Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am aware of a good discussion that occurred on Committee Stage on this issue. With regard to a suggestion made by Deputy Michael McGrath, the Minister has already reduced the period associated with the scheme from 15 months to 12. This tapering was pretty much in line with the range of supports available on the social protection side.

We could not have a situation whereby the minimum period for eligibility would be less than the 12 month term which applies for schemes such as the back-to-education allowance. That would create a situation where individuals could claim a tax relief but also could lose their social welfare benefits. In tapering the scheme to the 12-month period, we are effectively bringing this measure into tally with existing supports on the social protection side.

We all accept there must be some minimum period for eligibility. Otherwise we could have a situation in which people in sustainable work situations who have business lined up or a plan to set up their own business become unemployed for a period of one day and thus become eligible, over the next two years, for the full relief. That is in nobody's interest. The Minister has been very fair in acknowledging that this is a modest scheme that is aimed at people who have been unemployed for at least 12 months. It offers targeted support for such individuals in terms of establishing their own business.

Deputy Doherty referred to job losses in the construction sector. I have consistently highlighted the fact that 60% of the people who lost their jobs in the crash were attached to the construction industry, either directly or indirectly through the materials and plant business which supported it. Already in the past 12 months we have seen an increase of some 11% in the numbers employed in construction. The scheme we are discussing could well provide the type of support that is necessary to get people back on their feet and potentially begin to take on employees. That is all to the good. The home renovation incentive, which we have also discussed, is effectively our contribution in the budget to helping the construction industry get back on its feet. The scheme we are discussing in these provisions has a larger application than just the construction industry. In fact, it is a scheme that applies right across the economy.

There must, as I said, be a minimum eligibility period, but we have reduced it from 15 months to 12. There is a variety of international views as to what constitutes long-term unemployment. The OECD has one view and the European Commission has another. In tapering the scheme for a 12-month period, we are allying it to the protections available under existing social protection schemes. The objective is to encourage people who are unemployed for at least a year to seek to get going again by allowing them to write off any profits they might make. It is a big ask and I do not pretend it will be some type of panacea. I have made no predictions of largesse in that regard. We have tapered the scheme to the next two years and to people who are out of work for 12 months or more, and we hope to see a good take-up.

To clarify, individuals who have been unemployed for a period of 12 months or more will be eligible to claim this relief. Qualifying applicants will include those in receipt of jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit or one-parent family payment and individuals in receipt of partial capacity payments. Where persons who would otherwise qualify attend a training course akin to a FÁS course, the period of training will also count towards their period of unemployment and thus towards their eligibility for the text credit to apply should they establish their own business and make a profit over that period of time.

In conclusion, I am not in a position to accept the four amendments put forward by Deputy Boyd Barrett precisely because, as I have outlined, we must have a minimum period for eligibility. We have opted for 12 months as the most logical choice, given the corresponding condition applying to existing social protection schemes.

See this speech in context