Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

In the first place, this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with indexation. It is a proposal from the Sinn Féin Party that we should carry out a report on removing people from the universal social charge. We do not need any reports in relation to this. We need to follow very carefully the advice and analysis available to those of us in government and to those in this House about the volatile economic situation in which we find ourselves geopolitically. On the day when the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council published its latest assessment and highlighted the need for anchoring down our public finances and our taxation plans in a multi-economic framework, the idea that Sinn Féin would propose this without any reference to that is interesting in itself.

Of course, the budget did not do what the Deputy suggested. The budget actually endeavoured to save people's jobs in rural towns and villages. I think Sinn Féin supported the 9% VAT rate on hospitality. In fact, I think it proposed extending it to more sectors. Sinn Féin is in favour of that and that is one of the things we did. The second thing we did was to reduce the cost of building apartments, not for developers but for people to live in them. I remind Deputy Doherty that funnily enough people cannot live in homes if they are not built.

Yesterday, in Dáil Éireann bizarrely Sinn Féin voted against a resolution that would have allowed approved housing bodies, many of which I am sure Sinn Féin Members meet, to actually benefit from that reduction. The next time they meet an approved housing body or one of the charities that help us build homes, they should let it know that Sinn Féin voted against it benefiting from that. Sinn Féin also voted in this House yesterday against young people being able to benefit from help to buy on those apartments that are built at a reduced rate. I accept that we have a difference in policy on the 9% VAT rate on apartments. However, Sinn Féin is being so partisan that when the Government has made it clear that we want to reduce VAT on apartments, it would not then make sure that at the very least that could be extended to include social housing, affordable housing, houses built by approved housing bodies and student accommodation. Had a majority of people in this House agreed with the Sinn Féin position - thank God they did not - the effect of Sinn Féin's vote yesterday would been no benefit to student accommodation, no benefit to approved housing bodies, no benefit to social housing, fewer apartments built in our country and an inability for first-time buyers to access the help to buy scheme on any of the extra apartments that will be generated.

We have very different views on how Deputy Doherty presents the budget we delivered to this House. This is Report Stage of the Finance Bill. I was very clear when I took up this role last week that we were going to continue in a stable manned with the policies outlined by the Government in the budget. We have taken a number of measures to assist people in relation to energy bills, including reducing VAT for the next number of years on energy bills. That was meant to be a temporary measure. We are rolling that out for several years because energy bills are too high. We are reducing the public service obligation, PSO, on similar bills, and expanding the fuel allowance to more people than ever before. Deputy Doherty talks a lot about working people. We are making sure that for the first time if someone is on the working family payment they can now benefit from the fuel allowance payment, which is up to around €1,000 during the fuel season.

In terms of the actual amendment, the USC yield was €5.7 billion in 2024. It has a yield of €5.6 billion forecast for 2025. In fairness, I know the Deputy has costed his proposals in his alternative budget. I am advised by Revenue that it is estimated to cost €1.44 billion in the first year and €1.65 billion on a full year basis. At the moment, it is estimated that 29% of all taxpayer units will currently not be liable for any USC. So, already 29% of taxpayer units are not liable for USC from next year. This proposal would obviously significantly narrow the tax base further and would mean around 63% of taxpayer units would not be liable for the USC at all.

Deputies will recall that during the economic crisis, it reached a point where 45% of all income earners were exempt from income tax. So, we would be going much higher in terms of the percentage of the population exempt from the USC than we had the percentage exempt at income tax at the time of the financial crisis.

There are commitments in the programme for Government I intend to deliver. This Finance Bill is one of five that will be delivered over the lifetime of the Government. We took decisions this year. I accept they were not universally popular. They were decisions to try to protect jobs and build more homes. In the years ahead and in forthcoming budgets, we will be working on delivering commitments around tax reform, including in the areas of income tax.

See this speech in context