Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

It is nice to have the witnesses to myself. I thank them for their contributions. I strongly agree with them on some of the points they made and disagree with them on others. I fully agree on using the surprise corporate tax receipts to fund key strategic areas of infrastructure and diversify the economy. The witnesses may be surprised to learn that this approach would be the thrust of the industrial policy of People Before Profit. There is, however, a contradiction between that view and the concern the witnesses expressed about a potential minimum effective corporate tax rate. We do not know how long the bonanza will last but it will come to an end at some point. Would we not be better off facing that reality? From a moral point of view, we should address that issue in any case because much of this tax income is from a small number of corporations whose long-term value to the economy is a little questionable as we are vulnerable to what they might do. Would we not be better off closing down some of the tax reliefs they get and redirect them precisely into the areas the witnesses advocated, for example, diversifying the economy and ensuring we have the necessary infrastructure to do so. An obvious example, which was mentioned earlier, is research and development tax relief, which has jumped to €700 million and overwhelmingly goes to a small group of IT companies. Would it not be better to redirect that money into ramping up our ability to produce the apprentices that have been mentioned or developing the infrastructure necessary for more balanced regional development? I will not list all of the things we could do with the money. Even if we took half of the €700 million and redirected it to some of those areas, it would be very good for developing a more sustainable domestic economy that would act as a better buffer in the long term against the ups and downs we may experience. I put those questions to IBEC.

The Construction Industry Federation has issued a stark warning and we should all take it very seriously. Its claim that we will not meet the Rebuilding Ireland targets because of various bottlenecks and problems is very worrying. I ask the witnesses from CIF to elaborate on that point. Before the meeting, I spoke informally to them about this issue and I am not sure how to get out of this dilemma. As I pointed out, despite buying land from NAMA at relatively low prices, developers and builders are having extreme difficulty making a profit when they build on this land. I know some have bought land at the more inflated prices that have developed lately. Even where they bought at very low prices, however, it seems to be very difficult for the construction industry to build and sell at a profit. Maybe that explains the low level of output. Mr. Lucey gave the stark message that the current level of output will not increase much more and will certainly not reach the level we need unless something changes. My solution is that if the developers cannot do this, the State must intervene. Would it not be better for developers to have the State decide to contract them to develop what we need to build? The State must accept that we need a certain level of output come what may. This means asking developers how much it would cost to build the amount of housing needed because we have no choice in the matter. What seems to be happening at the moment is that delivery of housing is dependent on whether developers can make a profit. Consequently, housing is not being delivered to the scale required and, according to the CIF, we may hit a wall fairly soon.

I am very interested in apprenticeship, not least because my son has just started an apprenticeship to become an electrician, which I am delighted about. Is the problem with apprenticeships that it is too expensive for builders to take on apprentices or is it that there are not enough young people who want to avail of apprenticeships, or both? What can we do to address the problem? I am slightly worried about the suggestion that we should reinstate the student levy. Would students have to pay the levy? Surely we should make it more attractive for young people to go into the trades. Perhaps the State could give an additional subsidy to improve pay rates for first and second year apprentices. They might then view apprenticeship as an attractive option rather than being required to pay an extra student levy to take the pressure off the builder. I take the point that was made about builders. I read that a relatively low percentage of builders can afford to take on apprentices. However, loading the cost on the apprentice does not seem to be the best way to deal with the problem. The State needs to employ more apprentices or at least support them in order that apprenticeship becomes more attractive.