First, I compliment the Minister on the work he has been doing in the Department since his appointment. His experience and steady hand have helped in many ways to convey policy and to give people an understanding that the issues that were created and had to be addressed were being dealt with by somebody who had an experience of life and of politics that would lend itself to the proper thought-out policy that was required at a difficult time for this country.
I am also glad the Minister is present this morning to hear some of the contributions from Members. I will take advantage of my speaking time to raise a number of matters relevant to the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts, given that the Minister is an influential member of the Cabinet and a former chairman of that committee. It is strange to watch that committee in action and to see fantastic amounts of money being accounted for every Thursday in a way that clearly proves inefficiencies in Departments and agencies, poor value for money being achieved on behalf of the taxpayer and huge losses of money. The money appears to be unaccounted for.
I recall that when the Minister was Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts we discussed the Local Government Audit Service. I continue to ask that the Local Government Audit Service and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General be amalgamated, to ensure a single organisation within government administration has the power, expertise and necessary skills base to conduct the required forensic examination of accounts across the board and right down to the point where the taxpayers' money is spent. Similar arrangements are in place in other countries. I cannot understand why it cannot be done here.
There is a certain cynicism at play when one looks at the workings of government and the Committee of Public Accounts. When one is in opposition everything is demanded, such as what I am saying now. However, I supported that demand when my party was in government. I stress again that if that amalgamation were to take place, it would create a situation where, perhaps, less money was lost and greater efficiencies and accountability were achieved. If that happened, the Minister for Finance would not have to go to the current extremes to collect the taxes, because he might not need as many taxes if they were not wasted.
My other issue is what happens when we create an agency such as Irish Water. A total of €2.6 billion of taxpayers' money will go to Irish Water in funding and loans from the time of its establishment to the end of 2016. These are not my figures; they come from the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General does not audit those accounts. That is extremely disturbing in a State that requires better administration and a better audit system. Will the Minister ask the Cabinet to consider bringing Irish Water under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General? I cannot see anything wrong with that, even if it were to be for the period until it goes off balance sheet. Incidentally, I believe that to be a nonsense because ultimately the taxpayer is still on the hook for much of this money.
They are my two suggestions. At one time local government was spending €4 billion of Irish taxpayers' money without a complete audit service being put in place in terms of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It would make great sense and achieve value for money and greater efficiency if the two organisations I mentioned were amalgamated. There is no reason that it should not or cannot happen, other than the nonsense of a Department fighting over a piece of turf and a position that is dated and requires reform. The Government was elected on the basis of reform.
I turn to the budget for Departments in terms of the SME sector. Procurement accounts for approximately €9 billion in this country. Time and again I have made the case to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that in many instances its procurement processes are not working.
To take the stationery procurement process, the buying of equipment is just not working and is actually causing small businesses to go out of business. We recently had a number of submissions from those affected by that process. Instead of that €9 billion filtering down to the small businesses throughout the country, it is causing those businesses to close. When that happens, there should be an immediate turnaround by the Government to ensure corrective measures are taken.
To take the case of the HSE, it is now subjected to €9 million of compensation claims. We are told that the small businesses that were not paid on time, which is why the €9 million in compensation applies, would be entitled to claim the €9 million, but the HSE is refusing to compensate those businesses. It is turning to its legal advisers while the Comptroller and Auditor General is turning to its legal advice in regard to the process and yet the €9 million that is due to the SMEs is not being given to them.
The budget did not do enough for the SME sector. I acknowledge what the Minister did in regard to the road haulage industry, given my background is in that industry. A significant change to the industry's cost base will be incurred because of what the Minister did, and the businesses that are affected are thankful the Government has finally acknowledged it in the context of this budget. If it is provided properly, that should filter down because everyone uses road haulage and the small parcel service, and, at the end of the day, it should affect the bottom line of those companies and their ability to deliver.
I also want to refer to the other small businesses, in particular microbusinesses. When we speak about business in the House, it is generally in regard to Enterprise Ireland or IDA clients, although there is some discussion in regard to the LEOs and how they are now replacing the county enterprise boards. An awful lot more could have been done for that small business sector in this budget. The companies in that sector are looking at things that affect their cost base and their profitability but which they have no control over. For example, the insurance business is spiralling out of control and its cost to small businesses is doubling but nothing is being done about it. The Government will have to intervene because businesses cannot carry the burden of that cost.
Commercial rates is another area and it is a cost that has been spoken about in this House from one Administration to the other. It is a burden of tax that businesses find it difficult to pay because, as they adjust the costs that they are able to adjust, the one single cost they cannot touch is commercial rates. At the same time, it is a cost that does not give them as much as it used to give. When I originally paid commercial rates on my business, it covered the collection of waste, water and all sorts of other services from the council. Now, all of these services are separate but the rateable valuation of the properties and the rate applied by the local authorities continues to go up.
We are now speaking about equalisation, with one administration amalgamated with the other, in trying to form a base where everyone will be equal. However, it will be extremely difficult for businesses to subscribe to that because they are subscribing to an unfair tax system in any case. Somebody has to grasp that nettle. I would have hoped, given the majority the Government has, that it could have insisted on the Valuation Office bringing in legislation to have self-assessment put in place where the properties could be self-assessed. We can penalise those who have massaged the figures in some way, if that were to be the case, and there would be a penalty. However, for God's sake, let us give small businesses a chance.
The tax relief for refurbishing pre-1914 properties is not having any effect on the high streets and villages of this country. They are not experiencing the upturn and, in fact, they are now so far behind that it will take a considerable amount of money for them to refurbish their properties because they are probably carrying legacy debt as well, and it will cost them a considerable amount to bring themselves back up to simply being in the game. As a result, high streets and small villages throughout the counties are badly affected. The pubs, banks and convenience stores are gone and many post offices are under threat, whether as a result of Government policy or simply as a matter of turnover, with people voting with their feet and purchasing their services elsewhere. The banks are also gone. The villages are struggling to get footfall and it is impossible for them to do business but nothing in this budget will give them the relief that is necessary to achieve what they want. For example, someone may want to pass on a family business from one generation to another but it will be closed before the next generation picks it up.
That is unfortunate because we are a country of small businesses and of budding entrepreneurs who want to make it in the technology sector. We have seen it with regard to the Web Summit. I am deeply disappointed at what has happened in that regard. It disturbs me to see a Government Minister say, "Give us the money back". We need to maintain the positive profile of this country in regard to the Web Summit, to information technology and to what the future holds in terms of job prospects for the young entrepreneurs involved in that area. Something much more positive needs to be done. We should not just leave it at the departure of not only the Web Summit but of other associated companies that are based in Ireland and employ people here but that are now leaving.
Why not ask those involved to meet a sub-committee of the Cabinet to talk about this? I know from trade abroad that they look to Ireland for innovation and creativity, and for a picture of the future as we see it in technology terms. If we lose the basis of all of that and if we lose the core of interest that creates a young entrepreneur who will create the next big deal in the world of IT, we will damage that profile. I think we have been damaged already in regard to the departure of the Web Summit. Forget who said what to who and who got the money. Let us stop that debate, intervene and say we are interested. Let us see how we can rebuild that relationship and get the Web Summit back on track. It is vital to the future of this country and to the future of young people who will work as entrepreneurs from this country. It will add to the trade this sector is doing abroad in many difficult markets and will influence the input of Irish businesspeople to huge projects in lands where we would never have been involved in trade before. It is essential that we take steps in this regard.
I want to touch on the issue of the Revenue Commissioners. I agree Revenue has a difficult job to do and I agree with many of its approaches. However, something has to be said about how we approach taxes, penalties and interest. I have no truck with those who avoid tax and attempt to do so blatantly. However, I have sympathy for someone who is caught with all of these penalties and interest during the payment of tax, whether the property tax or any of the other mainstream taxes. Something has to be done to give a softer side to Revenue for those people, to give them some hope of being able to finish paying their bills and paying their way but not in the same draconian way that is applied in the context of penalties and interest. I firmly believe this should be done.
This could also be said in regard to the issue of Airbnb. Let us find some way of dealing with the issue that is sympathetic both to those who were legitimately trying to make some extra money and also to the taxation system. That is the way it should work. I appeal to the Minister to look at that issue, when it is being sorted out.
Another issue that has come across my desk is that of ESB pensions. Surely, with some imagination, a solution could be found for the pensioners involved who are suffering because they are not in receipt of a full pension. The 2012 Act could be revisited to consider the responsibility of companies to deal with their employees and retirees in a fairer way.
I suggest that because we are going down the road of stealth taxes - we now have water and road taxes and so on - we need to take people's incomes into consideration. The old age pension is to be increased by €3. However, it may come as a surprise to the Minister that, in the context of the equalisation of rents, local authorities are considering increasing rent payments for pensioners by €3. The Minister is giving with one hand, but the State is taking back with the other. If he introduces legislation which includes a measure on fuel, it has an immediate impact on the older population because of their limited income. They have no way of improving their income, but they are still taxed. We should be fairer to them. We need to aim to have a fairer society. Allowing local authorities to take back what the Minister has just given to pensioners is nonsensical and does not improve their lot.
Despite the bad times, local authorities will also continue to increase commercial rates. This does not make sense. There is little service from local authorities, but there has been no significant drop in staff numbers, although they are handing over responsibility for housing services and outsourcing refuse collection services. Nothing much has changed; the status quo remains. This must change.
I welcome the Minister's position on the 9% VAT rate, which has been a success story. However, what about looking at small builders who complete extensions and who want to get back into the game? What about giving them some relief through the VAT rate for a period in order that they can become cost effective and a person refurbishing or extending his or her house can have the job done a little cheaper? These are the innovative measures the Minister could have applied. I do not criticise what he has done, but a lot more could have been done. These measures would be self-financing because he would generate activity in the economy that would give him a greater tax base. He needs to consider this suggestion.
Everybody suggests the Minister should tax the rich and the wealthy, but bad taxes drive out good money. That is what has been happening. Perhaps we need to look at attracting the wealthy in order that they could be of benefit and create wealth and employment.
On the corporation tax rate of 12.5% and the companies that have come to Ireland through IDA Ireland, in terms of their corporate social responsibility, how many of them were asked to pay an extra 1% to give the country a break because they have been provided with a break for long enough? I think they would respond positively. A company I know of in Kilkenny - I am sure there are similar companies across the country - gives without hesitation to the marginalised and the city and tries to improve the lot of people. Perhaps as a measure to help the country, such companies might consider paying more in taxes. I know nobody wants to pay more in tax, but there are companies that would consider a different approach.
Last but not least, I want to deal with an issue mentioned by a number of Members, that of the primary medical certificate. Marginalised individuals on limited incomes have to deal with all of the extra charges being imposed. The primary medical certificate does not work for them. It is a joke and its application is not consistent across the country. I understand the Department of Finance deals with this issue but that it is administered elsewhere. I ask the Minister to look at it to make the system more flexible and fairer to people.
