Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy on the proposal he has brought before the House today. The Minister for Finance has stated his view that there is considerable merit in making more information available to the public in regard to sources of Exchequer income and breakdown of expenditure. Nobody could disagree with the principle on which the legislation is based. The practice in this Parliament has always been that the budget is published each year and the major changes it contains come into effect immediately. The so-called old reliables are put to a vote on the day of the budget, dealing with such issues as changes to tax bands, tax credits, social welfare rates, reductions in services, efficiencies, cost reductions and so on. These measures are digested and debated, after which people tend to lose sight of the overall budgetary picture. All most of us see is the amount of tax that is deducted from our pay packets. While a diligent minority might peruse the Internet for budget breakdowns, the majority do not know where their money goes.

A glance at the breakdown of data which Deputy Murphy has provided beings an immediate focus on the three main areas of Government expenditure, namely, health, education and social protection. Detailed information on how the headline figure for each Department is broken down into subheads and so on is already provided in the Estimates and that information is available on the Internet. What we are discussing here, however, is an individual statement for every taxpayer showing how the €3,000 they are paying in tax, for example, is distributed under a range of headings. Deputy Murphy gave as an example a breakdown of spending in education under the headings of primary, secondary and third level. The same type of breakdown should be applied in regard to health, social protection and justice, for which the Deputy has also given examples. As public interest in the tax statement grows, there would inevitably be a demand for even more information to be provided at that level. Refinements in this regard would be the subject of an ongoing debate. Once people can see that they are paying X for a particular service, they will want more details provided directly to them in the context of their individual contribution to the tax take.

One of the consequences of increased transparency is that the inherent difficulty of linking particular taxes and charges, such as a household charge or property tax, for instance, to the delivery of actual services becomes even more apparent. At public meetings on the household charge, people often make the point that as rural dwellers, they would receive no tangible return for the payment. It is an argument that is made by many rural constituents to whom I have spoken. As I said, this is a problem inherent in any process of transparency, such as we are discussing here, in respect of any tax. Some people are of the view that they should not pay any tax, that the only services the State should provide are a police force and defence force, with all other services to be provided privately. I do not agree with that view, but it is a legitimate position. I am reminded of a man I met while canvassing in my constituency. Having stood for election in the United Kingdom, he had his own experience of knocking on doors and seeking votes. He told me that he would generally ask voters if they would like to speak about education, health or local roads. On one occasion, he told me, a woman responded that she had no interest in education because she had no children, no interest in public health provision because she had private health insurance, and no interest in road improvements because they would only mean that people would be driving at greater speeds past her house. Where a particular service does not benefit one directly, there is sometimes a tendency to resent taxation for that purpose.

When the local parish priest, Fr. Michael McLoughlin, arrived in my home village of Moycullen some years ago, he instigated a custom whereby one sermon per year was devoted to detailing the parish accounts. This was a breath of fresh air and marked a significant departure from the previous incumbent. Parishioners are given a breakdown of income coming into the parish and where it is being spent, that information having been reviewed by a local committee of laypeople. There are many such examples of transparency in action at a local level. While a member of Galway County Council, I wrote an article for the local magazine, Moycullen Matters, providing detailed information on the council budget. Many readers approached me afterward seeking follow-up information. When information is delivered in a more direct way and set out in a concise manner, it generates debate. In this case, people told me that they did not realise the local authority was spending millions on a particular project, for example, or that funding for a particular service was provided at local government level.

Transparency is the key to any democracy but the question invariably arises as to how far we should go in our efforts to provide it. Some years ago information on farmers' income was published, outlining what individuals were receiving in direct payments from the European Union and the State. These data were broken down by name and by parish or village, which meant people could see what their neighbours were earning and taking in under direct payments. This information was made available for a year or two before being challenged by German farmers in the European courts and its dissemination ultimately rescinded. Details of the pay and allowance of politicians, whether Deputies, Senators or county councillors, are rightly published, which always leads to a big splash in the national newspapers. The question does arise as to what other information should be provided in regard to the expenditure of State moneys. For instance, should all public servants' salaries be published? What about social welfare recipients? Such initiatives would probably be a step too far, but it is a debate worth having. In any consideration of transparency, the question will always arise as to precisely how much detail should be provided.

I commend Deputy Murphy once again on bringing forward this Bill. I hope it can be progressed quickly and that every citizen will soon be in receipt of a tax transparency statement. It is appropriate that the statement should be conveyed by post. While online information is easily accessed by those who are computer literate, there are many people, including elderly people, who are not competent in using the Internet.

It is right and proper that this would be considered when posting such a statement to each individual. I again commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy and wish him well in respect of this Bill's progress.

See this speech in context