Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas ach ní thógfaidh mé an méid sin. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as fanacht anseo le haghaidh na díospóireachta go léir.

I appreciate that the Minister has stayed for the full debate, which does not often happen. I will focus on a number of brief issues. Ireland is becoming increasingly divided. It is not just divided by partition itself but it is also divided by income, access to healthcare, access to housing, background, whether people live in Dublin or live in the rest of the country, and even if a business is domestic or if it is foreign direct investment. There are two countries in operation in Ireland at present. They have radically different experiences and their experiences determine their futures in many different ways. This budget enforces that two-track society which the Government has created over time.

I wish to discuss the carbon tax, which is a very important issue. The Minister will agree that the purpose of the carbon tax is to reach a price on a fossil fuel to motivate the person away from that fossil fuel and to reduce the use of fossil fuel over time. If the market has already achieved the price that makes the fuel unattractive and moves people away from it, would the Minister not agree that the addition of a carbon tax is punitive rather than for any effective reason in reducing carbon emissions? We have already achieved the price that would have been expected two or three years ago, even with the addition of the carbon tax, just through the market price alone. What is happening now, therefore, is that the tax the Minister is imposing is a punitive tax. It is hurting people more than anything else. The idea of a carbon tax that can be implemented on a multi-annual basis is also bad politics and bad management of society. What the Minister is saying is that the Government is going to put a certain tax on fuel three or four years hence and it has no idea what the base price is going to be. It does not know what the value of that fuel will be before it even considers the tax. It does not know what the circumstances of citizens will be. It is blind to the needs of citizens well in advance of deciding to implement a certain tax. It is a bad level of tax.

In addition, without the alternatives, it is self-defeating. If one is seeking to motivate people to move away from carbon fuels and one does not provide an alternative, one will not achieve that move and one is just punishing people as well. Electric cars and second-hand electric cars are far too expensive for most Irish people. There is no public transport throughout the country. Many of the towns and villages in my constituency might be lucky to get a bus travelling through them once a day, at most. It is still an incredible situation that we live in a largely Dublin-centric country. Currently, we have an overheating Dublin, a sprawling commuter belt that reaches out into Ulster, Munster and Connacht and then there are rural and regional areas that are being emptied of their people. This type of budget simply increases that trend over time.

I am very conscious of the Government's approach to this. It is using far more stick than carrot with regard to carbon and climate change. If it continues down that road, it will build resistance. If it builds resistance, it is going to lose the people, and it if does not have people on its side it will not be able to win the war on climate change. Had it introduced certain carbon taxes with a real extension of public transport in rural areas, it might have won people over with that. If it had done it and radically reduced the price of public transport, it might have brought people with it. If the Government had done it while at the same time introducing a feed-in tariff for the microgeneration of electricity, it might have won people over. It is incredible that this State is the only state in the European Union with no feed-in tariff for microgenerated electricity. It is mind-blowing that the plus side of the climate battle equation is still being left out for people, and that only the minus sides in this regard are being implemented.

In the Budget Statement the Minister said that 22,000 homes will get upgrades and retrofits. There are 1.6 million homes in the State, so 22,000 homes is a drop in the ocean in that regard. As regards a practical measure to increase the level of public transport, I will table an amendment on Committee Stage to provide that bus companies get their VAT back. Why can bus companies not reclaim their VAT? If we want bus companies to increase their level of business and they are paying VAT for the materials they are consuming, they should be able to reclaim their VAT on that. I also believe we should follow the French example and introduce a minimum tax on the delivery of certain items bought digitally. The French have introduced a minimum price for books that are bought from companies such as Amazon to ensure that local businesses can still succeed. We see the closure of such businesses in our communities and Aontú will be seeking to create a tax to allow local businesses to be able to compete with these massive international companies. After all, local businesses pay business rates, while the international companies do not.

On the subject of rent caps, there is very little reference in the budget to the rents experienced by people. The Minister's Budget Statement referred to rents twice. The Government is in the middle of a third effort to put a cap on rents and is talking about a 2% rent cap. There is no excuse for any rent increases at all at present. It is absolutely incredible that the Government would still allow rents to be increased.

The Taoiseach was asked a couple of weeks ago if he would repurpose NAMA to ensure we could provide far more social and affordable houses. He did a great dodge. He basically said that NAMA's job is to protect the interests of the taxpayer. The taxpayer is paying for 70,000 rental accommodation scheme, RAS, payments and housing assistance payments, HAP, every year. Where are the interests of the taxpayer protected in that? The Taoiseach also said that the mandate of NAMA is determined by legislation. No way. Who decides the legislation in this House? It is the Government.

The zoned land tax is interesting. There are particular ideologies in the Government that determine what is happening in this country. The Government does a good job of hiding the ideology with political rhetoric on a regular basis, but there are times when the truth of what the Government is doing is crystal clear. The vulture funds buying up homes against first-time buyers and then leasing them back to the State is an example of that. The zoned land tax is another example. The vacant sites tax that was introduced by a previous Government was incredible. Last year, it collected €21,000. I do not know how many taxes cost more to implement annually than they collect annually, but the Government has managed to do it. That did not happen by accident. It was because the Government did not want to do it. It did not want to impact the landowners in the country.

The zoned land tax is not going to be put in place for another two or three years. There is a radical urgency deficit in this Government. There will be a reduction from 7% to 3% in the levy, and 3% is not even keeping up with the price increases and the inflation on property sites in the State. It is still in the interests of property owners to hold onto land and pay the 3% because they will make more by doing so. I spoke to the Minister in the finance committee, in the context of LPT reform, about putting property taxes on empty homes and increasing the size of those taxes. The Minister said at the time that research would have to be done, he needed to think about it and that he was not sure whether it would work, again showing the urgency deficit that exists in the Government for something as critical as a home for a person.

There is a reduction in the banking levy. The banks have earned billions of euro, tax free, over the last decade, and this year the banking levy will be reduced. The Government's excuse is that there is an exit of a number of firms from the sector. There is, for sure. There is a concentration into a smaller number of operators, but the size of the banking sector remains the same. The oligopoly that now exists with the small number of operators will just reap higher profits and they will still not have to pay tax on them. They will now have a lower banking levy to pay as a result. There should have been an increase in the size of the banking levy. We, the Irish people, bailed out the banks in 2010 and the Government should be ensuring that, in the midst of a global crisis, we should have an income input from the banks.

I will refer briefly to antigen testing because it is referenced in the Bill. It is very hard for the people of Ireland to understand the Government's resistance to antigen testing, given that it is such a useful tool internationally with regard to reducing the transmission of the illness. It has been used in Denmark very successfully. It meant it did not have to impose discrimination against people on the basis of Covid passes.

Right now, people in this State with Covid can gain access to hospitality, but those who do not have Covid and do not have a pass cannot gain access to hospitality. It is incredible that the Government is banning children from access to sports such as basketball, volleyball, kick-boxing etc. Children are being banned by Government policy from accessing school tours. Children without Covid are being stopped from going to such events and sports. They have suffered radically over the past 18 months but as a result of the lack of antigen testing there is not an opportunity for these children to participate in really valuable social interactions and sports - things that are good for their health and good for their physical and mental well-being.

In the Finance Bill, antigen testing is treated as a benefit-in-kind in certain instances. Nothing typifies this Government's farcical approach to antigen testing more than treating it as a perk, a benefit-in-kind, and taxing it on that basis. Instead of using this budget to really allow for all parts of society to test people to ensure that they are free of Covid so that they can circulate an enjoy their civil rights, incredibly this budget treats antigen testing like a benefit-in-kind.

The last speaker spoke about hospitals and investment in hospitals. My local hospital in Navan is having its ICU and its emergency beds closed by the Government. Today, the theatre in Navan hospital was closed owing to lack of staff because they need to be in the accident and emergency department. The accident and emergency department is swamped there with six-hour waits. People facing serious threats to their health are waiting for 11 hours for access to the accident and emergency department in Drogheda. Staff at Connolly Hospital have come out in protest at the shocking conditions there. The Government needs to get real when it comes to investment for the proper functioning of our health service.

See this speech in context