Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

With respect, the Minister of State did not address the amendment. We have gone through this on Committee Stage and we have lost a bit of time so I will not extend the issue. The Minister of State did not deal with the amendment, which concerned the possibility of a contractor not fulfilling the provision in subsection (5), or the requirement on the contractor after payment is made to notify the Revenue Commissioners that payment is made, identifying VAT and so on. The Minister of State spoke at length about the relationship between a contractor and the claimant.

Of course that must be the case. I refer to a situation where a contractor has already provided documentation such as a tax clearance certificate and who has already been deemed eligible. Subsection (5) begins at a point where the relationship ends between the contractor and the claimant when the contractor has been paid by the claimant for the work and he is now obligated to inform the Revenue that a payment has been received and to give information on VAT and the work that has been done, including the unique reference number. My concern is in cases where someone fails to fulfil the requirement in that regard even though a tax clearance certificate has been provided and approved by Revenue for the work but where the contractor has failed to provide the information even though they have been paid. On Committee Stage it was clarified that the claimant would still get paid but my concern is the process to be followed in such a situation as all of that is tied in together. A claimant is supposed to make the claim after the contractor informs the Revenue they have been paid and they specify the amount of VAT that has been paid as part of the work and provide the unique number.

The amendment deals with a situation which might be unique but where it would be difficult for the individual concerned if a contractor has not fulfilled subsection (5) and has caused an undue delay on the claimant who should have a tax credit applied to them. That is my major concern. Tax credits become available at a certain time and if a situation drags on one could miss an entire calendar year. It is not clear in the event of a contractor going bust or not fulfilling subsection (5) for whatever reason how the claimant’s case will be processed. The amendment I propose would ensure the claim would be processed within ten days in such cases. All the penalties that exist for non-compliance within the legislation could be imposed on the contractor but my concern is for the claimant. The contractor would have had to provide receipts to the claimant for the payment made and it should be possible for the claimant’s case to be processed within ten working days.

See this speech in context