Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

The one point on which I strongly agree with Deputy Burton is the value of the hospice movement. That is without prejudice to any measures to encourage the construction of hospice buildings.

I found the discussion about the privatisation of the health service somewhat ironic. I am unclear as to the status of this policy at this stage. However, the Labour Party policy was to make the health service entirely insurance-based. Most of the insurance companies would be private. I have some little experience of the system in one continental country and I am not sure I want to see insurance companies effectively determining health policy and what will and will not be reimbursed. We have a very substantial public health service in the HSE. A comprehensive insurance-based policy could represent a wholesale privatisation of the health service and take it away from the public accountability it has.

The spirit behind the amendment is that the commission on taxation should be a standing body. I am not sure about that. We should be wary, not least in these times, of establishing more permanent agencies. Much could be said for asking a commission to do a job and when it has done its job to disband. I deprecate repetition this morning. The attempt to portray an essentially politically and ideologically neutral body as some enormous right-wing conspiracy and picking the most right-wing figure one can think of who is active in the political world, US Vice President, Dick Cheney, is grossly unfair to the commission and simply not objectively justified. Of course practitioners with experience of the system are needed on the commission along with others. Inevitably as many of the issues that will be discussed, including tax breaks, are technically pretty complicated, I do not see how one could do without such experts.

I will not go into great detail on the individualisation debate — nor did Deputy Burton. It must be pointed out that the pre-individualisation situation was unfair to many people. Single workers on the average industrial wage tended to be taxed at the higher rate and with younger married couples, the second working spouse would be paying the higher rate immediately on taking up work. It was not satisfactory and there seems to be a persistent wish on the Opposition benches to reverse that completely. I do not believe that is practicable or desirable. It is distorted by portraying it as the spouse staying home paying more tax as if that was something imposed on them.

At least the wording of section (b) of the amendment is broader than sometimes occurs. We have debated the matter on the Labour Party Private Members' Bill. A great deal about the question of civil partnership, domestic partnerships or whatever one calls them, has to do with taxation consequences. The tax revenue from people who are not married is considerable. I take the view that two people living for the long term under the same roof should not be treated differently depending on what sort of sexual relationship, if any, they might be in.

The last person to accuse of having destabilised the property market by the stamp duty debate is the Tánaiste and Minister or Finance. He certainly did not start that debate which initially began in the media. Various sides contributed to it and it was irresponsible. The fact is that house prices have now eased. Therefore, there is no evidence of or basis for talking about a hard landing in the property market. As far as I can judge, the number of repossessions seems to be minimal. What seems to be more important than whether in a limited number of cases there may be a marginal degree of negative equity is the fact that there has been a significant and substantial fall in house prices for those who want to purchase them. Therefore, they are more affordable. That accounts, potentially, for a much larger group.

While I do not wish to repeat the points I made on Committee Stage, it is self-evident that if a carbon tax were introduced, its social welfare implications would have to be dealt with at the same time. That is not really a matter for the Commission on Taxation, however, but the responsibility of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

I have been following with some fascination the action of the German authorities concerning the tax haven of Liechtenstein, detailed accounts of which have appeared in some German publications. I welcome the fact that information will be made available to the Revenue Commissioners. There is an ethical debate ongoing in Germany as to whether the actions of the authorities are justified; they are entirely justified.

We need a degree of stability in the tax system. I do not agree with the last part of Deputy Burton's amendment which suggests the regime should be subject to constant change and fluctuation. A reasonably settled system would be of most benefit to the economy. In the past few years the Minister has considerably tightened and, in some cases, abolished tax breaks. It is more than likely that we will be chary, particularly in the current situation, about adopting schemes without a demonstrable public benefit that would have the effect of narrowing the tax base.

See this speech in context