Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will avail of the opportunity to make recommendations on Committee Stage so I will just touch on some of the cross-cutting issues and some of the issues the Minister of State himself raised in his contribution. One key issue I would like him to address when he replies is that of the equality-proofing and gender-proofing of the budget. The Government committed to this. It was spoken about in previous budget speeches although, as far as I am aware, it was not highlighted in this year's budget speeches. I am concerned that we are not following through on and intensifying our commitment to delivery on this issue. Individuals in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform are working in this area but I am concerned that it is not reflected at a high enough level. It needs to be central in to documents such as the summer economic statement and budget statements. For many years, I have been pushing for an equality statement to accompany the budget, as is the case in Scotland. Will the Minister of State indicate the extent to which equality and gender-proofing of the budget have taken place? How will the impacts of the budget, including the impact of these Revenue measures, be analysed from the perspectives of equality and gender? We are entering into an election period as there is likely to be an election before the next budget. In that context, will the Minister of State reaffirm whether his party is committed to continuing, improving and building on the gender and equality-proofing of the budget? That is important to many people.The benefits to society from gender and equality proofing have often been proven.

The Minister of State spoke of the increase in carbon tax, or what I call carbon pricing, by €6 each year. It is actually €20 already before the additional €6. Why is the entire €26, or if we look at the costings, the entire €521 million which will be gathered from the levy on carbon, not being directed towards climate measures? The rationale for a levy on carbon is not about lifestyle change and so on, although that has been discussed. The economic rationale, which is used at European, international and other levels, is the law of economic and environmental externalities, in that there is a cost to fossil fuel usage and carbon production which society and the environment bears and that cost to society should be reflected in the price. If that is the rationale for any levy on carbon, all that should be redirected towards either mitigation, to reduce the impact of carbon, or adaptation, to deal with its impact. The economic argument, to be consistent, suggests the full €26 and €526 million be used to this end. The €90 million is being used for good measures, none of which is enough or intense enough. Imagine what the impact of €521 million would have next year in scaling up and really delivering on some of the actions and proposals on climate change. It would be very different. Therefore, as well as discussing the €6 we should also discuss the €20 underneath, using it and redirecting it, which does not require another increase. I ask the Minister to comment.

I note the measures relating to nitrogen oxide, NOx, but we will have to look at methane and its cost as a carbon gas down the line. There are also upstream costs. How do our trade agreements, policies, imports and investment policies cost these greenhouse gases, particularly when we are talking about economic engagement with the United States if it falls out of the climate agreement? It may only be at a point of import that the emissions are really captured in the global picture.

I acknowledge the measures on IREFs and REIT schemes and what the Minister of State described as the "aggressive tax planning activities" and abuse and avoidance measures. These were all flagged by members of the Opposition in previous budgets. It is great to see action but when the Finance Bill comes to Committee Stage and Report Stage, things can become adversarial and so on. I ask that the Government please consider the recommendations that come through there. Occasionally the issues highlighted and the red flags that are raised by the Opposition can be very useful and can save the State money and lead to a better and more efficient use of our finances. I ask the Government to be aware that there are good ideas which come from the Opposition benches to which it should be open.

Concerns are being raised about the special assignee relief programme, SARP, and I also raise concerns about the key employee engagement programme, KEEP, scheme. These include measures which take money that could be liable for income tax out of the system. It is a concern if there is to be an increase in millionaires or billionaires in Ireland. I do not expect it to come within this Government's term necessarily, but I would like us to look to the global conversation around billionaires and very high earners but in the meantime, we should not take a step backwards. I am concerned about both of those schemes that they may lead to a hollowing out and reduction of income tax. Will the Minister of State comment on how the differences in income tax in both of those schemes will be tracked? It is attractive if someone in a KEEP scheme can be given shares and go from a salary of €250,000 and get a portion of that in shares and pay less tax.

Stamp duty has been raised. The Land Development Agency Bill has not yet passed through the Houses but we see it is being asserted and is beginning to operate on an ad hoc basis. Public land being given to private developers is a policy change that I would like radically reconsidered. I would like to see public builds on these lands. Where public land is being given to private developers, who are not purchasing that land, what does that relationship mean in terms of stamp duty? People should not receive public land while also avoiding certain taxes and levies which they would have paid had they purchased the sites. That is a loophole and it may be inadvertent, but it would be terrible if we were to be doubly subsidising private developers who will sell the houses, or at least many of them, at market prices. They are not paying the same type of stamp duty as another private developer who had purchased their site. If this type of development increases, and it seems likely it will, we will have to address this loophole.

On tax reliefs, auto-enrolment for pensions is being rolled out. I raise this matter every year. The marginal rate of private pension tax relief is one of the more expensive items of personal tax relief. Are we looking to revise that in the context of an auto-enrolment scheme which, if rolled out successfully and managed properly, might go some way to increasing the levels of coverage? The huge cost is largely towards higher earners and, from a gender perspective, mainly men, who benefit from the marginal, high-rate tax relief. Will this be the subject of further revision in light of auto-enrolment?

Finally there is tax relief on bicycles. They are marginal and I think they should be at the standard rate. Children cycling to school and so on is a huge issue. Is there scope to re-adapt the tax relief to help address family investment in cycling for the next generation?