWITCH model or by identifying some other way in which we might obtain the type of analysis to which I refer and which is so important.

We must move beyond the situation whereby we are presented with a fait accompli on budget day. If we are to be mature in the context of how we do our business and if we are to implement the kind of reforms people want, then the type of charade which continues to mark the lead-up to budget day - namely, where the Government consistently leaks elements of the budget in order to manage expectations, where it flies kites in order to shape public opinion and where it influences public reaction to the budget - must be brought to an end.

I take issue with many of the comments made by the Tánaiste in response to the motion, particularly when I consider some of the measures that have been introduced by the Government. She is the very person who introduced a certain measure which had a disproportionate impact on women. I refer to the decision taken in late 2011 to change the eligibility criteria relating to the State pension. This involved a fundamental amendment to the average annual PRSI contribution band, which disproportionately affected women who left the workforce in order to raise their families. The decision to which I refer is now beginning to have an impact on many women. I will provide an example. A woman with an average of 30 weeks' worth of contributions per year of service was entitled to almost €30 more in her State pension before the change in question was introduced.

That belies the notion being put forward by the Government that rates were not cut. They were cut but in a very sneaky and underhand way. That measure did significant damage to the future incomes of individuals, particularly women. Owing to the way in which entitlement to the State pension is calculated, based on the calculation of average PRSI contributions per year of service, somebody who entered the workforce for a few years in 1965, left the workforce for 15 or 20 years on getting married and then returned to employment ends up with a significantly lower pension than he or she would have had before the changes were introduced in budget 2012. These are the kinds of measures that need to be assessed because they have a very serious and negative impact.

The changes for single parents have been discussed in the House on a number of occasions. I refer to the welfare supports and one-parent family payment, in addition to the tax relief. Earlier, I raised with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, the change he introduced last year replacing the one-parent family tax credit with a single-person child carer credit. This took €2,500 out of the pockets of many parents. The overall effect is that many would have to earn double that amount, or €5,000, to have the equivalent of €2,500. These issues need to be taken into account.

My overall view of equality is that people living in disadvantaged areas, including young people, find it much harder to make the breakthrough and make progress in society than such people 20 or 30 years ago. I speak from experience coming from a working-class background. I do not see as many young people from disadvantaged areas and lower socioeconomic groups making the breakthrough today. We must ask ourselves why this is the case. I genuinely believe the gap is getting greater. Those who have access to resources are making great strides and are availing of all of the benefits of living in a modern country where there are still great opportunities. There are others, however, who see few, if any, of those opportunities. That is one of the greatest challenges the country faces, and it will have a major impact on society. Why is it that a schoolchild living in certain parts of Dublin city or Cork city has a much diminished chance of progressing to third level, be it a university or institution offering a post-leaving certificate course? This is an indictment of all of us. We must address the issue because we are simply not getting it right. There is no equality in this country because there is no equality of opportunity. The various schemes that have been designed to help people from disadvantaged areas and those living in low-income households to make progress are not working to the extent that they should. They worked for people in previous generations but there is now an issue that must be addressed.

I am disappointed with the Government's response to the motion. It refers to a number of specifics in its reply and it seems it is missing the broad thrust or spirit of what is being proposed by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and others in the Technical Group. The motion is to trigger a fundamental debate on the way we make decisions, the basis on which we make them and how we measure their impact. We are not doing this well enough but we must.

I wish to comment on the priorities of the current Government because the Tánaiste took a number of political swipes at my party. At the first opportunity last month, when the Government had some resources at its disposal, it chose a tax package that disproportionately benefits higher income earners. There is a tax package of €405 million that goes to only one in six income earners – the earners of the highest incomes. That was the priority of the Government at a time when elderly people who should be in nursing homes are lying in hospital. They must wait four to five months to obtain funding under the fair deal scheme to get into a nursing home. This is a time when parents who know that their children have special needs cannot have those children assessed for many months. There are parents whose special needs children have been assessed but cannot avail of the range of intervention services that have been recommended. There are people in need of hip and knee replacements who are waiting four and five years in my city to have crucial medical intervention. That is not acceptable, yet at the first opportunity the Government had when it had resources at its disposal, it decided its number one priority was to design a tax package worth almost €500 million and give it to the top one in six income earners. These statistics have come from the Minister for Finance himself by way of a parliamentary reply. We can absolutely stand over them because they are factual.

The Tánaiste's answer earlier seemed to be that we could give more work to the committees to tease out the impact of budgets. The reform of the committee system introduced by the Government, if one wants to call it reform, has left the system absolutely dysfunctional. The Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, for example, is overburdened with work. It simply cannot cope with it. The committee has 27 members.

Can anyone tell me how it is possible for any committee with 27 members to work efficiently? Each member has the same mandate. I, as the finance spokesperson of my party, am lucky because I get an early opportunity to contribute and question witnesses at every meeting. However, others, such as Deputy Mathews, who want to make a contribution at meetings, cannot have their voice heard unless they are prepared to wait three or four hours. This is a direct result of the changes to the committee system that the Government introduced.

It is very easy for the Tánaiste to come into the House and talk about the very tough budgets that were introduced in the past. The budgets introduced by the late Brian Lenihan were extremely tough but it has been independently verified that, while they were extremely tough and contained really painful measures that affected all sectors of society, they were progressive in that their impact was felt far more by those who had the capacity to shoulder the burden. By contrast, the approach of the current Government has been to introduce regressive budgets that have placed the burden disproportionately on lower and middle-income groups. My overriding sense is that the Government's agenda, economically and otherwise, is absolutely dominated by Fine Gael. I wish I could say otherwise because I do not see evidence of the Labour Party input I had expected.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Maureen O’Sullivan as ucht an rúin seo a chur os comhair na Dála. Tá sé tábhachtach go mbeadh díospóireacht againn arís ar an ábhar seo. Bhí díospóireacht againn níos luaithe sa Dáil faoi a leithéid de phróiseas i leith an bhuiséid.

Equality proofing and poverty proofing of major Government policies, not just the budget, should be built in. I am one of the members of the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection who travelled to Scotland to examine how the equality budgeting system in the Scottish Parliament works. While it has its faults, it is something that we could consider. More is the pity that the Scottish vote for independence did not go the way I would have liked because it would have presented a challenge to the Scottish Parliament in terms of how it could have expanded the equality proofing of its budget to deal with taxation measures. That Parliament has not been granted power over these, no more than the Assembly in Stormont. There are challenges but they are not insurmountable, and those concerned have done great groundwork for this Government and others. While preparing for a budget, rather than after the fact, one could determine the impact that contemplated measures or changes in departmental Estimates would have on society in general. Equality proofing is to ensure the gap between the richest and poorest in society does not expand.

However, according to my politics, it should be decreasing continuously, budget after budget. If a government stands on a platform of reducing that gap, there should be a measure to show that effect has been seen on its budgetary measures. While some will quote the ESRI's recent report stating that the highest losses were for those in the highest 10% of household income category, which may be true, the highest income categories are those who have a higher disposable income and the impact of higher cuts were not felt as hard by them as by those who were on the lowest pay, those who were dependent on social welfare or low-income earners who had major outlays on mortgages, etc. In attempting to measure the impact of policy changes on different groups, it may be insufficient to consider the percentage changes in income alone. We need, for instance, to take into account the quality of life and welfare equality of different groups in society. There is a multitude of issues.

All legislation is already supposed to have a poverty impact assessment but it is not obligatory. We need to ensure that whatever measures are taken, it is not a voluntary code and they are implemented in full. In this debate, we also need to look at the concept of maximum income that has developed over years. It is not a new concept. The maximum income concept has been championed, for instance, in the bastion of capitalism in the United States, the US military, where the highest paid cannot earn ten times more than the lowest paid. In Japan, it is a lower figure. Even though there are huge corporations in Japan where one would presume the CEOs would be on a significant wage, they never earn ten times more than the lowest paid in the factory. That is something we need to consider here. This Government made some attempt at putting caps on some of the higher paid in society but it breached those caps quite regularly. It is something on which the Government needs to respond, and rather than producing an amendment to the motion that does not take on board the spirit of the motion from Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, the Government should have adopted her motion.

If one looks at the recent proposals on water charges which I heard the Minister champion earlier as a type of measure that will address inequality, in fact it does the opposite because the water conservation grant is the same whether one earns €1 million or is on social welfare. That is not an equality measure.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share