Caít Keane (Fine Gael)

As I indicated, if one does not tax property but taxes other goods and services, one can distort expenditure and investment decisions. This approach takes such decisions out of people's hands in that it encourages expenditure on and investment in property at the expense of spending on other goods and services. In other words, the absence of a household charge has meant that other taxed goods and services have been adversely affected. For this reason, it is good to broaden the tax base. While the proposed charge is not the ideal way to do this, as the Minister of State pointed out yesterday, it is an interim measure.

On the figure of €160 million versus a figure of €100 million, one would need a glass ball. There is no differentiation between the facts and figures supplied by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the statement made by the Minister for Finance. Both the Department and Minister provided figures of €160 million. The difference of €60 million referred to by Senator Ó Domhnaill reflects the fact that allowances may have been made for the non-collection of €60 million. While none of us would advocate non-payment, this may explain the difference in the figures. In the current climate we should all encourage people to pay the charge for the good of the country. People would then have more money in their pockets at their own discretion to decide to spend on goods, shops and services, thereby increasing retail sales and employment. We must get the money from somewhere and while the proposed charge is not ideal, it is an interim measure.