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

I thank the Deputy. VAT is something we will look at. A document was published earlier in our discussions on forming a Government where we signalled this area as one in which a possible initiative would be taken. We were in government six weeks in 2011 when we reduced the VAT on the tourism industry from 13.5% to 9%. The tourism industry attributes to that the lifting of the industry off the floor at a very early stage and turning it into the fine and viable industry we have now. As such, it is worth looking at. There are other considerations to take into account, however. If we were to reduce VAT from 13.5% to 9% in the next budget, the cost would be €210 million. We could use that €210 million to provide extra capital for social housing. Given the way the fiscal rules operate, one can account for capital in consuming fiscal space over a four year period. Therefore, one gets a bigger bang for one's buck if one puts it into capital. In gross terms, one could generate approximately €800 million of activity for the same €200 million while having a much smaller impact from an accounting point of view on the resources available to us. That is worth consideration as well.

The other point I wish to note is one on which we have not yet made a decision. I am giving my thoughts as we move towards the budget when we probably will make a decision. With all due respect to the Construction Industry Federation, its submissions are in the interests of builders. That is its job. It represents the industry not the purchasers and it is important to remember that. If I could give a tax break which would put money in the pockets of purchasers rather than of builders, I would be more favourably disposed to it. As such, we are looking, first, at the marginal advantage in using the same amount of money for capital as against tax breaks and, second, at whether there is a mechanism for directing the money to purchasers. The model I am looking at is the very successful tax break for home extensions. I have given the committee the statistics. It generated an enormous amount of activity at a very low cost. The numbers were €59 million with 7,500 contractors working on 30,000 homes. The model is that Revenue has a unit and one applies online if one is doing a home extension. It is the person who gets the home extension who gets the money back through the tax system. We are looking at a model like that. While no decision has been made, it is under active consideration in the talks that are taking place elsewhere as well as in my Department. Would the Deputy remind me of her second question?