Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. Last week I led a delegation of backbenchers which met representatives of the troika. In that context, I was struck by the fact that there are two areas in which we still have significant room for improvement, namely, those which relate to competitiveness and labour activation. The Bill contains a number of labour activation measures. In the context of the start-your-own-business scheme, I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to reduce the qualifying period relating to jobseeker's benefit from 15 months to 12. However, I would like an exact definition to be provided in respect of what constitutes qualifying for jobseeker's benefit or allowance. The Bill contains reference to serial entrepreneurs in this regard. We must allow those who were previously self-employed to become self-employed again. The self-employed encounter difficulties in having themselves defined, for the purposes of claiming social welfare, as being unemployed when they are out of work. I accept that there is a difficulty in respect of people closing businesses and opening others but I am of the view that - in the context of the relevant exemption from income tax - we should make it as easy as possible for those who have been self-employed to prove that their businesses have closed. One of the great failures of society in Ireland and across Europe is that it is not sufficiently forgiving in respect of those whose businesses have gone to the wall.

I wish to refer to a matter which is quite dear to my heart.

Last year, the Fine Gael Party held a meeting to hear proposals from Members on job creation schemes. The home renovation scheme is similar to a scheme I proposed at the meeting, while others have also proposed similar schemes. While I will not claim my proposal was better than the scheme before the House, there are some differences between them.

The home renovation scheme has two objectives, namely, to create employment and reduce activity in the black economy. I have two suggestions in respect of the scheme, which I also propose to discuss formally at the Select Sub-Committee on Finance. The provisions of the Bill are not especially strong in cases where a contractor does not submit invoices. For example, if the contractor closes down or the company goes bust, the scheme offers a significant incentive for him or her to submit the invoices for the work covered by the scheme. This issue should be addressed. If the aim of the scheme is to reduce activity in the black economy, it would be preferable if customers were to provide the invoices for the works done. If a contractor did not want to pay VAT and was supplying invoices and dealing directly with the Revenue Commissioners, he or she would be able to ascertain the cases for which invoices would have to be shown and declared. If, however, the homeowner was able to collect a number of qualifying invoices over several years, before submitting a claim to Revenue for a VAT rebate as a tax credit, the contractor would not know which of the invoices being generated by his or her company would be used for the purposes of the scheme. One assumes, therefore, that a much great proportion of the invoices generated through the business would go through the books, as it were. I appreciate this approach could present difficulties in terms of paperwork. At any rate, invoices will have to be submitted by the contractor, homeowner or other person having the works done. The incentive to ensure paperwork is in order would be much greater in the case of the person who is benefiting from the scheme. Such a model would also lend itself to efforts to tackle the black economy. As I stated, the select sub-committee will have an opportunity to tease out the issue in greater detail.

Another issue is the number of contractors that may be included in an application. The text refers to "contractor". While I am aware that multiple invoices can be used, is it also possible to use multiple contractors? This returns me to my earlier question on what would be the position if one of a number of contractors being used as part of the scheme were to cease business.

All of us welcome the stateless company provision in section 38. I am a member of the Select Sub-Committee on Finance, which is examining the corporate tax rate and how it interacts internationally. This provision further enhances our reputation and does not present a threat to any of the companies located in this country. Contrary to an allegation made by a Sinn Féin Deputy, the Fine Gael Party has been advocating this type of approach. I welcome the measure as it copperfastens our corporate tax rate at its current highly competitive level. I look forward to discussing the legislation in greater detail at the Select Sub-committee on Finance.

See this speech in context