Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Nov 2012

Vol. 782 No. 2

Tax Transparency Bill 2012: Second Stage [Private Members]

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I thank the Chief Whip and the Minister for Finance for facilitating this debate. I also thank the Chief Whip for making the taking of Second Stage debate on a Private Members' Bill possible through his reforms in this House. I thank the officials of the Department of Finance for their engagement in the drafting of the Bill.

Agreeing to pay a proportion of one's salary into a central fund in the form of tax is a cornerstone of the social contract. We agree to come together collectively and to select a few people to run things, and we pay over some of our earnings for those people to administer on behalf of all of us. It is a basic tenet of society. It follows, therefore, that we have a right to know how the Government is spending our taxes and the Government has a responsibility to tell us. It does that, and in more detail now than it ever has previously. However, I believe we can and should go further.

Whether people feel they should be paying more or less tax, we all insist that the tax we pay is spent efficiently and appropriately. We trust that it is. However, every time we hit another pothole in the road or hear of a government project running over budget, that trust is called into question. Some people will always complain about how their taxes are being spent because there will always be a difference of opinion about the policies the government of the day is pursuing. That is politics. Nevertheless, with all that has happened in recent years in Ireland, citizens are now rightly demanding more information from the Government and increased transparency and openness about how the country is being run. This is particularly true of the tax spend, as people's real income is reduced and new taxes and charges are introduced.

In Ireland we have seen an increasing tendency towards transparency in how people's taxes are spent, by making explicit the connection between what each of us pays individually and the benefits that society as a whole receives for this money and how. It is important to note the advances the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has made in this regard. Last year saw the publication of a detailed medium-term Exchequer framework as well as a Revised Book of Estimates. More recently, we have seen greater transparency in the pay structures operating in the public sector. There are also new online projects under way, such as the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's Databank and IrelandStat. All of these measures are welcome and indicate a positive trend under this Government towards greater transparency.

I introduced this Bill last March. It has three central components. The first element, if adopted, would see each taxpayer receive an annual statement detailing how much tax they paid in the previous year and how this contributes to Government spending priorities. The statement, which could either be delivered by post or made available online, would resemble an itemised receipt detailing the recipient's contribution in euro and cent to the different areas of government spending.

How would it look? For illustrative purposes, let us take the example of Ms Jane Duffy, a PAYE worker in the private sector who earns €42,000 a year and receives the basic tax credits and standard bands of tax. Jane Duffy's statement would detail her various income contributions - USC, PAYE, PRSI - and the total amount she paid in tax. At €42,000 salary, her contribution is €10,707.

Ms Duffy's contribution would then be broken down indicatively according to the percentage of Government expenditure spent on each Department. There is an example of Ms Duffy's statement online on my website, but I will highlight some points here. She would see, for example, that she had contributed €1,352 towards the education sector, that €465 of that amount had gone towards primary education and €237 towards third level. She might agree with the extra resources being devoted to primary education, but she might also wish that a greater amount of her more than €10,000 in taxes was going towards primary education. She might make this point to her local Deputy and she might even suggest where she felt she should be paying less tax.

She would see that €2,113 of her taxes had been spent on health, a significant amount, but only €76 of her taxes had been directed towards aid to developing countries. She might still consider this to be too high or she might consider this to be acceptable because she might like the statement that it makes about her and her priorities. She would see that law enforcement was costing her a relatively small amount at €338 and might wish that more money would be directed towards the Garda. This might be something she would remember at the general election when evaluating the different parties' election pledges. She would probably be concerned at the high contribution to social protection at €3,128, her largest contribution, but might be surprised to see that only €423 of this is going on jobseeker's allowance for all the people who are looking for work. She might wonder how the rest of it is spent, and her statement would go on to outline the various details of where her money is being spent to help other members of society. Ms Duffy would see that €1,055 of her hard-earned money was going on paying off just the interest on the national debt. This might make her more or less supportive of government policies to close the deficit as quickly as possible. She would finally have an answer to the rhetorical question: "What is the price of democracy?" For Jane Duffy it would be €13.

Imagine if everyone received this information on the same day every year. Imagine the debate that would take place in every workplace, home, pub and sports ground throughout the country. Imagine if every party contesting a general election was bound to submit its economic plans to such a formula in order that people could get a really meaningful idea of how its policies, if its members were elected, would change national priorities in terms of how their taxes were being spent. Consider how important this information could be to every debate that we have and for every person in society.

The second central component of the Bill is the provision of an online tax calculator to give that same breakdown I have just mentioned, but based on Ms Jane Duffy's own estimates as to the VAT and excise duty she had paid in the year. The breakdown returned would very much depend on her lifestyle and how she spent her income. I will not dwell on this element but, as I am sure others will point out, this could be just as significant relative to her taxes paid on income.

The third element is the introduction of an obligation on the part of each Department to publish on its website all items of expenditure it incurred in excess of €5,000. This would allow people to scrutinise their personal statements in greater depth. Some Departments have already introduced this policy at the €20,000 threshold and this provision would simply lower that amount.

Why would we provide such a statement to each taxpayer? As I said previously, people have a right to this information and we have a responsibility to provide it. Through greater transparency and open government we build trust. This is essential at present when there is a problem with trust among the electorate in terms of trusting their politicians and what they are doing with their money. Such a statement would clearly identify Government priorities to the individual, in euro and cent. This would mean a better informed electorate and country, and a better informed debate around the choices we make as a society and how we prioritise those choices.

If Jane Duffy thinks the contribution to education should be greater than her €450, where would she makes the cuts elsewhere? Would it be the €170 spent on the environment? It has to come from somewhere. Given the exceptional circumstances we find ourselves in as a nation, such information would dramatically show the individual the challenge facing the Government and could help in making the budgetary corrections we need to make in these difficult times. More than €1,000 of Jane Duffy's taxes go on servicing the national debt, paying off the interest on our debt this year alone.

The Bill is not finished. There are details to be worked out and I hope we have the opportunity with Members' support here and on Committee Stage. On the advice of the Department of Finance, there may be a problem with lowering the reporting threshold to €5,000, the third element of the Bill, and that provision may need to be revised and increased.

Though the statement would be indicative only, it may not be possible to use taxes paid in the previous year for calculating future contributions in the next year. Thus, we would have to amend the legislation so that we were using taxes paid in the previous year to break down contributions made that same year. We would be telling the recipient what they paid in taxes last year and how we spent it rather than the amount they paid in tax last year and how we might spend it next year. It is a small to change to make but important to note it at this stage.

It has been suggested the provision of such information may act as a negative incentive in so far as tax compliance is concerned. I do not agree. Tax compliance is a problem where people do not trust how their taxes are being spent. The initiative should restore confidence, if anything. I also do not like the principle behind the argument as it favours ignorance over information.

People have asked me about the administrative burden this may impose. This depends on how the statements are issued. Much of the work necessary is already under way or would require little additional effort. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is proceeding with making as much information available online as is possible. A simple mathematical formula based on information contained in the Revised Estimates can quickly break down the information for each person, as I have done for Ms Duffy. Doing this online, in the form of a tax calculator and a transparency statement for income taxes, would be relatively cheap and straightforward. We could have it up and running in months. If we were to issue a statement to each taxpayer, this would require more work.

My final point on the Bill concerns cost. If we do it all online, it would cost relatively little, that is, the price of building an online calculator tool on the Department's website. It would be a task suitable to most CoderDojo kids or our budding young scientists. However, issuing a statement by post to each taxpayer every year would require greater resources. Estimates in the UK, where Mr. Ben Gummer MP proposed a similar initiative that was accepted by their chancellor, had the administrative and postage cost per person at around 25p. The UK will introduce the measure in 2014. If we decide to issue a statement by post, we can learn from the UK and follow quickly after it. Doing it online, as a first phase, is relatively straightforward and should be pursued.

I favour issuing a statement by post to each person on the same day. The return in terms of transparency, and in being able to hold elected officials to account, is worth it. Let us think how this would empower people to hold their elected representatives to account. They could see Government priorities and how the Government is spending people's contributions to taxes. Someone like Jane Duffy might not mind contributing 20 cents out of her €10,000 in taxes because she will want to have this information to hand. The impact of everyone receiving the same statement on the same day, such as in the first week of January, could be incredibly important to our democracy and how we do business. In any case, on these final two points on method and cost, the matter is left open, whether for decision on Committee Stage, or, if the Bill is not amended, as a decision for the Minister. The minimalist option, of introducing the information online by way of a tax calculator returning a spreadsheet of information, would take a minimum amount of administrative work on a one-off basis at a very small cost.

The better the understanding, the greater the citizens' ability to make an informed choice about what they want from the Government. This is an issue we must continue to pursue. Open government is good government and we should not fear transparency. Greater transparency in public affairs delivers greater accountability and better performance. If we make Government spending more digestible and more accessible to the individual, it will generate greater buy-in from people and strengthen the social contract. We talk at times about the democratic deficit, about Government being at too far a remove from the people. Greater transparency on how taxes are spent is one way of improving this. I welcome all contributions to the debate and I thank the Members who have taken the time to be present and to debate the Second Stage of the Bill.

I thank Deputy Eoghan Murphy for introducing the Tax Transparency Bill. It is a welcome development that back bench Deputies on the Government side have a forum to publish Bills. We all welcome it, particularly in a Government with the majority of the scale enjoyed by the current coalition. It is important the voices of back bench Deputies are heard. I welcome the publication of the Bill and the opportunity to discuss it in the Chamber.

The people demand far more transparency on how public money is spent. Given the scale of budgetary cutbacks and tax increases over the past four years, people are becoming conscious of where their taxes are going. They want open information on where the money is being spent. A policy initiative or decision that opens up the budgetary process and allows people an opportunity to engage meaningfully with the political process and to see where the money is going is something we all welcome. There is an obligation on all Members to make politics relevant. Many people feel detached from the political system. Many people feel what goes on in the House is not relevant to their daily lives. That is a profound challenge to which the Parliament must face up. We must get people to understand the relevance of decisions made here, particularly on financial matters. In the Estimates process and the budget, people must understand that decisions made here affect how the money they pay towards the running of the State is spent.

The measure proposed by Deputy Eoghan Murphy is to take the information already in the public domain on how public money is spent and to present it at the level of the individual. A great deal of information is already in the public domain if people are of the mind to look for it. I refer to the detailed Estimates, the budget document and the detailed tables attached to it. There are also parliamentary questions, freedom of information and the annual and special reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General. The information is available but the question is whether it is beneficial to present the information at the level of the individual so that he or she can put in context how the money he or she pays is being spent by the State. There is merit in the proposal.

People already receive the annual P60 form, so they see the amount of income tax, the universal social charge and PRSI on an annual basis. They do not get to see a breakdown of their contribution to the State in terms of how the money is spent for the running of the country. That is the essence of the Bill proposed by Deputy Eoghan Murphy. I thank him for sending an indicative example of the level of detail he proposes. That was one of my questions on the Bill. It is very easy to extrapolate the overall level of Government spending and apply it on a pro rata basis to the amount of tax each individual is paying. The question is the level of detail one applies. Should it be applied to departmental spending and each individual Vote? In order to make the information meaningful to people paying tax, the consideration must be borne in mind. Much of the money being spent by the State, some €6.2 billion to the end of October, goes on servicing the national debt. We collected €28 billion in tax receipts in the ten months to the end of October, of which €6.2 billion was spent on paying off the national debt. Deputy Eoghan Murphy proposes that a proportionate amount of the taxes people pay is shown in the cost of servicing the national debt. That has merit.

The fundamental question is the underlying benefit of the proposal of Deputy Eoghan Murphy. I have a concern in respect of the number of people not paying any income tax. We have some 437,000 people on the live register and we do not want a divisive policy initiative. Through no fault of their own, many people are not paying income tax. If we are to trigger a debate at the level of each individual on how that person's money is being spent, we need to ask how it will make people feel that they are paying no income tax at this point.

Their statements will look very different from that of a person who is in gainful employment and a PAYE worker. That is a concern and something we need to consider.

Deputy Murphy's point about showing people how much VAT and excise duty they pay, through an online calculator, is particularly relevant. For example, the measure in the last budget to increase VAT by 2% probably cost most households €300 or €400, but most people did not bat an eyelid at it. There was a response from the retail sector and from people in business who were directly affected by the increase, but the public did not see it as terribly relevant because they pay it gradually over a period of time on each individual transaction. The household charge of €100, on the other hand, provoked an enormous public reaction and a high level of non-compliance.

Budgetary decisions are made meaningful for people when the cost of each individual measure is broken down. Public debate about the decisions we are making on budgetary matters would be better informed if the effect of each measure was reduced down to that level.

I would welcome the publication of purchase orders of more than €5,000. There has been a litany of instances of public money being wasted. Deputy Murphy is a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, as I was myself. If members of the public sat through some of those hearings on Thursday mornings, they would be absolutely gobsmacked to see how public money is being spent and, in some cases, wasted. To have information about the spending of public money in excess of €5,000 accessible to every citizen is a worthwhile objective and one we should pursue. Deputy Murphy discussed the issue of cost. It would be quite simple to extrapolate a model of how this could be done. I do not believe the cost would be burdensome. A simple formula could be used. I look forward to the Government's response regarding the potential cost of the measure.

I ask the Government either to accept the Bill and move it forward or reject it out of hand. In recent months, a number of Bills, from Opposition or Government back bench Deputies, have been accepted on Second Stage and then allowed to gather dust. That serves no useful purpose. If these proceedings are to be relevant and meaningful, we should either accept the Bill, move it on to Committee Stage, have a proper debate on its content, try to improve it and enact it or, if the Government has no intention of accepting the Bill, reject it out of hand. That would be the fairest thing for Deputy Murphy and for all the Deputies who have taken the time to be here to contribute to the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. Fianna Fáil will support the Bill on Second Stage. We want to debate it quickly on Committee Stage. We want an opportunity to engage with Deputy Murphy in considerable detail on certain aspects of the Bill, to see how it would work in practice and to address our concern about it being socially divisive. That is a key concern, given the state of the economy and of the finances of many individual families at present.

Sinn Féin will support the Bill. We have long been advocates of more open and transparent government. We brought forward legislation to bring that about but, unfortunately, the Government parties voted it down. We firmly believe the people have a right to know how the decisions that affect their lives are reached. We also believe they have a right to know how their money is spent, not only their income tax but all taxes. It is a weakness in the Bill that it does not deal with the indirect taxes that people pay daily, although it does contains references to VAT and excise duties. Of course, we would like to go much further than the Bill. We also believe in participatory government and giving people a greater say in how decisions are made.

Because of our commitment to open and transparent government, we have no difficulty in supporting the three principal proposals contained in Deputy Murphy’s Tax Transparency Bill. The Bill proposes a facility whereby people could access a statement detailing the proportion of their income on various elements of Government expenditure. There is clearly no reason people who want this information should not have it. I would stop short of Deputy Murphy‘s proposal that a copy of this information be sent out unsolicited to every taxpayer in the State. This would place an unnecessary cost on the Exchequer. However, an online calculator facility which was easily accessible to the public would be a cost-effective way of making this information available. Likewise, there is no reason to oppose Deputy Murphy’s proposal for a VAT calculator on appropriate Government websites. Some people will be interested in accessing such information and should be facilitated in doing so.

From Sinn Féin’s point of view the most interesting provision is the requirement to publish the detail of all purchasing orders over the value of €5,000. This is a very sensible suggestion and should be implemented immediately. When the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform started to publish details of purchase orders over the value of €20,000, Sinn Féin welcomed the step, while arguing that it should do so for spends of lower amounts. This is reflected in Deputy Murphy’s proposal of €5,000. This level would be much better and should be applied to all Government bodies.

While Sinn Féin has no problem in supporting the measures contained in the Bill and we will support them on Second Stage and on Committee Stage, with reservations about sending out information unsolicited, I do not believe that any of these proposals actually require legislation, nor do I believe they are of such significance that they warrant the convening of the national Parliament to discuss them or agree them today. These are the kinds of things any Government committed to openness and transparency should be doing as a matter of course.

The income tax statement and VAT calculator could be up and running within a matter of hours and not within a matter of months. Any departmental IT staff or even, as Deputy Murphy mentioned, some of the CoderDojo kids could produce this work within a couple of hours. The information as to what percentage of Government spending goes on education, health, prisons and so on is available and the process is very simple. One inputs the information into an online calculator. They exist online throughout the world and one simply takes one that is already there and places it on a website. It could be done within a matter of hours. Someone sitting at home could have it done by the time this debate has concluded. Likewise the publishing of the purchase orders could be implemented by a simple letter from the Minister for Finance to all Departments. This is not complicated cutting-edge transparency. It is pretty basic stuff and should be routine.

Sinn Féin supports the Bill and supports open government, but I was also genuinely surprised that Deputy Murphy chose this issue as the subject of his first piece of legislation. I do not know much about the concerns of the people in his constituency, but at home in Donegal people are living with much heavier burdens. Every day, my office is contacted by people struggling to get by, to pay basic household bills and mortgages and, in some instances, even to feed their children.

If Deputy Murphy does not believe me, he should talk to the volunteer staff in any local branch of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul. Calls for assistance to the society have increased by over 80% since 2009, with 60% of calls coming from households with children. The society made 400,000 visits to families struggling to make ends meet last year alone. Since 2008, relative and consistent poverty, child poverty, income inequality, mortgage distress and crippling levels of debt have increased.

Deputy, please stick to the content of the Bill.

This is the context of the Bill.

The context of the Bill as presented. A Second Stage speech should relate to the Bill before the House.

This relates to the decisions the Government makes-----

That is my ruling.

-----and open transparency.

The Deputy knows exactly what I am talking about.

I know exactly, a Cheann Comhairle, and that is what I am addressing.

The spirit of the Bill, which we support, is about providing information to taxpayers about how Government decisions are made. It is about promoting a debate, as Deputy Murphy mentioned, about the options of Government and Opposition parties.

The people who elected me to speak in this Parliament uninterrupted are concerned about crippling mortgage payments or having to feed their children. This is not the issue of major concern to them. The overwhelming majority of people in the State are worried about finding work or keeping their jobs. They are worried about whether they or their children will have to emigrate, how they will pay the rising costs of gas, electricity and petrol, the rising costs of living and mortgages, and whether they will have enough money in their pockets to meet the bare essentials. People are also angry to see massive payouts to bondholders and in the form of lavish pensions for former bankers and politicians, including many from Deputy Murphy's party, which would not be itemised in the statement he mentioned. They see enormous sums of money poured into banks, including Anglo Irish Bank, and they ask how the Government can find the money for all this but not for special needs assistants for their children or home helps for their grandparents.

I will not ask the Deputy again. He must adhere to the rules of the House. He is entitled to address the Bill before the House but he is straying into other matters that he is entitled to raise at any other given time, but we have a Bill before us and we are discussing the contents of that Bill. I ask the Deputy to respect the Chair. We are not having a general debate on the economy.

With due respect, the Ceann Comhairle has made his point and I would like to reply.

It is my job to adhere to the rules. That is all I am doing.

I have listened to what the Ceann Comhairle said.

I ask the Deputy to adhere to that.

This is a Bill that will inform taxpayers about Government decisions.

Yes, and it is quite clear.

Deputy Murphy has given an outline of the information that would be presented. None of that includes the billions that went into Anglo Irish Bank or the pensions to former politicians and bankers. That is relevant to the legislation. The Ceann Comhairle might be uncomfortable with that but these are the priorities.

I am not uncomfortable. I am asking the Deputy to adhere to the content of the Bill before the House.

I ask the Chair, therefore, to let me deal with the parameters of the Bill on Second Stage.

I suggest we issue the Deputy with a receipt showing how much time he has spent on the Bill.

I do not need any help from the sidelines. I ask the Deputy to respect the Chair and to continue his contribution in respect of the Bill before the House.

My contribution is relevant to a Bill about transparency and the impact of decisions.

While we welcome the spirit of the Bill, this should be done as a matter of course. There should be an online calculator on the website. It is strange this issue is before us but I welcome the Bill and will support it. There is, however, a cost to the Exchequer to implement this and it would be folly not to raise that. The people who voted for me are more concerned about having enough money to survive at the end of the month. They would like to know where their taxes go, but first they want to know where the income they and their families need to survive will come from.

The Bill does not go far enough because it does not show people how indirect taxation is spent. People are exercised about issues like the number of Government Ministers who availed last year of tax write-downs using the dual abode allowance. That is what people are exercised about, not just the broad headlines of how much goes into education or health. They want to go into the nitty gritty of wasteful spending by Departments and Ministers, of reports that were commissioned at huge cost but have not been implemented. How much did it cost the Government to fly to Berlin in order that the Taoiseach could pick up his European of the year award? People want to know that.

Information about Departments should be made public, and while Deputy Murphy's Bill goes some way to meet that by having orders of at least €5,000 published online, this should be done as a matter of course. I agree with the previous speaker that the Government either accepts or rejects this. We should not even have to wait for Committee Stage to do this. The Minister should tell the House he is going to build a calculator that will make all information available. A letter should then be issued to all Departments asking them to publish any orders above €5,000.

Is Deputy Boyd Barrett speaking on behalf of the Technical Group?

Is Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan down to speak as well or is it just me?

There is no one's name down here. The Deputy has 15 minutes.

We think the Deputy is up to it.

The Deputy does not have to take it all.

We will see how we go. I thank Deputy Murphy for putting forward this Bill and I will be supporting it. The basic principle is very good, that we should have transparency in tax. People want to know what the hell is going on with their taxes, where they are being spent and what services and other areas of expenditure those taxes are supporting. The basic principle of the Bill is very good indeed and long overdue. I also thank Deputy Murphy for the table because it is very helpful. While I accept Deputy Doherty's point about the ease with which one might use online calculators, I am not quite up to that level of Internet use that it would be that easy for me to do it. I would have to get someone with a bit more technical proficiency to assist me in these matters. I suspect an awful lot of people would not necessarily know how to access this information.

To have the details set out in front of us in this way is very helpful. I suspect many people would like this sort of information to see the priorities for expenditure in different areas and to be able to debate them. All of that is useful. One particular use, if I could make a slightly political point, is that we could discover by comparing the year-on-year figures that payment or non-payment of the household charge made no difference at all to the amount of expenditure on local government. The budgets were cut prior to the introduction of the charge. It would help us give lie to the claim made by the Government that the household charge boosted expenditure on local services.

It would also be helpful in indicating the degree to which ordinary taxpayers are bailing out the banks in this country and across Europe as a result of a crisis those banks created and visited upon ordinary people, who then picked up the tab for them. It would highlight how, if we were not bailing out banks and if we repudiated the odious debts that have been imposed on ordinary people, more than €1,000 of the average worker's tax could be spent on health and education and other public services. That would be useful information for people to have and I suspect it would fuel their anger at the injustice of the bank bailout.

I support this idea, although there is a lot of work to do on it. I am sure Deputy Murphy would want this to be scrutinised and gone over on Committee Stage because some valid points have been raised about the administrative costs and the best way to do that. I would favour people receiving a statement in the post that sets the figures out in a clear way they can understand.

Deputy Michael McGrath made a valid point about those in work and paying tax and those who are not. We would have to think about that because we could not have a situation where some privileged group was highlighted as paying taxes and would get this information whereas those who are unemployed through no fault of their own are somehow made to feel as if they are not contributing to society.

We need to think carefully about that issue and I am not sure what the answer is.

I generally commend the Bill and will support it moving to the next Stage where we can scrutinise it further. However, we need more information than provided for in the Bill on the issue of tax transparency. It is not just about the proportion of the tax that people pay as allocated to particular services. There are other serious issues relating to taxation that people want to know about. Those could be added to some sort of information pack to be sent to people in order to give them information about tax. We should certainly include, possibly in pie-chart form, details of the proportions of tax paid by the different sectors of society. It should show how much tax in total is paid and then how much of it coming from the corporate sector, the PAYE sector, the self-employed, excise and so on - and how much is not coming from financial transactions tax, for example. That would also give people important information about how the tax system is structured and allow them to participate in the debate on how we should structure our tax system, which is, after all, the most urgent issue for the country at the moment.

I have tabled many parliamentary questions in order to get to grips with how our tax system works but it is quite difficult. I eventually get the information in lengthy tables showing earnings in different deciles and so on. It would need to be given in a more digestible form. People would be very interested to know that ordinary PAYE workers and the self-employed had gross earnings last year of €83 billion and they paid €18 billion in tax, whereas the corporate sector had profits before adjustments and allowances of €70 billion but only paid €4 billion in tax. That sort of information would be very interesting for people. It shows the effective tax rate for ordinary taxpayers at approximately 30% whereas the effective tax rate for the corporate sector, generating tens of billions of euro in profits was only 6% or 6.5%, before write-downs and allowances are taken into account. It would be useful and helpful for people to get a breakdown of what sectors are paying tax and in what proportions.

I would like to know more about tax reliefs and allowances - tax foregone. Corporate tax is one area, but there are a large number of tax breaks and allowances, some of which are a mystery, affecting the effective tax rates for individual PAYE and self-employed earners. People would like to know more about these and that sort of information could be included in a tax transparency Bill. In the area of corporate tax there is €70 billion of gross profits and then there is a series of allowances. For example one is titled "other deductions" and amounts of up to €4 billion. What is that? On that basis the corporate sector is able to write down its tax liability to the point that it is paying a fraction in percentage terms of the tax that ordinary workers are paying. It is an incredible anomaly that a bank - when the banks were making profits - was paying a fraction of tax that the cleaning lady, cleaning the floors of the bank, was paying. People would like that information.

People would also be very interested in getting a further breakdown of expenditure within the political system. How much is being spent on foreign trips and foreign conferences? What is the expenditure on hotels? What are the per diem expenses? People would love to have that information and would have something to say about it. I am not saying that none of that expenditure is justified - of course some of it is. It is necessary as part of a global political and economic system to have trips abroad. However, the public has the right to scrutinise in greater detail the extent of the expenditure and make judgments on what is justified and legitimate and what is not. That would generate necessary oversight and accountability on the issue of people's tax expenditure.

How much time do I have remaining?

I only realised that Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan was supposed to be sharing with the Deputy but I had not been told about it.

I am sorry. I did not see her here because she was not here when I started. In that case I will finish. I support the Bill, but let us look at the detail.

What about the Committee of Public Accounts?

The Bill is interesting and contains some very practical suggestions, including the itemised statement of those paying tax along with VAT and excise, and where those taxes are to be spent. In the area of procurement it would be interesting to publish the Government purchase orders of more than €5,000 in value. The Title of the Bill includes the term tax transparency, which is almost contradictory. Once the word "tax" comes into the arena it is almost like a red rag to a bull. There seems to be a frenzy to see the steps one can take to avoid paying taxes by looking for loopholes and offshore accounts. We have many examples of the great ingenuity and innovation that goes into tax avoidance and tax evasion. Anything that adds to transparency in financial affairs is to be welcomed.

As we are coming into a budget that will be difficult, it is vital to know where taxes are going. When we talk about fairness, it is only fair that taxpayers see where their taxes are being used and this just might make the pain of paying taxes slightly more bearable. We know how problematic the household charge has been. One of the arguments has been its use by local authorities. People have a sense that if they knew this was actually going into essential local services, including roads, cleaning, public lighting, public parks and libraries, it might have an element of fairness to it. However, the belief is that it is being used to bail out our friends, the banks and the bondholders.

Nobody likes paying taxes but we know they are a necessary evil. The pain is eased when we know that those taxes are being put to good use and that good use can be seen. The same applies to VAT and excise but I am not sure of the practical aspects of that section on estimating the extent of the VAT and excise. I very much support identifying where the taxes go.

It is vital to have a reasoned debate about taxation and the best uses of our taxes. We know the central areas of health care, education and social services are paramount. For people to live decent lives we need to apply an appropriate system of taxation. If people go to any or great lengths to avoid paying taxes, then we will not be living decent lives. With tax breaks and non-standard tax reliefs there is an essential unfairness.

All of this is aided and abetted by specialised tax accountants, lawyers and private banks. There are many statistics on the cost to our economy and economies in the developing world as a result of tax dodging.

Another aspect of the Bill is that of cost and staff, issues which will need to be considered in greater detail. I heard what was said earlier about online and post services. However, I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett that there are significant numbers of adults in this country - I met with one such person earlier today - who are computer illiterate or who, for their own reasons, do not want to use the online facility. There must be recognition of their right not to use the online facility. Many people have an essential objection to doing so or an inability to do so. It is important the Bill takes this into account.

I have raised the issue of corporate tax many times, including during the previous Dáil. I would like to know how many people actually pay this tax. In seeking to ensure transparency for the people on the ground, it is of the utmost importance we also ensure transparency on the part of those at the other end of the scale. If this Bill is to be successful for citizens, the same standards must be applied to the corporations. I agree on the need for transparency. However, it must apply across the board. For example, do we know how much the troika visits cost? There was a debate in this House this week on excessive pensions, salaries and bonuses.

There is also a need for transparency in regard to where our taxes are invested. There have been some dubious investments in the past. For example, do we have all the details on the cost of securing the Corib oil and Rossport sites, in respect of which our taxes are being spent but on which we do not have enough detail?

On procurement, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, published the report on this issue in September. It is estimated therein that approximately €9 billion annually is spent in this area by public bodies. The Minister made the point at that time that it is essential that maximum value for money and operational efficiency is achieved. What is provided for in the Bill will prove beneficial to small businesses in this country. While there is much talk about job creation, there is little emphasis on job retention. If this issue were addressed in the Bill, it would be very much welcomed.

We need to adopt a policy of positive discrimination towards Irish businesses, which may be anti-EU. However, this is our country and we must save it. Any steps taken to assist small businesses in this country would be welcomed.

During the two elections in which I was a candidate I was contacted by a number of printing companies who were concerned that despite that candidates had to include on their election literature where the printing had been done, members of various parties and individuals were getting around this by using a name in the 26 counties and having their printing done elsewhere. It is important these issues are considered in the context of procurement.

I support the tax transparency aspect of the Bill. However, it must be applied across the board.

The Bill proposed by Deputy Murphy contains some interesting proposals. It aims to provide greater transparency in respect of spending by Departments and agencies in a given year and to draw a stronger correlation between taxes paid by individuals and State services delivered. The Bill is also intended to encourage more responsible budgeting, in particular in terms of preparation of annual budgets and to engender public debates around financial planning.

I agree with the Deputy that there is considerable merit in making more information available to members of the public in relation to the sources of Exchequer income and its expenditure. This is already the practice in some advanced economies. If people are better informed, they will better understand the need for the current levels of taxation. This would also serve to enhance public knowledge of the extent of spending our vast range of public services and, indeed, provide an increased understanding of their cost.

The Government is very much in favour of transparency and has made considerable progress in this area. My colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, has overseen a number of significant changes since the Government took office. Last December, in the Comprehensive Expenditure Report 2012-2014, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, announced a new medium-term expenditure framework. As part of this framework, multi-year expenditure ceilings have been set out for every Minister and Department and these ceilings form the basis upon which the Estimates process is now proceeding. The purpose of this is to provide Ministers and their Departments, as well as Members of the Oireachtas and citizens, with a clear sense of resource allocation not alone for the current year, but for the following year and the year after that. As Members are aware, in September the Government published the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012 which will put these ministerial expenditure ceilings onto a statutory footing, which is one of our commitments under the programme. The provisions of this Bill will be discussed and debated in this House over the coming weeks.

The introduction of expenditure ceilings allows Ministers and Departments to plan for the future, something that was unrealistic to expect of them when they did not know what the future looked like. As well as expenditure ceilings, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform also announced the introduction of a whole of year budgeting process. One of the key elements of this reform is that it provides for greater involvement by members of select committees in the Estimates process. In January of this year, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform wrote to all committee chairs inviting them and their committees to avail of this new opportunity to participate in the Estimates process in an ex ante fashion with Departments. This is a new process and it is a significant change for Ministers, their Departments and committee members. It is nonetheless an important and welcome change to how budgets are prepared and discussed.

It could reasonably be argued that the Estimates documentation is not especially accessible to members of the public and for reasons of space is somewhat limited in terms of the information that can be presented. To address these issues, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform launched a pilot whole-of-government performance information portal called Ireland Stat at the end of October. The pilot phase of Ireland Stat covers the following areas: jobs and enterprise development and innovation and agrifood - which are key features of our economic performance; land transport in the transport sector; and rural economy, food safety and flood risk management. While this project is still at the pilot phase and covers just seven of more than 80 programmes, it nevertheless contains a rich and deep volume of information. The pilot Ireland Stat is an important step in developing a public-facing website that makes it easier than ever for members of the public to see how well or otherwise the system of government is delivering public services.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform also hosts the Databank portal which provides comprehensive information on every aspect of Government expenditure over the years. Using this portal, members of the public can create tables and spreadsheets showing how spending on current, capital, or pay has evolved since 1994, whether for the whole of Government or for individual Departments. The Department also intends to provide information on monthly Exchequer data and general Government expenditure data. Purchase orders made by every Department and agency will be made available for public scrutiny.

I will now focus on the specific tax aspects of the Deputy's proposals. The Bill proposes the provision to each person paying income tax of an annual statement detailing tax paid, the estimated tax payments to be made in the coming tax year and a breakdown of Government spending on which the taxpayers' taxes are spent. To implement this proposal there are a number of practical concerns about the obligations set down in this Bill. It is important at the outset to remind members that we have a self-assessment tax system, so businesses and individuals in the self-assessment system already know how much tax they have paid in any given year and they are in a much better position than the Revenue Commissioners to estimate how much they will pay in the coming year. Regarding the PAYE sector, the position is that employees and occupational pensioners already obtain details of their tax paid on an annual basis from their employers by means of P60 forms. The provision of the same data again, as proposed by this Bill, would be a duplication of effort and perhaps therefore an expensive and unnecessary use of public service resources.

The Bill also proposes that statements issue in respect of future tax liabilities but it is not clear at a practical level how this is to be done. Estimates of future tax liabilities at the level of the individual depend on estimates of future income which, as a matter of routine, would not be known to the Revenue Commissioners. In the case of businesses, future tax liabilities depend on future income and future costs, among other things. Such items are not always predictable or stable.

Turning to the question of distributing statements, the most obvious and efficient mechanism to distribute any proposed statements to individuals is by way of an electronic interface. However, to protect taxpayer confidentiality any electronic system containing taxpayer information and data must be properly secured and accessible only through secure passwords and other protections. Although Revenue has a number of online systems, they are designed for the declaration and collection of tax. They would require extensive and expensive development to be reconfigured for use in the distribution of the data outlined in this proposal.

In addition, it is unfortunately the case that not all taxpayers have or want access to Revenue's online facilities. Accordingly, in these cases, Revenue will be obliged to print and then post the data and information to individual taxpayers. The operational costs involved in this can be very significant. Furthermore, Revenue has found in the past that the distribution of unsolicited information has sometimes surprised many taxpayers and caused needless concern which gave rise to substantial increases in phone calls, letters and personal callers to Revenue offices. These often simple information or explanatory inquiries resulted in the diversion of resources.

Revenue has been progressively moving towards online, and away from paper-based, communication. The efficiency gains from these developments cannot be understated. I understand this was referred to during the coverage of the proposals in the Bill on radio earlier this morning. Aside from the practical measures, costs and difficulties to implement these measures, the core mission of the Revenue Commissioners is the collection of taxes and duties, and the implementation of customs controls. It has no function in decisions relating to the allocation or expenditure of Government funds arising from taxes received. Accordingly, the provision of details on the Government's use and expenditure of taxes is not readily available to the Revenue Commissioners. Any requirement for the Revenue Commissioners to gather, analyse and provide details of how taxes are spent would add the burden of non-core functions on an already fully engaged Revenue resource.

To turn to the issue of performance enhancement, a number of Government initiatives are aimed at improving the focus on performance, delivery and results. The publication in February of the Book of Estimates marked an important departure from the traditional way of setting out the Estimates. Where previously the focus of the Estimates was solely on financial and human resource inputs, it now contains an unprecedented volume of performance information in terms of what services were provided and the impact of these services on Irish society.

The Bill also addresses the issue of public procurement. In Ireland, the scale of procurement activities in supplies and services by public bodies is estimated at €9 billion. This highlights the importance of achieving maximum value for money and operational efficiency in public procurement. For these reasons public procurement is one of the major projects of key strategic importance under the Government's public service reform plan published in November 2011.

I see a lot of merit in the Deputy's proposals but logistical difficulties would arise in providing the information he seeks. In general terms his proposal should be considered further in the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Government will not oppose Second Stage of the Bill. Certainly, a better informed public and better informed taxpayers enhance democracy. I know certain elements of what the Deputy proposes are implemented in other jurisdictions. An initial initiative might be to include in the P60 a website reference where taxpayers could access additional information along the lines referred to by the Deputy, particularly to show how taxes are spent. Taxpayers would then be in a position to assess what value for money they get from the payment of their taxes.

I have noted the comments made by Deputies. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan spoke about the fact that older generations are not computer competent in many respects and would find it difficult to access information. If accessibility is due to technology it is not possible to retrofit it and provide the same accessibility to those not using the technology. It is not possible because of a technological advance to do the same in a horse and buggy system when the reason it was not done in the first instance was because the technology was not in place to do it.

I thank Deputy Eoghan Murphy for a very valuable contribution to the advancement of democracy, transparency and the possibility of better compliance by taxpayers if they knew they were getting value for money on the basis of the information supplied.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Bill which I welcome wholeheartedly. I also welcome the general support the Bill has received from all sides of the House. I commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy for tabling the Bill into which he has put a great deal of work. It is important we have time to discuss it in detail. It is a very progressive Bill and represents a new departure in tax transparency in the State. Such a detailed breakdown as given in the example earlier by Deputy Eoghan Murphy would help ingrain in the national psyche the importance of focus on spending priorities in policy debate. It would lead to a better standard of debate prior to elections and between elections. It would also somewhat weaken the impact of out of context and disingenuous soundbites on various areas of expenditure. This is important as it would give us more perspective on how the Irish people's taxes are spent.

What Deputy Murphy proposes in the Bill represents a proactive effort by the State to inform the citizen. As a result of the legislation the State would be going to the citizen with this information and ensuring every citizen knows just how much of their tax money is being spent on various areas. It would bring politics back to the people and would be a real step forward and real progress. I support this.

I agree with Deputy Pearse Doherty that huge issues face the country. All 166 Members of the House want to help address and fix these issues as quickly as possible. However, what Deputy Doherty missed is the fact that initiatives such as the Bill represent thinking outside the box and would help revolutionise how politics are conducted in the country and how we govern. This would help the change agenda because it would help us look at politics from a different perspective. It would erode much of the populism we hear on expenditure debates. It would give concrete facts to the people. This is very important and we need more of it.

Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke about people who do not pay income tax. I acknowledge this might be a problem in this context but perhaps it could be easily dealt with through simply including with the tax transparency receipt a general breakdown of how taxes are spent at national level.

This should also include a breakdown of taxes raised through measures such as VAT, corporation tax, excise duty and other taxes to which everybody, including those who do not pay income tax, is subject on a day-to-day basis. That degree of inclusivity would be particularly useful and is something that might be considered at a later stage. A generic receipt of the type envisaged would not necessitate a substantial expenditure for the Exchequer, which is, as in all matters, an important consideration. I am sure a mechanism can be devised to make it as affordable as possible while at the same time ensuring the information received is of the highest quality. In the example given from the United Kingdom the cost was 26p, which is a very small price to pay for such important information. It is a very small price for an initiative which could well change the direction of policy discussion in this country.

It is essential that we have full transparency and accountability, as well as common sense and responsibility, in terms of how citizens' tax contributions are spent. Without that type of transparency, our national recovery process cannot continue. Taxpayers must have absolute faith in how their money is being spent and confidence that those charged with spending it are carrying out their role responsibly. The Bill represents another step in this Government's efforts to change how we do business. In addition to the requirements of transparency, accountability, sensibility and responsibility, this Bill brings an important perspective in its own right in the area of public discourse.

I commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy on the proposal he has brought before the House today. The Minister for Finance has stated his view that there is considerable merit in making more information available to the public in regard to sources of Exchequer income and breakdown of expenditure. Nobody could disagree with the principle on which the legislation is based. The practice in this Parliament has always been that the budget is published each year and the major changes it contains come into effect immediately. The so-called old reliables are put to a vote on the day of the budget, dealing with such issues as changes to tax bands, tax credits, social welfare rates, reductions in services, efficiencies, cost reductions and so on. These measures are digested and debated, after which people tend to lose sight of the overall budgetary picture. All most of us see is the amount of tax that is deducted from our pay packets. While a diligent minority might peruse the Internet for budget breakdowns, the majority do not know where their money goes.

A glance at the breakdown of data which Deputy Murphy has provided beings an immediate focus on the three main areas of Government expenditure, namely, health, education and social protection. Detailed information on how the headline figure for each Department is broken down into subheads and so on is already provided in the Estimates and that information is available on the Internet. What we are discussing here, however, is an individual statement for every taxpayer showing how the €3,000 they are paying in tax, for example, is distributed under a range of headings. Deputy Murphy gave as an example a breakdown of spending in education under the headings of primary, secondary and third level. The same type of breakdown should be applied in regard to health, social protection and justice, for which the Deputy has also given examples. As public interest in the tax statement grows, there would inevitably be a demand for even more information to be provided at that level. Refinements in this regard would be the subject of an ongoing debate. Once people can see that they are paying X for a particular service, they will want more details provided directly to them in the context of their individual contribution to the tax take.

One of the consequences of increased transparency is that the inherent difficulty of linking particular taxes and charges, such as a household charge or property tax, for instance, to the delivery of actual services becomes even more apparent. At public meetings on the household charge, people often make the point that as rural dwellers, they would receive no tangible return for the payment. It is an argument that is made by many rural constituents to whom I have spoken. As I said, this is a problem inherent in any process of transparency, such as we are discussing here, in respect of any tax. Some people are of the view that they should not pay any tax, that the only services the State should provide are a police force and defence force, with all other services to be provided privately. I do not agree with that view, but it is a legitimate position. I am reminded of a man I met while canvassing in my constituency. Having stood for election in the United Kingdom, he had his own experience of knocking on doors and seeking votes. He told me that he would generally ask voters if they would like to speak about education, health or local roads. On one occasion, he told me, a woman responded that she had no interest in education because she had no children, no interest in public health provision because she had private health insurance, and no interest in road improvements because they would only mean that people would be driving at greater speeds past her house. Where a particular service does not benefit one directly, there is sometimes a tendency to resent taxation for that purpose.

When the local parish priest, Fr. Michael McLoughlin, arrived in my home village of Moycullen some years ago, he instigated a custom whereby one sermon per year was devoted to detailing the parish accounts. This was a breath of fresh air and marked a significant departure from the previous incumbent. Parishioners are given a breakdown of income coming into the parish and where it is being spent, that information having been reviewed by a local committee of laypeople. There are many such examples of transparency in action at a local level. While a member of Galway County Council, I wrote an article for the local magazine, Moycullen Matters, providing detailed information on the council budget. Many readers approached me afterward seeking follow-up information. When information is delivered in a more direct way and set out in a concise manner, it generates debate. In this case, people told me that they did not realise the local authority was spending millions on a particular project, for example, or that funding for a particular service was provided at local government level.

Transparency is the key to any democracy but the question invariably arises as to how far we should go in our efforts to provide it. Some years ago information on farmers' income was published, outlining what individuals were receiving in direct payments from the European Union and the State. These data were broken down by name and by parish or village, which meant people could see what their neighbours were earning and taking in under direct payments. This information was made available for a year or two before being challenged by German farmers in the European courts and its dissemination ultimately rescinded. Details of the pay and allowance of politicians, whether Deputies, Senators or county councillors, are rightly published, which always leads to a big splash in the national newspapers. The question does arise as to what other information should be provided in regard to the expenditure of State moneys. For instance, should all public servants' salaries be published? What about social welfare recipients? Such initiatives would probably be a step too far, but it is a debate worth having. In any consideration of transparency, the question will always arise as to precisely how much detail should be provided.

I commend Deputy Murphy once again on bringing forward this Bill. I hope it can be progressed quickly and that every citizen will soon be in receipt of a tax transparency statement. It is appropriate that the statement should be conveyed by post. While online information is easily accessed by those who are computer literate, there are many people, including elderly people, who are not competent in using the Internet.

It is right and proper that this would be considered when posting such a statement to each individual. I again commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy and wish him well in respect of this Bill's progress.

Before addressing the Bill, I wish to make a comment regarding a rugby match that will take place tomorrow afternoon when my clubmate, Jamie Heaslip, will have the proud distinction of leading out the Irish team. He is representing Naas Rugby Club and I wish him the very best on what will be a proud occasion for himself, his family and his friends. I also wish him and the Irish team all the best in the match tomorrow.

I believe all Members would concur with that.

I welcome this Bill and congratulate Deputy Eoghan Murphy on the time and energy he has put into it. The idea that increasing amounts of information should be put into the public domain, especially about the public finances and where money is spent, is vital. While most of my colleagues have spoken on the positive aspects of this Bill, I intend to express a few reservations I have about it, one of which has been mentioned briefly by Deputy Kyne.

I refer to situations I encounter, particularly in respect of rural areas, when people seek advice from me on issues relating to planning permission. In particular, after receiving planning permission, they seek advice on the levies they must pay. While I am unsure of the position in other councils, Kildare County Council provides a breakdown of where the levies will be spent, such as sewage treatment costs. If one has in place one's own sewage treatment facility, one forgos that payment. Similarly, if one has access to water, one forgos the payment on that. Payments are also due for roads, playgrounds and so on, and people have approached me to ask why they should pay for roads when they live on rural lanes that have not been maintained by the local authorities for a number of years. They ask why they should pay for roads when such work is not being done outside their own places and they question the need to pay for this. People also query the reason, given they live five or ten miles from the nearest town in which a playground is located, they should make a contribution towards a playground to which they do not have real access. The issue is that a person may consider the individual good or the common good. When trying to explain this to those individuals who approach me to question the levies they are obliged to pay, I tell them it is for the common good and it is available to all.

This leads on the point I intend to make on what happens if one itemises where one spends the taxpayers' money and gives that information to individuals. They will question the reason they should be paying this money. When they visit a pub in the evening and see the person who is permanently in receipt of social welfare payments and who has made no effort to get a job, they will ask why they should they make a payment to such a person, who apparently spends most of his time in the pub from when it opens at 4 p.m. onwards. They will ask why should they make a payment for that. Consequently, my concern is that in the future, if all this information is available for individuals on which to make a judgment, they will question it. While our objective is to try to pull everyone along together, because we do not like to see a divide in society, a serious split may develop between those who pay their taxes, make payments to central government and will be able to see where precisely the money is being spent and those who cannot, or in certain cases are not willing to, make the payment. This might only serve to split society. Consequently, I have a problem with the amount of information that might be given out. The information should be available if one wishes to look for it oneself. However, if it is given out to individuals, they may use it in a more negative way than that for which it was intended.

I have mentioned the levies paid by individuals and people also look at tax exiles, that is, people residing outside the country and the donations they make to certain causes. People might begin to question why they should pay their tax and might ask why they should not make the equivalent donation to something in their own locality. For example, a large donation was made towards the payment of the salary of the Irish soccer manager by an individual who resides outside the country as a tax exile. Deputy Eoghan Murphy referred earlier to a sample tax bill of €10,000. What would happen were individuals to decide that as they desired to have their tax money spent better, this might happen if they were to give the aforementioned €10,000 they were due to pay to, for example, the Jack and Jill Children's Foundation, which would spend it better then would the Government, which would disburse it all around the place? Members must be mindful of such attitudes.

Another point, which was also mentioned by Deputy Kyne, pertains to payments previously received by farmers. If one advances this point further, should all payments by the Government be placed in the public domain to be examined by all and sundry? For example, should this apply to all payments to those in receipt of social welfare, to civil and public servants and to everyone who receives public money? I greatly welcome this section of the Bill on procurement. People are worried that small firms are being excluded from public procurement and many Members are fighting hard for small firms in this regard. Incidentally, I define a small firm as one which employs ten people or fewer, whereas the Minister in some cases might define a small firm as being one in which 50 people or fewer are employed. Deputy Murphy may be interested that the Office for Public Works, which is responsible for a major portion of public procurement, will be appearing before the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation because that joint committee strongly supports the idea that small firms be associated, in so far as it is possible, with the €9 billion that is being spent in this regard.

Overall, I welcome this Bill. I look forward to seeing some amendments being tabled on Committee Stage that will offer some protection. While people need the information and it is available any way, there is no need to give people information as a stick with which to beat Members and other people or sections in society. It is a well thought-out Bill and I wish Deputy Murphy the best of luck on Committee Stage.

I warmly welcome the publication of the Tax Transparency Bill 2012. I also compliment and commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy on introducing it to the House because it is an important issue. Moreover, it is highly relevant to the debate that is under way in the current economic climate. I wish to indicate at the outset that I intend to support this legislation as it deals with issues such as transparency and accountability, which I consider to be a progressive development in the political system, regardless of its origin. As an Independent Deputy, I use an old basic principle, which is that when someone brings to the Dáil an idea, sensible legislation or practical solution, people should support it no matter where it comes from. It is important to make this point and, regardless of party politics, I will support this legislation because it is relevant and sensible.

Good man, Finian.

Perhaps it is time for a new type of politics and people should not be afraid to say that.

What about the election for which the Deputy was calling?

That was Deputy Mattie McGrath. I did not call for an election.

A different Deputy McGrath.

That was the other McGrath. Moreover, I guarantee Deputy O'Donovan that he was speaking on his own behalf.

Was it Master McGrath?

If I may revert to the legislation, I make the point that there are times in the House when opportunities should be given to people to vote on issues. There should be some freedom for members of parties or governments who have an issue of conscience or something about which they wish to make a statement. This is done in other parliaments and Members should consider doing this.

As for the legislation itself, the tax issue is of great importance. It is the backbone of the economy and of how the country is run. The citizens of this State - I emphasise the word "citizens" rather than "taxpayers" - need to know exactly what is going on and how their money is being spent, and this Bill deals with that. However, Members must deal with reality as well and, in the first instance, people must pay their taxes and must make a contribution. Moreover, they must be fair and honest when making their payments to the State.

Sadly, in this State there is a history of people not being compliant, and that should end. We must deal with that problem in the broader political sphere.

The Bill makes provision for the issuance to each person paying income tax and other such taxes on earnings of an annual statement detailing tax paid in the most recent tax year, the estimated tax payments to be made in the coming tax year and a breakdown of the areas of Government spending on which the recipient of the statement’s taxes are to be spent. The breakdown will be provided in percentage terms as well as in simple monetary terms. In addition to the annual statement, the Bill also provides for publication on-line of a calculator for estimating the total amount of value-added tax and excise paid on goods and services by an individual. The final element in the legislation is a commitment from the Government to make the necessary provisions to introduce a new minimum threshold for the publication of money spent by a Department or agency. These are key elements. The Bill is positive, constructive and sensible.

In Part 2, taking in sections 3 and 4, the Bill addresses its central purpose, causing the Minister for Finance to publish annually and to issue to each person having paid tax an itemised statement of taxes. Section 3 contains this central provision regarding the publication of the statement. These elements are at the heart of the legislation.

In talking about taxes, it is important to realise that there are ongoing debates on issues such as excise tax. A colleague in the Seanad, Senator John Crown, indicated yesterday that he wants to ban smoking completely from the Dáil premises. I know this is popular with some people but there are people in the Oireachtas who would disagree strongly with the idea.

I thought the Deputy was a populist.

The issue relates to the legislation. Those of us who have a few cigarettes now and again pay massive tax. We are paying over €9 for 20 cigarettes, making a massive tax contribution, yet people want to drive us out the door.

This loses tax and revenue for the State.

The Deputy is not paying tax on the €42,000.

I spoke to that issue yesterday. I will return to the tax issue, with the permission of the Acting Chairman.

I hope the Acting Chairman will protect me.

The Deputy did not say if he is worth the money.

I hope I will get some protection from all the Deputies opposite.

The Deputy badly needs it.

At ten against one, it is hard going being an Independent. We are up against big parties and resources so it can be very difficult. Senator Crown and his "nanny state" brigade should realise that people have civil liberties and should be allowed to do as they wish. Some 30% of the population makes a massive tax contribution every time we pay for a packet of 20 cigarettes. I am not saying this is good for one's health and I accept the health arguments. We should not be driven underground as it will lose hundreds of millions of euro in taxes.

Illegal cigarettes are destroying the retail industry. I have had many owners of small businesses attending my clinics who are losing thousands of euro every year because of the amount of smuggling that is ongoing. My point relates to tax and not health. It is time for Senator Crown to get a life and give some of us a bit of a break. We do not want to live in a nanny state and we should respect different views.

Part 4 contains three sections and addresses the third purpose of the Bill, which is to cause the Government to make the necessary provisions so that every purchase order by a Department or agency of more than €5,000 must be published on-line, with exceptions. This is a good initiative, particularly as it would relate to small businesses. We should not apologise for making a special effort to try to give work to small businesses. Deputy Lawlor mentioned small businesses, and for me these are any enterprises employing three, four or five people. I do not agree that there must 50 or 100 people in a small business. Many people in this State employ three to five people, and we should help them; this part of the legislation is an attempt to put those people on the radar.

I warmly welcome the legislation and I would be glad to give the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, any details of the leaders' allowance any time he wishes. If he has time for research, he can see all the details on the relevant website. There is accountability and transparency.

Is the Deputy worth it?

I commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy for bringing forward the legislation, which I will support.

As with previous speakers, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this Bill. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, for introducing this forward-thinking Bill. It is ironic that there are few people sitting opposite today as the new Friday Dáil sittings provide an ideal opportunity for people like us on the Government benches to introduce important legislation. That point should not be missed.

The contents of the Bill have been outlined by previous speakers. Although it will not provide more taxes for the country, it will introduce more transparency, which is important, giving people a sense of knowing where their money goes. It is important that we should know how much money we pay that goes towards primary, secondary or third-level education, agriculture or health. In 21st century Ireland, people are more knowledgeable and inquisitive about where their money goes and it is important to give as much information as possible in that regard.

Earlier in the year we introduced a €100 household charge but people were misinformed by members of the Opposition about the purpose of that money. As time went on people were told the charge would facilitate essential services in the community, such as maintaining roads, parks, museums and swimming pools. That is what the money is for. It is important we inform people as much as possible about how the money paid in taxes goes towards essential services that must be paid for. Without those services, we would not have a society. It is vital that we debate such issues. Some people believe that everything is for nothing but we must put facts and figures on the table and transparency is important in that regard.

I welcome the element of the Bill which outlines details for purchase orders. Over the years we have seen how substantial amounts of money have been wasted, and such problems must be addressed. A main point of the Bill mentioned by previous speakers, both in a positive and negative fashion, is whether information should be on-line or come through the post. We are all highly technical in the current age and increasing numbers of people have access to the Internet. It is essential that a letter containing the information would be delivered to people's doors. If a letter with a harp symbol arrives, it is taken seriously; it is not thrown in the bin, torn up or burned. People will remember its purpose and will most likely file it for later comparison in other years. The Minister indicated there would be substantial cost involved but in some ways the cost would be worth it over time.

There is much work to be done on the Bill and I look forward to contributing as we move through the process. The more transparency brought to the system, the better. It is important that the people are brought with us as society is in difficult times, although people may be tired of hearing this. The more information supplied to people, the more knowledgeable they will become and the more they will be prepared to buy into the process of getting the country up and running again.

I welcome the Bill and compliment Deputy Murphy for the time, energy and work put into the Bill. I also compliment the Minister for his positive sentiments towards the Bill and I hope that by this time next year the Bill will be of use to society in general.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the legislation and I acknowledge the provision of Friday Dáil sittings by the Government Chief Whip. I know some people have been critical of this process, which has led to backbenchers being provided with time and engagement with people like the Minister of State.

However, he has shown a welcome level of engagement.

Before I deal with the crux of the Bill, Deputy Pearse Doherty in his usual colourful and irrelevant fashion discussed transparency. He was critical of the Taoiseach using State services to attend EU meetings, but he omitted to tell the House that, between 2001 and 2010, some £4,232,868 was paid to Deputy Adams, Mr. Pat Doherty, MP, MLA, Ms Michelle Gildernew, MP, MLA, Mr. Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister, and Mr. Conor Murphy, MP, for their non-attendance at Westminster. While Deputy Pearse Doherty will try to be all things to all people and claim that Sinn Féin is great and its members love to wrap the cloak of austerity around themselves, Sinn Féin must be truthful with people. Its members are drawing massive sums of money from Her Majesty's Treasury in London, taking the Queen's shilling, and have no problem with their non-attendance at a Parliament with which they have significant ideological differences. In fairness to the Dáil, Sinn Féin Deputies would do well to tell the entire truth when they pontificate about the costs of politics in this State.

Deputy Finian McGrath made another politically opportunistic contribution this morning and tried to be all things to all people. His comments yesterday were the most cynical display of political opportunism that I have seen in the recent past. He and a few of his colleagues tried to throw an unnecessary spanner into the works of an important issue, namely, tomorrow's children's referendum. Worse still was the contribution made on the "Six One News" by another member of that group, also in respect of the children's referendum, in which he made an unnecessary personal attack on the Ceann Comhairle.

The Deputy should return to the legislation.

I thank the Acting Chairman for his facilitation. While I welcome the Bill, I share some of Deputy Michael McGrath's concerns about the costs associated with conveying the information. We could risk breaking social cohesion with those who, for whatever reason, do not pay tax. They might be unable to work, unemployed, retired or immigrants and should not be made to feel as if they are out of the mix. I caution against the risk of excluding such people.

The Bill has good aspects. For example, a VAT calculator that is available online is a good idea. Why is the Committee of Public Accounts not doing more of this type of work to ensure that the level of information in question is conveyed to the taxpayer? Recently, more than €4 million of taxpayers' money in an Irish Aid programme was accounted for by the Ugandan public accounts committee system yet was not identified in Ireland. Are the State's internal auditing and accounting systems strong enough? This issue relates to the central tenet of the Bill.

In the UK last March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer published and received cross-party support for proposals similar to this Bill. We are moving in that direction, but more discussion is necessary on Committee Stage. The role of the Committee of Public Accounts is vital in examining where Departments spent their money. This Chamber should see a greater level of engagement with Ministers on line-by-line expenditure.

I welcome the spirit of the Bill. It shows a willingness on behalf of the Government to facilitate Government backbenchers who want to introduce legislation. However, I take on board the Minister for Finance's statement that one must be cautious about adding an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and cost. The Bill is meant to be a cost-saving exercise. I welcome the Bill and look forward to discussing it on Committee Stage.

Before I call Deputy Harris, I wish to point out that we have approximately 45 minutes remaining. I must call the Minister at 1 p.m. and Deputy Eoghan Murphy at 1.15 p.m. As six Deputies including Deputy Harris remain to contribute, I ask them to be conscious of the fact that I will try to allow everyone to speak.

I will be brief. At the outset, I ask for less than a minute of the Ceann Comhairle's forbearance regarding an issue referred to by Deputy O'Donovan just prior to the Ceann Comhairle's arrival in the Chamber. This is my last opportunity to raise it before the Dáil adjourns for the week. Another Member of the House, Deputy Mattie McGrath, made comments on the national broadcaster regarding the Ceann Comhairle's impartiality. It was a scurrilous comment and I hope that the Ceann Comhairle, as the Chair, can advise of what action can be taken. I draw his attention to the remarks, which were opportunistic, cynical and inaccurate.

I thank Deputy Eoghan Murphy for tabling this Bill and commend him on the significant amount of work that he has invested. The nub of the Bill is the taxpayers' desire to know where their money is going. As public representatives, this is an issue that all Deputies and local councillors must address. When people get their payslips every week, fortnight or month and see the considerable deductions, taxes, charges and levies, they want to know where the money is going.

I listened to the Deputy and a tax expert on "Morning Ireland" today. While the tax expert lauded the Bill's purpose and the idea behind it, he was slightly preoccupied with the issue of compliance. Although the Bill assists in that regard, its overarching aim goes well beyond encouraging people to pay their taxes. It is meant to give people information to which they should be entitled so that they can know where their taxes go and involve themselves in an active participatory democracy.

The Bill is concerned with transparency, debate, what value our society attaches to paying for certain public services and informing the public of the level of economic value that their Government has attached to those services in turn. It is an end to auction politics. The key to electoral success seemed to be party X telling people that it would raise the children's allowance by €5 if they voted for it and party Y telling people that it would raise the allowance by €6.50. This process would go on and on and the highest bidder seemed to win the office of Taoiseach. We saw where that got us and the quality of individual who held the office. Auction politics must conclude for a variety of reasons, including our membership of the euro, the stability treaty, our current mess, learning lessons from the past and the need to ensure that never again will we see the collapse in employment levels, tax revenues and property prices of recent years.

When the House, the media or talking heads discuss the economy, taxes and budgets, we no longer speak in millions of euro, which mean very little to most people, but in billions of euro. The Minister for Finance has acknowledged the Bill's commendable aim of returning the discussion to the basic level. What does something mean for a family, a household or the disposable income that is used to cater for children or a spouse? The Bill is about people's families. Good work has been invested in the Bill and I hope that it can be further fleshed out on Committee Stage. I acknowledge the Government's progress in the medium-term expenditure framework to which the Minister alluded.

I wish to raise two issues. First, when we discuss tax transparency, it will be important to ensure a good level of understanding of where a property tax, currently the household charge, is going. Many people believe it is for management fees or lights in housing estates. If we are to have a form of local taxation, people must understand it. The suggestion by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, of an ability under the new local government reforms to ring-fence the property tax in time is a healthy development for democracy and transparency.

Second, Deputy Eoghan Murphy has witnessed frustrations as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. I am all in favour of the Bill's contents in terms of transparency. However, the committee's meeting with the HSE yesterday was nothing short of disgraceful. Regardless of the Minister or Government of the day, is it any wonder that the HSE cannot live within budget?

I asked a number of simple questions, including questions about the cost of absenteeism, the cost of sick leave, the cost of overtime for nurses and for doctors and how many on-call payments are paid to consultants. One would swear I had asked the HSE to solve world hunger by the end of the day. The response was atrocious. I was met by a wall of silence. The silence was not as a result of maliciousness or a lack co-operation but because the data did not exist. We need to be more transparent and to support this Bill and for it to go to Committee Stage but we also need to instruct our Accounting Officers, in particular in agencies like the HSE, that they need to up their game rapidly.

I compliment Deputy Eoghan Murphy on bringing forward this Bill. There are some very good points in it. I particularly like the proposal to ensure greater transparency in how our tax euro are spent. There is a concern among people - often expressed by our constituents - that the money they pay in taxes goes into a black hole and it is unclear to them where and how their money is being spent and whether it is being spent effectively. Anything that helps to improve transparency in the tax system must be welcomed by everybody in this House.

I have some comments to make on the Bill and I am expressing them in the hope they will add to it because they are meant to be helpful. The first is whether we send this statement to people's houses by post or electronically. The phrase used by the people in south east is "on d'Internet". My preference is that it should be "on d'Internet". As the Minister said, we do not want to be seen to be increasing costs for the State at a time when we are finding it difficult to pay our bills. The system we should consider should be a voluntary one whereby if one wants to find out where one's money is going, one should type in one's PPS number and some sort of security password to get a statement. It would be environmentally more friendly and, as the Minister said, it would be much more cost-effective. That might be something worth taking on board.

I refer to extending the system to local authorities. Earlier speakers spoke about the need to ensure transparency not only at national level but at local level. That is something which comes up again and again on the doorsteps. People ask why are they spending this money and whether their property tax is going to cut the grass in their estate because they do that themselves. People have no idea where the local authorities are spending their money. I would like to see the remit of this Bill extended to local authorities.

I lived for a while in the UK and I paid the council tax which was of the order £800 to £900 per annum and nothing like the €100 per annum we are asked for here. It is at a similar level to what Sinn Féin introduced in the North of Ireland. Each council in the UK produces a booklet each year which tells people exactly where their money goes. It states the amount spent on playgrounds, fire engines, etc., so people are very clear what they are getting for the council tax. A similar system here would be very useful. If it was available online, people could log on to the websites of Meath County Council or Dublin City County to check exactly where their money is being spent, which would be very helpful.

This is very worthwhile legislation. I am not sure whether all of it should be implemented but it has certainly succeeded in generating a debate. I hope the Minister will take on board many of the points raised today. I thank Deputy Eoghan Murphy for producing this legislation.

I, too, acknowledge the work of Deputy Eoghan Murphy on this Bill and the role of the Chief Whip and the Minister in allowing us to discuss it today. The Friday sittings are very healthy for those of us on the backbenches in that we are able to bring forward Bills like this one. The overriding point about this Bill is transparency, which must be welcomed in that we need to get more information into the public domain.

Looking at the possible negative aspects to the Bill, I am mindful that people can use statistics and twist them. This week a constituent telephoned me to say the household did not want to pay the household charge and pointed out that they had paid a levy of €15,000 to the local authority a couple of years ago, of which a couple of thousand of euro was to be used for recreational facilities. They did not have a playground in their front garden and, therefore, felt they should not have to pay for anything else. I pointed out that the local authority swimming pool in Naas, to which some of this levy money had gone, had cost €1 million. People can twist things to suit themselves.

Deputy Hannigan touched on this, when he said it was important ti show people how their money is spent and how it impacts on their lives. We are all a little bit self-centred and selfish at times and we like to see what we are getting for taxpayers' money. That is where the benefit of this Bill lies. It touches on the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government's reform of local government, which was recently announced. I look forward to a situation down the line where a good proportion of the property tax raised locally is spent locally. It will lead to greater accountability. I warned some of my local councillors that it will probably put them under more pressure because they will be more accountable. Where local authorities are seen to be wasting money, people will rightly hammer them for it because they will say it is their money. That is not the case at present. Since the abolition of rates, the Central Fund is the largest source of funding for local authorities. Locals see that as money from Dublin and do not feel it is taxpayers' money. They do not see the link. The nub of what Deputy Murphy proposes in this Bill is about making those links. It is not only about compliance, as Deputy Harris said, it is about where this cake come from.

That leads me to an area of our economy which has probably grown a little during the recession, namely, the black market. A neighbour of mine told me she wanted to do a little bit of work on her house. Each tradesman asked for a bit of cash in hand, however she wanted to be able to do the work through the books but she was finding it difficult to get somebody who would do it all through the books. We hear anecdotal evidence that this is a difficulty. One can understand why people want to get the cheapest price but the State is losing out by the growth in the black market. A real challenge for us as a Government is to make it socially unacceptable for people to say they will do a job cash in hand because our services will lose out as a result.

People will always make excuses as to why they should not pay tax. If one asks someone who is involved in tax avoidance why he or she is not paying tax, he or she will say that money is only going to bail out the bondholders or pay for the banks. He or she would never mention that some of that money goes to pay special needs assistants in schools, to build new schools, to pay gardaí and to fund our health care system. We must make those links. The spirit of this Bill is very much about making these links and saying the money one hates to see leaving one's pay packet each week is going to something which impacts on one's life and the lives of those around one, whether elderly relatives who are old age pensioners and who use services of the State or otherwise.

What drives people mad when paying their taxes is if they feel there is not value for money. There have been many examples in recent times when the taxpayer has not secured good value for money. To go back to the reform of local government, if money is collected locally, there will be greater accountability among council officials and they will have to deliver greater value for money. We cannot have a situation in the future where Departments waste money. The e-voting machines cost €50 million. Seeing such waste drives people mad with anger, especially as they do not feel a sense of ownership of large amounts of money. When one thinks about how hard people work to raise this money, the value on it is huge.

Greater accountability in tackling waste in spending is coupled with this.

In general, any measure that makes people more aware of where their money goes is welcome, because there is a disconnect with politics in many respects. Sometimes people will ask: "Why am I paying that tax to you?", as if Members of this House just get it and keep it. We must make people aware of the challenges that Ministers face on a daily basis. There is a need to explain. As I regularly say to my constituents, if we leave aside the bank debt, the huge problems we have with that and the mistakes that were made in the past, this country's primary difficulty is the deficit. One would not run a household in the way this country has been run for a number of years. We are spending more than our income, and the Government would be totally irresponsible if it did not tackle that deficit and try to close the gap as quickly as possible. Otherwise, future generations will pay for us continuing to borrow to fund basic services.

We must make people aware of the challenge the Government faces every day in trying to do the right thing for the country and getting it back on its feet, and the key role the people play in that. In that regard, I commend the Bill to the House and Deputy Murphy for his work on it.

I thank Deputy Murphy for putting the Bill before the House. I have not been able to follow all of this interesting debate because the finance committee is meeting this morning.

Making this type of information available to citizens will enable us to have a proper debate. In recent weeks I have met various groups and individuals regarding the budget. I have talked to them about the size of the pie and how we divide it, and I have asked them for their input. Usually, when one meets such groups or citizens, they generally ask one not to allow a cut to take place in their particular area of interest. One must explain that if we do not make a saving or increase the spending in that area, we will have to decrease our expenditure elsewhere. I then ask them where they would make the saving or increase the spending.

I had a very interesting debate with pupils from one of my local schools when they visited the House. We discussed education and examined the savings in the education budget last year and especially the cut or rebalancing where career guidance teachers were concerned. I explained the finance and the Government's position and had a very informed debate with the 16 year old young ladies. They could see the decisions that had to be made by their elected politicians and bought into the process. At the end of the discussion, one of the teachers stood up and said we should not have made any savings in the career guidance area. I explained the pie to the teacher and the pupils, that is, how much we had and the areas where it had to be spent. A young lady stuck her hand up and said she had another question, not for me but for her teacher. She asked the teacher where she would have made the cuts and where she would have spent the money, given that they had spent a half hour hearing it explained. "Give us the alternative viewpoint", she said. The teacher said she would not have made them in education. The young lady said, "That is a bit of a cop out, Miss". I told the pupil not to be too concerned about her Christmas marks, although I do not think they will be very good.

I found this encouraging and enlightening. That 16 year old young lady was able to understand the decisions that are being made in this House. When we put it in a factual way, a 16 year old can see the choices and difficulties we have. Many sectors in society only see their limited areas. Deputy Murphy pointed to the individual earning €42,000 and split up how much each area gets. That transparency is excellent, but we must be careful how we do it. The environment is a good example but, as was said earlier, there will be expenditure of taxation through local government and that must be explained.

Deputy Murphy covered the issue well in his speech. The only concern is the resources required for implementation. The Deputy has offered a solution by referring to an on-line process or an app in this area. There is a way that could be managed. We currently post out the P21 and we could include in it information on how one can see the breakdown of how taxation is spent. To refer back to those 16 year old young ladies, they understood when it was explained to them. I believe the vast majority of taxpayers will also understand. They want a society that functions. It would also be an ideal way to focus on some of the waste that is taking place.

I wish to refer to the €5,000 threshold for publishing expenditure. That figure should be our target. However, it should be an incremental process. In the first year it could be €15,000, €10,000 in the second year and €5,000 in the third year. That would allow the systems to get up to speed to achieve this.

I welcome the Minister's speech and I thank Deputy Murphy for facilitating this debate. I apologise for being unable to follow it in detail and if I have repeated what others have said, it is because I had to attend the finance committee meeting.

I compliment Deputy Eoghan Murphy on bringing this Bill forward for two reasons. The first is that it generates a debate on this subject and the second is that it gives us an opportunity to speak on an issue that affects every citizen in the State. Every citizen is affected either in paying tax, receiving the benefits from tax they paid previously or receiving the benefit of the taxes being paid by the general population.

There are positives and negatives with this Bill. I totally agree with the concept of transparency. It is hugely important that the voting public knows where its money is being spent. At a meeting recently I heard a public representative say that the local authorities provide no services at all. That was as far as he could see, and he is a member of a local authority. When asked about public lighting, public footpaths, the vocational education committee, VEC, fire brigade service and all the other services in place that require ongoing maintenance, the same person appeared to take those for granted. Undoubtedly, there is a need to clearly and emphatically illustrate what one gets for paying one's taxes, regardless of whether they are income taxes or otherwise.

I have serious doubts about the costs of presenting the breakdown of their taxes and where they go to individual taxpayers. There is also the danger that in the current economic situation it will become divisive for society. There will be people who will say they do not wish to pay for something because of what it costs them. They might say, "I wish to be selective and I will now vote for a party that provides that". That could be divisive for our society. I recall being told by a Minister in this House not many years ago that ours is a high wage, low tax society. Where did that get us? We have the illustration. This could be very divisive and dangerous from that point of view.

However, it is hugely important that voters relate their activity in the ballot box to the consequences of that activity. That is where transparency is important. There is no reason that the Revenue Commissioners or another body, in conjunction with the various Departments, cannot produce a diagram which shows the slice of the tax cake apportioned to each service throughout the country. It would cost very little. Only one division has to be done. One takes the total amount of revenue, the total expenditure required for the various services and one apportions the revenue as a proportion of the total circle. That would have the same effect. It would be particularly beneficial to the voter. He or she will be able to relate that to the policies of the various parties, including independents who put themselves forward for election. It will give the voting public an opportunity to come to a conclusion.

A famous man, far more famous than any of us, said that the voting tendency of the members of the public was in inverse proportion to their socioeconomic status. He was probably right, because there are people who have to vote very carefully for very valid reasons. They must make that decision on profound grounds, while others might do it for frivolous reasons on the basis that it does not really matter anyway.

I thank Deputy Eoghan Murphy for bringing the matter before the House in this fashion to give us an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons and to streamline it further after review and revision. It can try to convey to the people what we are really about.

It also helps to generate a debate on reality. I have heard people in this House saying the money will come from somewhere. Where will the money come from? They also say there is no need for cutbacks or austerity as if austerity was a substitute in order to punish people. It is about housekeeping, which is of great importance. No one in the current climate likes what must be done. I am not getting into the business of blaming and saying who caused it but the current situation is here. We must work around what we have to play with. If we do not do so responsibly, some future generation will talk about us in a fashion that is less than complimentary.

I am loth to compliment Deputy Eoghan Murphy because he has been receiving nothing but compliments this morning. I commend him on introducing the Bill and making use of the opportunity for backbenchers to table legislation. There can be no more fundamental discussion than parliamentarians discussing information on taxation and how people's hard-earned money is spent by the Government. I fully support anything that sheds light on the topic.

I will comment on certain aspects of the Bill and my comments will echo some of the sentiments expressed by previous speakers. Deputy Durkan referred to Members who expressed the opinion that the moneys to run the country would come from somewhere. We have heard similar expressions over the past 18 months and before. The basic duty of the Government, which this Government is acting upon, is that it lives within its means so that we do not live beyond our means at present, resulting in burdening future generations with huge levels of borrowing that they must fund. This results in the Government having many difficult decisions in the run-up to the budget, as it had last December. It is right that the State tries to balance its books and ensures expenditure matches income in so far as possible. That is the difficulty in which the Government finds itself.

This is a useful discussion because any light that can be given to taxpayers, in respect of the money they contribute to the coffers of the State through the Revenue Commissioners, is welcome. Deputy Durkan expressed reservations about part of the legislation. It is up to the people to decide they do not like how certain aspects of their taxes are being spent if the information is made available. That is politics and the opportunity to not like where the money is being spent is represented in the ballot box. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure the choices are clearly presented to people, which is why I support it.

For the first time in the Chamber, I confess to being a user of the dreaded tobacco weed. The legislation refers to the possibility of an online calculator to provide an estimate of the amount of revenue people contribute through VAT. That is a good idea and, as a smoker, I contribute through duties and levies above and beyond what I contribute through income tax.

This discussion took place recently in the neighbouring jurisdiction. I did not hear Deputy Eoghan Murphy's opening contribution so I do not know if Britain introduced legislation in line with his proposal, whereby full disclosure of how people's taxes are spent is part of the law. I am aware the discussion took place 12 months ago. It is worth pointing out the various initiatives taken by the Government since coming to office. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, outlined the comprehensive expenditure report last year and, this week, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, launched Ireland Stat, which puts in the public domain information that was previously unavailable. Discussion on legislation such as this could prompt more disclosure by Departments and agencies. It can never be a bad thing that taxpayers have full information on where the money they contribute goes. That is why I support the Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on, and support, the Bill. I congratulate Deputy Eoghan Murphy on his work. Everyone alluded to the advantage of transparency in respect of taxes. It is very important but I also wish to deal with the educational side of the matter so that the public becomes aware of how pressure comes on for the allocation of taxation to different areas.

Thankfully, Ireland has an active civil society. Many organisations, representing many interests in the country, lobby Members. It is important to know how the system responds to civil society with regard to the demands of various sectors of society. As we approach the budget, we are ever more exposed to an understanding of how active civil society is in lobbying. I have seen countries where civil society is suppressed. The advantage Ireland has is vital.

I will cite one example of how spending changed. In the 1960s, some 20% of the total health budget was spent on mental health service; last year, it was 5%. Over the period since the 1960s, there was an erosion without anyone being aware of it and with no discussion. The system of mental hospitals in the 1960s was totally unacceptable but people were moved into the community without transferring the resources to support them. Greater awareness at the time might have engendered discussion on where money is spent. It is important to educate society on how decisions are influenced and made. Decisions can be made in the best interests of all of society but they influenced by civil society. We need to educate people on who the strong people are and those who need more support because they are not as active.

One group that is not active in promoting its needs are those who suffer from mental illness and those who are suicidal. This week, I met a person who told me that two friends of his, a doctor and a pharmacist, had taken their lives. Also this week, someone told me a priest had taken his life. These issues go across society. Deputy Eoghan Murphy's Bill will facilitate greater transparency, understanding and an informative approach to society's response to how our taxes are spent.

I thank Deputy Murphy and compliment him on bringing the Bill before the House. It is a great guide not only to the voting public, but to politicians. Sometimes we are so engrossed in our work that we do not understand where funding is coming from or where it is going.

One fifth of our contributions are spent on health. For 14 years the previous Government threw money at a system and did nothing about it. In my own county of Roscommon, that Government spent between €7 million and €10 million on a new accident and emergency unit and then set up HIQA with terms of reference to close it down. A year and a half ago, I went to a public meeting where a man announced, to huge applause, that we needed only an extra €10 million a year to keep the unit open. Where did that gentleman think the money would come from, or why did he feel €10 million should be spent on running an accident and emergency unit that HIQA judged to be unsafe? People call for more money, but they do not understand that how money is spent and getting value for money is often more important.

I pay tribute to the Minister for Health, with €1.7 billion out of the general budget on health. I pay tribute to nurses and doctors and the people on the front line of the health services. They have helped to keep a system up and running with such reduced funding. This must happen. When the country's finances fell off the cliff, it was the current Government that had to address a serious situation. We have been in denial with regard to our finances for a long time. The Bill will be a reader's digest of where our finances go.

Three months ago, I flew from Frankfurt Hahn airport to Knock and approximately 95% of the passengers on the Ryanair flight were middle to upper income German people. Michael O'Leary may not want to hear that when the stewardess brought the trolley of coffee, tea and sandwiches along the cabin, not one person bought anything from her. The passengers realised that what she was selling was not good value. They could get a better meal for €20 elsewhere. If that had been a flight from London to Ireland full of Irish passengers, we would all have bought a sandwich, a coffee or a beer, spending €20 upon €20. German people get value for money. We must, as a country, get value for money too. In recent years, I did not always get value for money. As a country and as a Government, we must do so.

I thank Deputy Murphy and compliment him on bringing the Bill to the House. It is a very fair Bill.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share