David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witness for the presentation. I agree with much of what was said and with many of the priorities identified. However, we are all operating under the constraint of the so-called fiscal rules. They have been revised downward in recent times by the Government following Brexit and external shocks. The fiscal space sets out what additional spending is available. Then there are discretionary measures that can be introduced through taxation increases, public spending savings and so forth. Obviously, therefore, we must be conscious of the fiscal space and work within those parameters, regardless of whether we like them. Is the network involved in any of the debate that is taking place at European level, or even national level, about flexibility in the rules? Whatever about borrowing money for daily spending, and I have a view on that, there would certainly be an argument that we should be able to borrow to invest more in capital and public infrastructure and that the fiscal rules are too rigid in this regard. Has the network given any consideration to that matter or carried out any work in respect of it?

The document the witness presented to the committee is probably the network's pre-budget submission. It refers to greater taxation on wealth and to increasing employer PRSI closer to average EU levels.

What specifically is Mr. Ginnell referring to in the context of taxation on wealth? On the issue of increasing employer PRSI, has he given any thought to the European Union average levels? When the European Anti Poverty Network, EAPN, is making proposals, what exactly is it seeking? The point about poverty impact assessments is something we discussed earlier. Equality proofing and poverty proofing budgets is something the committee discussed when it was being established. We had a number of experts before us and they made very compelling arguments for it to be mainstreamed within the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform. There is obviously a scrutiny role for Oireachtas committees but they need to be conscious of it. What type of work has the EAPN done on that and has it made any representations to the Departments in question on poverty impact assessments or poverty proofing?

The contentious issue of the USC was raised. There are different views politically on that but most of the organisations that have been in before us have not been in favour of abolishing it. What work has been done in that area? What is the EAPN's position on that?

My final point is on the living wage. I was involved in authoring a report on the issue of low pay for the jobs committee just prior to the general election. That report focused on wages but it also looked at the living wage as a concept. It made the argument that welfare transfers, access to public services, such as health and investment in child care, are as important - if not more important - than increasing wages because wages can go up or down. If there is a collapse in the public finances, wages can go down and people are reliant on them. Welfare transfers, public services, taxation and working conditions and work-related considerations such as precarious work, part-time work, contract work and low-hour contracts are also important. When looking at the living wage, has the EAPN considered other issues such as the cost of living being as important as the actual aim of a living wage? They are my opening questions.