Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Labour)

I broadly welcome the provisions of the Finance Bill and what it represents. It is a continuation of the process of the onerous task by the Government parties of returning the finances of the State to a sustainable condition while protecting services and tackling the legacy of chronic unemployment left by the last Government. It is also important in terms of our efforts to regain full economic sovereignty and repair our damaged international reputation as a consequence of the previous Administration.

While SARRC provisions contained in the Bill can be difficult to defend from a social justice point of view, in that they grant generous tax breaks to those on very large incomes, they will be justified if, and only if, they lead to the creation of jobs and investment. Similar provisions have been successful in other countries such as France and the Netherlands. Ireland is facing increasing competition for winning significant inward investment from projects across the eurozone and further afield.

We need to reinforce our position as a place to do business and as one of the leading countries in the world for securing inward investment. This measure and others in the Bill underpin the message that Ireland is open for business. The benefits of such schemes are not just the creation of jobs but the transfer of technical and management ability and the building of informal but crucial personal relationships that exist across the global economy.

I have a number of reservations concerning SAARC but I will focus on one. I refer to the restriction on how many days a person partaking of the scheme may be absent from the State and the practicalities and demands around that criteria. It is likely, and probably predictable, that the markets we are trying to attract will of necessity require travel across the globe from this country and such people are likely to breach the criteria set out in the 30 day reference period in the Bill.

There is also the issue of such persons being able to take annual leave. They are entitled to nine bank holidays and 20 days annual leave. That places a difficult restriction on the capacity of the type of person we are trying to attract to be actively involved in the global economy. It would be a shame if such a provision, with the best of intentions set out in the Bill, would combat the potential abuse of the programme and, in effect, make it unattractive. Perhaps the Minister could examine that in the context of progress on the Bill.

It would also be well worthwhile for the Minister to examine SAARC and how it will be judged and benchmarked. It is intended that the programme is due to end on December 2014 and a review of its success should be conducted then, with a view to seeing if it should be extended beyond that reference period. We should also examine whether it was a success in the first instance.

While broadly welcoming the Bill, I would like to comment on what it is missing in the context of some glaring absences. I draw attention to some of the opposition to cuts to services and schemes we heard from both sides of the House in recent weeks. Members of the Labour Party and Fine Gael are trying to have it every way in the dialogue on how to re-establish our finances at a sustainable position.

While some decry many of the cutbacks, they refuse to discuss the possibility of raising income tax or introducing any form of wealth tax, even a temporary one. It is time for some Members in the House to show some maturity and realise that unlike Fianna Fáil, we have the aim of getting the Government working for the people, getting them back to work and protecting services. That will involve supporting measures in the House and Seanad rather than decrying in public meetings that a cut was the fault of someone at Cabinet.

On high earners not paying their fair share, it is unfortunate that the Bill has again failed to tackle the issue of highly paid hospital consultants being able to avoid PRSI elements of their income and availing of exemptions which are not available to ordinary PAYE workers. My colleagues, Deputies Conway and Humphreys, have performed an excellent public service in unearthing the extent of the earnings hospital consultants derive from their access to public assets and the personnel of public hospitals and the value lost to Revenue from the failure to levy PRSI on consultant incomes.

Deputy Conway has pointed out that the abolition of exemptions on the unearned income of all workers and other income streams of those employed in the Civil Service and public service recruited prior to 1995 would yield a total of €74 million in additional PRSI in any one year. A further €62 million in additional PRSI could also be secured from workers' unearned incomes. It is time that this injustice and other similar loopholes be addressed and closed off. This is essential if ordinary workers are to have faith in the fairness of the taxation system. The current arrangements are not and never have been sustainable on a financial or social justice grounds.

While I am on the topic of PRSI, I refer to the difficulties of those who were self-employed but now find themselves out of work following the closure of their businesses. Like many Deputies, every week I see constituents who ran small businesses which generated tax returns, income tax and VAT and which employed many people for years. As a consequence of the failure of the economy such self-employed people find themselves with little or no opportunity to access welfare entitlements.

As the Minister is aware, small and medium enterprises are the backbone of this economy and provide the bulk of employment in our society. We wish to encourage the entrepreneurial environment but we need to provide a safety net for those involved in businesses should they fail to pay personal tax and PRSI contributions, in terms of the business they generate in communities. While not directly appropriate to this Bill, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. It is an issue of fairness. I ask the Minister to contribute some of his effort over the course of the next months to consider self-employed people who are falling through the cracks in society as a consequence of their endeavours to access social welfare.

Like many Deputies, I have followed the developments in Greece and have witnessed the scenes of protest on television. Near anarchy seems to have overtaken the country with the regular deployment of riot police and the use of tear gas. I sympathise with the people of Greece. We are not in any position to engage in any schadenfreude.

However, the contrast between Greece and Ireland is stark. Some Members opposite seem at times to see an opportunity in terms of their political agenda to see Ireland to turn into Greece. I am pleased to say we are doing a good job in keeping social peace in this country and the credit for that belongs to the maturity of the Irish people in recognising the nature of the challenge the Minister has before him. Credit is also due to the political system. Unlike Greece, we have helped maintain peace and order because we have joined together the two largest political parties in the country to engender confidence among the people.

I also acknowledge the work of the social partners. We should consider the benefits of the protection of industrial peace brought about by the Croke Park agreement. Any talk of breaking that agreement should take into account the serious consequences that would follow for this country's reputation internationally in the context of the requirement to secure further foreign direct investment. It is incumbent on all social partners to be responsible at this time and to remember their broader social responsibilities for the future of the country.

See this speech in context