Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

On reading the Finance Bill, in an obvious sign of the times I noted it contains much about loan losses, insolvency and the closing off of tax avoidance possibilities. However, I scrutinised the Bill both to establish whether it contained something it should not and if it included a big vision. I must note I did not really discern such a vision. Members get two Finance Bills, the first of which appears on budget day. There is very limited scope to do anything with that because it is shoehorned into an extremely tight timeframe, which is effectively the day of the Budget Statement itself. Consequently, this Bill offers a big opportunity both to debate the economic management of the country and perhaps to embrace some opportunities for meaningful discussion about alternative policies. I hope this will take place both this week and on Committee Stage.

Essentially, there are two dimensions to our economy. One pertains to tax, cuts or the ability to fund public services. However, there also is the issue of where one might invest and where one might get such investment. This investment is of critical importance to Ireland's ability to pay for public services. I believe the silo-based approach to finances ignores the cumulative effect on people. For example, many developments, such as property tax and child benefit cuts or continually increasing fuel costs and third level registration fees, as well as the reduction of the PRSI exemptions, hit the same people and have a significant impact on their ability to exist in many cases.

I asked myself what kind of society we are trying to create. I would be in favour of creating a society that is more equal in terms of people's incomes. However, I cannot discern such an intention in this Bill. It was not present in last year's budget and I do not discern it in this year's budget. For example, measures such as the €127 exemption on PRSI constituted a very big hit for a lot of people. It will cost €300 per year for many people who do not even find themselves in the tax net. While I can understand the reason for the provision of increases in stamp duty on health insurance, I am a little concerned about people trading down to basic plans or perhaps dropping out of the scheme altogether and how the service will be funded. This is not because I am a great fan of a two-tier health service - I most definitely am not - but the public health system certainly is under pressure and one should avoid putting further pressure on it at present.

See this speech in context