Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill and congratulate Deputy Eoghan Murphy on the time and energy he has put into it. The idea that increasing amounts of information should be put into the public domain, especially about the public finances and where money is spent, is vital. While most of my colleagues have spoken on the positive aspects of this Bill, I intend to express a few reservations I have about it, one of which has been mentioned briefly by Deputy Kyne.

I refer to situations I encounter, particularly in respect of rural areas, when people seek advice from me on issues relating to planning permission. In particular, after receiving planning permission, they seek advice on the levies they must pay. While I am unsure of the position in other councils, Kildare County Council provides a breakdown of where the levies will be spent, such as sewage treatment costs. If one has in place one's own sewage treatment facility, one forgos that payment. Similarly, if one has access to water, one forgos the payment on that. Payments are also due for roads, playgrounds and so on, and people have approached me to ask why they should pay for roads when they live on rural lanes that have not been maintained by the local authorities for a number of years. They ask why they should pay for roads when such work is not being done outside their own places and they question the need to pay for this. People also query the reason, given they live five or ten miles from the nearest town in which a playground is located, they should make a contribution towards a playground to which they do not have real access. The issue is that a person may consider the individual good or the common good. When trying to explain this to those individuals who approach me to question the levies they are obliged to pay, I tell them it is for the common good and it is available to all.

This leads on the point I intend to make on what happens if one itemises where one spends the taxpayers' money and gives that information to individuals. They will question the reason they should be paying this money. When they visit a pub in the evening and see the person who is permanently in receipt of social welfare payments and who has made no effort to get a job, they will ask why they should they make a payment to such a person, who apparently spends most of his time in the pub from when it opens at 4 p.m. onwards. They will ask why should they make a payment for that. Consequently, my concern is that in the future, if all this information is available for individuals on which to make a judgment, they will question it. While our objective is to try to pull everyone along together, because we do not like to see a divide in society, a serious split may develop between those who pay their taxes, make payments to central government and will be able to see where precisely the money is being spent and those who cannot, or in certain cases are not willing to, make the payment. This might only serve to split society. Consequently, I have a problem with the amount of information that might be given out. The information should be available if one wishes to look for it oneself. However, if it is given out to individuals, they may use it in a more negative way than that for which it was intended.

I have mentioned the levies paid by individuals and people also look at tax exiles, that is, people residing outside the country and the donations they make to certain causes. People might begin to question why they should pay their tax and might ask why they should not make the equivalent donation to something in their own locality. For example, a large donation was made towards the payment of the salary of the Irish soccer manager by an individual who resides outside the country as a tax exile. Deputy Eoghan Murphy referred earlier to a sample tax bill of €10,000. What would happen were individuals to decide that as they desired to have their tax money spent better, this might happen if they were to give the aforementioned €10,000 they were due to pay to, for example, the Jack and Jill Children's Foundation, which would spend it better then would the Government, which would disburse it all around the place? Members must be mindful of such attitudes.

Another point, which was also mentioned by Deputy Kyne, pertains to payments previously received by farmers. If one advances this point further, should all payments by the Government be placed in the public domain to be examined by all and sundry? For example, should this apply to all payments to those in receipt of social welfare, to civil and public servants and to everyone who receives public money? I greatly welcome this section of the Bill on procurement. People are worried that small firms are being excluded from public procurement and many Members are fighting hard for small firms in this regard. Incidentally, I define a small firm as one which employs ten people or fewer, whereas the Minister in some cases might define a small firm as being one in which 50 people or fewer are employed. Deputy Murphy may be interested that the Office for Public Works, which is responsible for a major portion of public procurement, will be appearing before the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation because that joint committee strongly supports the idea that small firms be associated, in so far as it is possible, with the €9 billion that is being spent in this regard.

Overall, I welcome this Bill. I look forward to seeing some amendments being tabled on Committee Stage that will offer some protection. While people need the information and it is available any way, there is no need to give people information as a stick with which to beat Members and other people or sections in society. It is a well thought-out Bill and I wish Deputy Murphy the best of luck on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context