Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I want to follow on from some of the remarks made by Sinn Féin Deputies regarding the process by which the application and submission from the Government was made to the European Commission under the EU's recovery and resilience fund. It is a sad commentary on how we do business that Deputies from across the political spectrum represented in this House did not have an opportunity to debate Ireland's pitch to the EU on the recovery and resilience package in advance of the Government's submission to the Commission. At this crossroads for our economy and society, as we prepare to emerge, we hope, from a devastating public health and economic crisis, parliamentary input into this process ought to have been sought. Like others, I made a submission on behalf of my party to this process in the normal way. The sidestepping of the Dáil on a matter of such significance is deeply troubling.

It would be self-serving and churlish not to welcome many of the investments announced as part of the resilience and recovery fund drawdown. Proposals on green technology, digitalisation, innovation and research and development are welcome and will help to address the yawning gaps that have been identified in our public service provision and create platforms for sustainable growth across our economy. That is the future, however, and we need to look at what yesterday's announcements mean for people in the here and now and in a few months time. This plan represented the opportunity to do some big thinking on the concept of a new social contract. It was a chance to change direction and paint a picture of a better future. It does not pass that test. The "build back better" trope is beginning to grate. It is a hackneyed phrase that suggests the old normal of creaking health services, low pay and poor housing prospects is acceptable, with the addition of a few minor tweaks here and there.

The truth is there is little new in this new economic recovery plan, the publication of which was delayed on two separate occasions. Much of what we see in the plan launched alongside the resilience and recovery programme is a rehash of existing plans, tied up with a new ribbon. To be told that a €50 drop in income from September is not a cliff-edge fall is an insult to people in sectors like the aviation, arts and entertainment sectors who are unlikely to go back to a normal working life any time soon and have bills and fixed costs to meet. The only timelines in the plan launched yesterday are tied to welfare and business supports. The Government needs to rethink the early unwinding of these crucial supports, which have helped people avoid poverty for the past 15 to 16 months. I expect many of the Minister's colleagues in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, at their parliamentary party meetings this evening, will express their reservations, to put it diplomatically, about the impact these changes will have.

It will be said that the pandemic unemployment payment was set at 70% of the average income rate of the sectors most impacted by the pandemic. That does not tell the whole story. The fact is that many of our welfare rates were inadequate in the first place to keep people out of poverty. That is why the Government must take another look at the adequacy of social welfare rates and commit, at the very least, to inflation-proofing them to protect the purchasing power of people on fixed incomes, as prices for the basics will rise when the economy recovers.

I am like a broken record when it comes to my next point. I have consistently made the case to reform the innovative and welcome wage subsidy scheme and convert it into a German-style short-time work scheme to help give all firms a fair shot at viability through what may be choppy economic waters ahead. Such a scheme should come with conditions around training and upskilling when participants are not working and should include a no lay-off pledge. Instead, it looks like the existing successful scheme will be scrapped in a matter of months, before we have any sense of what the economy is likely to look like next year and the year after. I appeal to the Minister to review this position and keep the scheme in place, with adaptations, for the reasons I mentioned. It was and is a really good innovation and tool. A reformed scheme would be of some use for sectors such as aviation that will continue to face pressures.

Youth unemployment is the single greatest challenge we face. A staggering 64% of young women were shown to be out of work, according to figures for March this year. We hope to see those figures improve but, in the meantime, war must be declared on youth unemployment. While the pledges on retraining and upskilling are welcome, it is hard to discern whether the additional 50,000 places represent a new or pre-existing commitment. Moreover, it appears those places will be available not just to younger people but to all who are out of work. Every day out of employment deepens the scars for young people who are jobless. We know when the PUP will be cut for young workers but we do not have any timeline or guarantee as to when the new schemes will be up and running. That is really problematic.

Commitments around an easy to administer examinership-lite programme were enunciated in the economic plan yesterday and are likely to be made law before the summer recess. This is understandable in the economic circumstances but it is unforgivable that no corresponding pledge exists to better protect workers who are likely to be caught up in insolvencies. We run the risk of waves of liquidations as the economy finds its level. Five years on from its publication, we need to legislate to give effect to the Duffy Cahill review. We said "never again" after the Clerys debacle. Instead, we got the Debenhams debacle.

Given that our corporation tax base is vulnerable on a number of fronts, it might have been expected that this plan would say something new on how our national industrial strategy needs to pivot away from its risky over-reliance on a small number of heavy hitters in the foreign direct investment, FDI, sector for good jobs and 20% of our tax receipts. Plans to help a few more SMEs to export are, frankly, underwhelming and were, in many cases, already announced in previous initiatives. Additional investment in the green technology sector, digitalisation, innovation and research and development are welcome, but we need a much more ambitious plan to scale up our medium-sized enterprises and help them to employ more people across the regions and go global from Ireland.

In return for the drawdown of €950 million from the EU, it is there in black and white in the plan that Ireland gave way on the question of "aggressive tax planning". The Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, need to explain what concessions were made to the European Commission on tax policy and how they will impact on the Exchequer's bottom line and on budget forecasts. Were the concessions offered over and above the ongoing OECD-led global corporation tax reform process? The Minister and his colleagues must publish a detailed explanation of what this latest development means for Ireland.

The planned reforms to the local property tax are long overdue. We need to broaden our tax base and focus on wealth taxes. As a socialist, I am a firm believer in taxes on assets. The pretend progressives in Sinn Féin are not. That was a popular and populist position to hold in 2013. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Sinn Féin says it wants wealth taxes but not on property and land. That is an utterly fraudulent and dishonest position. We cannot have wealth taxes while exempting millionaires' mansions. This is socialism 101. According to Sinn Féin's youth wing, one cannot be a socialist and favour property taxes.

Sinn Féin's Minister of Finance in the North, who stands over the collection of £1 billion in rates, must not have slept very well last night. I look forward to the Sinn Féin youth wing calling for his head because clearly he is not a socialist or a republican, but I will believe that when I see it. This is Sinn Féin and its partitionism in action. It does one thing in Newry and says another thing down the road in Dundalk. It tells people what they want to hear regardless of the consequences. Deputy Doherty let the cat out of the bag on "Prime Time" last night. He said we should tax income and not property. That is not in the interests of the working class and those who are most at risk from the chronic underfunding of local councils and an unreformed local property tax system. This is an incredible position to adopt, especially at this fragile time in our recovery, and this is not the message hard-working people will want to hear as they get back to work over the coming period. Let us have a mature, informed debate on tax but let us not pretend we can do this without imposing broad and measured taxes on assets and wealth.

See this speech in context