Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms McVeigh's analysis and the Government position are all heading in the same direction - that is, that we should not do it. In my view, this is a mistaken view. It is disappointing that in putting forward this analysis, it is clear that the Department has not considered empirical evidence. No empirical study has been done and the Department has not listened to anyone who thinks it might be a good idea. I put it to Ms McVeigh that the Department's views and the Government's views are totally ill-informed as they are based entirely on a short-term notion of national self-interest which is not even based on any kind of empirical analysis. Given the financial crash suffered by this country as a result of global speculation I ask if the Department has a duty to look at what the costs of speculation were for this economy as a whole and to look at least at the possible merits of a financial transaction tax in order to prevent the catastrophic sort of collapse we have seen in our economy as a result of the activities of the speculators. In Ms McVeigh's view, should the Government and the Department not prejudge this but rather give serious consideration to the arguments on the other side? I suggest they listen to the people putting forward the argument and look at costs. Ms McVeigh talked about costs or potential costs to the State. I will suggest a very obvious cost which she has not even mentioned - that is, the cost to our economy, which is now suffering. This is the significant cost of massive unemployment, a huge debt, an economy crippled. There is a very good argument for saying that this derives precisely from letting these financial vultures, as I call them, off the leash over the past 25 years, with devastating consequences for the global economy. This should be quantified, in my view. There should be an empirical analysis. It might say there could be a short-term cost, but there is a question of long-term cost if this is not done.

What about the funds that could be raised? For example, Oxfam supports the financial transaction tax because in its view the moneys from the financial transaction tax are vital to financing serious action on climate change. The financial transaction tax is supposed to provide a back-up fund in case of further financial failure. The proponents of the financial transaction tax are saying the moneys raised could be key for financing major public investment to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. I suggest there should be a cost-benefit analysis of one argument as against the other. None of this has been done. We are getting a policy based on nothing. We are getting an opinion based on absolutely nothing. I do not expect Ms McVeigh to agree with me, but if we are going to have a serious debate we need to look at the reason the tax is being proposed, at the pro and con arguments. We need to have empirical analysis of what the effects might be at every level, positive and negative, so that we can have a serious debate. I ask if this is not a reasonable request from a member of the finance committee.