Tom Shehan (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, to the House. As has been said by my colleague earlier, it was difficult to stand up here and defend the last couple of budgets but this budget has by and large been far more positive than what we have had to deal with for the last few years. It is a little disappointing that we had to move our budgets forward from December to October, probably because of EU rules. People have not seen the implications of this budget in their pockets yet because they will not come into effect until January, which is disappointing.

The Fiscal Advisory Council and others have said that the budget was a missed opportunity not to take another €2 billion out of the economy. We had some "austerity junkies", as I called them, in my own party who wanted €2.3 billion taken under last year's budget but strangely, they did not want anything taken out of this budget. People are volatile regarding budgets but that is one thing that cannot be said about the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. I must compliment him. He has been instrumental in the turnaround in this country. While he might not appreciate this comment, he is the wise old head, yet the public does not appreciate the effort and time he puts in. He is a brilliant man.

I want to speak about a specific issue that might be remedied through a technical amendment. A person in my area recently had a leg amputated due to health reasons and had to buy a vehicle adapted for disabled persons. If one buys a new vehicle that must be adapted for a disabled person, it is exempted from VRT and road tax. That applies to new vehicles but this man did not have the wherewithal to buy a new vehicle - he bought a second-hand one. He did not want to buy it at all, but it was for medical reasons as he had lost his leg. Could this policy be extended to second-hand vehicles that have been adapted for disabled persons? There is an anomaly here - why, if someone has the wherewithal to buy a new vehicle, do they get the break rather than this man, who through no fault of his own had to purchase such a vehicle, albeit a second-hand one. Should the exemption not be on the vehicle rather than the individual? This man bought a second hand vehicle because the original owner had unfortunately died of motor neurone disease so the vehicle was of no further use to the family in question. There is an anomaly here. It would not impose a huge burden to the Exchequer and it would be a fair and appropriate measure within the budgetary constraints. This man has a primary medical certificate, but he does not have the money to buy a new vehicle to avail of the VRT and road tax exemptions. If it could be done, perhaps through a technical amendment, I would appreciate if the Minister addressed that aspect.

I must acknowledge what the VAT rate on the hospitality sector has meant to the economic resurgence in my part of the country. It has been phenomenal. Down south, we have had an exceptional year for tourism. All of those in the hospitality sector recognise that it was that dropping of the VAT rate to 9% that enabled them to provide quality service, hence the growth in the sector.