Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Eoghan Murphy for introducing the Tax Transparency Bill. It is a welcome development that back bench Deputies on the Government side have a forum to publish Bills. We all welcome it, particularly in a Government with the majority of the scale enjoyed by the current coalition. It is important the voices of back bench Deputies are heard. I welcome the publication of the Bill and the opportunity to discuss it in the Chamber.

The people demand far more transparency on how public money is spent. Given the scale of budgetary cutbacks and tax increases over the past four years, people are becoming conscious of where their taxes are going. They want open information on where the money is being spent. A policy initiative or decision that opens up the budgetary process and allows people an opportunity to engage meaningfully with the political process and to see where the money is going is something we all welcome. There is an obligation on all Members to make politics relevant. Many people feel detached from the political system. Many people feel what goes on in the House is not relevant to their daily lives. That is a profound challenge to which the Parliament must face up. We must get people to understand the relevance of decisions made here, particularly on financial matters. In the Estimates process and the budget, people must understand that decisions made here affect how the money they pay towards the running of the State is spent.

The measure proposed by Deputy Eoghan Murphy is to take the information already in the public domain on how public money is spent and to present it at the level of the individual. A great deal of information is already in the public domain if people are of the mind to look for it. I refer to the detailed Estimates, the budget document and the detailed tables attached to it. There are also parliamentary questions, freedom of information and the annual and special reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General. The information is available but the question is whether it is beneficial to present the information at the level of the individual so that he or she can put in context how the money he or she pays is being spent by the State. There is merit in the proposal.

People already receive the annual P60 form, so they see the amount of income tax, the universal social charge and PRSI on an annual basis. They do not get to see a breakdown of their contribution to the State in terms of how the money is spent for the running of the country. That is the essence of the Bill proposed by Deputy Eoghan Murphy. I thank him for sending an indicative example of the level of detail he proposes. That was one of my questions on the Bill. It is very easy to extrapolate the overall level of Government spending and apply it on a pro rata basis to the amount of tax each individual is paying. The question is the level of detail one applies. Should it be applied to departmental spending and each individual Vote? In order to make the information meaningful to people paying tax, the consideration must be borne in mind. Much of the money being spent by the State, some €6.2 billion to the end of October, goes on servicing the national debt. We collected €28 billion in tax receipts in the ten months to the end of October, of which €6.2 billion was spent on paying off the national debt. Deputy Eoghan Murphy proposes that a proportionate amount of the taxes people pay is shown in the cost of servicing the national debt. That has merit.

The fundamental question is the underlying benefit of the proposal of Deputy Eoghan Murphy. I have a concern in respect of the number of people not paying any income tax. We have some 437,000 people on the live register and we do not want a divisive policy initiative. Through no fault of their own, many people are not paying income tax. If we are to trigger a debate at the level of each individual on how that person's money is being spent, we need to ask how it will make people feel that they are paying no income tax at this point.

Their statements will look very different from that of a person who is in gainful employment and a PAYE worker. That is a concern and something we need to consider.

Deputy Murphy's point about showing people how much VAT and excise duty they pay, through an online calculator, is particularly relevant. For example, the measure in the last budget to increase VAT by 2% probably cost most households €300 or €400, but most people did not bat an eyelid at it. There was a response from the retail sector and from people in business who were directly affected by the increase, but the public did not see it as terribly relevant because they pay it gradually over a period of time on each individual transaction. The household charge of €100, on the other hand, provoked an enormous public reaction and a high level of non-compliance.

Budgetary decisions are made meaningful for people when the cost of each individual measure is broken down. Public debate about the decisions we are making on budgetary matters would be better informed if the effect of each measure was reduced down to that level.

I would welcome the publication of purchase orders of more than €5,000. There has been a litany of instances of public money being wasted. Deputy Murphy is a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, as I was myself. If members of the public sat through some of those hearings on Thursday mornings, they would be absolutely gobsmacked to see how public money is being spent and, in some cases, wasted. To have information about the spending of public money in excess of €5,000 accessible to every citizen is a worthwhile objective and one we should pursue. Deputy Murphy discussed the issue of cost. It would be quite simple to extrapolate a model of how this could be done. I do not believe the cost would be burdensome. A simple formula could be used. I look forward to the Government's response regarding the potential cost of the measure.

I ask the Government either to accept the Bill and move it forward or reject it out of hand. In recent months, a number of Bills, from Opposition or Government back bench Deputies, have been accepted on Second Stage and then allowed to gather dust. That serves no useful purpose. If these proceedings are to be relevant and meaningful, we should either accept the Bill, move it on to Committee Stage, have a proper debate on its content, try to improve it and enact it or, if the Government has no intention of accepting the Bill, reject it out of hand. That would be the fairest thing for Deputy Murphy and for all the Deputies who have taken the time to be here to contribute to the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. Fianna Fáil will support the Bill on Second Stage. We want to debate it quickly on Committee Stage. We want an opportunity to engage with Deputy Murphy in considerable detail on certain aspects of the Bill, to see how it would work in practice and to address our concern about it being socially divisive. That is a key concern, given the state of the economy and of the finances of many individual families at present.

See this speech in context