Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)

In the programme for Government, the Government has committed itself to improving the situation in relation to income tax, disability, education, justice, etc. In order to bring about that improvement, it has committed to do these things over a five-year period. It was quite wrong for the speaker who has just left to say that the Government broke its promise in not getting rid of carer's allowance means test in year one. It was the Fianna Fáil Minister who introduced the carer's allowance. There was no such thing as carer's allowance until we introduced it. The means test has been improved massively. It has improved significantly in this budget. I could not believe my hears when I heard a member of Sinn Féin saying that a lot of people in his constituency are telling him that it is not even worth their while to apply for the carer's allowance. I find that hugely ironic. Under the new means test, a married couple can have an income of €100,000 per annum and still get the full carer's allowance. They can earn up to €115,000 and still get partial carer's allowance. All I can say is that I envy the gentleman in question. He must be representing a lot of wealthy constituents who are so far over €100,000 that it is not worth their while to apply for carer's allowance. I wish I could say the same for my constituents.

The reality is that this is the first of five budgets. The Government's objective in this budget was to underpin the economy at a time of great volatility, uncertainty and danger in order that it would be in a position to deliver on its commitment proposals over the next four budgets. It is wrong to pretend that this is an austerity budget; it is anything but. Spending has continued at an enormous rate. It costs almost twice as much to run the country now - some €120 billion - as it did just seven or eight years ago, which indicates massive Government expenditure. The Government proceeded with the proposals in this budget against the advice of the ESRI, the Central Bank, all the other economic institutions and various independent economists. All of the latter stated that it is very dangerous to increase spending when the economy is at full throttle. I agree with them on that. There is a real risk. Nevertheless, it was a risk that the Government had to take because of the infrastructure deficit in this country with a rising population, facing various challenges, including climate change. The infrastructure deficit is so bad that if the Government had not taken this approach, the economy of this country would grind to a halt.

We hear all this nonsense about the budget being a boon for developers, landlords, the wealthy, corporations and God knows who else. The incentives provided in the budget are not about increasing the profits of businesspeople or wealthy individuals; they are about incentivising those people to invest their own money in the economy and help to address some of Ireland's most urgent structural problems. We hear talk about favouring property developers, etc. What Government in its right political mind would decide to favour a handful of property developers over the hundreds of thousands of renters out there or taxpayers as a whole? The incentives for apartment developers are not about the developers; they are about creating more homes for people in the middle of a housing crisis.

The tax break, the 9.5% VAT, is not about swelling the profits of small cafés and restaurants, etc. It is about protecting margins and jobs. There are 150,000 people, representing 150,000 families, employed in the hospitality industry. Many of those businesses are struggling to survive.

The reduced tax on investment is not about rewarding elites or anything of that nature. It is about getting new investment into the Irish economy at a time, as I have said, of significant and unprecedented global headwinds and volatility.

On VAT, I am disappointed that the Minister was unable to find some way to cut out those who do not need that decrease. Perhaps when he is responding, the Minister would indicate how much tax is going to be forgone in favour of those particular multiples. The Minister knows who they are. This is going to be a yearly thing. What efforts were made to discriminate and to stipulate that people would only get the reduction if their business had a turnover of below a certain amount?

See this speech in context