Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Any irregularities, such as the unfair tax treatment of personal retirement savings account pension schemes with regard to the universal social charge liability of the employer's contribution, need to be amended. I will bring forward recommendations relating to this issue on Committee Stage.

We all want the end of austerity. We want to be able to provide for our families and lead the best lives we can. I do not agree with the Government's vision that this would be best achieved by cutting taxes. The modest amounts of cash being freed up, which will be reduced to a certain extent by water charges, will neither mark the end of austerity for Irish families nor provide them with the financial security they need. Many families in Ireland are struggling under the soaring cost of basic necessary services such as housing, child care and health. They are paying disproportionately more for these services than their European peers. These costs will not be matched by the tax breaks. Rather than introducing modest tax breaks, the Government could have concentrated on increasing investment that would have benefited the entire population. Due to our low tax intake, we have one of the lowest levels of public investment in Europe. The historically low cost of borrowing would have offered an opportunity to increase our capital spending, thereby providing a more effective way to inculcate growth. By adopting this strategy, the rate of return to the economy would have been well in excess of the cost of borrowing.

I organised a public forum in Tallaght prior to the budget announcement in October. I met people and listened to their concerns about the budget and what they wanted the Government to do. None of the people spoke about tax cuts. They wanted better and more affordable public services. Many civil society groups submitted budget proposals, but the vast majority of these groups feel their inputs were not meaningfully reflected in the decisions made in the budget. I contrast that with the consultation on corporation tax that was mentioned earlier.

I also participated in a post-budget conference hosted by the Free Legal Advice Centre, which in an innovative way brought together the views of 39 non-governmental organisations that work in the area of human rights protection. The overwhelming conclusion from their commentary is that the progressive realisation of human rights should be taken into account in the budgetary process before choices are made and after they are implemented. The recession and the accompanying austerity measures had a devastating impact on the public service infrastructure. It will take a long-term reinvestment to restore this to a standard that meets basic human rights requirements. If we were to apply a human rights analysis to budgetary decisions by pre-assessing how a measure might impact on people's basic rights, it would have a huge impact on people's lives. I refer particularly to the most vulnerable people in our society. I hope the Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister of State and his other colleagues, might consider including this approach for the commemorative budget 2016. It is in the interests of everyone that we play fair and play to win.