Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 2015

Vol. 869 No. 2

Income and Living Conditions: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]

The following motion was moved by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett on Tuesday, 24 February 2015:
"That Dáil Éireann:
notes the incontrovertible evidence that the impact of austerity cuts and regressive charges since the economic crash in 2007/8 has contributed to a consistent rise in poverty, deprivation and hardship and that this situation has continued to worsen under the current Government;
notes, in this regard, that:
— the Central Statistics Office’s (CSO) Survey on Income and Living Conditions shows the number of households suffering deprivation has risen from 24.5 per cent in 2011 to 30.5 per cent in 2013 and the number living in consistent poverty has risen from 6.9 per cent to 8.2 per cent;
— the CSO also shows that the levels of deprivation and persistent poverty among one parent families are even more shocking, with the number of one parent families suffering deprivation rising from 49.5 per cent in 2012 to 63.2 per cent in 2013 and the number living in consistent poverty rising from 17.4 per cent to 23 per cent in the same period;
— according to Barnardos, in 2013, 12 per cent of children (aged 0-17 years) lived in consistent poverty - up more than 137,000 from 9.9 per cent in 2012 and double the 6 per cent figure of 2008;
— UNICEF found that child poverty rose by 10 per cent to 28.6 per cent between 2008- 2012, an increase of 130,000 more children living in poverty;
— poverty among older people rose from 1.1 per cent to 1.9 per cent between 2009 and 2011; the deprivation rate has increased from 9.5 per cent to 11.3 per cent over the same period and deprivation among older people living alone is even higher at 15.3 per cent;
— the Age Action survey on Budget 2014 found 90 per cent of respondents said 487 budgetary measures affecting older people were unfair, noting prescription charges, telephone allowance, changes in income limits for medical cards, property tax, fuel allowance and other recent budgetary measures;
— according to the CSO, 45 per cent of people with disabilities experience income poverty and 36 per cent of people with disabilities experience basic deprivation;
— Social Justice Ireland states that a total of 750,000 people, including more than 232,039 children, are living in poverty in Ireland;
— according to the Irish League of Credit Unions 480,000 people have no money at the end-of-month after paying bills and 1.7 million have €100 or less; and
— 16 per cent of adults with an income below the poverty line are working and that according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Employment Outlook 2013 22 per cent of Irish workers are low-paid (earning less than two-thirds of the country’s median income), the second highest level of low-pay in the OECD;
notes an explosion in the housing and homelessness crisis over the last three years, resulting from rent increases, changes to rent allowance, evictions, and a chronic shortage of council and social housing - leading in turn to a dramatic increase in time waiting on housing lists (up to 14 years), families being forced into inappropriate emergency accommodation, and a 21 per cent rise in the number of people sleeping rough;
further notes that:
— shocking increases in poverty, deprivation and hardship have occurred at the same time that total net household wealth in Ireland has increased, corporate profits have risen, and a small minority of top earners continue to enjoy extremely high earnings; and
— significant evidence exists suggesting that a very wealthy minority at the top of Irish society have been fully insulated from the deprivation and hardship suffered by so many Irish citizens;
notes, in this regard, that:
— according to the Central Bank (Quarterly Bulletin Q4 2014) total net household wealth in Ireland stood at €508 billion, marking its seventh consecutive rise since the second quarter of 2012 - an increase of 13.7 per cent in total household wealth; and
— while no definitive statistics on the distribution of this wealth are currently kept by the Department of Finance, a number of reports and analyses exist which all point to a heavy concentration of this wealth in the hands of a small percentage of the wealthiest households and individuals;
notes, for example, that:
— the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2014 states the wealthiest 1 per cent of households own 27.3 per cent of all wealth, the top 10 per cent own 58.5 per cent of all wealth and that there are currently 92,000 millionaires in Ireland;
— Think-tank for Action on Social Change estimates, based on an Economic and Social Research Institute study carried out in 1991 and extrapolated onto current total wealth figures, that the top 5 per cent of households hold 28.7 per cent of all wealth (i.e. 82,919 households hold €145 billion), 10 per cent of households hold 42.3 per cent of all wealth (i.e. 165,824 households hold €215 billion) whereas the bottom 50 per cent of households (829,122) hold just 12.2 percent of this wealth (€62 billion);
— the CSO’s Household Finance and Consumption Survey 2013 suggested that the top 20 per cent of incomes have almost 40 per cent of the wealth, while the bottom 20 per cent have only 11.4 per cent;
— Social Justice Ireland states that the richest 10 per cent of households received 24 per cent of total disposable income, whereas the poorest 10 per cent of households received only 3 per cent of total disposable income;
— the deeply unequal distribution of wealth suggested by the above is broadly in line with the rest of Europe, where the European Central Bank’s 2013 Household and Finance and Consumption Survey shows a similar distribution of wealth across Europe, where the wealthiest 10 per cent of households hold 50.4 per cent of all household wealth and the top 5 per cent hold 37.2 per cent;
— according to the Department of Finance, the top 1 per cent (21,650) of earners have an annual gross income of €8.7 billion, with average earnings of €403,703 per year - more than ten times the average industrial wage; and
— according to the Revenue Commissioners latest available statistics, corporate profits are also increasing, with gross trade profits increasing to €73.8 billion in 2011 up from €70.8 billion in 2010;
resolves to:
— abolish all tax measures that are regressive in nature or that disproportionately affect those on lower incomes particularly water charges, property tax and the Universal Social Charge for those earning less than €35,000;
— reverse all the cuts to One Parent Family Payment recipients including the abolition of concurrent payments, changes to the income disregard and the phasing out of payments to those with children over seven years of age;
— reverse all cuts to the Child Benefit payments;
— urgently establish a comprehensive and affordable early childcare programme;
— restore the full rate of Jobseeker's Allowance to people under 26 years of age;
— abolish individual prescription charges;
— reverse the cuts to the telephone allowance, the fuel allowance and the Household Benefits Package;
— reverse the cut to the Respite Care Grant;
— fund an emergency programme to directly build a minimum of 10,000 council houses per year over the next five years and put adequate appropriate emergency accommodation in place to end the homelessness crisis; and
— introduce rent controls and to increase rent support to a level that ensures no one is made homeless or forced into poverty by unaffordable accommodation costs;
and calls on the Minister for Finance to:
— instruct his Department to immediately draw up a programme for financing the measures above with taxes that focus on wealth, profits and top earners; and
— ensure that all budgetary measures considered in future will be subject to poverty and deprivation impact analysis before being implemented."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:
"acknowledges that the consolidation effort necessary to correct what had become an unsustainable fiscal position has necessarily led to a reduction in incomes and living standards for all groups in society;
notes that:
— the Budgets 2009-2015 had the greatest cumulative impact on household disposable incomes for those in the top decile;
— consolidation of the public finances was paramount and this was conducted in a phased and progressive manner;
— the Government’s budgetary policies have contributed to a turnaround in the fiscal position with the underlying budget deficit falling from €18 billion (or 11 per cent of GDP) in 2010 to just over €5 billion (or 2.7 percent of GDP) in 2015 with the debt-to-GDP ratio declining from 123 per cent of GDP in 2013 to below 109 per cent in 2015; and
— between 2008 and 2014 the gap between the day-to-day spending of the State and taxes collected, that is the underlying deficit, added €100 billion to our debt levels;
notes:
— the strong recovery now underway in the economy, with GDP estimated to have grown by 4.7 per cent in 2014 and projected to grow by 3.9 per cent in 2015;
— that the best route out of poverty is a job and the Government is determined to return the economy to full employment by 2018;
— the progress made to date in this regard and the turnaround in the labour market with employment having increased by over 84,000 since its low point in the third quarter of 2012 and the fall in the unemployment rate of 4.5 percentage points in just three years;
— the highly progressive nature of the income taxation system, with the tax wedge on those at 167 per cent of the average wage as a percentage of those on 67 per cent of the average wage, the second highest in the OECD; and
— the fact that the tax and welfare systems are highly effective in reducing market income equality with the Irish tax and welfare system the most effective in the OECD at reducing market income inequality and that disposable income inequality in Ireland is in line with EU and OECD averages;
further notes that:
— in the face of extraordinary fiscal pressures the Government has maintained core welfare payments, thereby supporting a basic standard of living for welfare recipients;
— the main beneficiaries of the income tax and the Universal Social Charge (USC) changes introduced by the Government in Budget 2015 were those on low and middle incomes and the Government’s intention is, subject to fiscal constraints, to continue to introduce further changes of this nature over the coming years;
— the top 1 per cent of income earners, who earn over €200,000, are projected by the Revenue Commissioners to pay 20 per cent of all income tax and USC in 2015;
— corporation tax revenue collected in Ireland is broadly in line with the EU average and that, in 2013, corporation tax receipts were just over €4.2 billion, which is 11.3 per cent of overall Exchequer tax revenue and equivalent to 2.6 per cent of GDP;
— the increase in net household wealth in recent years is largely driven by increases in house prices and that home ownership is relatively evenly distributed across the income distribution; and
— the Government already carries out an extensive distributional analysis of changes in budgetary policy and its intention to augment this analysis through the preparation of a social impact assessment of future budgets;
further notes the recent announcement of the Government’s Social Housing Strategy 2020 and the Government’s commitment therein to deliver 35,000 new social housing units over the period to 2020;
notes that:
— the consistent poverty rate for older people has declined, from 2.6 per cent in 2012 to 1.9 per cent in 2013, which at present would meet the national social target for poverty reduction for this group;
— the consistent poverty rate for people with illness/disability has reduced by 6.8 percentage points to 10.8 per cent in 2013;
— the Government remains committed to meeting the national social target for poverty reduction, which is to reduce consistent poverty to 4 per cent by 2016 and 2 per cent or less by 2020;
— Government recently adopted a child-specific poverty sub-target which is to reduce the number of children in consistent poverty by 70,000 by 2020, a reduction of two-thirds on the 2011 level;
— the aggregate cost of abolishing the Local Property Tax, Water Charges, and USC for those earning under €35,000, as well as reversing the social welfare measures, as proposed by opposition Deputies, would be an estimated €4.25 billion; and
— the required increase in the 40 per cent income tax rate would be 19 per cent, resulting in a marginal tax rate including USC and PRSI of 71 per cent for PAYE taxpayers which would reduce GDP and employment substantially; and
calls on the Government to continue to implement its successful socio-economic policies which provide the basis for continued increases in employment, reductions in unemployment and improvements in living standards particularly for those on lower and middle incomes."
- (Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Ann Phelan)

I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh who is sharing time with Deputy Brian Stanley.

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of the motion because it catalogues the consequences of austerity with frightening figures, documenting the rise in the number of people in the State experiencing consistent poverty and enforced deprivation. Children, older people and people with disabilities go without heating in their homes, a warm coat or enough food. It also highlights the growth in low pay, a measure on which we are beaten only by the United States of America out of all the countries in the developed world. The fact that half a million people have zero money left at the end of the month once they pay essential bills shows how bad austerity has been. This stark reality for the many can be contrasted with the cushioned and cosy existence of the few who own almost 30% of the country’s wealth while making up just 5% of our population.

What has brought us to this horrific indefensible situation? I can think of a few things. When in government, Fianna Fáil cut the weekly working age social welfare payment rates twice. It slashed young people’s jobseeker's allowance and the Labour Party and Fine Gael Government finished the job, cutting it further. Fianna Fáil cut rent supplement, abolished the Christmas bonus and cut child benefit across the board. Then Fine Gael and the Labour Party, who promised to do things differently, did the exact same as their predecessors. Fine Gael and the Labour Party cut farm assist, the fuel allowance, the household benefits package and the back to school allowance. They cut child benefit twice. They targeted working mothers, first taxing maternity benefit and then cutting it. They cut jobseeker's benefit and the invalidity pension, and closed the diet supplement scheme. They took €325 from family carers in need of respite. They more than halved exceptional needs spending at a time of exceptionally high and rising needs.

The motion tabled by some of the Independent Deputies rightly condemns and rejects austerity. It rightly calls for the reversal of cuts. The public needs a Government with the moral compass and the capacity to develop and implement credible solutions. In our fully-costed alternative budget published last October, and in those we published in other years since this Government and its predecessor have implemented austerity, we outlined options for the Government to begin to reverse austerity. We proposed a range of social welfare increases, targeting those experiencing some of the worst deprivation. We proposed increasing family income supplement by 10% to families working on low incomes. We proposed raising the lone parent income disregard so that work pays in a positive way. We proposed restoring equality to young jobseekers. We also proposed increasing the fuel allowance by three weeks to help with home heating bills. We have been lucky that this winter has not been as cold as in previous years.

We also proposed introducing a landline allowance, so that vulnerable people living alone could have a panic alarm. We also proposed restoring farm assist and re-opening the diet supplement scheme, which assists sufferers of coeliac disease, motor neuron disease and others with the high cost of their nutrition. We proposed increasing the back to school allowance by €50 to help our poorest children with the costs of education. We also proposed reversing in full the cut to the respite care grant, one of the cruellest cuts of all.

The Government has never had a mandate to heap misery on so many, or to heap misery upon the misery the previous Government inflicted. It is long past time for an election so the people can give a fresh mandate to Deputies who will stand up to austerity and implement radical solutions to the problems of the State.

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the motion tabled by the Technical Group. Not only has there been a significant increase in income disparity and inequality in general since the economic downturn began, but there is no sign of things improving. This is not just our take on it as it is what the ESRI has shown. The Government may claim the economy is picking up, but the most recent statistical evidence shows the number of people subject to deprivation continues to increase. In County Laois 16% of mortgage holders are more than 90 days behind on their payments. I meet many of these people and see not only the suffering and deprivation but the mental torture and anguish they go through. They do not have a solution because there is a hole in the legislation which was passed several years ago. The banks were given a veto, which we pointed out at the time. This needs to be revisited and there needs to be a level playing pitch for people. The small people stuck with these mortgages do not have a NAMA.

The number of people living in material deprivation and the number of children living in poverty are high. One sixth of people with a job, and 28% of children, are in poverty. I heard the Taoiseach state the best way out of poverty is a job. I agree with him, providing the job pays a wage. The social welfare system is propping up much of this low-wage economy because without family income supplement, FIS, payments many people could not go to work. I am not arguing against FIS but we should not be so dependent on it to subsidise employment in companies making profits.

While the Government points to a revival in GDP growth and a fall in unemployment statistics, which are welcome, unfortunately this may not be reflected in an improvement in the circumstances of a large part of the population. The numerous cuts inflicted by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have had a disproportionate effect on low income groups such as lone parents, people with disabilities and the unemployed. This is clearly shown by the ESRI findings. Cuts to child benefit, the carer's respite grant and jobseeker's allowance have all hit these groups very hard.

Unfortunately, having a job is not a guarantee that a person or a family will be free from poverty. A total of 16% of adults with an income below the poverty line are working. Surely this is unacceptable, even for the most fervent supporters of unbridled capitalism. The fact so many working people live in poverty is a consequence of the successful campaign by powerful interests to drive down wages. So successful have been low-wage employers that the previous Government cut the minimum wage, as if it were not already low enough. I need not say any more about this. I welcome the fact the Government restored it but we need to re-examine it, because, apart from the period it was cut, it has been at the same rate for approximately eight years. People on the minimum wage are living in poverty. We meet them in our local supermarkets every Saturday.

Yesterday, ISME made a bizarre claim. It stated the minimum wage has not addressed poverty, which is partly true, but then it made the somewhat illogical deduction that even lower wages would help in this regard. What does it suggest? Does it suggest a rate of €6 or €5 an hour and that people work 80 hours a week?

Is that their way out of poverty? Even if someone was earning €500 per week, which is counted as a liveable wage, and working serious hours at that, what about the rents? The fact that a major portion of income is going on rent is a serious problem, particularly in large towns and the capital city.

The boom was built on a bloated and unsustainable property market and by people selling overpriced houses to each other. We know what that was about and how that was created. However, what is termed the recovery is being built on the exploitation of workers. The need to tackle poverty goes beyond the austerity policies of the State. It involves ensuring that working people are paid properly, have proper working conditions and are able to afford a place to live. There should be proper conditions, a proper diet and clothes and the basics of life. Combating poverty also means having access to good public services, including health services, education, housing and public transport. All citizens are entitled to that.

The thrust of the motion includes reference to many of the costs. However, there is one line in the motion suggesting that the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, should go and find the money. That is a little glib. I want those cuts undone, as does Sinn Féin. However, the motion does not include the cost or what it would take to undo them. While we support undoing those cuts over a period, we have to be realistic. We have to target the most serious cuts first, undo those having the worst effects, including those I mentioned, and then try to lift people who are really on the floor out of poverty again. Anyone making that proposition needs to set out what the cost of this would be and where the money will be found. Our party will continue to do that.

I call Deputy Derek Nolan. I understand he is sharing his time.

That is right. I am taking five minutes.

He is sharing time with Deputies Joanna Tuffy, John O'Mahony, Catherine Byrne, Michelle Mulherin and Dan Neville.

Is it not amazing that we have people in Sinn Féin criticising the Technical Group for calling for things without costing them? That is all people in Sinn Féin have been doing for four years. The Sinn Féin manifesto from four years ago stated the party would reverse every cut. However, not once in all that time has anyone in Sinn Féin ever put forward a plan to do it. Now, they are criticising members of the Technical Group for using their tactic.

Deputy Nolan is misleading the House.

It has come a long way around. Now, they are suggesting that they will be unable to reverse all the cuts straight away and that it will be done on a phased basis and over a long period. This is basically what we have been saying. As we grow the economy and get people back to work, we will eventually be able to restore things.

Sinn Féin did not provide costed budgets. I went through the Sinn Féin budgets. For four years the party had exactly the same savings and spending cuts. Sinn Féin put these in a nice glossy brochure and presented them as an alternative. The party preyed on people's fears, worries and concern. Sinn Féin wanted to exploit that for electoral gain.

Deputy Nolan should get back to the issues.

Now, Sinn Féin Members come to the House like the mother of sorrows, not even acknowledging some of the good news. Can we not now acknowledge that at least we have turned a corner? Unemployment was approaching 15% and even higher. In a few months it will be below 10%. Those in Sinn Féin should at least acknowledge that without coming in with their heads down, suggesting nothing is happening and that the world is going to fall apart. Those in Sinn Féin should be sensible and honest with people for once.

Deputy Nolan should deal with the issue.

Poverty is a serious issue in the State. It is very difficult. People have been pummelled in the past eight years with the reduction in living standards. This is mainly because people lost their jobs. There may have been two people in a given house, providing for themselves. They may have bought a house and had a mortgage. Perhaps one person lost a job and this put them under incredible pressure. That was real and it got worse. However, the way out is not to reverse every cut or put money into the social welfare system exclusively. The way out is to get people a job so they can get up in the morning, go to work, bring the children to school and provide for themselves. That is the discussion we should have in this House rather than a fantasy-land discussion about pouring more and more money into social welfare. The real issue is that we should be getting people jobs. That should be our priority. Then, when we manage to increase employment, we should acknowledge it rather than decry it and almost feel politically defeated. If things get better, those in Sinn Féin might not get as many votes, because they will not be able to preach their misery in the way they have been doing in recent years.

It is Deputy Nolan who sounds like he is preaching misery.

There is a great deal that this country needs to do in order to get people out of poverty. It is not enough simply to get jobs. We need to get well-paying jobs. That discussion has to happen in this House and in the country. If we only get people into low-paid jobs and they are finding it difficult, then poverty will continue. We need well-paid jobs. This is why we are giving workers the ability to protect themselves and bargain for their rights. Collective bargaining agreements will help improve working conditions for those who have jobs. Protecting employment registration agreements and the Labour Court agreements that have been struck down will help also. Legislating for these again, as well as the introduction of a low pay commission to consult and make recommendations to improve people's living standards, will help.

The idea is that a person will get a dividend every morning for surrendering the only thing he really has and which is individual to him, that is, his individual labour and contribution. That should be rewarded fairly. It should be acknowledged and it should be something that he can live on when he goes out to make a contribution to society. Work should pay.

On top of that, there will always be a need to examine the market and assess whether the housing model works. Prices are going through the roof. People are priced out of it and the rental market is not working properly. The answer is State intervention and that is exactly what we have announced. A total of €3.7 billion has been announced in public and private funding to provide 35,000 social houses in the coming five or six years. What will that do? It will provide quality homes for people who will never be able to afford their own homes. It will take the pressure off the private rental market and the building market. It will create the space to allow those who can earn income and provide for themselves to do so. Then, when we have managed to do that, we can focus on things like child care, to ensure people can always afford to go to work. We can focus on the ability to increase wages.

It is time for a practical conversation. It is time to be straight with people. It is true that things are difficult and it is extremely difficult for people in poverty. We need to do everything we can to get them out of it, but the way out is not by telling them that it is terrible for them. It is to go out to work every day, as this Government does, to create jobs and prosperity, get people back to work and get people back on their own feet.

The has been much publicity and commentary about the recent think tank for action on social change report. The most significant finding of the report is that, basically, after tax and social welfare, Ireland has below EU average levels of income inequality. It starts out with high levels of inequality in the context of market incomes, but when the State kicks in and redistributes income, then it falls below average EU levels of inequality. Unfortunately, the newspapers did not lead with that information. Indeed, TASC did not particularly highlight the finding, although it was very much contained in the think tank's report.

The point is we have the most progressive income tax and social welfare systems. This was borne out in reports as well. A recent meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection discussed the impact of social transfers on income distribution. All speakers set out how our tax and social welfare system is highly progressive. When speakers were asked which country was the exemplar in terms of having the most progressive tax and social transfer systems, the answer was Ireland. This is because we have a progressive income tax system and a targeted social welfare system, such that those who need help most get the most. These things need to be acknowledged and highlighted by social democrats. If we do not, there are people who would have it dismantled. Some people do not fully realise the work done in terms of redistribution by our tax and social welfare systems. Of course that progressivity should be built upon. However, it should be acknowledged that it is working well in the first place.

I fully support the comments made by Deputy Nolan. At our committee meeting, John FitzGerald pointed out that of €30 billion in cuts made over the course of the recession, one third of the total, approximately €10 billion, was ploughed back into extra social welfare spend.

Basically, that was to cover the cost of giving a hugely increased number of people unemployment benefit and other benefits such as family income supplement. For example, the Government is spending €100 million more per year on family income supplement at present than when it came into office. Far more money is being spent by this Government in supporting families who are at work and on low pay.

This idea that we cut social welfare spending is not true. In fact, this Government spent the most ever in the history of the State on social welfare in its first year in office, and that level of expenditure has been kept up throughout its term of office. That in itself is progressive. We kept a basic income floor for people during the recession despite the need to reduce our deficits, which has been important in reducing income inequality. I support what Deputy Nolan said and reject this simplistic idea that it is all about reversing particular cuts. It is not about that; it is about responding to people's needs. That is why the Minister for Social Protection has invested so much in Intreo offices and making sure that people who are on social welfare are given supports to help them get back to work. They need to get the necessary education and training and to be helped to get places on labour market activation schemes in order to help them get back into the workplace.

It is not just about reversing cuts. We are actually spending more on social protection now than ever before. It is about how we spend the money to make sure we help people and that we do not create poverty traps. Ultimately, it is about supporting people to get jobs and to get the education and training they need. One of the most important statistics that has come out in recent years is that this country has a very high rate of jobless households. That in itself is a huge contributor to income inequality, which is an issue we need to address.

I welcome the opportunity to speak. I agree in some ways with the thrust of the motion in the sense that vulnerable people need to be protected in our society, especially those who have suffered most since the economy crashed onto the rocks in 2008. We all agree that, once funding becomes available, those who have suffered the most should be looked after. Where we differ is in how we actually do that. As previous speakers pointed out, the best way to do it is by bringing jobs to the country and giving people sustainable jobs so they can raise their standard of living. There are 80,000 people working in this country now who did not have jobs and were supported by social welfare. As Deputy Tuffy said, that funding can now be put into something else.

Since we took over in 2011, various measures have been taken in an incremental way. For example, our first budget took an extra 330,000 people off the universal social charge and raised the minimum wage. These measures may have been well regarded at the time but they are almost forgotten now. It should also be noted that the universal social charge was increased in the recent budget for very high earners while a further 80,000 people were taken off USC, and this will continue. Some 40% of workers do not pay any income tax, admittedly because of their low wages.

There is general agreement that there needs to be restoration of jobs and funding targeted at lower income earners. We are all agreed there is a need to restore a reasonable standard of living for people. However, we cannot do that at the stroke of a pen. We put so much effort into the economy, and the people were so patient in allowing us to do this, that we cannot wreck it all again by trying to do everything in one go.

I have not seen any costings on the measures proposed in the motion, although there is a suggestion they would cost €4 billion. Where will that come from? Will it come from higher taxes that will run people out of the country again and lead to a loss of competitiveness which we had to struggle to achieve? For example, we made ourselves competitive again in the tourism and hospitality sector, thereby creating 30,000 jobs. If higher taxes are introduced, those people would have to get higher wages, again making us less competitive.

In summary, there is agreement that lower and middle income Ireland needs to be first on the list for the restoration of the standard of living. The best way to do this, of course, is to create employment. As I said earlier, 80,000 extra people are now working and have sustainable jobs, which will continue this year, for which we have a target of 40,000 extra jobs. That is the best way of demonstrating to people that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

There is another issue that affects all of us living in rural Ireland. While everybody accepts there is a recovery in the economy in the urban areas, there is an issue with spreading that through the regions. I have no doubt this is something that needs to be and is being attended to. I believe the jobs announcement on Monday for Athenry, a small town in Galway, is an indication that there is more to come on this and that there will be a regional spread of the recovery as the year goes on

I am very grateful for the opportunity to address some of the points made by Members of the Technical Group in their motion. They paint a very dismal picture of this country and its people, a picture which I reject strongly. Of course, there are still many areas of society that need support and investment, but we have come a long way in the last four years and will continue to do so.

I accept there are high levels of poverty in some areas. I am very aware of this and I do not deny more needs to be done to address child poverty in particular. However, this Government is making steady progress. I read a report card published by the Children's Rights Alliance. It is important to recognise the progress being made in areas such as education, including in regard to the free preschool year, school buildings and literacy. Our primary focus is to lift over 70,000 children out of consistent poverty. The Department of Social Protection has begun work in this regard through planning and implementing of the Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures framework. I believe this is a very positive step.

Currently, over 70% of people living in poverty are in households where no one is at work. I have said it before and I say it again: the best way to tackle poverty is through education and employment. While I am not saying this is easy, we need to ensure there are no barriers in the way for those who can and want to work to support their families. The Action Plan for Jobs has proven very successful and has resulted in almost 80,000 new jobs being created since 2012. Attracting investment and creating jobs is not an easy task but the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and his colleagues have invested hugely in the initiatives and are putting people back to work. Similar proposals from the Department of Social Protection, in the form of programmes such as JobBridge, JobsPlus and the back-to-education schemes, are making a real difference in every community.

The at-risk of poverty rate has fallen from 50% to 15% due to the impact of the social welfare supports. In 2014 Government supports for children and families amounted to €2.3 billion from the Department of Social Protection alone. This money does not appear out of thin air; it is our income tax system that pays for it.

Let us not forget that approximately 40% of income earners are not liable for income tax at all.

The budget in 2015 introduced a €5 per month increase in child benefit, which will benefit more than 600,000 families this year. A working family dividend scheme has been introduced for lone parents and long-term job seekers with children who want to return to work. This will help to support those affected by the changes to the one-parent family payment. The Government currently invests over €250 million in child care each year. An interdepartmental group has been set up by the Minister, Deputy Reilly, to re-examine future investment in child care, which is a very positive step. We in the Chamber need to strongly support that.

The Government has a plan and it is working. We will keep moving forward and making positive changes, bringing people back into their jobs and out of poverty and giving them an opportunity for their families and futures. We will give hope to their children and grandchildren. It is impossible to stand here and say that things have not changed in the past four years, because they have. I hope the Technical Group will give some credit to some of the positive things that have happened in communities across the country, which have allowed young people back into education, particularly lone parents and one-parent families. This is making a significant difference to their lives, self-esteem and, above all, their children.

I also welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. There is no doubt that inequalities exist in society. They are a product of complex economic ideologies over time. There is no getting away from the fact that Ireland practises so-called democratic capitalism. Often we have to play by rules in which we had no say in the first place. I refer in particular to our approach to promissory notes and sovereign debt in any deals entered into on behalf of the State, which we have to fulfil if we are to consider ourselves players on the international stage or in the global village where we compete for investment as a small open economy.

Having said this, we have created a social welfare system to address the imbalance that naturally occurs in society, not just now but forever. It occurs because of unequal opportunities and the disadvantages that arise from them. It is always very important, however, that we continue to strive to create a fair and equal society, because we all know in our hearts that no matter what one achieves in a society or what one has, if one's neighbour does not have something there is no way one is not affected by that.

Sometimes it seems as if a line has been drawn and people in government do not know what is going on. Those in touch with their constituents know what is happening. A different approach is needed which involves tangible solutions and, as I said, not selling populism to people and making gains from their pain.

This Government has taken an approach of encouraging economic prosperity through free enterprise and work. In turn, the money generated by that will mean more work will be created and individuals and their families can be empowered. The returns to the Exchequer from that would allow us to invest in things like poverty, inequality, health services and anything else we, as a society, deem to be a noble objective. Money has to come from somewhere and, as we know, we are still borrowing money to keep the country going.

There is no doubt that great strides have been made since the last general election in terms of jobs creation. Some 80,000 jobs have been created and the unemployment rate now stands at 10.6%, having been at a high of 15.1%. These are facts which need to be talked about to give people some hope, and not the despair generated by disproportionate arguments which are grounded not in reality but in the hope of generating some political capital or gain and causing instability in the process.

When the budget was announced last year I was delighted to see that it included a back-to-work dividend for families and an increase in child benefit. There was a commitment by the Government to address the cost of child care, which is a problem for families. We had a debate on the issue last week. Some families feel they are better off not working at all. I understand the low pay commission will convene this week. It needs to be more attractive for people to work rather than be on social welfare.

It is very easy for politicians to bandy about phrases like "the so-called rich." I know people in my town who might fit that category. The only real definition of "higher earners" in this country is under our income tax regime. One is a high earner in this country if one earns in excess of €33,800 a year, which is not a lot of money. The reality is that in my town people who had business and made investments have run into financial difficulties. Some are practically bankrupt and when their businesses went to the wall they were not able to claim any social welfare, despite jumping through hoops, even though they had supported jobs for years.

People in receipt of reasonable middle incomes cannot afford to send their children to college, but if they were unemployed their children would receive a higher education grant. Such people are experiencing great difficulties and have nowhere to turn to in the State. They are worried and hope for the best for their children. I do not think any sector of society, especially where I am from, has not been affected. That is the truth about the difficulties which exist.

The motion cites many statistics. I refer to balanced regional development. It involves dealing with the long-term unemployed and providing broadband, water and sewerage services. We are now benefitting from Irish Water projects. None of those things have been mentioned, but they are real issues where I live. I am glad we have plans to address matters such as the regional enterprise strategy, the broadband plan and investment in water, sewerage and roads infrastructure. I fully support the track the Government is on and the stability that has been created, and I look forward to our continuing on this path.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is important that, given that the economy is improving, those on lower incomes see the benefit proportionately more than those on higher incomes. The difficulty up to last year was that the economy was stagnating. We had growth of 4.7% last year and it is forecast that this will continue over the coming years.

We should ensure that we tackle the economic and social issues present in society. We know difficult decisions had to be taken, and if I have time I will deal with them briefly. One of the areas where we can improve people's standard of living is employment creation. The benefits of growth in the economy must be focused on increasing employment and eliminating poverty. To date, we know that 84,000 new jobs have been created, and there are plans for 40,000 more. This will have a positive impact, but we must strive for full employment for all who want it by 2018.

One of the worst areas of unemployment is youth unemployment.

This must be tackled and we must build on the fall in the level of youth unemployment by 8% over the past two years, with schemes such as JobsPlus, JobBridge, First Steps and the Action Plan for Jobs having an impact on the level of all unemployment and particularly youth unemployment. We must endeavour to increase our contribution to ensuring that our young people can obtain work.

The income tax system has been seen as a disincentive to work but there is sometimes a contradiction in this argument. The system may be a disincentive to work as people must factor in the cost of having a job, which often outweighs the increase in the level of payment in not having a job. Ireland has the most progressive tax system in EU OECD countries and the second most progressive system in all OECD countries. The changes introduced in the 2015 budget will be such that the top 1% of taxpayers by income will pay 20% of all income tax and universal social charge, USC, collected in 2015. In contrast, the bottom 76% of income earners will pay only 21% of the income tax and USC collected. Internationally, we are seen as a progressive tax system so why is the income tax system seen as a disincentive to work in such circumstances? We must examine this issue as many other elements have an impact apart from income tax itself. We need an efficient, fair and competitive tax system to ensure growth and that our tax system can be fair to all sections of society. The budget has made an important start on the middle and low incomes but we must do much more to ensure the process remains progressive. We must continue to reduce the USC and phase it out over time. The reduction of the rate from 4.5% to 3.5% for those with medical cards with incomes below €60,000 should be extended to other groups and the concentration should be on reducing the USC rate further.

There has been mention of the need to spread the recovery to the regions, which needs a full debate rather than just a mention at the end of this contribution.

Deputy Halligan is sharing time with Deputies Joan Collins, Tom Fleming, Ruth Coppinger, Shane Ross, Paul Murphy and Mick Wallace. The Deputies have four minutes and 20 seconds each.

The Acting Chairman should watch those 20 seconds. It is interesting that we have heard expressions such as "quality of life" and "enriched country", as well as how good this country is to live in. I have always believed that a country should be judged by the quality of life of people living in it. There are guiding principles in this respect. It is interesting that Social Justice Ireland has argued that the Government should be guided by the principle of protecting the needy and vulnerable. We must ask who are the poor and vulnerable. The Technical Group has been accused of using disproportionate arguments but all our statistics emanate from data made available by the Government; these include Central Statistics Office figures and so on.

The most current of these relating to poverty in Ireland is the survey conducted by the CSO and published in April 2014. Chart 4 on page 2 of that report indicates, using the EU poverty line set at 60% of median income, that just over 16 from every 100 people were living in poverty. This does not include a percentage of people above this who are on the poverty line or just above it. From the statistics we can see that 750,000 adults and 220,411 children are living in poverty. Social Justice Ireland, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service and other organisations have been at pains to point out that another 300,000 or 400,000 could be added to the figure who are on the poverty line or just above it. In other words, these people have no quality of life.

It has always been at the core of labour party ideology throughout the world to protect those who are most vulnerable. These are people on low incomes and who are less well off. Labour and the left have always had guiding principles and beliefs in fairness enshrined in policies and directed towards disadvantaged people in society. One can consider the statistics from when labour parties were in power in England, Norway or even in South America and across the world: irrespective of how bad an economy was, those labour parties have been able to deal with disadvantage, decrease poverty levels and increase quality of life for those less well off in society. It is interesting that the only party which has failed to do this is the Irish Labour Party.

I do not find it fun to criticise anybody who might be perceived to be on the left of politics and it is unfortunate that the left is divided. There are some very good people both within and outside the Labour Party. The statistics are there nonetheless. Very many people have found themselves abandoned by some trade unions, pillars of society like the church and the major political parties. These people rely on those of us on the left or those with a conscience who recognise fairness. We want to do what is right for those who are less well off in society and are the only ones to which these people can turn. Those people feel they have been abandoned particularly by the party which was supposed to stand by them and made the promises that those who are less well off would be fine.

I do not know who said that the poor will always be with us. That may as well be enshrined in a constitution for the next election as the Government has left us with 750,000 people and 225,000 children in poverty and another 400,000 on the poverty line. It would not matter who came to power when we consider what people would have to deal with. We can check what labour parties have done in Europe and across the world and at the very least they tried to look after those less well off in society. The current Government has not done so.

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for bringing this motion to the Dáil. I will speak to the Government's amendment to the motion. The first two points are incredible. The claim that austerity has affected all groups and has had the greatest effect on the disposable income of the top 10% of earners can no doubt be backed up by statistics. The effect of the universal social charge on the take-home pay of somebody earning €200,000 per year is far greater than it is for somebody on the minimum wage. That is only a very small part of the story.

If we take the 1% of people who earn 10% of all income, or the top 10% of people who earn 24% of all income, we know they do not rely on public health services.

They send their children to private schools. A cut in child benefit is irrelevant to them. They would not even know what a lone parent family payment is; the effects of austerity are minimal for them. Two thirds of the €30 billion in austerity cuts have been in the form of spending cuts. These cuts have crucified the bottom 10% who earn a measly 3% of all income. Austerity has hit the poorest and the most vulnerable hardest, and no amount of spin can hide that.

The claim that a strong economic recovery is under way is questionable, if not spurious. The figures for gross domestic product, GDP, and gross national product, GNP, for the economy are simply unreliable. This is due to the distorting role played by the multinational sector. There are very serious questions regarding the real levels of exports from the economy. The distortions in export figures are due to contract manufacturing and profit shifting. It is estimated that up to 50% of service exports are tax related and effectively fake. The Central Bank has stated that the activity in the Irish Financial Services Centre is for the most part unrelated to the domestic economy in terms of personal consumption, investment or export activity. Multinationals' exports in computer services per employee are 12 times higher than they are per employee in indigenous companies. That does not add up. That figure is just not possible. What the Government is putting forward is spurious.

Economic activity is better measured by domestic demand, that is, consumer and Government spending and investment. Domestic demand fell by 20% in the crisis and has been more or less stagnant since 2010. In 2011, it was €34.5 billion and in 2014 it was €35 billion and 15% below the level of 2008. There is some growth in the economy and in jobs, but nothing like the levels claimed by the Government.

I will conclude with a point about lone parents. I have heard much talk about how social welfare has protected the most vulnerable in our society, but I challenge the Government and the Minister in that regard. According to the EU survey on income and living conditions, SILC, report in 2013, lone parents have the highest rates of deprivation at 63.3% and consistent poverty rates of 23%. The deprivation rate among lone parents is 230% more than in the general population and 33% more than among the unemployed, yet this Government is implementing the legislation it passed in 2012. The Minister for Social Protection said in 2012: "I am undertaking tonight that I will only proceed with the measures to reduce the upper age limit to seven years in the event I get a credible and bankable commitment on the delivery of such a system of child care by the time of this year's budget. If it is not forthcoming, the measure will not proceed." The Government is proceeding with the measure to cut lone parents' payments when the child reaches seven years of age, but there is no affordable child care in place. It says it wants people to get back into employment but those who are most affected by these cuts are lone parents in work. Their wages will be cut by at least 20%.

The Government need not give the message that it is protecting the most vulnerable. It is actually pursuing the most vulnerable, and I hope the people resist it.

Recently released Central Statistics Office findings in the first household finance and consumption survey on the financial state of Irish homes identified that almost 57% of families were in debt, with two thirds owing money on their mortgages. The average amount of debt on the mortgage is €129,000. However, for people aged under 35 years the average debt on a mortgage is €204,000, compared to a figure of €30,000 for households headed by a retired person. The survey also found that Irish people are still very reliant on dipping into overdrafts and are relying on credit cards to make ends meet. The average amount of debt on an overdraft in 2013 was €1,000 and €1,400 for credit cards. The average amount of debt faced by struggling householders was €63,000.

The survey showed that there are 698,000 people still in poverty in Ireland. Even though the poverty line has fallen by 16% since 2008, nearly one in seven people in Ireland are living in poverty. Over 211,000 of those are children. This is an indictment of Government policy and highlights its failure to protect the most vulnerable in society.

Numerous studies clearly show that the route out of poverty is education. The education system in Ireland is a first class example of a situation where those who can afford it get the best education. Families that can afford fee paying schools can also afford grinds and extra-curricular activities to enhance the life chances of their children. There are no such opportunities for the families at the bottom of the income spectrum. Third level attendance is another example of the gap between basic State education versus fee paying schools. The way out of poverty is education but real action is required from the Government to allow children from disadvantaged backgrounds to realise their ambitions and dreams and to equalise the unequal system that exists.

Some of the most equal countries in Europe have consistently demonstrated a commitment to subsidised child care. In Ireland, a household with one child could be paying €800 to €1,200 per month in child care fees. This obviously would increase for every subsequent child. In Europe, child care costs can be as little as just over €200 per month. If the Government adopted this policy each household would have €600 and more in disposable income per child per calendar month, which would be circulated back into the economy. Other actions that would affect inequality include free school books and transport and free third level education for students from lower and middle income households.

To return to the mortgage issue, the CSO figures released today show that Irish mortgage holders are carrying the highest mortgage debt ratio in the eurozone relative to the value of their homes. The figures show that the median loan-to-value ratio for owner-occupier mortgage holders in Ireland is nearly twice the European average at 73% compared to the eurozone average of 37%. The Netherlands has the next highest rate after Ireland at 52%. This reinforces the situation. The Government must step up its endeavours to take the pressure off people who are facing repossession orders at present. The banks are cherry-picking, and they are picking the easiest victims. If they are allowed to continue with this, we will have many more homeless people and it is obvious that we do not have the houses to house them. The Government must step up to deal with this venture by the banks.

I will start with the Government's amendment. It is quite surreal that it would argue that the top 10% have lost the most in the last seven years of austerity. It is more of the Alice in Wonderland delusion. It must be the reason the Fine Gael Party was barricaded in Mayo last weekend and the Labour Party will be barricaded this weekend. They are living on another planet.

A total of €31 billion has been taken out of the economy in cuts and increased taxes in the last six years. It has had a catastrophic effect. It was quite incredible to hear a Labour Party Deputy in the last half hour dispute that there is real inequality in Ireland, using the same arguments as neoliberal, right-wing economists, and say that our inequality compares very well with the rest of the EU. Individual consumption costs in Ireland are 20% higher than the EU average. These are the costs of energy, going to a doctor and so forth which people pay every day and week. The Government obviously does not have any time for the Deputies on this side of the House who tell it this, but UNICEF has condemned this Government from a height for increasing child poverty to one in four and it says that people have lost ten years of income because of austerity.

Even John FitzGerald, an establishment economist with the ESRI, has stated that Ireland has the most unequal market incomes in the OECD and that the taxation system does nothing to correct it. I will not waste time arguing this. Everyone knows that there is no recovery and they know what they are feeling.

I wish to focus on an issue which was mentioned earlier, that is, where the money will come from to reverse the austerity and to give people a decent standard of living. The Anti-Austerity Alliance would say to repudiate the debt which is eating up €1 of every €8 earned in this country. We did not create and build up this debt. The debt was €47.4 billion in 2007. In 2014, it was €215 billion. So much for people partying. This debt was not created by ordinary working people. The Anti-Austerity Alliance budget statement calls for four measures. These are the introduction of an emergency millionaire's tax, an increased tax on the top 10%, the introduction of a financial transactions tax and making the corporations pay their taxes at the effective rate. These are just some of the measures which could be taken to take control of wealth in this country and to end austerity.

We are led to believe that there is no money in the country. The Government is telling us the top 10% have lost out. They have not. The 250 richest people in this country own €57 billion and they increased their wealth by 12% during the recession. Their wealth did not go down. Just 1% of the population owns 20% of the wealth. I assume the Minister of State does not think the Central Bank is telling lies when it estimates that household wealth in this country is €504 billion. The potential to tax this wealth is incredible if only the Government were willing to do it. The trend is global and Ireland is no different. Oxfam has pointed out that one busload of people has the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion people. This is obscene. I would not hark back to the past glories of this Government and the Labour Party, in particular, in the post-Second World War situation. The Labour Party has now bought lock, stock and barrel into the establishment. It is part of the problem and it is to be hoped that it will be decimated in the next election for its betrayal of working class people.

Any kind of lingering difficulties which I had with this motion were removed when I saw the Government's amendment. No Government on the economy has a greater welcome for itself than this Government, in particular given that it is not responsible for a large number of the measures for which it claims credit. The Government knows perfectly well that a lot of what is imposed and a lot of what it is claiming credit for is as a result of diktat from outside this country.

This particular attitude is articulated in a great deal of hubris which is very evident from recent Government statements. I was particularly surprised by the attitude of the Minister for Finance when he took on the issue of the Greek debt and the problems which have been afflicting that unfortunate country recently. It was strange to hear the Minister for Finance ridiculing the Greek finance Minister. This man is in the same position in which the Irish Minister for Finance found himself four and a half years ago in 2010. Not only did he say that he was behaving like a film star, he went on to be gratuitously insulting by saying that he reminded him of the economists of the boom. He said that they were great in theory and pretty bloody awful in practice. He would not say that about the German finance Minister, Mr. Schäuble. He would get a flea in his ear if he did that. It is very unhealthy that those of us who were in that position then are now hiding behind the skirts of Mrs. Merkel and others when we are in a stronger position now. It may be a stronger position, and maybe not, but it is certainly not one for which we as a people, or as a Government at least, can claim credit. This particular austerity which we have imposed has been at the behest of an outside power. Let us be honest about it. To be turning on the Greeks now and saying it will be good for them and ridiculing them is unforgivable. This is something the Government has taken upon itself.

It is also very foolish to be talking about growth in this rather cavalier manner. The growth figures are very doubtful. The Fiscal Advisory Council has already stated that it questions the growth figures for 2014 and it certainly questions the 3.9% figure for 2015, as projected, because of a thing called contract manufacturing, which will, mark my words, come back to haunt us. This is a product of the multinationals operating in this country. The Government must be very careful about multinationals. Everyone welcomes the fantastic contribution they make. Everyone welcomes the announcement from Galway this week, the spin-off and the jobs. However, there is a danger. While we are going gangbusters-like for the United States' multinationals and others coming from abroad, there is a danger. There is no strategy or vision in this motion. We are going headlong for the multinational jobs and we are going to depend on the multinationals as a sector in the economy. We could end up with a similar dependence to the one we had on the construction industry. The Government has to examine and acknowledge an alternative to this strategy. If we depend on those multinationals and they take a sour look at what is going on here or go elsewhere, we are then in a particularly difficult situation.

The recent TASC report, Cherishing All Equally: Economic Inequality in Ireland, proves the point about the extreme rise of inequality in Ireland. The 1% has an average income of €373,000 a year compared with the bottom 90% who have an average income of €27,400. Ireland has the highest level of gross income inequality in the European Union. This is rooted in, in particular, the fact that one in five workers are low paid, the highest number in the EU, and the fact that almost one in five households are entirely jobless. This gives a picture of the very strong recovery the Government talks about in its amendment. This is the recovery it has in mind for working class people. It is a recovery which has deepened inequality. It is a recovery for the rich and for the corporations and it is based on the increased exploitation of large sections of working class people. It is based on low wage, precarious employment. This is the reality and it is part of a global picture. It is the reason why Piketty's book is so popular and has become such a talking point.

Inequality is undoubtedly growing right across the world. It is in the nature of capitalism, as we currently have it, to increase inequality in a gross way. Hence the very notion of the 1% and the 99%. This has a real cost. The Government's response is that inequality is some abstract notion of interest to academics. The share of the 90% of the national income has fallen from 72.7% in 1977 to 63% in 2012. This has a real impact. It is worth €11 billion. If that income share was reversed at the moment, every single household in that 90% would have €7,400 more in income per year. This is the cost of inequality and it has a real impact in terms of poverty and the material deprivation experienced by 1.4 million people in this State.

I wish to raise a question. We have a series of measures set out in this motion, with which I agree.

What happens when a government on the left that is committed to those policies comes to power? We now have an example, in Greece. What happened was an attempted and largely effective annulment of the Greek election results. The wishes of the Greek people were entirely ignored by the European establishment, with the Irish Government lining absolutely behind them to stab the Greek people in the back, while at the same time stabbing ordinary people in this country in the back. The European Commission is unelected. Mr. Juncker declared that there are no democratic choices possible outside the framework of the European treaties. The unelected ECB, which has been the key player in two silent coups against governments, basically said to the Greeks that it would bring down their banking system if they did not implement the kinds of austerity policies that were desired. The question has to be asked: how it is possible for a leftist government to implement progressive, pro-equality policies under the framework of the EU rules and the rules of monetary union? The answer is that it is not. The EMU is a straitjacket for neoliberalism, as is the European Union. Therefore, it is necessary for the left to prepare, in advance of being in power, for the kind of battle that is necessary if it is to take on the interests of capital in Europe - to say that the euro is not a fetish, and to say that if the choice is between leaving the eurozone and destroying our society, it will refuse to destroy our society. It is a question of putting forward bold measures, such as capital controls and public ownership and control of banks so that they can be used as an instrument for developing the economy, as opposed to using society and the economy simply to benefit the banks, and for investment in important sections of the economy to create jobs.

Capitalism in Europe has really bared its teeth over recent days. Those concerned have no interest in democracy whatsoever. We will need governments on the left in this country and other countries across Europe that are willing to stand up to the capitalist interests and take the measures that are necessary.

I heard a few Labour Party Deputies earlier and I believe they protested a bit too much. They insinuated that members of the Technical Group wished matters were worse so they could get more votes in the next election. First, I am not awfully worried about what votes I get in the next election. I do not believe we are so bad over here that we actually wish bad on people and want things to be worse in the economy. That is a bit much.

Austerity policies have been implemented over the four years of this Government's term. This was obviously started by the previous Administration. Austerity is not just about balancing the books; it has a purpose. It is very much like an aspect of neoliberalism in that it is an effort to undermine the social contract. Many people with good jobs lost them, and now we see new jobs being created, but most are for less pay and have poorer working conditions attached. There have been serious cuts in social services. This is part of the neoliberal plan and part of what we signed up to with the Nice and Lisbon treaties. Neoliberalism is about a smaller group of people controlling more of the wealth and having greater control over social life to maximise their personal profits. It has been the dominant ideology, probably since the time of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Milton Friedman was the genius who introduced it and there has been strong adherence to it since. It has led to serious inequality. For Labour Deputies to come in here and pretend that inequality is not increasing is not honest. There was recently a meeting of G20 finance Ministers in Istanbul at which it was warned that the gap between the rich and poor had widened following the financial crisis of 2008. That is not rocket science; it has happened.

According to Mr. Robert McChesney of the University of Illinois, neoliberal initiatives are characterised as free market policies that encourage private enterprise and consumer choice, reward personal responsibility and entrepreneurial initiative, and undermine the dead hand of the incompetent, bureaucratic and parasitic government. A generation of corporate-financed public relations efforts has given these terms and ideas a near-sacred aura. Mr. McChesney states also: "The economic consequences of these policies have been the same just about everywhere, and exactly what one would expect: a massive increase in social and economic inequality, a marked increase in severe deprivation for the poorest nations and peoples of the world, a disastrous global environment, an unstable global economy, and an unprecedented bonanza for the wealthy." The defenders of neoliberalism claimed that the tide was going to rise, that all the boats would rise with it and that it would be great for everybody, but we know that is not true.

Mr. McChesney outlines that neoliberalism works best when there is formal electoral democracy, but when the population is diverted from information, access, and the public forums necessary for meaningful participation in decision-making. We know our media play a very strong role in that. The neoliberal system, according to Mr. McChesney, therefore has “an important and necessary byproduct - a depoliticized citizenry marked by apathy and cynicism.”

I am glad of the opportunity to conclude the debate on the Private Members' motion on income and living conditions and to support the Government's amendment.

I have listened to and considered the points raised by the speakers from the Technical Group and noted the various reports that they have highlighted to support their arguments. Fundamentally, I believe the points they advance are not sustained by the evidence. The Government is committed to meeting the national social target for poverty reduction, which is to reduce consistent poverty to 4% by 2016 and to 2% or less by 2020.

I heard many references in the debate last night to children. Again, the Government is leading policy here by setting for the first time a child poverty target as part of Better Outcomes, Better Futures, the national policy framework for children and young people. We are now implementing a multidimensional plan to meet this target, in consultation with stakeholders, including children's organisations.

Clearly, meeting these ambitious targets has been a great challenge in the face of the major economic crisis confronting Ireland for the past few years. Therefore, the priority has been to protect the most vulnerable. Now, as we chart our way through economic recovery, we will have the means to deliver on the target. The recent CSO SILC data show that the at-risk-of-poverty rate was 15.2% in 2013. This is a welcome reduction on the 2012 rate of 16.5%. It is lower than the pre-crisis average rate of 16.6%. Despite the economic crisis that has hit Ireland so hard, our at-risk-of-poverty rate is lower than the European average, according to EUROSTAT, with Ireland ranking 7th out of the 28 member states.

Throughout the crisis, social transfers have continued to play a crucial role in reducing the at-risk-of-poverty rate. In 2013, social transfers, excluding pensions, lifted 23% of the population out of being at risk of poverty. If pensions are included, the share of the population lifted out of the at-risk-of-poverty category increased to 35%. This equates to a poverty-reduction effect from social transfers of between 60% and 70%. According to EUROSTAT, Ireland is the best performing country in the EU at reducing poverty through social transfers, excluding pensions, at 63%. This compare to the EU average of 35%, while the figure for Greece is only 17.5%. Ireland has a similarly strong performance in tacking child poverty, as social transfers lift a quarter of all children out of the at-risk-of-poverty category. This shows how the Government has protected low-income households since coming into office by continued investment in the social protection system and the maintenance of core weekly rates of social welfare payment.

In budget 2015, the Government was in a position to target additional moneys to help families and to support the most vulnerable. The Department of Social Protection recently published a social impact assessment of the budget.

It found that for the first time since the economic crisis, welfare and income tax policy will result in an increase in average household incomes of 0.7%, equivalent to about €6 per week, and this includes the effect of the water charges.

Now that the Government has restored financial stability, exited from the EU-IMF bailout programme and delivered a return to job creation and economic growth, we can prioritise the decisions needed to broaden and deepen the economic recovery in a manner that is felt in the daily lives of individuals, families and communities across the country. The strongest antidote to poverty is to move people and their families back into paid employment. This is evident in the data, which shows that if even one person in the household is in work, the consistent poverty rate falls from 20% to less than 7%.

Under the Government's Pathways to Work strategy to assist those on the live register return to work, unemployment has fallen from a crisis peak of 15.1% to today's figure of 10.4%. The new JobPath employment programme will assist an estimated 115,000 long-term unemployed jobseekers return to work over its duration. The new back to work family dividend will provide very significant financial assistance to families where a parent is returning to work, and ensure that work pays and families can build financial independence over time.

The economy is growing, unemployment is falling, and confidence is slowly returning. The Government has completed the first phase of the recovery and we are now starting the second, the process of restoring living standards. The Government will deliver a social as well as an economic recovery to ensure that everyone, every family and every community will benefit from the recovery. Through this, I am confident we will achieve the national social target for poverty reduction and the child poverty target by 2020. I commend amendment No. 1 to the House.

I wish I had time to respond to individual points made. Many of the points raised by some members of the Technical Group are tackled on a regular basis but Deputy Ross gave the House some figures, and his wisdom. I normally seek his wisdom on page two of the business supplement in the Irish Independent, which is well supported by that paper, but we should remember that the Deputy is the man who wanted to put Mr. FitzPatrick in charge of the country. He is the man who questioned whether we could get 100,000 people back to work, but we have created 90,000 real jobs already, and we still have over a year of this term to run. We will achieve and surpass that target of 100,000 jobs in the economy.

Badly paid jobs.

Sorry, Minister, Deputy Clare Daly-----

They are not badly paid jobs.

They are badly paid jobs.

Sorry, Minister, we are over time.

They are full-time, well paid jobs.

They are badly paid jobs.

That is beneath the Deputy, who is normally quite fair.

Minister, you are way over time.

I will finish on this.

I am sorry. I have to call Deputy Daly. We are way over time and Deputies Daly and Boyd Barrett have to speak.

Until the Minister's contribution we were torn between whether we should laugh or cry over here with some of the contributions from the Government benches, but some of the points made have been nauseating to the point of being obscene. There is propaganda being trotted out about Ireland being in a recovery, that a corner has been turned and a statement almost to the effect that unless someone is in utter deprivation and destitution, they are not really poor; they are grand. That type of approach seems to be emanating from the Government benches.

It is quite clear the Government Members have no idea what it is like for people outside this House now. Even behind respectable doors in nice areas, people are losing sleep due to having no money and the fear of the unexpected event that will knock them off track. People are sick of managing, and not being able to afford the luxury of going out for a meal or whatever.

Poverty is not just about having an inadequate income. It is about a poverty of lost opportunity, not being able to raise one's children or spend time with them because one is so stressed about money and so on. It is not inevitable. It is not because some people are lazy or not clever enough. It is not even that there are not enough resources to go around. The reason it exists is a deliberate consequence of a society where the wealth is owned and controlled by an ever-shrinking number of people who are becoming wealthier than ever before. These people control Governments. That is obvious in countries like the United States where the cost of running the country means they have to pay back their paymasters. It is obvious in countries like Britain, as outlined in excellent books such as that written by Owen Jones, The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It, and it is the same in Ireland as well. It is a consequence of unfettered neoliberal capitalism, and it is bad for everyone.

I find it an affront that on a global scale, when we live in a world where resources are greater than at any time previously, we face the prospect of our children being the first generation in decades to be poorer than us. How could that be the case? Rights that people thought were the norm, such as the right to a roof over their head, which is denied to hundreds of children here in Dublin tonight, the right to health if they are sick, which was denied to Gerry Feeney from Raheny, whose case was on the news tonight, who died in Beaumont Hospital two months ago in the most horrendous circumstances, the right to an education, which is not available for Traveller children as we saw in the courts yesterday, and the right to a pension, which is not there for the thousands of Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta workers, were never in perpetuity. They were not given. They were fought for, and now the establishment is using the economic crisis, which was not of our creation, to claw some of that back.

It is a race to the bottom. The idea of a secure, permanent, pensionable job is now put out there almost as a luxury. People who are in that situation go around in fear that someone will blame them. The attack on the public service was to the effect that at least they have a job, and what about the rest of us? We had the same type of approach from Deputy Mulherin, who talked about hard-pressed middle income families not being able to send their children to college but then said that all the people on the dole can get a grant. It is divide and rule. The reason things exist is that we have had a subsidisation of the rich on a global scale and a transfer of wealth, and the figures back up that scenario.

I attended some interesting talks recently, hosted by Dr. Conor McCabe, evaluating the Irish economy. It is interesting that Labour Deputies are quoting John FitzGerald and slating Michael Taft, who until recently was a member of their party. He made the point that the Government is funded by three categories: taxation, charges and fees, and borrowings. Of the tax element, two thirds comes from income tax and VAT, which is shouldered in the main by workers.

What we have had is a transfer of wealth, involving tax breaks for the wealthy. These are funded by cuts in social services. The money the wealthy save is invested and they earn interest on it, and the Government has to borrow money to subsidise and meet the shortfall of the economic crisis. One could not make up this stuff. That is the background to this scenario.

The Government can doctor all the figures it likes but the reality is that it is not just about people being out of a job and that if they are given a job, everything will be okay. Half the workforce earns €27,000 or less and it is onto their shoulders that the Government is foisting extra charges like water charges when there is an alternative. There is wealth that can be taxed progressively in a meaningful way that would transform the living standards of ordinary people. That is not an inevitability; it is a political choice.

I thank all my colleagues in the Technical Group for their contributions, and all the people who contributed to this discussion. I do not want to spend a lot of time on the global picture in terms of Europe, Greece and so on except to say how right Deputy Ross is about the outrageous stab in the back this Government has given the Greek people when they are fighting to improve a dire situation. If they had succeeded it would have benefited everybody in Europe, including the citizens in this country, yet the main concern of the Government seems to be not to get embarrassed by any success the Greek people might have because it would put it in a bad light. That is disgraceful.

Whatever happens in Greece and in Spain, it is a beacon of hope that, finally, there is some movement challenging the austerity agenda which has done such awful damage and which has the European economy on the floor. It is stagnating, and at last somebody is challenging it. I will leave that aside because many of the responses from the Government have been dishonest and disingenuous. There have been diversions and red herrings, but it is not addressing the issue.

The motion I put forward was not a comprehensive alternative economic strategy. Many of the responses from the Government about costings and so on were disingenuous. It was not about growth.

It was very specific. If the Minister of State wants to see our document on jobs, growth and costings for an alternative economic programme, he should look at our pre-budget submissions and quiz them. We put another one in this year, but that was not the point of this motion.

The point of this motion was specifically to address deprivation, poverty and inequality. We are pointing out that the levels of all those things in society are unacceptable. It is not a defence to say they are even worse somewhere else, because they are unacceptable here. The levels of inequality and deprivation are absolutely shocking.

The Government's idea is to reduce consistent child poverty to 4% by 2020, but it will not eliminate it. The policy formally announced by the Government is that the poor are always going to be with us, but that is not good enough. We do not believe the Government when it is in its fourth year of office. This motion served to point out that deprivation and child poverty have got worse under this Government. In addition, the housing crisis and homelessness have also got worse. The age profile of poor people has risen under this Government, so can Ministers at least acknowledge that? They should admit the problem and address it, instead of giving us a load of nonsense announcing plans for three, four or five years' time, which mean nothing.

Even the ESRI and EUROSTAT have said the budgets in 2012 and 2013 were aggressive, hitting those at the lowest level hardest and disproportionately. They have driven more people into deprivation. That is a fact. What is the Government going to do about it? Is it willing to reverse the measures that have indisputably contributed to that situation?

Whatever justification the Minister of State may give for water charges or property tax, is he saying they are not regressive compared with an income tax system for funding the same thing? Is he also saying that a person on or below the poverty line will not be driven further into deprivation through having to pay for those things? That is self-evident. The Minister of State could possibly argue that those charges are justified on other people, but he cannot say that the situation of somebody who cannot currently pay his or her bills and receives a property tax bill through the letterbox has improved. It is obvious that such a person's situation has disimproved.

It is also obvious that child benefit cuts have hurt lone parents, while rent allowance cuts and caps have contributed to homelessness and the housing crisis. It is obvious that the Government's policy adopted in its first year in office, for whatever reason, to abandon the direct provision of social housing construction by local authorities and outsource it to the private sector has contributed to longer housing waiting lists. A few years ago the delay was six or seven years but now it is 14 or 15 years. Those on the waiting list will not get a house any time soon.

Can the Minister of State seriously say that cutting the jobseeker's allowance for young people under 26 has not contributed to homelessness? Perhaps he could argue that if young people happen to be living at home then it is bearable. I might disagree with him, but he would have an argument. If someone under 26 is not living at home, does not have a job and has only €100, then they are homeless. One cannot get a house on that kind of money. The rent allowance cap means it is impossible.

We are asking the Government to reverse the cuts that have indisputably contributed to a growth in deprivation for children, lone parents and others on low incomes. The USC has crushed the low-paid sector. While the Government's policies have gone too far, there has been some acknowledgement that the USC has been an intolerable burden for the low paid. Ireland has the second highest level of low pay in the OECD. The Government partially acknowledged that with some of its recent budget measures, but the matter has not been fully addressed.

Other measures, as Deputy Halligan said, are actually moving things in the opposite direction. Jobs that were lost when the crash occurred have been largely replaced with less well-paid jobs, schemes or internships. The Minister of State may argue that that is best he can do, but he cannot seriously suggest that somebody who was working in construction on €700 or €800 a week but is now on a Gateway scheme, is in a better position. That is a joke.

One Government myth that needs to be dispelled is that we do not care about jobs or growth. The Government says it will cost €4 billion to do what we want, and the money will be poured down the drain. The Government says it is responsible in caring about jobs and growth. I will make an obvious point. If we built more council houses it would put people back to work and save the State money. The Government does not factor that into its €4 billion figure. It would save all the money currently going to rent allowance, as well as reducing the social welfare bill. If money were put back into the poorest people's pockets, it would boost the high street. If young children were not living in poverty, they would have more chance of getting work or education. However, none of those multipliers is taken into account in the Government's figures, so it is disingenuous.

Similarly, the Government tries to blur the issue of wealth concentration, which is shocking. The Minister of State said the reason net household wealth has gone up is because property prices have risen. I am sorry but he should read the Central Bank's quarterly report which said the rise in household wealth over the last year was a result of increased financial household assets. There was a €3.6 billion increase in financial household assets, not in property.

The top 10% has either 40%, or maybe up to 58%, of the wealth totalling €508 billion. That is €260 billion but is that in property assets such as a family home? Of course not. It is the people who own multiple properties. They are the big corporate investors who bought up all the property at rock bottom prices. Is that not a visible example of the increased concentration of wealth? Big corporate investors bought up the homes of all the people who were repossessed. The super-rich waited for prices to hit rock bottom and then moved in to buy, before jacking up all the rents. Only rich people can afford to rent now. Those on low incomes seeking to rent property are in danger of becoming homeless, even if they are working. That is how bad it is, yet none of this is acknowledged by the Government.

I am not being prescriptive in detailing how to reverse these cuts and regressive charges. Let us agree with the principle that these are regressive and have contributed to deprivation. We must eliminate poverty and deprivation, so let us examine the options for finding the funds to do this in a way that will not worsen or perpetuate deprivation. We should examine corporate profits, the super-high earners and the financial transaction tax, but the Government will not even look at those things, despite that this is all this motion is asking the Government to do.

Go raibh míle maith agat. I must now put the question.

Thanks be to God for that.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 42.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McFadden, Gabrielle.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Coppinger, Ruth.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Dooley, Timmy
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Murphy, Paul.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies John Halligan and Richard Boyd Barrett.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 42.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McFadden, Gabrielle.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Coppinger, Ruth.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Murphy, Paul.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies John Halligan and Richard Boyd Barrett.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 26 February 2015.
Top
Share