Houses of the Oireachtas

All parliamentary debates are now being published on our new website. The publication of debates on this website will cease in December 2018.

Go to

Budget Statement 2018 (Continued)

Tuesday, 10 October 2017

Dáil Éireann Debate
Vol. 960 No. 1

First Page Previous Page Page of 95 Next Page Last Page

  4 o’clock

(Speaker Continuing)

[Deputy Pearse Doherty: Information on Pearse Doherty Zoom on Pearse Doherty] It is unbelievable that this is where the Government is at and that in the middle of a housing crisis, in the middle of a health crisis and in the middle of all of the different pressures we have, this is its priority for investment.

Last week we learned about who was benefitting from the research and development tax credit to which the Minister has made no changes. Let us look at what is happening. On budget day last year, the Minister published a report stating that action should be taken to ensure this tax credit does not run away and become an increasing cost. The report offered a number of solutions whereby the credit could not be availed of over and over again. Yet, documents I have obtained under freedom of information show that 65% of this €700 million tax credit is going to the top ten companies, which is unbelievable. Indeed, in the internal documents, officials within the Department are questioning whether companies are inflating research and development artificially to avail of this tax credit. Despite this, the Minister has decided no action is to be taken.

No action is to be taken with the bankers either. This is a common feature. Banks under the control of the State are telling us they will not pay tax for 21 years and other banks telling us it will be 20 years but yet the Minister takes no measures to reintroduce the measure Brian Lenihan originally brought in, which would see the losses that are carried forward only applied to 50% of the profits in any given year. This is unforgivable. That banks making a profit of €1 billion - AIB made a profit of €800 million in the first six months of this year - will not be paying tax for two decades is not acceptable given the pressures we are under.

This could have been a very different budget but the Government has returned to form and has done what it always does. It is a budget that obviously has an eye on the election. It is about the resources that are available to try to tick enough of the boxes Government Members think will please enough people to make sure they are returned to the Government benches. We are elected with a mandate, but with a mandate to lead. We are elected to lead this country and at a time of crisis, we need to provide that leadership. I said before that I will measure the Minister's budget on how it addresses the crises in housing and health. In those two areas, he has failed, and not only failed, but failed spectacularly. I repeat that I cannot for the life of me understand that, in a €1.2 billion package, he has decided not to deliver one social house in addition to those announced by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, when he was in the Department. I cannot understand, given the overrun in health, that he has given so little to health, which will not even allow the health service to stand still. Given the fact our constituency offices and the Minister's constituency office are inundated with the hard cases and with the real-life stories of people who are suffering as a result of policies the Minister and his predecessor introduced on budget day, which have left so many people homeless and languishing on waiting lists and on trolleys, the Minister should have done something different. It is very disappointing that this is the type of budget he has brought forward.

Deputy Joan Burton: Information on Joan Burton Zoom on Joan Burton I wish to share time with Deputies Kelly and Jan O'Sullivan.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Eugene Murphy): Information on Eugene Murphy Zoom on Eugene Murphy Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Joan Burton: Information on Joan Burton Zoom on Joan Burton I am aware the Minister for Finance is fond of reading and the theatre. He might well have looked to Shakespeare’s plays to provide him with a title for his address today. "As You Like It", would, I guess, be his first choice, a nice romantic tale to please the punters - something, however small, for everyone in the audience. Now that a few hours have passed, my own judgment would lean towards "Much Ado About Nothing" for today’s less than dramatic offering.

The White Paper published last Friday reveals a total spend, current and capital, of close to €60 billion. Today we devote a whole day to dissecting plans to add about another €1 billion to this. The discussion today is about €1 billion out of €60 billion - all this fuss and argument over not much more than 1% of the total. We have been stuffed to the gills with rhetoric and bloated promises about jam tomorrow, based on optimistic scenarios of perpetual growth that could blow up in everybody’s face if Brexit goes horribly wrong. The big boast today is that we have a balanced budget for the first time in a decade. I am not as enamoured of this as the Minister and Taoiseach. First, it is an obligation of current European rules rather than a specific decision of an Irish Government. Second, the incorporation of capital investment spending in the total distorts the picture. We should join with other European states in having this policy adjusted to enable specific investment projects to be outside the deficit calculation. That is the only way we are going to revive many of the European economies and put in place vital infrastructure for people in this country and other European countries.

This budget is framed by the past and seems set on repeating some of the mistakes. We are now ten years on from the eve of the financial crisis, which started in September 2007 with a run on the Northern Rock bank. In his budget of that year, the then Minister for Finance, Brian Cowen, defiantly proclaimed over and over again the mantra of those days, "Ah but, the fundamentals are sound." The Minister for Finance previous to Brian Cowen relied on stamp duty revenue and used it to pay for tax cuts and permanent spending increases - his name was Charlie McCreevy. Those policies of unsustainable tax revenues laid the foundations of Ireland’s ruin. Today, unfortunately, the Minister for Finance has been tempted to travel down the same path. I am amazed that Fianna Fáil seems to have totally forgotten how it blew up the finances of the country. Today the Minister for Finance has raised €400 million from a 4% increase in non-residential stamp duty to pay for tax cuts and spending increases. Have we learned nothing from the past? A budget framed on transactions in the volatile Irish property market is laying the foundations of future crisis. One of the central lessons for Ireland from the crash was not to rely on transaction taxes on property to fund tax cuts and increases in current expenditure, yet this policy is a pillar of today's budget. I cannot understand it. While I understand the context of the Minister’s actions, here we are today as history repeats itself.

There is another aspect that is deeply troubling. Never before have I seen such a commercially sensitive tax increase leaked days in advance of the budget. This raises serious questions about the competence and the ethical framework of these budget leaks. Tonight the Dáil will vote to raise commercial stamp duty from 2% to 6%. Members can be assured that in the last 48 hours, property sales of millions of euro, possibly billions, were rushed through. We are all aware - at least, I am aware - of the devices that can be used to mitigate the tax, given the property sector knew about this, such as resting contracts and selling shares in properties as opposed to the underlying assets. We have been blinded by announcements by the Minister but nobody has so far looked at this fundamental issue. I recall a day when the current Commissioner, then Minister of State, Mr. Phil Hogan, actually resigned because of budget leaks which were only potentially advantageous to players in different sectors of the market. I am agog at this and think it is a real error of judgment by the Government.

The Charles Dickens character, Mr. Micawber, viewed a balanced family budget as defining total happiness while even a trifling deficit was the cause of total misery. A homeowner could be thrilled if he or she balanced income and expenditure but what if the roof of the family home was leaking or the house needed expenditure on better windows to retain warmth?

Last Updated: 11/02/2020 15:46:16 First Page Previous Page Page of 95 Next Page Last Page