Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party has proposed a standing commission on taxation. Many of the amendments to the Finance Bill 2016 recommend various studies. I am sure the Minister is aware that the reason for these proposed amendments is that it is extremely difficult to get information on a regular basis from the Department of Finance with regard to the different elements of the tax system, some of which are very complex and others on which the data may have been collected some years in arrears. Having information on the tax system is critically important particularly at a time when Ireland is facing so many challenges from Brexit and from a new political leadership in the United States of America. We would serve ourselves well to have a standing tax commission. In many ways frustration is the reason that the Minister is facing so many proposals for studies. As the Minister knows, it is not possible to amend a Finance Bill with regard to its measures in case they represent a charge, positive or negative, on the Exchequer.

That is the how the legal structure of the House works in dealing with Bills.

When the ESRI issued the original papers on the USC, it described it as a universal social contribution as opposed to a universal social charge. Therefore, with the idea of a universal social contribution came the idea that in return people would receive something of value for their contribution, either in services or payments by the State at points when they might need them. Of all the glaring anomalies in the system, the biggest in the longer term is that we have so many people who are inadequately provided for in terms of pensions. If, in fact, the Minister was open to having a standing tax commission or individual studies, as unsatisfactory as I suspect many of them would turn out to be, we could look at how we could use existing payments in the tax system to fund in what will be an increasingly challenging time for the system not just the State retirement pension, whether contributory or non-contributory, but adequate pensions.

When Minister for Social Protection I left in place a template. We were not able to reach agreement with our partners in government, despite long discussions. The Minister should not dismiss an examination of the USC if we are to resolve the issue of what various apocalyptic articles in the newspapers describe as the pensions bombshell or the pensions hole and if we want people to be able to retire on an income approaching somewhere near 50% of their earned income while in work, given that a decreasing number of employers, particularly in the private sector, are providing for well funded pension schemes, together with their employees' contributions. While the Minister may be rejecting it now, as a society, we need to think about pension provision. We have people in all sorts of family arrangement. In some cases, people will be able to work for all of their working lives, while in others, many women and fathers may have to forgo working for significant periods of time to provide care and attention for their children or elderly relatives. While the Minister may say no now, it indicates a serious lack of foresight not to look at this issue and the way in which we can provide pensions for people.

During the course of office of the previous Government, many lower paid workers were taken out of the USC net and the impact of the USC was reduced significantly for lower paid workers. That was good. I know that not everyone in the House agreed with it, but in further reform of the USC how it could be used to contribute to necessary area should be looked at. Others might well make a case that some of the movey should be devoted to, for instance, health services, similar to the old health contribution made through the parallel PRSI system, but it would be wrong to pass by any consideration or examination of the USC. Without a doubt, it has been a heavy lifter in raising significant amounts of tax in the State. Therefore, the things people want, whether it be health, education and social services or investment, could be wholly or partially funded from USC revenue.

When the debate on the Finance Bill is over, I would like to return to an examination of the USC to see what we could do in a positive way, particularly to provide for pensions in the future which we will all need. We will need significantly in excess of the current level of the State retirement pension. Make no mistake about it, many people at work and, for instance, in rural Ireland, unless they are in public service jobs, may be earning a low income. They may be self-employed or employed in an SME. These employers and those who are self-employed are not generally in a position to make the type of pension provision made in the public service through contributions made by the Government and employees or which larger private sector firms used to make for pension entitlements.

See this speech in context