Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Nov 2014

Vol. 859 No. 2

Human Rights Budgeting: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]

The following motion was moved by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on Tuesday, 25 November 2014:
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 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.
Debate resumed on 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, benefitting 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.

- (Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection)

As republicans, equality is at the heart of all we believe in and we strive to achieve it every day in the course of our work and activism. We believe in a new republic, one where all citizens are equal regardless of the colour of their skin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, where they live or what they do. Creating the conditions for establishing an equal society means recognising that many diverse groups and sections of Irish society need enhanced protection from the State. We must ensure that when we are making budget decisions, these people are to the fore of our minds. These individuals, who are our most vulnerable citizens, need to be protected. We all know that times are hard in Ireland in 2014 but what some of us fail to recognise is just how difficult they are for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. This Government came into office on a wave of promises in 2011. Soon afterwards, it became apparent that many of their plans involved taking from some of the most vulnerable.

In order to create true equality, we must put the necessary mechanisms in place. This is one of those times. In July of last year, Sinn Féin introduced the Equal Status (Amendment) Bill 2013. We were seeking, by means of this Bill, to amend existing legislation and provide for equality proofing of Government policy and budgets and public bodies through impact assessments. Our Bill was rejected. Had it been accepted and passed, it would have ensured that in exercising their functions Government and public bodies would do so in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socioeconomic disadvantage. The legislation in question also recognised those additional sectors of society which require enhanced protection from the State in the context of policy and spending decisions. I refer here to rural dwellers.

If we used equality budgeting, we would ensure that equality is placed well and truly at the centre of any decisions concerning public expenditure and income. We now know that the economic policy measures introduced since the beginning of the economic crisis are having a disproportionate impact on certain sections of society and that the problems of inequality and poverty have been exacerbated as a result. Women, particularly those with children, are more reliant on public services and welfare provisions, all of which are currently being severely curtailed by the Government. Reductions in health expenditure have resulted in reductions in services for people with disabilities. We have witnessed, and continue to see, increases in inequality and poverty and there is growing evidence highlighting the disproportionate impact economic policies have had on disadvantaged groups since the beginning of the economic crisis. Equality budgeting has been internationally accepted as a means to effectively deal with inequality and poverty. Over 60 countries worldwide have either adopted or are working toward introducing equality budgeting. The time has come for Ireland to follow suit, make a stand and provide a more just and equitable society for all. This is our duty as republicans. Equality budgeting makes sense and it is fair.

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. The Government amendment states that detailed distributional impact analysis of tax changes is already included in budget documentation. It is great that it is included but does the Government actually intend to take action? There is no commitment to equality in what is outlined.

The Government also states that there is a commitment on its part to invest substantial resources in increasing and improving the social housing stock. It also lauds the housing assistance payment, HAP, as a method of supporting social housing needs. HAP is a repackaged rent supplement which offers the ability to work as the only improvement in a climate of job scarcity and at a time when wages are decreasing to a point where many workers are not better off being in employment. The Government's strategy on housing is to spin and repeat and recycle figures in order to pretend that it is doing great things. The Government's announcement earlier today amounts to a budget of just €633 million per year during the next six years. That is just €36 million more than what has been spent in the current year, when homeless figures rose along with the numbers on the housing waiting list. In the six years between 2008 and 2013 almost €1 billion more was spent on housing than the Government is promising to spend during the next six years. Most of the investment it is promising to make relates to a time long after it will have been thrown out of office.

I am speaking in support of the motion and I commend Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and the other Members who proposed it for using their Private Members' time to facilitate a debate on this important issue. Since I only have five minutes - and given that others have covered the detail so admirably - I will stick to discussing the broader issue.

We need to ask more from our budgets than merely balancing the books. Instead, we must ask if each budgetary proposal or measure - regardless of whether it relates to spending allocations or cuts, tax increases or reductions - vindicates or violates the fundamental human rights of our citizens. For example, we should ask whether a proposal to remove medical cards is consistent with the human right to health, whether a proposal to reduce local authority budgets result in contravention of the human right to housing and whether a decision to increase third level fees interferes with the human right to education. We should also ask whether the decision not to restore the respite care grant - despite having fiscal room for manoeuvre - respects the human right to an adequate standard of living or whether it fails this test. If the answers to such questions reveal that human rights impacts are negative and that citizens rights are being violated, then the reality is that the decisions to which they relate will end up costing us - taxpayers and the State - more in fiscal, social and human terms.

In so far as they provide a way to identify and reduce associated externalities, applying human rights standards to budgetary decisions makes economic sense. This is all the more true in times of recession, when there is less to go around. However, this human rights-based approach to budgeting is the very antithesis of the austerity model favoured by the establishment parties. That surely explains the Government's decision to amend rather than support the motion. Both the Government's amendment and its members' explanatory remarks have failed to address what I believe to be the core question. Will the Government commit to introduce formal, statutory mechanisms for consistently evaluating the foreseeable human rights impact of all budgetary proposals before committing to them? Will it also put in place effective monitoring to consistently scrutinise the human rights outcomes and impacts of budgetary decisions once they have been made and implemented? The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has been consistently evasive when I have asked him this directly, specifically in respect of equality budgeting. He will not say "No" but, more significantly, he will not say "Yes" either. This characteristic fudge is not good enough for a Government that includes members of the Labour Party in Cabinet and on the Economic Management Council.

My party has made a clear commitment to introduce a statutory human rights audit of all budgetary decisions. This would be both analogous and complementary to a standard value-for-money audit. If the Comptroller and Auditor General has a mandate to scrutinise public accounts for spending irregularities, surely this should and could be augmented by a statutory role for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to scrutinise these same accounts for externalities arising from a failure to meet human rights standards.

I wish to draw the attention of the Dáil to a report recently published by Amnesty International on applying Ireland's economic, social and cultural rights obligations to budgetary policy. This report has implications for the work of all Ministers, not just those on the Economic Management Council but also the Cabinet as a whole. It has particular relevance for the work of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and the Committee of Public Accounts. I have requested that each of these committees consider the aspects and recommendations that are specifically relevant.

As my party and I pointed out last week in the debate on our legislation that would have introduced a constitutional right to water, no single Government's commitments on basic rights are ultimately enough. When it comes to protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, this is the main role of the State's Constitution. Ordinary legislation is not enough to protect those rights from the whims of future Governments. For more than four months, the Government has delayed in responding to the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention that the 1937 Constitution be amended to introduce enforceable guarantees of fundamental economic, social and cultural rights. We have publicly stated our support for this proposition which commanded overwhelming majority support at the convention, but the Government has refused to do the same. The people deserve to know. In particular, they deserve to know the position of the Labour Party, which has at various times as a coalition partner claimed to support a constitutional guarantee of such rights but which apparently will not now be pinned down on this issue. Once again, I call on the Government to make its response known and to set a date for the long overdue Dáil debate.

I thank Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan for her contribution yesterday evening and for introducing the motion. She made some very good points with which I do not disagree. I agree in spirit with the Deputy's proposal but I am not so sure about how it could work in light of the exclusion of those on the minimum wage. I do not know how it could work in addressing unfairness in the tax system. The subject matter of the motion is the standard of living of people on social welfare, who in many cases are without adequate means, but there is no point in denying that, in addition to those on welfare, there are those on very low pay. This creates difficulties for parliamentarians when stepping up to deal with the thrust of the Deputy's proposal. There are thousands upon thousands on low pay and on wages below the minimum wage. Those of us who represent working-class areas will know from our clinics that this is an issue. It is one that we must address as the economy improves.

The second and third paragraphs of the motion refer to the recovery. People on this side of the House, including me, recognise it as a very limited and slow recovery. We have never asked the people to go out on the street to celebrate it, and we should not adopt that attitude. In addition to trying to give people on social welfare more disposable income, we should also try to give people hope. The average person, especially an individual with small children, has gone through hell because of the collapse of the gombeen capitalist system we have. There has been no regulation, as stated by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan last night. I will now make the point in my own way, perhaps. If we had a mechanism in this regard in 2004 or 2005, we might not have gone out of kilter. We did not have a mechanism but that is an argument for another day. I acknowledge the link between what Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan is trying to say and the point I am making on people on very low wages, including those on the minimum wage, whom this Dáil should monitor.

No budget is perfect but we should all admit that we must get away from the old model of budgeting. This is an opportunity not only to bring fairness into the tax system but also to do, in spirit, what Deputy O'Sullivan is calling for.

I welcome the post-budgetary announcement by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, that there is to be an increase in child benefit and the Christmas bonus. This may not mean a lot to us here because we have well-paid jobs but it means a lot to somebody who has a very small income. As some people have said to me, it is a start. These things are welcomed by families with very little disposable income.

Deputy Ellis mentioned homelessness and housing. I am glad to be able to tell him the largest investment in social housing in the history of the State, since the British left, was announced today by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly. It is worth almost €4 billion and will result in 35,000 houses in the next five or six years. This is certainly worth noting.

I thank Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan for bringing this matter before the House. I welcome the opportunity to speak on it. It is always important to take stock of the impact on citizens of decisions we make. Everything we do should be grounded in such thinking and we must consider all aspects. When one considers the social impact and social set-up of many people, one realises hard-pressed people include not only the unemployed but also people on lower incomes. In many ways, those on lower incomes have fewer supports. The system makes it more costly to go back to work on a lower income. On the other hand, there are people with seemingly good incomes living in big houses who cannot afford to put heating oil in the tank. People in such circumstances may have debts, owing to business or other commitments, and they are trying to pay them back. I have encountered cases of people who are unable to send their children to college. Ironically, if the parents were not working, the children would qualify for grants and could go to college. However, the income criteria are such that the children do not qualify. Therefore, there is much upset and discontent over many of the inequalities. This is a feature across the board. As Deputy Durkan reminded me a moment ago, much of this boils down to money, where one spends it and the effort to stretch a very limited budget across the whole spectrum of competing interests.

On the day that is in it, I very much welcome the social housing strategy for the period to 2020.

The commitment is to provide 35,000 additional social housing units, to look at the provision of housing through the private rented sector, and, in particular, that there would be mixed tenure developments because that is about social integration.

It must be acknowledged that since budget 2008 there have not been increases in social welfare payments and the budget sought to give something back, and the 2015 budget did that, by raising the entry point for the universal social charge, increasing the income tax standard rate for a single individual and reducing the top rate of income tax. Ironically, one is a high earner in this country if one is on €33,800 - previously it was €1,000 less than that. We restored 25% of the Christmas bonus. We provided the back to work family dividend to help families move from welfare to work. We will increase child benefit come January 2015 by €5, and by €5 per child the following January, and the living alone allowance has been increased to benefit 180,000 elderly people.

None of this could be done but for the economic backdrop that we have created with economic recovery gaining momentum, 80,000 net jobs created, unemployment having fallen from 15% to 10.9% and, pertinent to the rural regions where I am from, a regional action plan for jobs to be launched shortly by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, to stimulate investment and create more jobs in the regions as opposed to the centres of population where one would naturally expect that growth would begin.

I welcome all of the capital investment programme that has been set out by Irish Water. It will make a big difference in a county such as my own, where we have serious problems with water and sewage treatment. I also welcome the investment and ambitious plans for the roll-out of broadband to rural Ireland.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this important subject. I thank Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan for bringing the matter before the House. She does so positively to focus attention on this important issue.

As previous speakers have said, we found ourselves in a very difficult position in this country over the past five or six years. There is not much sense in saying that we did not do it or who did it, or blaming somebody else. We were where we were at the particular time. The people of this country made massive sacrifices in order to claw their way back out of the depths of depression that they were in.

It is true that many suffered greatly. That was going to happen. When the finances are restricted, whatever was happening beforehand obviously gets worse in that situation. Commentators have been criticising what they call austerity over the past number of years. It is austerity when one has a choice. One introduces austerity or tax increases in order to slow down an economy. In this case, the Government had no option whatsoever. It was as simple as that or cut the quality of services right across the board. If we as a people did not do the right thing, we could have found ourselves losing everything. We could have lost 65% of all salaries, wages and social welfare payments. I refer to 65% of every payment, not only bits here and there, or only curtailment. To those who say we should look at Greece and other countries, I say we should have a look at them and ask ourselves what is the average industrial wage in some of those countries that went a different route, although I am not criticising them.

These kind of situations are not new. They have arisen here previously. Some of us have been around for more than one of them, but this was the worst one. Society has suffered greatly. It has found a resilience that previously it did not know it had. The danger now would be that society would say it all is over, everything is free from here on in and we should go for broke. It would be a sad and tragic mistake if that were to happen. Incidentally, that has happened down through history as well. If we were to do that, we would find ourselves back where we were five or six years ago. That is not a place we want the people of this country to be in.

Let us not forget that in times of fiscal difficulty, economic difficulty and general stress, if the wealthy suffer, the poor suffer more. It automatically follows, as night follows day. How else can it happen? When somebody comments that people are poorer than they were, of course they are. They have suffered an awful tragedy. They have knuckled down and they have worked hard at it, and I think they have done a great job.

Deputy Durkan has one minute.

It is sad. I would like more but, like financial constraints, there are time constraints as well.

I compliment Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on bringing forward the motion. It serves to focus on the issues. It serves to remind us as well that we have options now. We did not have options a few years ago; we had only the one way to go.

The options now are that we travel along cautiously and carefully and in a couple of years' time we will have got back to a position where we will again be in control of our own destiny because we have not been up to now. We should pay a great tribute to the Members on all sides of the House, the staff in the various Departments and the people who carried the burden over the past number of years, and who will still carry the burden. It has not been easy. It was never going to be easy. As they say in a certain advertisement in relation to a certain game, they never said it would be easy. That is quite true.

The following are the areas that were improved in budget 2015: the back to work family dividend, JobsPlus, child benefit, the living alone allowance, the Christmas bonus and substantial housing investment. These are improvements that will directly impact and assist those who are unemployed. Previous Fianna Fáil budgets cut the carer's allowance, the blind pension, the Christmas bonus and child benefit, to name just a few. This Government protected the most vulnerable over four budgets by protecting the core social welfare rates of jobseeker's benefit, carer's allowance and State pension.

If we are assessing budget fairness, then let us be fair and look at the economic context the Government has been faced with. The Government has spent the past three years dragging the country, which was almost written off as debt-burdened and unrecoverable and one of the PIGS countries, out of an economic recession. Today, interest rates are at 1.4% and the unemployment rate is at 10.9%.

The budget deficit in 2011, when this Government came to power, was unsustainable at 8.6% of GDP. We have now set a target for 2015 of 2.7% of GDP. This Government has stabilised the economy. This 2.7% target is a direct result of strong and wise management of each budget since coming into Government. Reflecting these improvements, our credit rating has seen repeated upward revisions by ratings agencies.

Last week, 220 jobs were announced. The week before, 1,755 jobs were announced. This month is the 28th month in a row that the unemployment rate has decreased. The facts are that last year 27,700 persons entered the workforce, with 94% of them getting full-time employment. Since 2012, some 80,000 more people are at work. This is a fact. Sometimes when I listen to the minority of the Opposition I think they do not want to hear about the unemployed getting jobs. They prefer to peddle doom and gloom.

Creating jobs is what it is all about. Creating jobs means we get the people back to work and help lift those poorest and most vulnerable out of that poverty trap. Mothers I meet tell me that they do not want to see their child jobless. No mother wants to see her child reliant on social welfare. No mother wants to see her child emigrate. Unemployment is the greatest inequality in society.

This budget has ensured that the richest in society bear the larger share of the burden and that the poor and most vulnerable are protected as far as possible. Let us not forget the great contribution middle income earners have made.

Middle income earners are burdened with costly mortgages, high child care costs and high taxes. In my constituency people have paid very high property taxes. Such people have contributed enormously in helping us emerge from the EU and IMF bailout programme.

I welcome the opportunity to speak. I thank Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan for tabling the motion. I said previously that the motions she brings before the Dáil are motivated by sincerity. Many Opposition spokespersons could learn something from her attitude and the positions she takes.

Government Members could do likewise.

The first line in the motion acknowledges the fact that the economic recovery is ongoing. While the recovery is fragile, it has been built in no small way on the policies implemented by the Government in the past three and a half years. We know the statistics on job creation. The only route out of the economic abyss the country was led into is through getting people back to work. The more people in work, the more one can build one’s tax base and have a social dividend to distribute. Unfortunately, when one’s credit line runs out and very few people will lend one money, then one has to make decisions in order to balance the books. Some people do not believe in that approach. Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan is not one of them. Some believe that if one digs a hole deep enough in the back yard, sooner or later one will strike oil. However, that never happens. I do not know of any such hole where one finds a crock of gold in this country other than those associated with Darby O’Gill.

The Government’s counter-motion goes a long way towards what Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan seeks to achieve in terms of the commitment to interdepartmental discussion on aspects of budgeting in future. We already have pre-budget submissions from many of the people referenced in the motion. The more of that type of open discussion we can have, the better. I would welcome more public discourse by Ministers, including the Minister of State, Deputy Harris. It is not necessary to put such an approach into legislation or to set targets or percentages.

I note the Finance Bill was passed by the Dáil in recent hours. Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan’s motion is relevant to the Finance Bill, which was opposed by Sinn Féin, who is represented in the House currently by Deputy Dessie Ellis. Sinn Féin’s proposal was to maintain the standard rate of income tax at 41% but to introduce three increments of 7% per annum, amounting to 21% which would increase the total to 62%. One must then add on 13% for the universal social charge, USC, and PRSI, coming to a total of approximately 15% and one soon reaches 75% for the so-called wealthy in society. According to Sinn Féin, a garda married to a teacher would fall into that category. Sinn Féin would seek to take 75 cent in the euro from them. If one was unfortunate enough to have 41 acres of marginal or bad land on which one had a few heifers or ewes, Sinn Féin would then impose a wealth tax on those people. If one had an antique chair that one inherited from one’s grandmother, Sinn Féin would also want to tax it. The counter-proposal from the Deputies opposite – I do not include Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan among them – is to tax people into oblivion in the hope that the country will recover. That will never happen. While I support the Government’s amendment, I applaud Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan’s sincerity in tabling the motion before the House.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and I thank Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan for tabling it. The issue is important and I accept we all have a responsibility to look at the social impact of decisions reached. Politicians have a responsibility to lead but also to try to bring people with them. It does not mean people will always agree with policy but I like to think the decisions we reach are intended to benefit society as broadly and equally as possible.

The Department of Social Protection has done a very good job in challenging times. Many people called for a cut to headline rates of social welfare but we did not do that. Many found themselves in need of social protection because they lost jobs through no fault of their own. The economic meltdown from which we are finally recovering is something we do not wish to revisit. To give back €1 billion in the budget, as we did, would have been almost unthinkable a few years ago. Other Deputies referred to the increase in child benefit payments, the back to work allowance, the family dividend and the living alone allowance. All of those things are important.

I accept there has been much criticism of JobBridge, but it is important for people to get experience. I would like the JobBridge programme to be expanded to allow employers to contribute an additional €50 or €100 to the employee and bring the earnings closer to a living wage. The proposal was not accepted. However, I hope the Minister will re-examine the proposal because it is important to give young people a chance to gain experience in a work environment, especially an SME environment where one has to be hands-on.

The fall in the unemployment rate to 10.9% is very important. It signals to people that we are moving in the right direction. When the full impact of the budget is evident, a couple with two children who earn €59,000 will find they gain almost €600 a year. It is important that people see an impact in terms of the money in their pocket. Everyone has contributed to the recovery by cutting their cloth to suit their measure. It has been a very difficult time and it is important to see a return now.

I wish to mention also the JobsPlus scheme. It is important to give an employer a subsidy of €10,000 to employ someone. Many social issues will be addressed by virtue of people being in work but the jobs must be credible. I hope the scheme will be continued for a number of years. We must concentrate more on such schemes.

The Department of Social Protection will publish a social impact assessment on budget 2015 using an ESRI switch model. It will be interesting to see the results. The social housing strategy has been published. A total of 35,000 new social housing units will be provided at a cost of €3.8 billion over the next six years. In addition, 29,000 construction jobs will be provided, which is important, as people involved in the industry have suffered greatly. I also welcome the investment in Irish Water of €500 million each year for ten years. Currently, more than 1.9 million are at work. Our target should be to have in excess of 2 million in work. Tonight’s debate will focus our minds. While the headlines figures are important, we cannot take our eye off the social impacts of decisions.

I welcome the motion and thank Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan for tabling it. It is important to have such a debate not just about the economy, but society, which is about people, families and communities. One must look at the context of the recession we have had for the past three years. Technically, we are in recovery stage currently but the primary goal when the Government came to power was to save the State. Budgets 2012, 2013 and 2014 were about doing what the troika had laid out for us in terms of closing the gap between what we spend and what we take in through taxation. That is a challenge. It is not an easy task for any of us and involved many difficult measures. The challenge was to increase charges and taxes or to cut services. We had to try to balance those options.

It is important to recognise that social welfare is a safety net on which many people will call during their lives. It is an important element of society that must be factored into overall Government spending. Its purpose is to support people in need. In the context of the troika, if we had not played by its rules we would not have been given money to spend on social services in recent years.

The Economic Management Council has been dealing with the economy for the past three years and now the debate is moving on to other issues such as the living wage. The low pay commission is under the auspices of the Minister of State, Deputy Nash. In this Government's first budget we reversed the decision of the previous Government and we increased the minimum wage. We removed payment of the universal social charge for 300,000 people in that first budget. In budget 2015 we continued that policy by removing another 100,000 people from the universal social charge. We have cut the lower rate of the universal social charge and we increased the threshold at which people must pay the charge at the lower rate.

As well as saving the economy the focus for the past three years has been on job creation and implementing initiatives to help deliver jobs. The 12.5% corporation tax rate has provided certainty to a very important sector of society, in particular, in my constituency in Galway it has encouraged job creation and job retention and investment. The 9% VAT rate is focused on incentivising the hospitality sector which provides full-time and temporary jobs at lower rates of pay. The jobs action plan provides specific targeted measures across all sectors of the economy and Departments. The focus has been on jobs and latterly on cutting taxes. We began that process in the last budget and we need to continue cutting taxes for those who are working. In this context the back to work dividend initiative is excellent. It may be helpful to those who could not afford to take up employment in that this initiative gives them an incentive to take up employment where possible.

I support the Government amendment with regard to the construction sector and the housing strategy. Badly needed housing stock is to be provided along with construction jobs. I commend Deputy O'Sullivan for tabling the motion and I am happy to support the Government amendment.

I welcome the debate on this subject and I thank Deputy O'Sullivan. She has pursued this subject in the Chamber and in private discussion with me when we have had chats. No one individual has the sole right to a social conscience. All of us have a social conscience; we may not always agree in debate but at least we try to reach the same conclusions in that regard.

I refer to the first supplementary budget introduced by this Government in which, as Deputy Kyne said, 300,000 people were taken out of the universal social charge and the VAT rate was reduced to 9% in order to encourage the hospitality sector to hire more employees. There was also a redistribution of wealth by means of a pension levy on pension funds because middle-class people pay for their pensions but the bulk of pension funds was made up of those people who sought to avoid paying tax. Deputy O'Sullivan might agree with me on that point, that it was beneficial for those on low pay or those looking for work.

I refer to a report I did in 2011 which stems from a report done by the Department of Social Protection, which was a review of applications for unemployment benefit and assistance scheme conditions for workers not employed full time. At that time, many people were employed part time while now, more than 90% of workers are in full-time employment. There seems to be an unfair anomaly whereby people who are willing to work part time, ten hours a week, are not being treated fairly. A person who does ten hours work spread over five days is not entitled to social welfare payment. If a person does ten hours work over two days, he or she is entitled to three days' payment. In any man's language that does not seem fair. We are trying to encourage people back to work and part-time work is often the first step. Now that the economy is beginning to improve - although a recession is never over until people feel the difference in their pockets and we are not there quite yet - and when in the next few years unemployment is at an acceptable level of 5% or 7% I suggest that we could consider initiatives to help people who want to get back to work. I suggest that social welfare payments could be paid for hours worked rather than for days worked. I support Deputy O'Sullivan in her efforts. The Government amendment is in partial agreement with her motion. I welcome the debate and I will support the Government amendment to the motion.

Deputy Joan Collins is sharing time with Deputies Tom Fleming, Clare Daly, Catherine Murphy, Mick Wallace and Michael Fitzmaurice.

There may have been a slight economic recovery but it has been on the backs of ordinary people who have paid for it. The ordinary people, the taxpayers, workers and social welfare recipients, have borne the brunt of €30 billion being taken out of the economy in eight years. This has been a very blunt instrument to impose on a people within the space of a short period of time.

In the recent budget those on low incomes have received a tax relief of €2 a week compared to a tax relief of €17 to €18 a week for those on high incomes. That shows which way this Government is again transferring the wealth to those who earn more.

The Government's amendment aims to turn this debate into another chorus of self-praise for its recent budget. This debate should be about inequality and the reality that we live in a very unequal and therefore, unfair and unjust society. We live in a world dominated by global capitalism. Inequality is not just an unfortunate by-product of the working out of the capitalist system; it is an integral part and essential component of the system. For capitalism to work, there must be a situation whereby capital, the means to invest and produce new wealth, is held by a minority, a small minority which is becoming smaller, while the majority have no capital and are forced to work for a small capitalist class.

I refer to the recent Oxfam report which states that the 85 wealthiest people in this world earn $500,000 every five minutes while people at the bottom are struggling to feed their kids, to put a roof over their heads, to find decent employment. This is the root of all the inequality, unfairness and injustice in the world every day.

An example of this inequality, unfairness and injustice is the effect of the Ebola virus crisis in Sierra Leone. Ebola is a vicious virus but any health professional knows that the rate of attrition would be well below the current levels if it were not attacking people who live just above starvation in a country with a non-existent health service. As long as we tolerate this system and fail to consider that there are alternatives, these problems will persist.

Inequality, unfairness and injustice, like poverty, will always be with us. Irish society is one of the most unequal in an unequal world. Since 1975, average incomes in Ireland have doubled which is a significant achievement. However, incomes for the top 10% of the population have tripled and real incomes for the top 1% have grown five times. That does not take into account the six years of austerity which has hit those hardest who can least afford it.

Using statistics collated by the United Nations, the Oxfam report states that Ireland has by far the highest level in Europe of income inequality before taxes and welfare payments are taken into account. According to the UN report, if it were not for the effect of redistribution of those taxes and welfare, over 50% of our population would be living in poverty.

Government policy has had a significant effect in reducing inequality and poverty but it has not eliminated either.

It is better to live in a society with progressive redistribution policies, where taxation takes from those who are better off and gives, including services, to those who are less well off, with a good social welfare system, first class universal health care, an education system which gives equal opportunities to all and good community services. I am sure all of the parties here aspire to this, but it has never been achieved. What progress had been made has been more or less dismantled over the past six years. The UNICEF report this year showed the number of children living in poverty rose by 10% between 2008 and 2012. An extra 130,000 children are experiencing poverty, increasing the amount to a scandalous 28% of all children.

Last night one of the Fine Gael Deputies stated funding for the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, had been reduced from €70 million to €62 million. This means €8 million has been cut from communities which most need support. Are we now speaking about the equalisation of misery and poverty in the country rather than increasing this funding and ensuring all areas get the proper funding they should?

Cuts in the health service are unacceptable, particularly when vital supports and resources for organisations dealing with disabilities are deprived of the necessary vital funding to carry out their core services. For instance, Kerry Parents and Friends Association, KPFA, was informed last week by the HSE that its budget from 1 July to 7 November this year was cut by €44,447. This is a draconian cut in the circumstances and is proportionate to a reduction of more than €130,000 per annum, which is appalling. It appears a full cut will be made in 2015. I hope this is avoided and staved off. I ask all Ministers to ensure the full budget is retained. In particular I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, who is a very capable person, to convey the message to the Minister for Health. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, is doing excellent work in disability services and I am sure she will give recognition to this difficulty.

The organisation is now in a crisis due to personnel and funding deficits. The announcement is detrimental to its future viability. The association is under serious pressure because of the projected high costs of HIQA registration, the high costs associated with the need to manage emergencies given the age profile of those they support, and the need to increase the number of senior personnel to manage the volume of work which has been placed on a very small team.

The reduction is a dereliction by the Minister for Health and the HSE of the provision of resources to allow people with intellectual disabilities in County Kerry to live full lives as equal citizens. It epitomises the difficulties faced by all providers of services for this vulnerable sector in society. There is a growing gap between the need and demand for supports for people with intellectual disabilities and their families and the resources available to meet their needs. It is time to bridge this gap to sustain and build these essential supports. Disability organisations have experienced substantial budget cuts over the past seven years, resulting in a reduction of more than 20% in funding. Service providers have made every effort to protect essential services with reduced resources, and it is no longer possible to continue to provide quality supports in this way.

The substantial increase in waiting lists for residential services for respite and other supports can only be dealt with through additional investment. Some service providers are extremely prudent and do everything possible to minimise costs and maximise efficiencies, but the adoption of HIQA quality standards throughout the services is creating significant additional demands on already reduced resources and it will not be possible to meet all of the requirements of the standards without vital additional investment.

There is extreme concern about the future viability of the KPFA and its ability to deliver front-line services. I appeal to the Minister for Health to restore the shortfall of €44,000 immediately and ensure the HSE will provide the necessary amount of funding to the KPFA in 2015.

The delivery of services by St. Francis Special School in Beaufort has also been affected due to a shortage of therapists for the essential multidisciplinary requirements of the pupils. The HSE has increased the caseload, but the number of therapists is the same. This has been exacerbated by the relocation of therapists and therapy hours from one area to cover another area. The management of the school, parents and the HSE have been reviewing matters and making some progress on these issues, but there is still some way to go in addressing and finalising satisfactory solutions to these matters. There is also a need for more respite care for some of the pupils and their parents. I call for this matter to be examined and resolved. Services are carried out in conjunction with St. John of God's services, but there is a need for more funding to solve the matter.

I congratulate Deputy O'Sullivan on tabling the motion. She is one of a very small number of Deputies who has a consistent human rights-based approach to these issues, and that includes the Government benches and not just the Opposition. It is important because too much of what goes on in here is based on short-term electoral gain or kowtowing to sectoral interests and there is not enough standing back and looking at the bigger picture, which is precisely what this motion seeks to do, which is why we are all here.

I am a socialist, which means in a traditional sense I look at the world turned upside down or, as I would put it, right side up, whereby the interests of ordinary people are dealt with first and foremost and everything else is subservient to this. I listened to the contributions from some of the Government backbenchers and I must ask what planet they are on. Obviously we have asked ourselves that since listening to the appalling handling of the water situation last week. We know there is an enormous disconnect between the real world and the way in which the Government views it. Even the statistics and research in this area show that the Deputies who spoke earlier are completely wrong.

The OECD report of 2013, Crisis squeezes income and puts pressure on inequality and poverty, stated income inequality in Ireland is four times the OECD average. Our economic policies are certainly redistributing wealth, but in reverse to the way in which Robin Hood did it; they take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Inequality has been increased in the lifetime of the Government. When commenting on the recent budget, Social Justice Ireland stated the gap between rich and poor has been extended. Those who took the biggest hit during the crisis were left behind again as priority was given to reducing the top income tax rate. John Douglas of the Mandate trade union made the point that the €405 million giveaway in income tax changes to the top earners could have been used to invest in Irish Water or other measures, but the Government chose not to do so.

A blog written by our former colleague, Luke 'Ming' Flanagan MEP, about the experience he had when he brought his baby to the hospital over the weekend and the reality of propaganda versus real life was illuminating. He told the story and captured the phrase, "Is surviving the new thriving?". Many people responded to it because it tallies exactly with the experiences they have had. People get up early in the morning and work harder and longer for less. An article in the Irish Examiner today showed average wages have decreased €700 in the past three months despite the fact the hours of work have increased. The types of jobs that Deputy Mitchell O'Connor lauded are generally low-paid part-time zero-hour contracts as the gap between rich and poor in society develops. The race to the bottom carries on unimpeded as the Government seeks to implement a vicious neoliberal economic approach where public services have been decimated. The economic wage means the types of conditions in which people live now will mean the generation of young people now will be the first generation to be worse off than their parents.

How mad is that when the accumulated knowledge in society is greater than ever before? As a simple aspiration, is it too much to ask for a roof over one's head and not to be living in a hostel or on the streets? Is it too much to expect that when people are sick they might be able to get health care, that their children would get an education opportunity to allow them to develop to the best of their potential or that when they retire they might get the pension they paid into all their working lives? The things that people two generations ago thought were here forever have been taken away in the struggle to earn super profits for the very wealthy at the top of our society. That is an absolute condemnation of those in power, not just in this country, but across Europe and particularly in the United States where things are even worse.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan has pointed out that the Government could put different policies centre stage, but has chosen not to do it. Martin Luther King made the point that change does not come in on the wheels of inevitability but only through continuous struggle. The Irish people are educating themselves and realise that by them taking action outside the door of this Chamber they can better deliver a fairer society than those they voted for in the misplaced aspiration that they for would do it for them. I am very glad the people have realised that.

I thank Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan for tabling this timely motion. It gives us the space to consider what should happen into the future and just as importantly how it should happen. We need to make it happen because it will not happen on its own. Too often we have been a hostage to the past and present when we need to be aspiring to something far better in the future. Equality or a more equal society is actually very good for us. If we start with that premise, everything else starts to fall into place. We have long way to go. First, we collectively need to accept that is what is needed. Second, we need to look at where we are. Based on the data from Towards a Second Republic, a book published two years ago, Ireland is one of the most unequal countries in the world behind the United States, Russia and Mexico. Ireland is an outlier within the European Union - we are the third worst in the EU 27 when it comes to equality.

We are one of the worst performers in the amount of money we spend on education, which is the route out of poverty for so many people. At one of the worst points in history in the middle of the Second World War, William Beveridge had the visionary idea of a welfare state and was able to bring people with him on that journey. That is the kind of thinking we need to have at this point. There is no point in coming out of a crisis just to exist to pay bills and pay back debts that we should never have incurred and were never ours in the first place. We need to have a vision for something that is much bigger and better - a more equal society.

The Spirit Level is a book by two very capable professionals who both did their PhDs on the subject. Their findings showed that equality is very good for society. More equal societies have better health and lower crime rates. In more equal societies people are more interested in a more egalitarian and inclusive society rather than one in which people wish to dominate.

We are approaching the centenary of the 1916 Rising and we need to use that as an opportunity to consider where we were then, where we are now and where we want to be in the future. It would be a wasted opportunity if we just commemorate that as a point in history and do not use it to define some vision for the future, and not only define a vision for the future but actually consider how to get there. The word "how" is incredibly important because it is not possible to have leadership without using the word "how".

The terms of the motion provide a way for us to look at the money that is available to us and see how that measures against inequality in society. We then need to decide how to spend that in a way that produces a more equal society that is better for us all in the long run. It will be a missed opportunity if we do not do that. I am disappointed that the Government did not accept the motion and use it as that opportunity. If we are to emerge out of this crisis, we need to emerge in a better place. I heard much of that being said before the last general election, but I have not seen anything from the Government that gives me any kind of encouragement that this is what is intended. Its objective is merely to survive the crisis, do the bookkeeping and talk about targets with no real vision driving it into the future. That is an awful wasted opportunity.

We all have our own ways of presenting things. I thank Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan for tabling the motion and creating a stimulating debate on the issue. We can massage figures and play with words, and when it is done in the Chamber here it is called spin. Everyone is capable of it in their own way. When the Government came into power, its Members thought they could never spin it like the previous Government. However, in fairness to them, they have got better at it and have learnt a lot in the nearly four years they have been in power. We are at the mercy of considerable Government spin at present.

We are told that Ireland is growing faster than any other country in Europe. However, of the EU 28, only Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Greece and Bulgaria have a higher percentage of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion among their own nationals, and we fare better than all but one of these countries by only a percentage point or two. According to recent EUROSTAT figures, the Government has presided over a situation where nearly one third of all people born in this country either live in or are at risk of poverty or social exclusion.

The Government often advises us to look at the bigger picture, that everything is getting brighter, and that the impressive growth figures mean a lot to the country. While, of course, they help, as we have pointed out many times of late, sadly they do not reflect the real lives of many people who look at the small picture and see many problems and challenges.

The very clear-sighted writer Richard McAleavey, speaking of the Government, has said it has presided over:

The suffocation of public finances to pay off banker debt; attacks on the working majority in the form of wage cuts, withdrawal of vital services, free labour schemes for employers, regressive indirect taxation measures that attack the poor whilst creating a tax regime that favours the rich even more, scapegoating and criminalisation of people dependent on social welfare payments ... and presented them all as measures in the public interest.

The Tánaiste has outlined how the Department of Social Protection publishes a social impact assessment each year with the help of the pro-business lobbyists in the ESRI. Each year the Government manages to give the least help to those who need it most. Budget 2015 gave the largest tax breaks to those on the top rate of tax, which goes to show that the Department of Social Protection does not practise what its name would imply.

Either the ESRI is getting it wrong or the Department of Social Protection is codding us.

The fact that those in government constantly talk about the spending money people have in their pockets acutely demonstrates that they cannot see the wood for the trees. The quality and availability of public services are central to any debate about the welfare of the people of any country, but the Government seems to box them off as if they were not relevant to our collective well-being.

It is little wonder then that the social impact analysis did not do much to deter the Minister, Deputy Noonan, from planning massive public spending cuts every year up to 2018. In October, Michael Taft performed a budget analysis using data from the Government's budget report that adjusted for inflation and the IMF's predictions for population increases in Ireland. He found that total spending on public services, social transfers and investment will fall by more than 9% by 2018. He claims that funding for schools, hospitals, policing, transportation, enterprise supports - all our public services - will fall by more than 8%. Government investment, which is vital for our infrastructure, will fall by 15.4% by 2018. Those in government constantly talk about the necessity to make this country an attractive place for the international market but it would be good if it changed tack a bit and made this a more attractive place for Irish people who want to start up their own small business or who are trying to keep the existing one going and gave those people a little more help. We keep forgetting that the domestic economy employs 75% of our people and it is very problematic for most people trying to work within that area at the moment.

I compliment Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on this motion and it is a testament to her commitment. From talking to her, I know she is a woman who cares about this issue and about her community.

We can talk until the cows come home about human rights budgeting. There is talk about growth and turning the corner but the reality is that in different parts of the country tonight there are people who have been waiting for 20 weeks to access the fair deal scheme. These are people who gave to this country year after year and now they are being left on their own and families are being decimated over what is being done. Mothers and fathers are bringing their children to hospitals only to find that the service they need is not available, as was highlighted by Luke 'Ming' Flanagan MEP when he spoke about the state of the accident and emergency department in the hospital in Ballinasloe in County Galway. One finds that a few miles down the road the accident and emergency department that had been operating is now closed. What hope does that give people? Does that constitute human rights or good budgeting? It does not. The consequences of many of those decisions are isolation and suicide but do we really care and, if we do, what are we doing about it? In most parts of Ireland the Government has taken resources away from people but it has not put anything back in their place. Nothing has been done to enhance economic stability. The Government has taken everything away, not given anything back and it still believes people can survive in different parts of the country.

We talk about helping people with disabilities and of all the good people who help others but in recent days Ability West telephoned me to advise that its budget has been cut and I got another telephone call from the Brothers of Charity to advise that its budget has been cut. Regardless of how the spin doctors dress it up, if one is getting €100 and one's payment is cut by €20, one will only get €80.

We have to think outside the box. I have talked to many young people who are employed who want to work with people but find they are forbidden from doing so under the current system. These are 18 to 25 year olds who want to be given a chance to feel they are doing something for their country. There is nothing available, even in a scheme, to let them grasp the nettle and get on in life.

I listened to an interview with a representative of a body that looked into the medical cards issue on "Morning Ireland" this morning and they dressed it up and danced around it but the reality is that a child who is brain damaged in Sligo tonight has been left without a medical card. We can stay here all night and talk about human rights budgeting but we should be honest and if we are going to say something, we should stand behind it. As a nation, we must decide if we are going to give everything away to someone only to find they will then come back and hit us by telling us that we have to pay the bondholders?

There is talk of the provision of social housing but we let vultures come into this country and buy houses for nothing. There is talk of a plan to build 35,000 houses with an allocation of €3.5 billion in the first year. I know a little about building and I can tell the Minister of State that the Government needed to start four or five months ago with the foundations to get ready for next year. It needs to line up the ducks. There was an announcement in the budget and there was another announcement today and we welcome all those initiatives but if we do not fast-forward all these projects more and more people will be living in places that they will not have any hope of owning.

There are families who will be evicted from their homes in the next few weeks and we have not done anything for them. They will face court on their own and many of them will not even turn up. As a nation, what are we doing for them? We pay the bondholders and we decide to leave the people who are in trouble on their own.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan must find it a little surreal to be having praise heaped on her tonight, and justifiably so, from every side of the House. It is very well deserved. She is respected on all sides of this House as an individual who is extremely sincere in her commitment. I echo Deputy Clare Daly's comments on Deputy O'Sullivan's human rights record and I have seen some of that with her work with UEPA in this House and in countries like Mozambique. I am grateful to have an opportunity to participate and engage with her on this motion this evening.

Some common ground, perhaps more than some would like to admit, has been reached during this debate on the importance of social impact assessments of budgets and the importance of examining the social impact of decisions as we move forward. The word "timely" has been used and this debate certainly is timely. We have moved on from the troika programme and there is an economic recovery and I accept that one can argue the benefits of it, but there are econometrics. The Government has choices. When one has choices and is in an era of recovery in terms of the issue assessment and making sure that recovery is shared out, it is appropriate we would have this debate and discuss this issue.

I emphasise that the overall goal of the Government's policy has been to put the public finances on a sound footing and to return the economy to growth, not only growth in terms of GDP but in terms of jobs, which the Government believes is the best way to help the most vulnerable in the country. We have already seen the benefits of this approach in the very strong employment performances in the past number of years with more than 80,000 people now at work compared with a low point of early 2012, according to statistics only published today in the Quarterly National Household Survey from the CSO.

Deputy Catherine Murphy talked about targets, and I am not sure if this was the point she was making, but at times we on all sides of this House and those in the media can become so obsessed with talking about targets, figures and numbers that perhaps we forget that there are people behind each of those targets. We can argue this whatever way people wish to argue it, but 80,000 more people have jobs. They are not only targets or numbers behind each number is a real person and story. We in this House sometimes fail to make that connection between the macro figure and the real life impact, and that works in both directions.

I must also emphasise to Deputies that through this period of fiscal adjustment the Government has endeavoured to protect the most vulnerable in so far as possible. When one extracts €30 billion from the economy in terms of taxes and cuts over a number of years, it is almost impossible for that not to have an impact on every family in the country. It has been a difficult number of years for people but we have taken efforts to try to protect the most vulnerable. During the debate yesterday a question was raised over whether certain budgets over the period of adjustment were progressive or regressive.

On this question, I point to the most recently available analysis by the ESRI published after budget 2015 which covers the budgets from 2009 to 2015. This indicates that in terms of household income distribution the top quintile, or one fifth, of households lost almost 14% of their disposable income. This compares to losses of approximately 10% for the other quintiles on lower incomes. That is not to suggest that there was not a loss or that the impact was not severe. However, given the many statistics we have heard during this debate, those are ones worth noting too. In addition, the ESRI has also produced research showing that in the budgets from 2009 to 2013 there were no materially different impacts between genders. Gender is an issue that arose during the context of this debate last night. This reflects the fact that the tax and welfare system does not discriminate based on gender.

More generally, the Government recognises the importance of building the capacity to understand the varying impacts of budgetary policy. With this in mind, the capacity of Government Departments to conduct more advanced distributional analysis is continually being explored and expanded. The steering group for the SWITCH model run by the ESRI includes representatives from the Departments of Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, Social Protection and Health. For example, the SWITCH model is currently being expanded to include the ability to analyse the housing assistance payment as well as medical cards. This builds on previous expansions to include the ability to model water charges and the property tax. These changes can only benefit our capacity to understand the impacts of budgetary policy as well as wider Government policy. This is something which I hope can be welcomed by Members on all sides.

I note the emphasis the motion puts on human rights and their place in formulating budgets. This Government also acknowledges the importance of human rights in wider policy formulation and not only as part of the budget process. For this reason, the programme for Government contains a commitment to require all public bodies to take due note of equality and human rights in carrying out their functions. Furthermore, the Cabinet handbook requires a statement on the likely effects of the decision sought on equality and persons experiencing or at risk of poverty or social exclusion to be included in all memoranda to Government.

This is an area we need to continue to develop and keep under close scrutiny as we enter a period of economic recovery. Deputy Catherine Murphy spoke of the need for a vision for the future. While we might disagree on how to get there, there is more common ground between us than we would like to admit in terms of what is that vision.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this worthwhile and important Private Members' motion and commend Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on bringing it forward.

We need a new budgetary process in this State. There is has been much talk of the need for evidence-based decisions but there does not appear to be much action in this regard. Every year, we are treated to the leaking of most of the budget proposals to the media but we never see leaks on the basis of the choices that can be made. Every decision that the Government makes around budget time has consequences but there is no discussion in advance of the budget of the choices that Government faces. With evidenced-based decision making, the reality of those choices can be seen in advance and the rational for the decision can be looked at and considered. It is the prerogative of the Government to make the decisions that it wants but it must be able to stand over them and accept the choices made. If human rights budgeting was part of the process, would we have seen the cutbacks to disability payments for young people in the 2012 budget? Would Government have walked itself into the mess of the medical card probity budget of 2014? Evidence-based decision making could have saved this Government from some embarrassing climb-downs and could have given it some credibility with citizens.

If a Government wants to make decisions based on ideology, so be it. That is why we have politics and democracy. However, if a Government makes decisions that harm sectors of society, then it should be able to stand over them on ideological grounds. I believe we need a process that is more open and discusses options openly. Whether that is called equality budgeting or human rights budgeting, it does not really matter. We need a process that can show the possible impacts in advance. The Government and the Dáil can then make decisions based on all the facts. I believe that we should always attempt to make the least bad decisions.

The papers today reported on the longitudinal study Growing up in Ireland that has some interesting findings in relation to children growing up in a recession. According to one of the authors of the report, the findings of lingering stress were surprising. In this regard, she said: "It did not fade away in the space of two to four years. It is worse to be stuck in poverty than to get out of it, but we are finding an effect later. That would be a concern." She went on to say: "Financial stress can manifest itself in children being less confident and more fearful. Some have problems concentrating and others feel low." That is just one example of the impact of decisions that Government makes. Obviously, the recession would have happened anyway and the Government is not responsible for it but it is responsible for the decisions that were made by it, which increased stress on society. What would a study that looked at the impact of the recession on the disabled, the elderly and carers have to say about the stress and strain of existing in the current climate? I am sure the results would be the same.

I have listened tonight to Government Deputies use the "There Is No Alternative", TINA, excuse. The reality is that there was and are alternatives. Much depends on whether Government wants to look at them or not. The Government did not have to introduce a budget this year that gave more back in tax to better off workers, with those earning over €70,000 gaining more cash-in-hand than a worker on the minimum wage. That was a choice.

The implementation of human rights budgeting would test the changes against basic principles. We on this side of the House would make our decisions based on human rights, not on benefiting the constituency that this Government wants to represent. Even if we accepted the TINA excuse for the budgets up to this year, the Government can no longer hide behind it. Now is the time to use the recovery to assist those that have carried the can for the regressive budgets of the past six years. Now is the time to refocus budgeting on human rights and equality, making sure that the inequalities in our society are addressed. This Government failed to use the recession to protect people. Perhaps it will use the recovery to benefit them.

For years I have been calling on the Government to equality and poverty-proof the budget and to bring together the relevant Departments and agencies in a joined-up manner to inform State policy and work in collaboration to achieve change and social justice for all of those living in poverty and social exclusion. The Government is aware of the need to do what is proposed in this motion. The problem is that it does not want to know the result of such an analysis.

Departmental analysis of last year's budget states: "Households worst affected by the measures being proposed are those with children, in particular lone parent families." In actual fact, the latest figures show that 16.4% of one-parent families, as compared to 6.9% of the rest of the population, live in consistent poverty and the Government is doing little to address this. Figures also show that half of the people living in below-average private rented accommodation are at risk of poverty, a figure which is undoubtedly attributable to the cap on the rent allowance that is causing such despair for people.

The Government is in no doubt as to the strong correlation between its policies and the disproportionate decline in well-being among our more vulnerable groups, including children, the elderly and the disabled. It is aware that children are going to school hungry. This country's child poverty rate, as measured by EUROSTAT, increased from 18% to 28.6% from 2008 to 2012, a net increase of more than 130,000 poor children in Ireland. The policies of this Government have placed us close to the bottom of a UNICEF list in terms of the impact of the recession in Ireland on children as compared with 41 developed countries. That is shameful. The same UNICEF report states that 16.1% of 15 to 24 year olds in Ireland are not in any form of education, employment or training. They are, according to UNICEF, "a generation cast aside". Cuts to front-line supports and community-based training initiatives by the Government ensure that these young people will grow into adulthood feeling marginalised and excluded from mainstream society.

In regard to the Minister of State's commentary around helping the most vulnerable, the UNICEF report, entitled "Children of the Recession", states that Irish families with children have in five years lost the equivalent of ten years of income progress yet other countries beholden to the IMF during the same period did a far better job at protecting their children. Particularly alarming was how quickly standards slipped. According to a UNICEF report published four years ago, Ireland was one of the top ten best places to be a child.

However, political decisions to pay billions of euro back to unsecured bondholders had the knock-on effect of decimating health, education, housing and welfare support. Clearly, the well-being of our most vulnerable was not at the top of the Government's priorities during the economic recession. We are being told the recession is over but the question is whether the Government will be shamed by the international evidence as presented by UNICEF into changing its approach by independently evaluating the social impact of previous policies, recognising the poverty threshold in this country and stepping in so that generations of families are not doomed to live forever beyond the line.

Studies all over the world have consistently shown that children living in poverty are more likely to become impoverished adults and have poor children, creating a sustained inter-generational cycle of poverty. If the Government is not prepared to address the income gap between the basic social welfare rate and the recognised income required for an adequate standard of living, it is condemning further generations of Irish children to a lifetime of endemic poverty. It is creating another generation of children in care, of early school leavers and of unemployed. All children have a right to a better future. The Government has a moral duty to ensure they are given every chance. Surely supporting this motion would be a monumental step in that direction.

Tá sé dochreidte nach bhfuilimid go léir ar aon intinn maidir le na téarmaí sa ghnó príobháideach seo. Cheapas go mbeimid go léir ag tacú leis na téarmaí. I feel an air of disbelief that we are actually going to vote on this Private Members' motion because who could vote against principles of human rights and equality? Who could vote against that aspect of the motion that calls for a guiding vision for Ireland that would see policy coherence and a commitment to the common good? I cannot understand the objection to the part of the motion that calls for a narrowing of the gap between the basic social welfare rates and the income required, as measured by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, for a minimally adequate standard of living and for that gap to be narrowed gradually. Some Members will vote against a Private Members' motion which acknowledges the positives in the economic recovery. They will also be voting against human rights which, as I outlined last night, are part of our country's obligations under international human rights treaties.

It is disappointing that because of the amendment to the motion and the vote, we have not had what I had hoped would be a more philosophical debate on the principles and ideals that would guide us over the next few years. One of the ways to get it right is if human rights are at the core of what we do in budgets and in policies. I know there are challenges when it comes to a human rights-based budget analysis, such as accessing data and the capacity skills for those who would do the work, but they are not insurmountable.

Joseph Stiglitz is often quoted and I am struck by one short quote that every downturn comes to an end. We hope it is coming to an end but what some people suffered during that downturn must be acknowledged, from the forced 100% repayment to reckless banks and bondholders, who gambled and lost but who really did not lose at all, to the cost to the Irish people that was foisted on them, without their agreement. We know the cost to families and communities. Some 500,000 people emigrated. We know the cost in terms of the growth in poverty, the growth in unemployment and the growth in homelessness. It is all the more vital that we get it right if we are in recovery and that we do not get complacent and say that happened before but it will never happen again. It can happen and that is why it is vital we put human rights and the common good at the heart of what we do.

When tax incentives are offered in a budget, are they proofed from a human rights perspective? Will the Government consider a sunset clause after a certain number of a years - a review that the objectives of the incentives have been met and that this would include a human rights audit? Can the Government put its hand on its heart and say that the tax policy here is compatible with the obligation to use the maximum available resources to realise economic and social rights? On the international stage, we are a respected voice for human rights but we also must be a voice for tax justice, against tax havens and against illicit flows of capital. That must be part of our guiding philosophy.

We all agree on the principles of accountability, transparency and participation. Deputy Catherine Murphy and I were members of the Constitutional Convention, which was a very good example of participatory democracy.

I acknowledge the work and assistance of Social Justice Ireland, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Christian Aid. I used some of their work in my speech last night and do so again tonight and I thank them for their insights and dedication. I also thank everybody who contributed to the debate last night and tonight, especially my colleagues in the Technical Group because, collectively, we have been a voice for justice and equality and are concerned for those who get lost in the GDPs, the percentages and the statistics.

We can acknowledge the positives. Every positive must be welcomed but the question is who is benefiting most from those positives. We all respect the work of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and I was struck by something in its magazine recently. It said that Government, media etc. want to give the impression that the country has entered recovery and that the era of austerity is over but what it is finding in its day-to-day work with people in severe deprivation, lack of money, shortage of the necessities of life and worries about maintaining a roof over one's head. It is most directly involved with the people who are suffering in this country.

I had hoped for more philosophy, so I will finish with a quote from Nelson Mandela. He said: "Action without vision is only passing time, vision without action is merely day dreaming, but vision with action can change the world." We must get our vision right, then we will get our action right. We can create a better country because every action must be accompanied by a vision. If our vision is equality and the common good, then our actions must match that also.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 44.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McFadden, Gabrielle.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Maureen O'Sullivan and Michael Fitzmaurice.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 44.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McFadden, Gabrielle.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Maureen O'Sullivan and Michael Fitzmaurice.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 November 2014.
Top
Share