Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I apologise; I was in the Chamber discussing the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024. I have not been following along with what the witnesses have said, but I will go back to it. This might be a bit duplicative, for which I apologise if it is the case.

The witnesses have been talking about tax challenges. I think in May last year, IBEC warned the Government about handouts to households - I think it used the term "handouts" - and urged that budget policy focus on longer term investment rather than utility bill subsidies or the broader relief in the form of supports to individual families. At the same time, IBEC is stressing the need to match other countries' financial incentives to attract investment. It feels like a bit of a double standard to label supports for ordinary people as wasteful or, indeed, handouts - I think that is the term IBEC used directly - while championing tax breaks, grants or incentives for corporations. The witnesses have spoken about the need for greater tax around corporations. How does IBEC perceive funds that prioritise corporate tax incentives over direct measures that alleviate cost-of-living challenges?

In its policy paper, IBEC spoke about rebalancing individual rights in planning in favour of the public good. How would democratic accountability be ensured? How would we ensure communities' voices are not trampled upon in a rush to streamline infrastructure delivery, recognising the need for infrastructure delivery? The witnesses might say "consultations" but community consultations are often very thin and many communities do not feel they have a meaningful voice in them. In practical terms, who defines the public good? What safeguards could be put in place to prevent the powerful infrastructure body often overriding the needs of communities and environmental protections?

My next question is about the key role the private sector plays in infrastructure and what can be done to prevent corporate interests having undue influence over public infrastructure priorities. Democratically accountable bodies must lead on that. There have been instances in the past of corporations having closed-door meetings with the Government on certain infrastructure projects that would support them in their work. I understand that but there are communities with infrastructural needs that do not get the same direct line to have conversations with senior officials. We must balance corporation needs with community needs. How does IBEC perceive that?