Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank Fórsa for the submissions and the witnesses for their contribution to the committee today. I thank Mr. O'Connor for meeting with me last week to brief me on the issue. I also thank the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Fórsa branch which also contacted me about the issue as part of the campaign. The witnesses do not have to convince me any further; I have already been convinced, as has Solidarity - People Before Profit. It is a cut and dried case of fairness and equity that the tax relief for union subscriptions should be restored.

The witnesses may not have the answers to some of my questions. Why do they think this iniquitous situation has persisted? I find it bizarre that a subscription to the Irish Farmers' Journalor a membership of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, qualifies for the tax relief but this does not. I do not see the difference between the representative function of the IFA vis-à-vis its members, and the representative function of trade unions vis-à-vis their members. I do not get how it can be justified to give the tax relief to one and not the other. The Irish Farmers' Journalsituation is stranger. Is the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME, included along with the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC? By any stretch I do not believe one could say IBEC or ISME are anything other than representative organisations for certain businesses that campaign and advocate on behalf of their members' interests. They are not, however, a trade expense. It they are then so too is being a member of a union.

I do not understand how the Government could have refused the unions' request before the budget. Perhaps the witnesses will elaborate on how the Government can justify this iniquitous situation. It seems to be completely baffling. The representatives said that those organisations lobbied whereas in the teeth of the recession the unions did not. Is there anything more the union representatives can say about the nature of the lobbying by those organisations and why they were listened to?

Maybe it is due to my own political biases, but on the face of it it appears there is one law for workers and a different law for businesses and people who are trading. This is what seems to be running behind it and it is deeply unfair given the sacrifices workers were forced to endure in the period of austerity. Do the witnesses see it being as simple as being just a political or ideological bias? Was any credible argument put forward to them to explain how this iniquity has been maintained?

Have the unions had any recent engagement with the Government since it refused to reapply the relief in the last budget? Have there been subsequent discussions with the Government around what its stance might be coming in to the next budget?

Primarily this issue is an irritant. It is not a huge financial issue. It is an irritant because it is so unfair and inequitable. Ms Clarke spoke of how hammered the union members got on other fronts. It may stray from the subject but as rank and file Fórsa members what other measures would the witnesses like to see, beyond this, to try to restore the fortunes of workers who got hammered?

My last point may add to the armoury of the union's argument.

Profits have gone through the roof in the last six or seven years such that pre-tax profits were approximately €149 billion based on the last figures available. I think there is approximately €80 billion in tax reliefs and deductible expenses, overwhelmingly going to business. Even at that level it seems like a tiny request that workers might get something that might cost about €20 million, given the huge number of very questionable tax reliefs and deductions that are allowed for big business. I would be interested to hear the witnesses' comments on other tax reliefs and who benefits from them as against the very small one that the Government is refusing to give back to trade union members.