Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

Perhaps one could also include somebody in the process who could put the consumer's perspective. It is all very well consulting financial institutions but the Minister should also consult people who might have a reasonable view. Perhaps the consumer director in IFSRA would have a view that would uphold the rights of consumers. Much of the compliance headache will be on consumers if this is being reported.

I note that the Minister does not have to make a positive motion to the House in order for the provision to be introduced so it would be necessary for us to annul it. It is the old story that the Minister makes the order and we do not see it. Once the Finance Bill is passed we will not get another chance to find out whether the costs and the benefits were warranted. I have no objection to the power. The case for it was well made, but it was done in the context of reasonableness and of putting tests in the way. When one is using invasive and intrusive powers there have to be tests as to how far one can go and how far it is reasonable to go. I heard somebody refer to the right to an Ombudsman in regard to tax. There is an expectation that while the power may be justified, a test of reasonableness must be included in it. Those tests are not in the Finance Bill as it stands but I take it from what the Minister said that he will assess them.

An issue that keeps coming back from rural Deputies is that of capital gains tax, CGT, on compulsory purchase order, CPO, land. The Minister has rejected this in the past but it appears to be a continuing concern to rural Deputies and I am sure it will come up again on Committee Stage.

I noted the Minister made a concession on the old VAT thresholds but he was not at his most generous the day he rewrote those sections. The money must have been beginning to run out at that stage because it was a fairly small increase.

The other matter I note in passing is the income disregard for child minders. A concern has been raised as to whether such persons will enjoy social insurance cover. I would have thought they would enjoy such cover, that the Minister is providing an exemption from paying the social insurance levy but that they still enjoy social insurance cover. Perhaps the Minister would clarify in his reply on Second Stage that the exemption from tax and PRSI will not leave such people without proper PRSI cover.

See this speech in context