Richard O'Donoghue: On VAT, fuel caps and housing costs

The policy response is one of the largest in the EU, I think Tánaiste referenced it earlier on. I think there may be one, maybe two countries who have done more than we have, but we're certainly at the upper end, Deputy. And the final question, Chairman, just in terms of the two funds that we spoke about earlier, how much of those funds will be invested this year for the future? The aim is for £23 billion in the funds by the end of 2026. The two funds are slightly different in terms of their legal mandate. One fund, the Future Ireland Fund, is to be built up over a sustained period of time to deal with demographic pressures. The other fund is available at an earlier point for investment in infrastructure projects and decisions to be taken from government in relation to that. Thank you, thanks Seanad. Okay, it's my own time now. So, I have a question from the point of view of inflation. So, this is from records from myself. So, materials and I'm a building contractor all my life. I priced stuff in January for a job and it was €70,000 worth of materials. I take the VAT off of that which was €16,100 VAT and that was in January. The contract didn't start until February and I bought the materials for €75,600 in February. Which meant that it was of a point of view of there was €17,388 VAT on those materials. On the 1st of March, those materials have gone to €81,200. So, there's €18,676. That means since, in eight weeks, the government have gotten the same cost of the materials that I priced, €2,576 more in VAT. Now we're looking at the cost of building houses. And as I said, I'm in construction. So, price of houses now went from €120 a square foot to €200 a square foot in five years. So, you're looking at the tax. That glass of water would cost me €1 and you have 23% of it. It's costing me €1 and you take 23%. I still only get the same glass of water. But it's now costing me €1.30. So, you're taking a higher percentage in taxes. So, how can we bring down the cost of houses? For the hospitality sector, because the price of food was going up, you dropped the VAT rate back to 9%. Your purse is no worse off at the 9% because the cost of the food is higher. So, your 9% comes back. So, you're at no loss. But you have a gain on this. And this is where I have an issue with. Now, that's one question. That's on the 23% VAT. We now go to fuel. And we take fuel at the moment at €1.90 on fuel. And you brought in a rebate system for truckers at €1.92. But if the VAT back is €1.56 and when you've done the rebate of the truck over the month, it brings it back to €1.38. I asked the government why they didn't put in a cap on fuel at €1.70. It also equals €1.78. But anyone in this country would have benefited from it. And if you go back 8 weeks or 10 weeks ago, you were getting under €1.70. So, why can't you put in a cap on fuel at the start of the year and allow businesses to forecast? So, if you've got a cap, if it hits €1.70, there's no more taxes. You have to get taxed. I understand that. But you now have to pay the increased cost on the fuel. So, they're only paying 50% more than what they'd pay if they paid the taxes. So, all the subsidies that you put in, 50% of it is taxed, on top of what we're paying now. So, nothing comes down. This is what I'm trying to say to you. If a cap was introduced at €1.70, you still had your tax, the same tax you had 10 weeks ago, you had today. And we pay the increase in the cost of the fuel. Which would mean that the pumps today, they'd be €1.82. For everyone in this country. Why are you taking extra tax on an increased cost, which is putting more burden on everything in this country? And when you've done the target on transport network, which I'd correct you on, you've only given it to Royal Harliers. You never gave it to anyone who was drawing their own goods. You introduced that this time. So, this is where we're going back to about taxes. How can I forecast my business if the fluctuation? So, what you are every time is, you're reactive to when something happens. This has been happening for the last five years. Why aren't you proactive and putting things in place, so when it does happen, you don't have people marching on the streets, you don't have people having protests, because there will be a system put in place. In my business, I have to put a system in place if there's a problem. Why can't you? Yeah. So, thanks very much. So, firstly, we have reduced VAT on gas and electricity to 9%, and we made that a decision until the end of the government, I think. We also do have to comply with the EU VAT directive as well when it comes to fuels. I'd respectfully say it's not, I can't remember the exact words you used, but clearly the measures we've taken in relation to diesel and petrol have had a real effect at the pump. And there isn't a constituent of yours or a constituent of mine who hasn't seen that petrol or diesel would have been a hell of a lot higher, but not for the measures that we've taken. A fundamental point, it might be a bit of an old school idea, but paying taxes is a good thing, and actually we use those taxes to fund the public services, and generally in here, I don't mean in here, I mean in here. But the question on this, Minister, is paying excessive taxes on something you're benefiting, the person that's actually having to get something is not benefiting. But the figures don't show that, so there was this, and I'm not suggesting you, Chair, but there was this kind of misinformation going around from a different political party in relation to the amount of extra tax the government was taking in in relation to the fuel crisis, and we debunked that, and the excise figures clearly showed that not to be true, and the external returns clearly showed that not to be true in terms of the quantum that was being put out there. The cap idea, and I say this respectfully because we looked at everything, it doesn't work, because what the cap idea does is basically transfer the cost from the forecourt to the exchequer. It doesn't get rid of the cost, it just transfers the risk and takes all of that risk onto the exchequer balance sheet, which isn't about you or me, it's actually about every single person in this country. So this is not the government's fault, there's two wars that have brought about significant impact in relation to energy crisis. We have put in place the largest package, or second largest package of support in the European Union. In terms of what we did, those packages were co-designed and agreed with representatives, who said this is what would work well for us, and they are working on it. And on VAT9 for the hospitality sector, I stand by it, you do it well. I have a question, I'm sharp on time myself. It hasn't come in yet, the VAT9, but it will come in in July and I hope that helps the sector. But even on the agricultural sector, you brought in a rebate system for the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector has two different sectors, it has two peaks. So you have the people that do harvest silage, all that during one sector, and then you have the tillage on the other sector. But you based your funding over 12 months, which actually brings the funding down that they actually needed today, based over 12 months of their receipts from last year, means the 12% that you were given was actually 8%. It wasn't 12, because you based it over the year. I don't know anyone that cuts silage in the middle of the winter, but I do know people that do tillage. And some people that do tillage don't do silage. So why didn't you base it on a half yearly system, that based over your peak system, that you give the rebate on your peak time, and even if you had to break it into six months, it would mean that they would have got the benefit of it. But the 12% was not 12%, it was 8%, when you based it over different contractors over the year. So you have different contractors in the agriculture. So why can't we base it over that? I do my VATA terms every two months. I do all our different taxes. They can all be based over two months period, then you have other ones over three months period. Why can't you break it down to six months, where the full benefits of the 12% go direct into those sectors that you want to come back to? And silage contractors at the moment, their costings are still up. That means the farmers pay. That means the cost of everything is going up, even though the package that you introduced doesn't cover the 12 months. A couple of points I'd make. We've got to be very honest here. There's no government in the world, including the Irish government, who can insulate everybody from the full impact of this. And farmers get that. People right across the country get this. We can take measures to help. None of us can provide full immunity from the impact of these costs, of these wars. We just can't. I've got to be honest in relation to that. Secondly, what was done and not done in relation to the package. What I do know is there was substantive engagement with farm contractors themselves, with the IFA, with others. And this package was welcomed by them and those involved in the talks. And then the third point I'd make is we will have a budget in October. And we'll obviously be able to take stock of where the Irish economy is at and where the most prudent use of tax policy and expenditure policy is at that point. Minister, based on the package that was given, was based on the same package that you brought to the transport sector, which was a package that gave a figure over four months of a relief, not over 12. You put in an extra relief for the four months to counteract something that was there. For the agricultural sector, you put in over 12 months. So it wasn't the same package. And it wasn't the same details of what needed to be represented. The one thing you did do, and I give praise when praise is due, you actually included people this time that carried their own goods. You've never done that before. And that was something that I highlighted myself. Because people, if you're in a quarry today and you're getting a load of stone from a quarry, they don't get a relief. But if I send in a truck and I have a haulage license into the same quarry, I get the relief. And it's the same for all goods across the country. That if a person was drawn their own goods, you implemented that this time. But you hadn't done it before. You've actually learned something. Why can't we be proactive? We know that wars are going to happen more frequently going forward. We know this. We know there's going to be upsets in the different forecasting going forward. Why can't we put in measures now that we don't have a panic situation every time this happens? I'm actually going to agree with you, at least on the last part. So, I mean, on the last part of how do we, like, I think not just Ireland, but I think Europe and the world in general, we have to now recognize that we're living in a world of, I don't want to call it the era of permacrisis, but certainly volatility is likely to be a much more permanent feature of the global economic environment. But I would argue, and this is where we may or may not agree, but I actually think the intervention we should be looking at is how the hell do we get ourselves off this kind of hamster wheel in terms of every time a decision is taken by somebody far away from here, it has such an economic impact on Ireland and on Europe. And these are conversations we're having at a European level as well. I think part of that is genuinely the push around energy independence, energy security. It'll be harder for some sectors as well in terms of transition. What do we do for them? The government is giving a lot of thought to this with detailed discussions with Minister O'Brien on this as well. What can we do to make ourselves less reliant on external factors? Because that's why we're all reacting, because we're reacting to decisions that were taken by others. How do we try and build up that energy security ourselves is, I think, where government's focus has to be. You know, obviously, in the era now, we needed to do something. The much more important conversation that I think the Irish people want us to have is how the hell do we get off this hamster wheel where twice in half a decade we've seen an energy shock, not caused by the Irish government or the Irish opposition, but caused by two wars. And it goes back to your income tax. And as you say, I'm the chair, and it looks like I'm the only person who wants to speak, so we have a bit of time. So I might not get the opportunity to sit down with the two ministers again and have an over and back. So you'll have to endure this. Twenty-eight minutes is left, and I've no problem in watering. So there's no problem. But from the point of view of income tax, inflation has gone up. You're taking 23% VAT on an inflatable cost in five years. Eighty euros per square foot on a household. So your income tax from VAT has gone up. The person that's buying the property or building a property is borrowing more. But your income tax has actually risen. So it's making it now unaffordable for a person to build a house. And I'm just going to give you a for instance. I had a couple that were saving for a house. And I'll even give you a better scenario. I have a son, and his partner was saving for a house. And they saved hard. They didn't go out much. They saved the two of them together, and they're living with me. And they've saved and saved, and they've been more responsible than I could imagine of minding their money. And they were saving to say that they had more money to build their house. So I go out to a QS all the time, and I'd actually have fluctuation of prices coming in to me. What they actually saved, as they thought was extra within the year, by doing without themselves, was brought back in in inflation costs. They couldn't pass the inflation costs. It had moved 22,000 euros in 12 months. So if they've been saving so hard, and done without to try and get a... So the 22,000 has actually been brought back into the project. I had another person that had priced the house for 535,000 including their garage. Everything done. All remedial work's been done. They said, Richard, can you take off the garage? And we won't do that work. Down the line, we might have a garage. So prices were taken back, and it just came under 500,000 by the time all the remedial work's done outside. That was in January. That cost, their garage has been lost, but now it's gone back into the house in inflation costs. How are they going to manage? But you've 23% of that increase in cost. So how are you going to help the people that want to build their own house, working and building their own houses? I know we're trying to provide for people from across the sector on public housing, and I agree to that, if we can build them fast enough, get them to people and get them cheaper rents. But for people that want to build their own house on their own land, how are we going to contribute that? The first point I make is we just have to be very careful we don't chase inflation. So anything we do at a time of high inflation and growing inflation, we just have to make sure it doesn't accidentally push inflation up further. And sometimes there are policy arrangements, not necessarily anything you suggest there, but sometimes actually we can do something here today that we think is going to be helpful, but it actually just causes a sugar rush, really, in terms of inflation actually being even worse in the time ahead, and therefore actually making everything worse for people. And that spiral of chasing inflation is very, very dangerous. We are objectively, though, taking a number of measures to help people from a viability point of view. So, I mean, the Help to Buy scheme, which, in fairness, I think you support, most of the opposition want to get rid of, is a scheme we're committed to, and committed to the end of the government. The First Home scheme, again, most of the opposition want to get rid of it. I don't think you do. We're committed to keeping it. We did, from a supply-side point of view, we did do the significant rebate situation for Aisge Aireann. We did the development levy waiver. We've revised the apartment standards. We've provided certainty around the rental market situation. We cut the VAT on the building of apartments. We got kind of politically hammered in relation to that. And then, so that person wants to build their own house here. You've got to round the circles here. Well, no, it's all about supply. It's all about supply because, looking around the circles, it draws a very straightforward road, which is we have to build more supply. These are people that do not want to put the burden on you to build a house for them, and they want to build their own. And we are making it easier for people to build their own homes. And some of those schemes that we have available, through both the tax side and the spending side, do make a difference. And Mr. James might want to add something. No, I totally agree, and I'd say Mr. Brown and Mr. Cummins are working on proposals to make it easier for people to build one-off homes, which I think you support as well. I understand. Because it's not only an issue of cost of construction. It's actually an ability to get permission is a huge issue in rural Ireland, as you're more familiar with. This is my day job as well now, so you're going into a sector where you will not come out of it because I was on site this morning at half past six before I came here, and I see on a weekly basis the cost of materials. Any project and contract that the government might actually take on, you put in a 5% for inflationable costs. We've seen what happened with the children's hospital when the contracts weren't properly done. And Minister, I spoke to you before about design-build, where the contractor takes the risk and you get more bang for your buck. That was a design and build, where they build it into the system. But if you go on an overrun, there's no accountability in your overrun. You just keep spending it out. It's come up from somewhere else and you're spending it out. If I go on an overrun, I'm out of business. But this is what I'm trying to say to you. You're on an overrun. Every budget we come to under the fiscal policy, you're on an overrun. And there's money being spent and there's no accountability. We go back to a bike shed at £336,000. That would have put a three bedroom house at the time. Now we go back to Kerry, and with £150,000-odd spent on another bicycle shed, it wasn't learned from them. That's people spending the taxpayers' money that you want to try and protect people and protect jobs. Would it have applied to a couple of nurses? If that type of money was spent in where you need it. But it seems to be there's mistakes being made all the time on taxpayers' money, on money that you give to the different departments to spend it, and they come back and they spend it on something that is not necessarily, because it's pink and it's in Kerry, it has to be £127,000, when they refuse to take one for £6,000. Would have done the same job. It wasn't in a listed area. It wasn't inside an area where you needed a fantastic looking bike shed. You just needed something to do the job. But they've no problem spending that type of money. If it was their own money, would they spend it? Can I just say, Mr. Chairman, can I just say, we do need to be very careful we don't paint one broad brush. Every single day projects come in, on time, on budget, under budget, all of the time. And yes, you're right to, and this is Iraq, this is right to, and the people who elect us expect us to... Well, I'll give you an example. The National Broadband Plan, which again, I don't think you opposed, but lots of people did. We have managed to bring high-speed broadband to the most rural and remote parts of this country on time and on budget. That's one example. Ahead of time, in fact. Primary care centres, school building projects, road projects. I mean, there's loads of examples. Now, that's not to in any way take away from the point that you make that drives people absolutely nuts in this country and should, where there are issues. And it should be our job to hone in on that. But I do just want to be fair to that public service, that actually so many projects are delivered on time and on budget. And where they're not, there should be accountability. And part of accountability is Iraq. There's committees like this, and the PAC, and the likes too. But just, you know, there are countless examples. Can I ask one of the other witnesses there, how much is your VAT income tax up this year compared to other years? And it has to be up now because inflation costs are up. That means that your vacuum ticket has to be up. So I think we're projecting, Deputy Chair, a 6% increase in VAT for this year, which would be slightly lower than in previous years. That is driven by both volume and price development. So, yes, higher inflation is having an impact. But as I mentioned to one of the deputies earlier on, people are going to be consuming less because their disposable income is taking a hit. So there are pluses and minuses. I think it's 6%. 5% or 6% is our projection for this year. That is a lower increase than in previous years. And for the small, medium businesses, and we're looking at, and I'm not making it political, but it's a statement that was made by the last leader of Fine Gael when he said that rural Ireland was costing money. Me particularly, there's 32 counties for me in Ireland. And whether you're getting windfall taxes from international business or whether you're farming or a small shop somewhere, everyone is adding to the wheel to make the wheel turn around. So it integrates every business. And it shouldn't be put down that something is costing you money. Without the rural side of Ireland, the urban side of Ireland wouldn't move. And I believe, collectively, they have to work together to make it go round. But a lot of the witnesses that I've brought in here in the last two or three months have been talking about it. And their witnesses are coming in from infrastructure areas. And their mindset is completely different when they're doing research for the country. I believe if a researcher comes in here, they have to be from both sides so they can collaborate together and come up with some plans together how we can improve urban and rural together and create the wheel to go around better. So from a point of view of anyone that's in an urban area at the moment, the fuel impact didn't impact them as much as people on a rural area. And when you have 2.3 million vehicles on the road at the moment, and the average vehicle, and I'm not against green energy or anything like this, I'm not, in its place, but 2.3 million vehicles. If you look at the age group of those 2.3 million vehicles, and you're talking about people are watching their monies less so they're not going to invest in a new vehicle because they have repayments on a vehicle. They're going to try and keep their old vehicle going. The average vehicle at the moment, I think, is 2010 to 2018, is the average vehicle on the road at the moment. And most of them are fossil fuel vehicles. The max, I think, is about 7%, I think, maybe, electrical within that sector that they have of those year groups. They can't afford to change a car. So, again, it's getting to work where they don't have infrastructure. I can't come to here in a bus or a train. I have to travel 20 minutes either which way. And if I go to one place, I can't get a train back down this evening that will take me back to that same train station, so I'd have to be collected somewhere else. If I came up on the train, and if I was delayed here tonight, with a vote tomorrow night, and a half-eleven, I'd have to go down to Constantine, get on the green bus, and get dropped to Limerick on the green bus, and my car would be above in Charleville, or in Limerick station, where I can't get to. The nearest station to me is actually in County Park. It's Charleville. But I can't do that as a public representative. It's a fine place as well. It is a grand place. Well represented now. But from the point of view of that, from an infrastructure, you'd like to be able to hop on the train and go back down again on the same night, if it was the case, and we were able to do it. But if you were to go down tomorrow night at 11 o'clock, you'd have to get the M30 belt between the two places. So from the point of view of infrastructure, for people that are in a rural area, and people look at rural, they say people that are in a rural area. Rural area is outside Dublin, because the infrastructure is not there in a lot of places outside Dublin. I would believe in a fast speed train, whether it's from Limerick to Cork to Dublin, so you can stay wherever you are in the country, and you should be able to get to here. You go to West Cork. You won't get a train into Cork. You go up to Donegal, will you get a train down? You won't. So infrastructure is key. We've got to let people use the transport. We can be talking about electric vehicles here all day long. I would use one if it was beneficial for me, but I'm going in every direction, and it wouldn't work for me. But anyone who can use it, I would encourage them to use it, as long as you're not doing massive mileage, because you won't get a return on your car for three years if you've 100,000 up, like I do after two years. But these are things that I want to try and say. How can we improve for the person that has the infrastructure and can afford to live better, because they can hop on a bus and lose or adapt, which I use myself when I'm in Dublin. I park my car and I use it. But how can we improve something for people that are on lower earnings, living in areas outside of Dublin? How can we improve their life and give them a chance? Can I just say, the rural urban point, you're right. This is a small country, and it's a small country that is interdependent. We all play our part in making the country tick. EVs take your point in relation to some of the cohorts you referenced there. I just make a broad point that, obviously, the number of EVs actually being purchased now is rising very, very significantly. I can also make a tangential point to that. The changes that Dara O'Brien has made to some of the retrofitting grants, the windows, the doors, and the likes, are seeing a really, really high uptake level, which is a recognition of a point that he got, that I'm not sure had been gotten in the past, that some people wanted to retrofit the home but couldn't afford to do what I describe as the Rolls-Royce version. But we're happy to do a bit this year and a bit next year, and the grants were too stringent, too rigid, and since he's changed them, we're seeing a very positive uptake too. I would agree with that, but except for one point on that. Since you mentioned that, that is my game. OK, I've provoked you now. The last one I was just going to make, and then I'll stop. The last one I was going to make, just on the infrastructure point, which Minister Chambers is delivering on the accelerating of it, I mean, we are trying to... This is a broader point, like all of the conversations that happen in here about day-to-day current spending, and we as a government are recognising that from a quality of life point of view, some of the biggest issues people need us to address are the delivery of infrastructure, be that road infrastructure, be that public infrastructure, be it those capacity constraints. And that's why we as a government made a conscious decision to prioritise capital. I don't want to go too far, but I have another one since you mentioned retrofits. And I agree with the grant system coming in for retrofits. I agree with it. But 36% insulation has gone up since January. So your grant has been sucked in. All oil-based materials. Wavin went up 16% last month. 16%. That's silicone. PVC for sewage, for water, has gone up 16%. And the 23% of that is inside that now as well. The 16% is in that, so that's a tax intake. So you're looking at your retrofit that you put on for retrofits, and you might get 8,000, and you might do external insulation. You might put in new windows. But the grant system that you put in has now been ate up by the inflation and costs over the last three years. So your grant is no longer worth anything because of inflation costs going in. So should you not index-link your grant based on the cost of insulation, which is an oil-based product, which we're talking about now that the oil is going up all around the world from the influx in oil. So why not index-link if you want to make your grant work properly? Just to be provocative, you've referenced a number of price points, and asking the government to correct on all of those price points. How is that going to be sustainable if we were to correct every price point and respond to it, and where would our budgetary cycle be in the context of being sustainable? What you're essentially saying is you've referenced fuel, you've referenced retrofitting, you've referenced a number of areas. If we were to respond to each of those, where would expenditure growth be? Can you imagine being in business today and trying to do the same thing? I'm just saying, I hope you'd accept that chasing inflation is a road to nowhere. Correct. So I would ask you to look at where you'd prioritise. You can look at comparative economies elsewhere, chasing inflation as a policy response worsens the bottom line. And that's where we have to make choices. I think what the IMF say very clearly in our interventions is targeted, temporary, time-bound. That is the response, and that's what it should be, in how we manage, as well as doing and taking other measures in the context of the overall budgetary parameters. But if you were to create a policy system which responds to every external shock and connects that price development with an expenditure implication, we would have a budgetary process which would go into massive double-digit growth, have a huge inflationary impact, and would probably shrink our surfaces to the point that we'd have questions in terms of international credibility. We can't just take each individual issue and say... It's forecasting. I understand what you're saying, we can't go into all of them, right? But forecasting, transport costs in this country is probably one of the highest ones. So forecasting for somebody, you go from budget to budget, the government will only take up to 170. On fuel, which you were taking 10 weeks ago and you were happy with it. People would pay the increased cost on fuel, which if it goes up 4 cents or 5 cents, above 170 now. Not below it, above 170. You will actually be hitting most of the people that are vulnerable in this country. And you can actually also put in the system that you've put in for the haulage system at the moment, when it goes below 138, you can bring in something, because at 170 they already have the same temporary measure that you were talking about. You had your taxes at 170 10 weeks ago. 170 you had it at 10 weeks ago, and you were happy with that tax intake. 195 at the moment at the pumps, even after you put in the things that you put in, which brought it down, it's still 195 at the pumps now. But you were happy 10 weeks ago with 170 and a tax intake. So you work out the litres that are being used throughout. So everything that you've actually given to the Royal Haulage Association and all the other transport networks has come out of what the ordinary working person is paying extra on the pump, in the taxes. No, that's not true. We can have different political debates but we can't have different facts. That's not true. That is absolutely, factually completely and utterly untrue. And we will provide the committee with a note to show that the additional taxations that we've received in relation to excise and the likes is far less than the cost of the package. Far less. This is how misinformation spreads. The Irish government has put in place the largest or the second largest intervention in the European Union. The cost of that package far outweighs the additional taxation that we've received. And the Chief Economist to the Department of Finance has also told you that we expect to receive an increased rate of that slightly lower than we've received in previous years. We just need to be careful here because there's a dynamic effect in relation to all of this. I'm not being argumentative but just to be argumentative. When you say each of the things in isolation, they sound terribly reasonable. When you put all of the things together cumulatively and take on board the dynamic or interdependent effect of doing one thing on another part, it is more complex than that. We just have to be conscious of that. The pressures people feel are real. The point you're making about different sectors of our economy being more impacted is true. That is true. And how we challenge ourselves to use policy levers in a more sophisticated and targeted way to address that is also a valid point. But I'd reckon if we were to tot up all that we've had over the last while, I reckon Minister Tabor's point about budgetary sustainability would be very valid. Just to correct a figure I mentioned to you earlier on, it doesn't change the narrative but I think I said 5 or 6%. That is the pre, the no policy change when you take into account the VAT 9, which obviously comes in, that reduces our forecast so we're just over 3%. So emphasising the point that we're getting an even lower VAT take this year. And the final question for ourselves now is because we see the cost of certain things going up, which reduces certain works being done and people are more rather with their spending. If you could do one thing now John Alright I'll take it away I have another! To change to try and counteract inflation because for something that could be forecast which will allow a business forecast even if it was a 6 month, like you bring in a budget every year and you're forecasting your budget every year. Why can't we bring in something that's proactive, knowing that something could come down the line that within your budget that if there is sectors we can put in, we can put in lines. We have a 20% tax, we have a 40% tax which is paid. Why can't we bring in something on a budgetary sector we might agree on 100% but to put in the lines that if something hits here that this automatically knocks in. So your departments don't have to run and race It's happening over the last 5 years and it's happening all the time and you could get somebody else that could kick off somewhere else in another country and the same thing will happen again and Ireland will feel it. Why can't we put in parameters where we're actually proactive, that if something happens that this kicks in and then we can on a budgetary to budgetary status rather than intermittent between the years. Well that's why we have a contingency so we have some buffer in a year to respond this year we've had kind of an exceptional spike which I suppose has created additional demands or challenges beyond the contingency but that's why we've built a structural contingency into our fiscal and structural plan. And how does that when things inflate you have gougers, I call it, people start inflating their own costs in different places and usually it's the larger ones, if they're moving by 1% the trajectory, by the time it goes out a certain distance it's gone wider and wider. But how can we counteract something like that from the point of view of protecting your what you forecasted that may be a difference and also putting something in place that when it hits a certain level that something kicks in, that we don't have a reactive like what we had at the protest. I must say I was in fine at the protest and I was there for five days. People that were the grassroots of all parties for years, were the people that were the age group that were there. Men and women, the hardest I've ever come across, they never asked for anything. They would give you everything that they had themselves. They were broke. So what happened this time, it was to do with the Iranian war, fine. But when you see those people in their 60s, 70s and 80s who have lived through a lot of things when they got to the stage where they saw no more that they were broken anything like farming sectors before, if you had a son or a daughter that wanted to take on the farm, the parents worked hard and they got a leg up. That doesn't happen anymore. It's just repetitive. There's no kicking it forward. It seems to be just a basis. They see the same thing now when it came to their businesses. Can we not put something in place that when something like this happens, budget to budget that we can put in some markers in place that when it hits a certain amount even within the fuel that something cuts in automatically. That you don't have to sit down here with the Holland Association. When it hits a certain amount, the rebate automatically knocks in if it hits that. You don't have to negotiate. Negotiate it here and here and put it into your budget. When it hits that mark, there's no negotiating. When it hits there, this is what happens. So then you're still in control of it. You still have your taxes up to that date, but it automatically kicks in and it can actually stop the point of view of inflation, which we've been talking about if there is a marker in there. And it stops you then trying to target this one, to target that one. There's always somebody left behind. Is this something you could look at? A couple of countries. The answer is we always look at everything. We get a document produced by the European Commission every week or every fortnight as to what other countries in Europe are doing. There's a small number of countries. I think Portugal might have done something, and I think Belgium might have done something in relation to if their fuel reaches a certain point, A, B and C happens. But there's swings and roundabouts to all of these things. I mean, firstly, there's a risk that you place all that risk on the taxpayer, which are represented by some of those people you mentioned. So actually in thinking you're doing something good, you're actually increasing the risk to the taxpayer. There's also the possibility that actually some of what we've done here is much more generous and effective in terms of quantum than actually some of the things they've done. Then there's a practicality issue, and this is a boring process, but around financial resolutions and primary legislation. Is it actually the speediest way to do these things? We keep everything under review. But I think there's a point you made that I do agree with, and I've heard Mr Chambers make this point before as well. We do need, and I said it earlier too, we are living through an era of volatility. As all state agencies, we have an issue going on with the roads at the moment because of the storms. Local authorities are going to need to say in the time ahead, bad weather happens, bad weather is happening more often and not be surprised when the bad weather happens in terms of the impact on the roads. We need to be, and Mr Chambers does it, as a government as a whole and as agencies, people need to be preparing in their annual budgets in so far as one can. You couldn't be predicting if President Trump decided to bomb Iran, but in so far as we can building up those contingencies. We obviously have that national contingency that Mr Chambers spoke about too. I thank you for coming in today. From the point of view of I would like, if we can take from this meet today with all of you, if we could come up with one for within a budgetable sector we could use as a template for one year even that we could come up with something to just trial it on one sector and I've no problem working with you on this but I'd just love to see on one sector that we can put in something on a cap system that if something volatile does happen that this kicks in in any sector that you pick yourselves that it comes into. I'd love if we could work on one. Can I suggest I'll circulate to the committee a list of what the other countries have done as well and I'd be very interested in your feedback as to if you use a model there that you think is of use or not of use and we're happy to further engage with the committee. I would just say that that creates a potential permanent expenditure commitment which has an implication for something else or somewhere else and whilst your reference point might be something that's targeted in nature it would undermine I think the critical test of something being time bound and temporary so essentially you're asking us to build in a permanent commitment for something that might happen where which I think first of all if it didn't occur we're foregoing that expenditure to something that could otherwise be prioritised in another area of expenditure policy so you're asking us to further reduce priorities which might be in education or in health or in other to actually build an additional level of contingency for a particular sector and I think that if repeated across multiple areas would leave less room for manoeuvre in terms of other areas which I think your constituents also want to see improvements on so I think the contingency is important but I just would be cognisant of what happened during COVID across living where we know temporary interventions fed their way into the permanent expenditure base and we need to be very careful in how we intervene now and into the future in our wider medium term plan Thank you very much