Dáil debates

Wednesday, 3 November 2021

Finance Bill 2021: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

8:02 pm

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I very much appreciate the contributions Deputies have made during an important Second Stage debate on the Finance Bill. I will structure my comments based on some of the themes that I have heard. I will begin with the climate crisis, move on to the cost of living and then talk about where we are from an employment point of view. I will then respond to some specific points that were made in the debate, including by Deputies Boyd Barrett, O'Donoghue, Shortall, Connolly, Tóibín and Martin Kenny.

I want to begin with what has been a common theme in this debate, which is an acknowledgement by some of the gravity of the climate crisis that we face and at the same time an opposition to a carbon tax. Certain Deputies a short while ago came into this Chamber to vote in acknowledgement that there is a climate crisis. Those same Deputies will come into this House and vote against a change in carbon taxation when the majority, if not all, of the scientific advice, and the majority, if not all, of the opinion that we will hear at COP26 is unambiguous that a higher level of carbon emissions is what is causing the damage to our environment, our ecology and our health. We need to reduce it and carbon taxation is an important part of how that can be achieved.

Scientists and the economists who are experts in this area are very clear in advising policy makers that if the emission of carbon dioxide into our environment is causing the harm that we acknowledge it is, then it needs radical change. If people acknowledge that radical change is needed, carbon taxation, which I acknowledge creates challenges for many people by placing added pressure on them, is an essential pillar in doing that.

The Opposition cannot acknowledge there is a climate crisis while, at the same time, saying it is against changes in carbon taxation. If people are against changes in carbon taxation, they should lay out the measures that can take its place. They cannot have it both ways.

I will come to Deputy Boyd Barrett's point in a moment. In fairness, while I disagree with most of what he says, I am full of respect for him in that he at least puts forward a coherent argument, which few others have done in this debate so far. How can a Member walk into this Chamber arguing there is a climate crisis caused by a higher level of carbon emissions and be against the tax measure that is capable of reducing it? How can a Member walk into the Chamber and claim to advocate on behalf of generations to come and be so concerned about the Earth and Ireland they will inherit from this generation and say that he or she does not want to be part of the changes in how we price that material that will harm lives to come?

If the Opposition makes charges about my intent, who I serve and who I represent, I will in turn put the question to all the Members opposite. How can they be credible in saying there is a climate crisis? What shred of credibility do they have if at the same time they are against the very measure that seeks to fund the change we need? That is what this carbon taxation measure is about. It is about paying for the changes around retrofitting and protecting the lowest cohorts of income in our country from these changes. It is about funding increases in cycling and other public infrastructure that we need. That is the test.

I know where I stand in this test. I know this is a difficult measure and it causes challenges for many people. I am equally clear, however, that these are the kinds of changes and the case we must make. If the Opposition believes this is not the course of action it wants to pursue, does it actually believe there is a climate crisis? The Opposition voted on a motion recognising a climate crisis and in doing that, how can it not stand by measures that our scientists acknowledge as essential in helping us make this change?

I look forward to the debate on this and it is one of the many tests that the Opposition will need to face in the coming period. If it acknowledges there is a climate crisis, what are the measures it is willing to support as the Opposition - or perhaps as part of a Government - that scientists would support and are capable of funding the change we need in our society? These measures will be difficult, notwithstanding the fact we have used the revenue to protect those who could be most affected by them. It is part of the change we need to make.

I heard a particular accusation from a Deputy this evening who referred to "so-called" scientists. This concerned the announcement from the Government and the decision I was part of on the increased funding for climate financing. Let the House be clear what climate financing is for. It is for our country to play its role in supporting the poorest and most vulnerable countries with all the coming change. In many cases, these countries will have played no or little part in how our environment and nature has changed. It is what the fund is for and it comes from the general taxes we collect.

A common theme from the rural Independents this evening is the suggestion that this measure was funded by the carbon tax but it is funded by general taxation. They are not being open with the House in what the money is used for and how it will help. It is to help the most vulnerable and the poorest countries. It is to help people in other parts of the world who have the least and will be affected the most. That is the kind of financing and support that our country, our values, our heritage and our future should suggest that we make. For those who might suggest otherwise, which I believe I heard tonight, I urge them to be honest about what this money is being used for.

The cost of living was another general theme from the Opposition as Members made charges relating to the tax measures contained in the budget. As with carbon tax, the Opposition cannot have both sides of the argument at the same time. Members cannot say there should not be any changes in personal tax on the one hand and, on the other, say they are not high enough. They cannot do both. The Opposition cannot come into the House and say there should be no changes to tax and in the same speech lament there is not enough. They cannot do both.

Deputy Martin Kenny referred to big shots but the people I represent are on middle, average or normal incomes and they should not pay the higher rate of income tax. Their efforts should be recognised and they pay a rate of tax, earning more through effort and hard work. As they earn more, they should be able to keep the efforts of their work in their purse or wallet. It is what I believe but Sinn Féin is against that or any changes in personal taxation. Its Members are of the view that as tax revenue rises, nobody who has played a role through hard work, innovation and entrepreneurship should benefit. That is the party's view and it is the difference between us.

Members should not come in here saying on one hand there is a cost-of-living crisis and that the measures to address it are not enough but they are against any other changes. They cannot do both. It is all too reminiscent of the Opposition's stance on carbon taxation.

As for the big shots, Sinn Féin is the party that wants to abolish the local property tax. The bigger the house, the bigger the gain under Sinn Féin's measures. Is this about big shots or big houses getting Sinn Féin's support? The party wants to abolish the local property tax, where the larger the home, the bigger the tax amount paid. It wants to abolish the tax and if it does, those with the most valuable homes will gain the most.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.