Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for my absence. I had to slip out for questions to the Taoiseach in the Dáil.

I thank the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council for, as always, a very interesting presentation and report. To follow on from the last point about broadening the tax base, does the council see carbon taxes of one kind or another coming to the rescue? The Dáil has adopted the Oireachtas committee's report on climate change and declared a climate emergency. Last year some Deputies urged the Minister for Finance to start equalising the excise duties on diesel and petrol, something that would have brought in more revenue. Does the council agree that some of the taxation increases that will inevitably result from our efforts to meet our decarbonisation targets will fulfil some of the requirement to broaden the tax base? Does it have a view on how we can protect more vulnerable citizens in the context of an increase in carbon taxes? The leader of the Green Party has been talking about the green new deal, but many of us in this House are concerned about vulnerable households and fuel poverty.

Would the witnesses agree, for example, with a tax and dividend approach, where the dividend would go back to each household or citizen? That is the first point on carbon taxation.

Why does the IFAC still include the debt ratio among its four major approaches to the future, given that on page 98 it is stated that the coupon bonds have largely been refinanced, but after 2021 there may be some bonds with which we might have difficulty? Do we still need to worry so much about debt ratios?

The witnesses might have noticed that a very important drug for a very small number of patients, Spinraza, finally received approval. Most of the Deputies in the room campaigned for it to become available. We heard an indicative cost of €20 million per annum. Previously, we campaigned for a drug, Kuvan, which has also been approved. Year after year, there are cost overruns in the health budget. We could have a three-year ceiling. We have a new chief executive in the HSE, formerly of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, who seems to want to relentlessly and ruthlessly control expenditure. Do the witnesses see any way in which we can have a realistic approach to health spending, which might involve an extra €2 billion or €3 billion a year, and get the revenue necessary for that?