Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy McNamara.

I agree with many of the proposals in this Finance Bill. In the current context, the IMF has told countries that can borrow that they should do so to provide a safety net for citizens and businesses. In that context, borrowing is not only necessary but it is also prudent.

Any finance Bill has to provide a safety net for those who need it and fund essential services, including social services, in addition to providing supports to businesses in all sectors and investing in them. It has to take into account the impact of Brexit and ensure that our healthcare system can work at full capacity to meet both Covid and non-Covid healthcare requirements. The measures, in addition to being financed by borrowing, should also be financed by a progressive tax system. With regard to many of those requirements, the Finance Bill delivers.

There are gaps, however. Some essential sectors have been left out or are not adequately supported. Early childcare services comprise an example. These are essential. The rest of the economy cannot function without quality childcare that is accessible and affordable. More supports are needed to put the sector on a firm footing.

I have spoken about this matter before but really want to speak about it again because it is so important. Just as childcare is an essential service, the work of family carers is simply indispensable. Our society could not function without family carers. Our health system would be overrun and our social welfare system would collapse, yet it is incredible but true to state carers are worse off after the budget than before. Although there was a €150 increase to the carer support grant, most carers do not receive this grant. For those who do, it will not be in place until July 2021. Also, the fuel allowance has been increased but the carer's allowance is not a qualifying payment for that allowance. Most family carers will not receive it, therefore. We all know the extra expense associated with heating a home when caring for somebody.

While I am happy that an additional 5 million crucial home care hours were provided, this has to be considered in light of the fact that only 40% or, at most, 50% of day services for adults with disabilities have not been reinstated. The income disregard for the carer's allowance, which is means tested, has not increased in 13 years. People will not believe that the carer's allowance was worth a little more in 2011 than it is now. I am not talking about taking inflation into account; I am talking about hard cash.

Another area that I want to draw the Minister's attention to concerns about the employment wage subsidy scheme. It is a very good scheme but it needs to be revised because there is a cliff edge for some businesses. If turnover is down 30%, the scheme can be accessed. It cannot be accessed, however, if the turnover is down 25%, 15% or 28%. A more graduated approach is important. For example, if a business's turnover is down by between 20% and 30%, it might get the €200, and if it is down by an amount between 10% and 20% it might get a different sum. If a business's turnover is down 25%, it is really not in its interest to try to push it up. If it closes for an extra day, its turnover will be down by more than 30%, and that is not good for it, its workers or the economy. Therefore, we need to get rid of the cliff edge. The scheme is good but there should be nuance in how it is managed.

I disagree with the Government's policy on the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, in that the highest rate of payment, €350, should have been maintained. While payments should have been graduated, the highest rate should not have been reduced to €300. We must not forget that those accessing the payment have outgoings based on their previous income for rent, rates, the costs of childcare and food, and, basically, living. I am aware that €350 will not allow people to continue to live in the way to which they were accustomed. Nonetheless, the cut of €50 per week is really heartbreaking for many. It should be remembered that the money will be spent on food in local businesses, so it will circulate locally. Some of it will make its way back to the Exchequer through VAT, etc.

In that context, I echo the words of Deputy Ó Cuív, who spoke earlier. The problem in question is not the fault of the Government as such, because it is matter of circumstances, but we need to do something about it. We are creating a two-tier society. Many people, including all in this House and other Houses, continue to receive their salaries but many others, because certain sectors have been closed or have collapsed, often quite rightly by order of the Government, have seen their incomes drop significantly. That is one reason the upper rate of the PUP should be €350, not €300. The €50 in the difference would not solve all the problems but it might take the edge off some of them. We are all in it together so the rationale rings a bit hollow for people who have seen their PUP cut. I ask the Minister to reconsider reinstating the higher rate, at least when we are in level 4 or level 5.

On the taxation of the PUP, we need clarity. Will the Minister confirm that any payment under the scheme was not taxable before July of this year? The payment was classified as an urgent-needs payment under section 202 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. It seems, however, that this was changed during the summer through the Social Welfare (Covid-19) (Amendment) Bill. The Finance Bill has added the payment to the list of welfare payments, which means it is taxable. First, we need clarity. We need to be sure there is a legal basis for what the Government is claiming. We are talking about 600,000 people. If the payment is taxable, some of them will have tax bills. This is my third time to raise this matter, having raised it before in July and in April or May.

I was told that Revenue would work it out and so on, but we should remember that these people will have lost income and will be scrimping and saving. The last thing they will want next year or in subsequent years when they still have not caught up will be to face a tax bill or have their tax credits reduced, which essentially have the same effect. We need to clarify the situation and people need to be made aware of it.

I will quickly make three final points. According to Revenue, a young farmer is 35 years of age. If someone over 35 years of age buys a bit of land, he or she will pay stamp duty. According to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the EU, however, young farmers can be aged up to 40 years. This difference needs to be straightened out.

The Government has rolled over a number of agricultural schemes, but the money allocated to the new pilot rural environment protection scheme, REPS, is insufficient for the numbers exiting the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, and the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, which could amount to 20,000 or 25,000 farmers. Only €79 million or €80 million has been allocated. That is not good enough and is a real problem.

I wish to discuss community businesses briefly. These centres generate income for their communities and are run by volunteers. I have spoken to many of them. They have made application after application for some assistance in dealing with their costs, but if they are not open and providing services, they will get nothing. Will the Minister of State examine this issue?

See this speech in context