Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform: Select Sub-Committee on Finance

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2013: Committee Stage

3:00 pm

Photo of Michael NoonanMichael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The primary purpose of the scheme is to stimulate the construction industry and get people with skills in construction off the live register. One must measure it on the basis of the additional quantums of work carried out; otherwise the scheme will fails. It is not my intention to include routine maintenance works and repairs in the scheme as such works will be carried out in any event. That is not the purpose of the scheme which I must measure against the additional quantums of work carried out to stimulate construction industry activity and provide employment. One calls the plumber when one's electric shower goes wrong and when one cannot turn on the hot top. If the plumber spends half a day working on it, it may cost €550 or €560. It is not the intention of scheme to cover that expense because that is deemed to be normal repair and maintenance work in a house. A reasonable or decent quantum of work that would fit the purposes of the schemeis what is required to stimulate activitiy and employment in the construction industry. That is the purpose of the scheme.

As we examined the measure and as I listened to the Second Stage debate, I said "Yes" to lowering the sum to €5,000 which, when one adds VAT, becomes €5,675 and then to adding a number of contractors. I think the amendment meets the need identified. Members may argue about the exact amounts, but we had to pick a value that would be significant enough to stimulate the building industry and provide employment. I do not want to include what I regard as normal repair and maintenance works in the scheme because that is not its purpose. One could argue for lower figures in using the black economy as an example. In doing so one puts the black economy and the legitimate economy on the same line as if they were both reasonable choices for a householder.

They are not reasonable choices because, first, social welfare inspectors look over one's shoulder if one hires people on social welfare to carry out construction work on the house and, second, the Revenue Commissioners want to ensure contractors are registered for taxation, including VAT. Arguments have been put to me that work will still be done in the black economy, as if both decisions were on an equal basis. One decision is illegal and some of the activity is quasi-criminal, while the other is legitimate. That has to be taken into account also.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.