Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation, the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015. This is a very important debate as it is crucial to have our public finances in order, to have a sustainable economy, a fair tax base that treats our citizens equally and distributes these finances fairly, and common-sense priorities, particularly since the economic crash and the scandal of the banking crisis. We all have to learn lessons from the past and build a new Ireland with sustainable finances, but always built on the foundations of social justice. If we all do that, we can look forward to a bright and fair future. Hence my emphasis on "fair". We want a fair future and fairness in dealing with the public finances and the broader issues like taxation and public expenditure. Before I go into the details of the Bill, and especially the four key aspects of the legislation, it is important not to run away from the core issue of our public finances and the tax issue. We are a great little country for hammering the regular man and woman or the poor people in society. It is time now to open our eyes and see the bigger picture in respect of our finances.

The finance Bill has a fourfold purpose. It will enable the ratification of the intergovernmental agreement to the Single Resolution Mechanism, it provides for a transitional funding arrangement for the new deposit guarantee contributory scheme, it ensures the continuation of existing regulations for the insurance undertakings not covered within the scope of the solvency II directive on insurance and reinsurance, and it proposes technical amendments to strengthen the legislation surrounding directed investments in the National Treasury Management Agency. Those are the four key aspects to this legislation.

In dealing with our finances and tax, we must have a broader view and not only an insular one. A global problem in respect of tax needs a global response. We saw the recent base erosion and profit shifting proposals. Will they lead to more of the $240 billion dollars in OECD estimates being lost? We are talking about €2 billion or €3 billion in Irish society, but in the context of this broader debate, when figures like €240 billion could be collected Europe-wide and internationally for different countries around the world, we need to examine, be brave and speak out on these issues. We also need to be brave, assertive and aggressive to challenge aggressive multinational tax planning in this society. We seem to be running back and hiding under the stones in dealing with this issue. It is very important, especially for countries that do not have the massive resources many countries have. It is equally important for countries that are not very well off.

On the tax issue, not a word was mentioned anywhere in the Dáil or in broader society about the €44 million extra that was taken in by Revenue following a trawl of wealthy individuals in Ireland over the summer weeks, ahead of the June deadline. This involved only 137 cases but the average settlement was in the region of €320,000. That was fair enough. Some might say €44 million is no big deal. However, looking at the work that Revenue has done over a number of years since it started doing this, it has managed to rake in €2.7 billion on 35,000 cases. That is a massive amount of resources. Those who say there is no money in broader society and that we are all taxed to death need to understand these figures exist. They are not my figures, they are Revenue's figures. In recent years, €2.7 billion was brought in by Revenue and fair play to it on that.

The three main aims of the Single Supervisory Mechanism are to ensure the safety and soundness of the European banking system, which we all want, to increase financial integration and stability, and to ensure consistent supervision. Some people have concerns about the second proposal. We cannot go back to the days where banks were allowed to carry on in the way they did. The problem is a broader political one. Some senior bankers and major speculators destroyed the country and our economic and financial system. Others participated in this as well and it is very important to highlight that.

Those involved in politics often get the blame for the actions of others. I would like a little more personal responsibility to be taken when we deal with the broader issue of what happened during the crisis and the so-called Celtic tiger era. There are many who say that we all partied. I reject that assertion. Many of us did not party during the period in question, so that view must be challenged. There were some who partied but they never accepted personal responsibility. That is an aspect of the matter to which consideration must be given.

As some of my colleagues have said, the value of AIB is in the region of €13 billion. That is a major asset. I would issue a word of warning here. When we come to consider the proposals that will be put forward - as the Minister indicated, this will happen after the election - any recommendation to sell off AIB or to identify other options in respect of it or the other banks should be examined thoroughly, professionally and independently. When one has a €13 billion asset which can act as a major engine for the economy, one must obtain the best advice. Sadly, in the past we did not obtain such advice. It is important to highlight this matter.

There are other issues relating to the banks about which I have, at times, criticised the Government. The interest payments on the bailout money alone continue to cost as much each year as all of the tax cuts and the spending increases. We need to examine that. We talk about a democratic revolution but we need to get on with it and we must also ensure that there is more accountability and transparency when dealing with the public finances. That is why we always must be vigilant when talking about the Economic Management Council and its role in society.

I reject some of the comments made last week by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when he criticised Greece and inquired as to where are the supporters of Syriza now. The Minister forgot two things: first, the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Tsipras, won the election; and, second, Germany and Poland were among those countries which attacked Greece at the onset of the crisis. It must be remembered that Germany defaulted unilaterally in the 1930s and received massive debt relieve in 1953, and that Poland, another EU member state, had large debts written off in 1989. I accept that Greece was in a bad way but it is the duty of all of us in the European Union to assist other countries. I am of the view that need a collective response, not an isolationist policy.

Returning to the legislation, the purpose of the provision in section 4 is to allow the Minister to carry out all such things as are necessary and expedient for the purpose of the State performing its functions under the agreement, particularly those specified in subsection (2). Section 5, which relates to the defrayal of certain expenses, indicates that any expenses incurred by the Minister under section 4 shall be paid out of the Central Fund. I raise these issues because the issue of expenses being paid out of the Central Fund is important in the context of the public finances.

When discussing the spending of State funds, we need to be vigilant. I am particularly concerned about this matter in the context of the broader debate on housing. Many have raised the issue of rents, the housing crisis and the homelessness crisis. Most economists, if one looks at it objectively, say that rent control does not work. I strongly support the view that we need to be vigilant and increase rent supplement to match market prices. I am also strongly supportive of building more social housing, improving the position with regard to security of tenure and putting in place stronger regulation in respect of landlords in order to support families. We should not be afraid to consider proposals in this regard. We should certainly not shirk away from such proposals.

I accept that there are instances of some landlords are getting a rough time from tenants. Having tenants who do not pay their bills is never an option. Every tenant who I know, particularly the poorest of the poor, will make his or her best efforts to pay the rent. However, there are some others who will no do so. Recently, I dealt with a number of cases in my constituency where landlords have been supportive of certain tenants but who have not been paid rent for six, seven or eight months. These landlords are not getting any justice either. An issue exists in this regard and we need to examine it. If certain tenants are not paying their rent and if there are others who find themselves in dire straits, I would seek to house the latter. It is as simple as that. We need to wake up and face reality.

We also need to look at the issue of the empty plots and sites around Dublin city. While the Minister is present, I wish to inform him that I would introduce a use-it-or-lose-it tax to force speculators to sell to developers. I would also bring forward a tax on land-holding because such a measure would help to reduce the costs relating to this issue. I raise these matters in the context of the legislation and of the broader debate as well.

In the wake of the economic and financial crisis that started in the eurozone in 2008, the European Commission recognised the need for stronger and better regulation and supervision of the financial sector. One can say that again because it was out of control. Since 2010, the Commission has proposed 28 new rules to better regulate, supervise and govern the financial sector. This is important. The key terms there are, "regulate", "supervise" and "govern the financial sector". These rules aim to provide the basic framework for the EU and to underpin a properly functioning Single Market for financial services. That is important in the context of the broader debate.

When we are talking about the public finances, spending and taxes, we also need to know that it is not only about an economy. We have a society. For me, society is people. Without people, there is no society. We need to redevelop trust and community spirit by insisting on people-centred policies and actions. I have dealt with the practical issues but that is the broader vision. I would like to see a new Ireland that is built on equality and social justice. Above all, however, such an Ireland must be built on a sustainable economy.

See this speech in context