Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

Tááthas orm deis a fháil labhairt ar an mBille Airgeadais.

The Finance Bill reflects Government interests and an increasingly outdated reality and is not in the public interest now or for the future. I listened to the Minister's speech in which he stated, "The policies of recent years have delivered a personal tax environment that fosters and supports effort and enterprise." He could argue that for as long as energy is affordable.

Unfortunately, that situation is changing rapidly. The Bill continues in this direction which is a very short-sighted approach. He also claimed that there is much reform in this Bill. I do not see anything like the reform that is needed. A headline in The Guardian newspaper today shows that other countries are copping on very fast, "Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy". To many in the Government that might seem to be going a bit far but Ireland is more oil-dependent than Sweden, which is focused on international competitiveness, in which the Minister too claims to take a serious interest. The reality and the Minister's aspirations do not gel.

How cynical is it for the Minister to boast about a rise in fuel allowance, which is badly needed, while standing over a situation in which Ireland has the worst insulated housing stock in northern Europe, and fuel costs that will soak up the increase before the next budget is announced? There is no attempt to remove VAT on insulation to enable people to offset the fuel demand. There is no grant aid for the type of installation I and many others have added to houses, such as solar panels, which are costly. Interest free loans for such installations are available in other countries but not here.

This Minister does not see the picture presented by experts and commentators. Economist David McWilliams writes about house prices in the Irish Independent today. It is quite cynical for the Government to fail to address in this Bill the unaffordability of house prices. David McWilliams writes that the consumer price index gives a false read on reality, yet it guides the Government.

The all-party committee on property laid down a clear road map for the Government, if it was serious about addressing this issue. One wonders whether the Government prefers not to address the issue. The further people must go from their workplace to live, the further they must drive, and the more VAT and excise return the Government gains on the energy and transport for which people must pay. Is the Government not being extremely short-sighted in that regard? It may gain a good revenue return on those items but people will find it impossible to live. That is increasingly the case as the cost of living increases with rising fuel prices.

There was some attempt to address the issue in dealing with biofuel. The Government's audacity, however, is amazing when it says it will comply with an EU biofuel directive for 2% usage by 2008 although the legal requirement is that it comply two years before then. We are announcing to the world that we will break the law for two years and that is supposed to be good news. Perhaps it is good news when one considers that we quite often break the law for many more years but it is nothing of which to boast. It should have been done a long time ago. There should be no excise on biofuel if we are serious about kick-starting the biofuel industry and providing alternative enterprises for farmers.

We have heard many warnings from wind energy companies which have gone to other countries because they did not find this Government helpful, co-operative or understanding of the need for large capital investment in renewable energy. These companies were prepared to take the risk, yet the Government confined itself to land-based wind energy projects and the offshore projects have not materialised as they should have, given the resources here. This is another example of Government short-sightedness.

There is no escaping the fact that the Government is overseeing a giveaway in terms of tax breaks and write-offs to exploration companies. We need the energy now but will need it far more in the future. To give it away now will leave us in an even more precarious position. We should not rush to give away our oil or gas, no matter how small the find. The finds are not very big to judge by geological figures. As the cost is being offset, in effect there is a zero return to the State. We simply buy it at the market price, and that is certainly not in this country's interest, either now or in future. If the exploration companies can effectively be treated as charities, then charities have a good case to ask why there is not a VAT refund, as the Green Party advocated in its pre-budget submission. Why is the section 45 threshold not brought down to €135, and why is section 45 relief not extended to cover donations of non-cash assets such as property, shares and securities? In effect, charities — not only the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or the better-known ones — carry out a considerable amount of work and fill in many of the gaps in community life not being addressed. Quality of life is not a measurement in the Government's economic calculator. GDP and GNP are not sufficiently wide to cover the work of many charities. At a cost of €40 million, which is the cost of the measures we propose — less than the loss on the electronic voting debacle, for example — we would secure a far better quality of life based on the fact that charities would be able to be more viable than they are under the Government.

See this speech in context