Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has outlined the economic rationale for the scheme. In making his last argument he missed the point because of the scale of the black economy. He spoke about quasi-criminal and illegal activity which obviously describe work done in the black economy, but it has been normalised for so many people. They do not see it like the Minister; that is the reality, regardless of whether we like it in this Chamber. The black economy is all around us and probably most dominant in the construction sector. Does the Minister have any assessment of its size in respect of contractors as small as those in question? There are 80,000 construction workers unemployed. Some of those who are employed put some jobs through the books, while there are others who do jobs for cash in hand.

This scheme forces those who may not be registered to register and it makes the claimant who wants to have work carried out the watchdog for the Revenue Commissioners. This is because the claimant will not get relief if the construction worker is not registered or declaring his or her income to the Revenue Commissioners. Therefore, the Minister's argument is flawed.

I could understand the Minister's logic if he were to exclude the black economy and state that routine works would be carried out in any event. However, as Deputy Boyd Barrett indicated, many routine works are not being done. For example, showers that are broken are not being fixed and doors that are hanging off their hinges are not being repaired or replaced. I am not stating that this applies in all cases but there are certainly individuals who cannot afford to have such works carried out. Leaving that argument aside, what is proposed here is about providing additionality but it should also involve trying to stamp out the black economy.

The Minister stated, in the context of additionality, that if the wind is whistling through the windows of a house, the owner will have them replaced. That is genuinely not the case. For some people it may be but does the Minister believe that any one of the tens of thousands of people who cannot pay their mortgages or who have been screwed by the banks are going to go to apply for a loan to have their windows replaced? Approval would not be forthcoming in respect of such applications. The Minister stated that the banks are making credit available. I have four children and, as a result, we probably need to add an extension on to our house. I made an inquiry in respect of the matter with KBC, the website of which contains an advertisement for a home improvement scheme. However, I discovered that the scheme is not for individuals such as me or the majority of people throughout the State. It only applies if one has equity in one's house. We are not discussing new money here. This money would have been available in any event, regardless of whether the Minister introduced his own scheme. One could always go to one's bank and state that one wanted to release a portion of the €50,000 worth of equity in one's House. It has always been there. This is not additionality whereby, despite the fact that one's home is in negative equity, Bank of Ireland, AIB or KBC is going to provide one with an extra €10,000 because one needs to put an extension on one's house or landscape one's garden. The latter is not happening.

As the Minister stated earlier, routine maintenance works are not supposed to be covered under the scheme. Rather, it will be the luxury items that will be covered. What is proposed relates to people who want to have their lawns landscaped, new driveways installed, an extension added or the entire living room refurbished. These are not the things which people need in the here and now. I am not arguing against the scheme because there is a need to provide a boost to the economy. The concept behind the scheme is both very good and welcome. However, the scheme also contains a number of flaws. We must analyse the scale of the black economy in both the section of society to which I refer and the part of the trade involved, namely, the lower end. I spoke to contractors and others involved in construction in respect of this matter. If one seeks to have an extension built or a bedroom with an en suiteadded to one's house, it will cost between €20,000 and €25,000. The people who carry out such jobs are usually registered with Revenue. It is those who take on jobs valued at €1,000 or €2,000 who may not be registered. It would be wrong to give the impression that non-registration is widespread because there are many people who pay their taxes and who take on jobs worth €1,000 or €2,000. There is, however, an issue in terms of the black economy.

I accept that the Minister must settle on a figure but in refusing to accept the amendment, he will ensure that works with a value of €1,500 will be carried out. If, however, those who want to have such works carried out do not have any additional money, they will not be able to avail of this. Those who do not have additional money lying about are more than likely be people whose homes are in negative equity. These individuals will not be able to get a loan from their banks in order to extend or refurbish their houses. Those to whom I refer are struggling to get by. If he wants the scheme to work, the Minister should reduce the threshold to €1,500. As stated, multiple contracts go some of the way but one must still have access to €5,000 one way or another. I understand that this €5,000 must be spent with the year whereas if one had €20,000 or €30,000 at one's disposal, one could make two claims and would not have to spend everything in the same year.

What is proposed in my amendment would allow citizens to act as a watchdog for the Revenue. That is something which is badly needed. I appeal to the Minister, therefore, to consider a lower threshold. If he is not disposed to doing so, well then so be it.