My main reservation regarding the Budget for 2012 centred upon the lack of equity within the three measures to leave more disposable income in taxpayers’ pockets. These are in the introduction of an income tax parental threshold, increases in relief to parents who send their children to private schools, and the step-up in the bottom children’s allowance rate. The financial resources available to any finance minister are always scarce relative to the competing expenditure needs making demands on them.
The minister will have limited space for action, after calculating the cost of recurrent outlays and the amount to be spent on public investment through the capital budget. The residual which the minister decides to allocate has to take into consideration equity and fairness. If it targets just one social group, it has to be the most needy.
The Finance Minister did not do that for 2012. With an alert political eye, he targeted the middle class with his three main measures, ignoring those who do not earn enough to be liable to income tax, the relative and – at the margin – the absolute poor. That is not to say the 2012 budget is devoid of social measures. The allowance to the over-80s who live at home is one of them, though the Minister should have given an estimate of how many will benefit.
Some enhancement of provisions for the disabled is another. I particularly welcomed the decision to take up in principle the proposal by the National Commission for Persons with Disability (KNPD) to set up living support for disabled persons who do not want to be institutionalised, especially once their parents die. The Finance Minister allocated €2 million to be spent over five years. The first €400,000 tranche will be available next year.
The sum voted does not come anywhere close to that required to set up and run 10 residences a year, as recommended by KNPD. But, in an uncertain and hostile external economic environment, it is a start and brings the issue onto the national agenda. I hope that the amount can be increased in the future. Meanwhile, ways have to be found to stretch it. For instance, though custom-built units would be preferable, there may be unused State-owned property which could be converted at a capital outlay lower than would be required to start from scratch. Running costs will be substantial and it remains to be seen what the new allocation will cover in that regard.
It may be that a partnership model will need to be set up, incorporating government, NGOs and the Church if it can find the resources for it. Relatives of the disabled who will eventually benefit from the scheme could also give a helping hand in the running, though scheduled services cannot be structured to depend on their contribution.
The Finance Minister uses the term “severely disabled”. That will have to be more fully defined to indicate who will be eligible. I am told that KNPD’s proposals do not specify the severity of the biological impairment, but the overall severity of the disability (the social disadvantages being faced by the individual). It seems, however, that the emphasis will be on the severity of the individual’s situation (biological and social), so that one could begin to address the needs of the people with the highest support needs.
More than one factor will have to be taken into consideration. Someone may have a very severe impairment but is not very disadvantaged in socio-economic terms. While someone else may be severely lacking a support system, though not being quite severely impaired, in which case they should qualify before the first case from any benefit going.
Details will have to be worked out and it will be quite some time before the scheme is up and running, even in embryo form. The sooner there is a well-thought start, the better.