Tom Shehan (Fine Gael)

There are positive aspects to the budget and the Finance Bill, particularly in regard to the universal social charge where the exemption threshold increased from €4,000 to €10,000. That exemption was most helpful to those on the lower pay scales.

I compliment the members of Cabinet on the work they did last week on behalf of the country in selling Ireland abroad and conveying the message that we are open for business. In one week, two or three weeks ago, there were 1,000 jobs announcements for Drogheda and 500 for Kinsale. That was a week in which one could be proud to be a member of the Government. What those jobs will mean to Haggardstown and Kinsale, west Cork, and the whole area is never considered but it was a proud day. A priority of the Government is job creation, which is what will get us out of the financial burden. Getting people back to work and paying their taxes supports investment and stimulates research. That is a concept that is easy to grasp. All Members should support that initiative.

Sections 33 to 35, inclusive, deal with the important initiative of cross-Border mergers. Section 20 which deals with farm taxation will enable the agricultural community to reach and possibly exceed the goals set by Harvest 2020. Exports in the agricultural sector as a whole are proceeding well. It is right and correct that the Government would support the initiative to reach the commitments outlined for Harvest 2020.

Section 52 deals with royalty payments. I am disappointed - I may be wrongly informed - there is no mention of natural resources in the section. I wish a royalty payment would come back to the Government from recent and future fines. Section 67 deals with tax relief on bodies that may donate to charity. Will it lead to a Ladbroke's All-Ireland football final or a Paddy Power hurling final? It would not matter to Kerry because we would win the all-Ireland no matter who sponsored it.

Section 85 deals with an anti-avoidance tax measure. It is quite worrying. Of late business people have told me that banks are not giving credit to businesses and are closing them. On the other hand, Revenue will close as many businesses, if not more, than the banks because it has become heavy-handed. I will not ask the Minister of State to direct Revenue but I plead with him to ask Revenue in as nice a way as possible to do its best to thrash out deals with people in business rather than being heavy-handed because people are under pressure cannot get finance to pay off Revenue direct. I ask the Minister of State to also ask Revenue to be more lenient and to draw up agreements with businesses thus affording them an opportunity to pay. Every business wants to pay and are willing to do so but if the rug is pulled from under them they will not have an opportunity to pay and turn around their business.

My last question is on section 126 which follows my previous point. It will enable Revenue to require a taxpayer who has had a significant previous tax default to provide Revenue with a bond covering fiduciary taxes. That will be another hard pill for people struggling in business to swallow when they see a fella down the road that has closed three or four businesses yet sets up the following week, continues to do business for a year and a half and does a runner again. Section 85 is recorded as an anti-avoidance measure of VAT but that Revenue should, as far as possible, reach an agreement with the genuine people that I talked about. Many of whom run family businesses that have existed for generations. I ask Revenue to do the best it can to reach an agreement with them on repayments.