Tairgim leasú Uimh. 1: In page 8, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “Report on universal social charge 3. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on removing the universal social charge from the first €40,000 a person earns.”. Tá an rún seo ag iarraidh faoiseamh cánach a chur ar fáil do dhaoine fud fad na tíre seo, rud a dhiúltaigh an Rialtas seo a dhéanamh cé go bhfuil muid i gcruachás maidir le costais mhaireachtála, mar atá a fhios againn, agus praghsanna ag dul suas agus suas. Cé gur thug páirtithe an Rialtais, Fianna Fáil agus Fine Gael, gealltanais go mbeidh gearrthacha ó thaobh cánach de, níl an rud seo déanta acu mar tá an toghchán thart agus na gealltanais a rinne na páirtithe sin caite i leataobh. Tá pobal na tíre caite i leataobh fosta. Bhí praghas de €9.4 billiún ar an cháinaisnéis. Is é an rud a rinne an Rialtas, na páirtithe seo, ná gur fhág sé oibrithe níos measa i mbliana ná mar a bhí siad anuraidh. Is iad sin fíricí an scéil seo. Faoin leasú atá á chur chun tosaigh ag Sinn Féin, beidh tuairisc ag amharc ar an chéad €40,000 d'ioncam a shaothraíonn duine ar bith sa tír seo a bheith saor ón USC. Cuirim i gcuimhne don Tánaiste agus Aire Airgeadais na laethanta a chaith sé ag iompar na gcomharthaí ag rá go raibh Fine Gael chun deireadh a chur leis an cháin seo. Tharla sé seo roimh thoghchán difriúil. Tá a fhios againn cad a tharla leis an ghealltanas sin fosta. Gan athrú suntasach a dhéanamh ar chúrsaí cánach, cuirfear níos mó brú ar phobal na tíre seo agus níos mó cánach orthu. Ní m'fhocail féin amháin iad seo. Is é sin a méid a bhí le rá ag an Tánaiste roimh an toghchán. Molaim an leasú seo don Teach. Thabharfadh sé faoiseamh do dhaoine, go háirithe agus muid ag déileáil le cruachás na gcostas maireachtála, mar atá a fhios ag pobal na tíre seo. Amendment No. 1 is about providing real substantial tax relief to workers right across the State, something that the Government chose not to do in this budget. With a budget of €9.4 billion, only Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael could manage to actually leave workers worse off. This measure is about ensuring that the first €40,000 that anybody earns would be exempt from USC, a measure which is targeted. Although everybody who earns up to that amount would benefit, it cuts off at €40,000, which is appropriate in my view. It would benefit people by up to €746 which would make a real difference, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis as people see prices continue to increase as the Government sits by and does nothing. Indeed, it does worse than that because in this budget €9.4 billion is being expended and yet workers are being left worse off. I am sure the Minister does not need reminding of this. He has probably got pictures on his phone or pictures at home of himself and his colleagues holding banners promising to abolish the USC. Does the Minister remember that one? Then again, he will recall that that was before an election and he and his colleagues have a bit of a habit here; they make commitments before an election and break them after an election. Now the abolish-the-USC banners have been put to one side. Before the most recent election they promised to index tax relief, something that was not done in this budget. The Tánaiste, himself, made it very clear in the run-up to the election when he said with regard to not adjusting income tax: "That's the equivalent, we just need to be honest, of saying there will be tax rises". That is exactly in his own words the effect of what he is delivering here to workers who are toiling to build this economy. These workers are struggling as a result of this Government that has sat by and allowed a rip-off to take place in many areas. We see it in insurance, banking, energy and other areas. The Government itself has made matters worse through increasing costs on individuals: the increase in student fees, another broken promise; increases in petrol and diesel; increases in home heating oil; and increases in local property tax. Increases after increases have been placed on the shoulders of ordinary working families. That is why so many people - over 300,000 people as we know today - cannot pay their electricity bills. It is why one in four households in the State cannot pay their gas bills. Regardless of what the Government says it has done and I am sure the Minister will trot it out again, the reality is as we stand here never in the history of the State have there been more people who cannot afford to keep the lights on and the heating on because they cannot pay their electricity and gas bills. Today is about giving the new Minister for Finance, Simon Harris, an opportunity to live up to his words, for him to be honest and say that actually not adjusting income tax bands is, in his own words, the same as saying there will be tax rises. I do not believe that is the case. I do not believe we should be seeing tax rises. What we need to see is relief for people at this point in time. That is why we need the first €40,000 that people earn to be exempt from USC, providing targeted support for individuals during this cost-of-living crisis. There are many measures, which the Minister will be well familiar with, through which revenue can be generated to fund this proposal. For example, I do not believe that we should be providing in this budget the €2.5 billion in tax cuts that have been handed out to landlords, developers, investors and others. Those are the priorities of the Government. My priority is looking after ordinary working people. My priority is putting it to the Government that it has again broken its promise and commitment to the Irish people and to Irish workers. As there is no upcoming election, however, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil do not care. Unfortunately, that is the evidence before us, evidence in black and white in this Finance Bill.

Sentiment score: 0.01

The Minister introduced the issue of reducing the cost of apartments. He wants to get real. This is not about reducing the cost of apartments.

Sentiment score: 0.00

In fairness, Paschal did not even claim that.

Sentiment score: 0.00

That is a different thing.

Sentiment score: 0.00

No, it is not. Jesus Christ, that is not the same thing. This is about making sure there is a profit margin for developers so that they build them. The Minister's predecessor - maybe he should pick up the phone to him - was not even suggesting this would reduce the cost. It was not an affordability measure. So, this idea that Simon Harris somehow thinks this €2.5 billion of a tax cut is about reducing the cost. He would want to get real. It is not. That is not what it is about.

Sentiment score: 0.02

Let me finish. Please, stop interrupting. I did not interrupt the Minister once. He says this is about ownership of apartments. Some 96% of apartments built in this city do not actually come on the market. They are rented out at astronomical prices. The Minister makes a virtue of the fact that he forgot about the fact there is forward funding arrangements for apartments. The Government rushed through an amendment last night as if this was what it was all about. This was all about developers. Does the Minister know what operational profits were generated by the two biggest developers in this State last year? If he does, I will give way to him. Their operational profits were 20% and 21%. That is the type of profits that were generated. We see reports from Britain which talk about how developers are land hoarding, deciding where and when to build and using their market dominance to squeeze new measures out of governments, and that is what has happened. The Minister is the person who campaigned to abolish the USC. He is the person who gave a commitment that he would reduce people's tax every single year over the next five years in the election. He lied to the public. That is what happened because this Finance Bill does not provide that commitment. What he should be doing is making sure people have relief during a cost-of-living crisis but he has decided to prioritise developers, investors and the profits of big companies over ordinary people. That is wrong, and I am calling him out on it.

Sentiment score: 0.09

What does the Minister say about the promise he made to workers when he begged them for their vote? He promised he would cut their taxes. In his manifesto, he campaigned on that and he broke that promise over and over again. With this vote, he now has the opportunity to do something that is positive, that is progressive and that is about reducing the burden on people here and now. The Minister says he wants to do this, that, and the other. Fine Gael has been in government for 14 years. It is the party that has created the housing crisis. The solutions they come up with, over and over again, dig deep into the pockets of workers and provide these benefits to developers and institutional investors. It has failed in the past and it will fail in the future. What the Minister should be doing is building public houses on public land. That is what he should do and with this amendment the Minister can live up to the promise he made - one of many promises he broke to the public - and do the right thing. He should do as he said before the election and reduce taxes on workers. He should be honest. As the Minister said, if you do not adjust income taxes, it is the same as saying there will be tax rises. That is what he is delivering to people today who cannot even afford to pay their electricity and gas bills. Shame on the Minister.

Sentiment score: 0.05

You do not have time.

Sentiment score: 0.00

You are here long enough, you should know.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am not wrong.

Sentiment score: 0.37

You have no time.

Sentiment score: -0.30

I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on supportive measures for rental property activation in areas impacted by defective concrete blocks 4.The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on supportive tax measures for rental property activation in areas impacted by defective concrete blocks.”. Amendment Nos. 4 and 11 are related. Amendment No. 4 is looking for the report, which is an additional way to ensure that if amendment No. 11 was ruled out of order we would be able to discuss this matter. I will focus my remarks on amendment No. 11 because amendment No. 11 is the substantive one. This deals with the issue of defective blocks and the crisis and nightmare people are facing across this State in many counties, including most dominantly in my own County Donegal. When I say it is a nightmare, there probably are no words to describe what families are going through when they are living with the impact of defective blocks and their house crumbling before them, the scars their young children will have to bear, the challenges in terms of relationships and mental health and the financial pressure bearing down on these families as a result of a scheme that does not meet the cost of rebuilding a home. Those personal stories have been told over and over again. People have had to open up their hearts and homes and talk about the personal strain and their mental health challenges to try to convince Government to do the right thing and still the Government will not provide 100% redress. I was speaking to somebody recently who is in the process of rebuilding their home. They told me they do not have the final figure but between €80,000 and €100,000 is the amount they will have to get themselves. The stress and pressure this is putting on people are unimaginable. This has happened because there was no regulation at the time, which allowed products on to the market that built homes that are like Weetabix crumbling in your hands. This amendment deals with one small part of this. As homes are being demolished, people have to find other accommodation. When thousands of homes in Donegal have to be demolished, there is a serious accommodation crisis in the first instance. This amendment does not try to displace anybody in the rental market. That would be wrong. It would not be appropriate. It would pit affected homeowners against those seeking rental accommodation who are also under pressure in my county and others. What this is focused on is trying to release into the market homes that may be holiday homes or vacant properties that are not let out. I was dealing with one case. This is what we do. Families come to us in desperation. They tell us they cannot find anywhere to live and their house has to be demolished at a certain time. We are literally phoning around people who may have a holiday home or maybe a mother, father, brother or relative died and the house is left empty to ask them whether they will rent their house to this or that individual. In many cases, it is really challenging. That puts another burden on these families. This amendment would exempt from income tax the rent that would be received by an individual who rents a house to somebody availing of the scheme and who is in the process of demolishing and rebuilding their home. As the Tánaiste knows, there are significant gaps in the support provided to families in this situation but there is support of €15,000 for rental accommodation. It does not meet the costs any more because it takes quite a while to demolish and rebuild a home. That money comes out of the overall cap that is available. This is aimed at doing two things. First, it will, hopefully, suppress the cost that would be charged by these homes. Second, it would not include new build houses, new build rental stock or any property that was rented in the past three years. It is fair. I raised the issue of the accommodation recognition payment, ARP, scheme. I have issues with this scheme and how it is applied. If I look at what is happening in County Donegal, there are 2,100 Ukrainians who avail of the ARP scheme in the county. That is 2,100 homes in the main - because most of them are in their own properties - and they are competing with the rental market. There are no provisions like the ones I built into the amendment in the ARP scheme. In fairness, the Minister and the Government have acknowledged belatedly that there is an issue with the rental market as a result of that scheme. There are 2,100 individuals who are able to avail of the scheme and the State pays the rent and the landlord is tax exempt on that rental income. We have a humanitarian crisis involving people living with defective blocks. As more and more of these houses have to be demolished in Donegal, Mayo and elsewhere, it would make sense to target homes that are not on the market. They can only be vacant homes that are not being rented out or holiday homes. I hope that after the house is rebuilt and the family moves into the house, the individual might decide to continue to rent out the property under normal market circumstances, which would increase the housing stock as a result. This is a serious issue. It is one small part of the overall nightmare families are experiencing in relation to defective blocks. Even if there was 100% redress, and we in Sinn Féin will continue to campaign for 100% redress, we would still have an accommodation crisis. That is what we are trying to deal with in this amendment. How do we incentivise more properties coming onto the market without competing with young families? People coming to my clinic are telling me they are being evicted, have been given notice to quit and cannot find rental properties. This is about making sure we do not affect them and looking specifically at homes that are not on the market. It is a fair thing to do. There is precedent for it in the ARP scheme. It would be time-limited obviously because these houses have to be demolished and rebuilt and it will have an automatic sunset clause when the scheme comes to its conclusion.

Sentiment score: -0.07

That is part of it.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I note the Minister said he would constructively engage, and I hear that. There is legislation coming up. He indicated he is going to oppose the amendments, which I am really disappointed with. I raised this with his predecessor and it is a sensible solution that does not cost the State any money because it is trying to release properties into the system that are not currently in it. As I said, I hope it would have a long-term impact in that, after the homes are rebuilt, it would encourage people to rent out these properties. I have talked to so many people. Deputy Conway-Walsh made the point that in Donegal, Mayo and other counties, there are a lot of vacant properties and a lot of holiday homes as well. I have talked to people and really pleaded with them to consider renting out a property for 18 months to X, Y or Z and they are just not interested. It made sense to them in a way because it was not a long-term rental lease. This is about trying to see if we can just nudge them across the line. There is going to be a major crisis. I mentioned the ARP for two reasons. The first is that there is a precedent and it is always easier to convince government to do something when there is a precedent. However, the Government needs to recognise this issue. I know people who rent properties under the ARP scheme and I know why they do it. Under that scheme, even with the reduced cost, it is the effective €1,200 rental income. That is higher than the rent in Donegal. People have to make a decision at the minute about who to rent to. Do they rent to a family who cannot pay €1,200 or do they rent to a Ukrainian family which means they will get the benefit of €1,200 because it is tax-free and they will not have a registered tenancy and all the rest? There is a displacement here, so the Government has a serious issue. As I said, there are 2,124 properties rented in Donegal under the Ukrainian scheme and that is supported by the State. Is the Minister going to make a decision tonight – or did he do so previously given that this amendment was notified to him – not to support this? This a humanitarian crisis these individuals are in and this is about trying to find a solution to try to release properties. It is a nightmare for these families and an ounce of compassion would mean people would support this.

Sentiment score: 0.10

I will reiterate the point. This is the unfortunate reality. I understand that people want to make profits and all of the rest but, if you are a landlord in Donegal, you can rent to a Ukrainian family and are guaranteed the money because the State provides it. It is the equivalent of €1,200. It is different if you rent to a family whose home is affected by defective blocks. On the €15,000, that €15,000 comes off the money the family has to use to rebuild their home. If it takes 18 months to demolish and rebuild their home, they cannot do €1,200. It is too much. It is way above the market rent in Donegal. I have stood in many of these homes. We talked about compassion. When I stand in these homes, I think about myself and my kids. A lot of TDs think like that. We step into the shoes of the person we are talking to. I have been in homes that no family should be living in. I have been in homes whose owners have told me they cannot use any of the plugs in the kitchen and have had to move stuff into another room, an old bedroom or something like that, because every time the plug goes on, the fuseboard trips. You can see water ingress. In some cases, you can see daylight. Nobody should be in these homes. Why are they in these homes? There are a number of reasons. One is the scheme itself but, in some cases, there is no other accommodation. I am not saying this is a silver bullet. I have never suggested it is. However, if this releases one, two, ten or 20 properties and takes a bit of the nightmare away for individuals, we will have done a good job. It is so much wider than this. There should be proper planned accommodation and a phased rebuild of houses. I am not even going to argue for that at the minute. I am arguing for this part. The Minister has not given one reason not to support this amendment now. I recognise that he has said he will engage constructively but he has not offered one reason not to support the amendment now. The families affected by defective blocks deserve the same treatment as other people in my county and elsewhere when they are going through this nightmare. I will push amendment No. 11 when we come to it.

Sentiment score: -0.07

I move amendment No. 5: In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on rent tax credit 4. The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the rent tax credit operating in the absence of a cap on rents, making a direct comparison between the amount of the credit and rent increases across the State for each year that the credit has been in operation.”. This is another area where the Minister broke a personal promise he made to the electorate. I am sure he will acknowledge that if he wants to be honest with the House tonight. He made a commitment that the renter's tax credit would increase by €100 each year. In his first budget, he decided to break that promise to the people. It is the wrong decision but there is a wider issue in relation to the renter's tax credit. When I argued for the introduction of the renter's tax credit and convinced Government there was a real issue in that its housing policy had resulted in runaway rents and had put huge pressure on individuals, the argument I heard from the Minister's party and from Fianna Fáil was that if you reintroduce the renter's tax credit, it would end up in the pockets of landlords. There was merit to that argument. The Commission on Taxation and Welfare looked at the old renter's tax credit, which was introduced in the 1980s and only phased out a number of years ago. The argument for its introduction at that time was that there was pressure on elderly persons who were renting. The commission found that it ended up pushing up rents, with the benefit ending up in the pockets in the landlords, so there was merit to that argument. That is why, when I argued for the renter's tax credit, I always made it clear that a two-pronged approach had to be adopted. A renter's tax credit needed to be introduced but there also needed to be a ban on rent increases. Without a ban on rent increases, all you are doing is putting more profit in landlords' pockets because that is where it ends up. The statistics show that to be the case. We do not even have to go back to 2020 or 2021, when it was introduced. If we compare the first quarter of this year with the last quarter of 2023, we will see that rents increased by a sum in excess of the renter's tax credit. If the Government had banned rent increases at the end of 2023, without even introducing a tax credit, tenants would be better off today than they are with the renter's tax credit. That is why this amendment looks at the real cost of the renter's tax credit with reference to the increase in rents. I am the person who convinced the Government to introduce the renter's tax credit but it made a half-arsed job of it because it only introduced half of the policy. Perhaps that was by design because, in introducing only half the policy, the Government transferred taxpayers' money into the pockets of landlords. Landlords will benefit again next year as the result of what one of the professors called the stupidest tax measure in the history of the State. The Government increased tax credits for landlords and, as a result, one in four of those eligible for that credit, over 40,000 landlords, will not pay a penny in tax. It is amazing. Under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, we have tens of thousands of landlords who do not pay a penny in tax because of all of the tax incentives. The Government introduced more incentives, even though all of its advisers said that it was not the right thing to do, that a lot of landlords were not even paying any tax and that this was not the reason landlords were selling up, as they were selling up because prices had gone through the roof, which was obviously a consequence of the Government's own policy. Over and over again, they argued against the introduction of this measure but the Government introduced it anyway. Let us go back to tenants. Tenants are being fleeced left, right and centre. I do not know where the endpoint is. On some occasions, Government Ministers have been embarrassed into saying that rents should actually decrease. I am not sure if that is the Minister's position. Does he want to see rents come down? There is no policy here. The Government has no plan to do that but it is introducing new legislation to allow rents to increase every six years, even in rent pressure zones. This is about identifying that the measure that was introduced, which I campaigned on for a number of years before the Government eventually acceded to half of it, is not working because the Government only introduced half of the measure and that rents are increasing at a faster rate than the benefit of the credit itself. There is a requirement to increase the renter's tax credit, something the Minister personally promised the people he would do. Lo and behold, he is now the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste and, if everything goes according to his plan, he will be Taoiseach. In addition to the Minister's promises in respect of tax cuts, a childcare plan within 100 days and a reduction in student fees, he is also breaking this promise to the 300,000 renters out there. They are not getting the €100 that Simon promised them because the Government has decided to put €2.5 billion into the pockets of developers, landlords and investors instead. They are the priorities the Government has chosen in this budget. They are the wrong priorities and that is why I propose this amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.23

Maybe I missed it, but did the Minister explain why he broke his promise to the electorate that he would increase the renter's tax credit by €100? He was going to extend it and increase it by €100. Did I miss that part or did he just avoid explaining why he broke another promise to the electorate? I will give him an opportunity to respond to that.

Sentiment score: 0.25

The Minister did not answer.

Sentiment score: 0.00

The Minister gave me a lesson on how governments are formed, which I well know.

Sentiment score: 0.27

He did not even state whether he actually asked for it. Was it the case that Fianna Fáil got its way on not increasing the renter's tax credit - the promise that the Minister broke? Did Fianna Fáil also get its way on the promise that the Government would bring a childcare plan within 100 days? Did Fianna Fáil also get its way on the promise the Minister broke - to reduce income tax for people every year? Did Fianna Fáil get its way on that one? Did it get its way on college fees as well? What about the promise that, if Fine Gael was elected to government, people's energy bills would be cheaper? They have gone up. Did Fianna Fáil get its way on everything? Is Fine Gael so impotent that Fianna Fáil just ran roughshod over it, or is it just that the election is over, Fine Gael does not care, it is in government, happy days, and will get its way in looking after the big boys? The landlords are going to get looked after under the Government's policy. One in four of them do not even pay tax. Developers will get €2.5 billion of a tax cut. Happy days. Two banks made a profit of €5 billion last year. They do not pay taxes. That is who we are going to look after. We can forget about the promises Fine Gael made. It is either that Fine Gael's negotiations skills on the programme for Government are really shoddy or it is just a case of this is what Simon does. He makes commitments during election periods or times he is under pressure - we know about other commitments such as on scoliosis, among others - but he has no intention of ever fulfilling them.

Sentiment score: 0.14

I am.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I move amendment No. 6: In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on rent tax credit 4. The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the changing real value of the rent tax credit in relation to rent prices and the decision not to increase the rent tax credit.”.

Sentiment score: 0.18

I move amendment No. 10: In page 13, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “Report on relief on medical expenses 5.The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the inability of persons without the adequate tax liability to benefit from relief on medical expenses, making reference to the substantial burden facing individuals using home dialysis.”. I brought this amendment forward on Committee Stage of the Bill. It deals with the issue and unfairness that exists in relation to individuals with health challenges. I am involved with this issue because a connected person, a family member of mine, is on home dialysis. I will declare that in the first instance, even though they would not benefit from this amendment if it were there. It did get me thinking about the number of people who are on home dialysis and how the State supports some of them but does not support others. I made the point to the previous finance Minister that, rightly, the Houses of the Oireachtas identified that those who are participating in home dialysis needed support from the State and the support was offered through the taxation system. Currently, there are 344 people who avail of home dialysis. This could also be replicated with other issues like continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, CAPD. You could argue that the support provided through Revenue for a parent with life-limiting conditions where the travel expenses are also provided as flat rate expenses could also be affected. For the sake of this argument, I will focus on home dialysis. There are 344 individuals who are currently involved in home dialysis. We probably think that is not a huge number of people in the State. However, the fact that they are doing dialysis at home saves the HSE €10 million per year. It is a huge amount of money being saved as a result of the fact that technology and healthcare have changed and allow for that care to be provided at home. It prevents 51,000 visits to our hospitals, hospitals that are already clogged up and overcrowded in many cases. It saves the individuals 300,000 hours of their time either travelling to the hospital, waiting in the hospital, getting dialysis in the hospital and so on. Those 344 individuals include 16 children. The issue is that, through the tax code, there is a flat rate expense regime that recognises that if you are availing of home dialysis, there is an additional cost burden on your household. You have to be hooked up to the dialysis machine for between and eight and nine hours depending on your circumstances. It is running through electricity and pumps. Therefore, there is a flat rate expense of €4,425 provided. There are also issues with laundry and clothing. For that reason, there is a €2,305 flat rate expense provided for individuals. There is also a €370 flat rate expense for telephone calls. Overall, there is a flat rate expense of €7,100. You do not obviously get all of that. It depends on your tax rate and, therefore, you get a portion of that. However, you can get up to close to €3,000. That helps people, particularly as electricity prices are going through the roof. The problem is that if you do not have a tax liability, you get nothing, and that is wrong. I started the conversation by saying there was a recognition, even though it is a small number of people, that they should be supported through the tax code. They are supported to the tune of a couple of thousand euro per year, and rightly so. That is a huge saving to the State. However, if you are the mother and full-time carer of one of the 16 children getting home dialysis and you do not have a tax liability, or you are working but it is part-time and you do not have a tax liability, you get nothing. There are two problems here. Maybe the tax code is not the way to support these individuals and it should be done through direct grants, which I think there is a strong argument for. I understand why we would introduce credits like this, in that they are better than nothing. You could introduce a scheme that allowed for these types of support to be refundable, which is within the gift of Revenue, which is an excellent organisation and refunds taxes all the time. I did my tax returns recently, and I encourage people to do them. You get a nice amount into your account. Most people overpay tax and do not claim health expenses and so on, so I encourage people to do that. Going back to this issue, these are big numbers. It is saving the State €10 million. It is 51,000 visits to the hospital. We are dealing with 344 people. Most of those are able to avail of the tax benefits, but others are not. That is not right. The system is not fair for those individuals. Within the collective wisdom of this House, we are surely able to recognise that it is appropriate to give people support, and we now need to make sure everybody availing of this scheme is able to benefit from it. The reason it was brought to my attention is a family member is doing home dialysis, but through networks and the rest, you hear that some people are not able to get any support because they are part-time working or they might be too sick to work. They may be waiting for that transplant and may be at a weak stage. There needs to be something done. I argue strongly that we make this tax relief refundable. It would not just apply to dialysis. CAPD obviously has a similar situation. Most people do not even claim this relief. However, if you have a child with a life-limiting condition, there is an expense for the trips you do to your hospital appointments, which are unfortunately too frequent for many of these parents. Some of these parents are the full-time carers of the kids and do not have a tax liability. On the tax code, if it is not refundable, it is not the way to sort this and we should move it to a grant system, for example, in terms of the living donor scheme, which is part of this legislation. The living donor scheme is administered by the HSE with a grant available for expenses if you miss work and so on. The taxation code exempts that payment from income tax. We need to do something with regard to that.

Sentiment score: 0.10

I thank the Minister for his response. I brought this into the Finance Bill because this is where you prompt the debate and so on. As I mentioned to his predecessor, Paschal, the intention here is for Ministers to actually start this conversation. I am not on the health committee, and there is a wider issue in terms of public expenditure. This issue really makes sense. I do not have the data for the 344 individuals, and we only know about them in terms of home dialysis, but there are people with CAPD as well. They are entitled to this relief, which costs less than €1 million, but the HSE estimates that they are saving the HSE over €10 million, so this makes sense in the first instance. Another issue was raised with me. As the Minister knows, these reliefs are claimed in arrears. For this year, you go through home dialysis but it is next year you can claim this. There are people out there who cannot wait, even if they are working, even if they have the tax liability and so on. The refundable tax review by the tax strategy group is way broader than what would be health-related issues, but it is possible to do something with refundable tax credits. I understand that the Government may be reluctant to go there because it opens up the door for other arguments. I would make those arguments, but anyway. I genuinely think that these health measures should be universal. You cannot have a situation where two neighbours are both availing of home dialysis and, because one is working more than the other and has a tax liability, they can get support of €2,800 and the other cannot. It is not fair. It is not appropriate. Both have the same costs. Therefore, I note what the Minister has said but I ask him to genuinely take this issue forward with his colleague to see if we can address this.

Sentiment score: 0.05

That is helpful. The beauty about flat rate expenses is that they are flat rate expenses. Revenue has determined the figure and you do not have to provide the receipts, although you can be called on by Revenue to provide receipts. Actually, a question I must put down is how many times Revenue has asked for the receipts from individuals. I have never been asked so far, although they are all there.

Sentiment score: 0.27

There you go. Róisín will kill me. Many people do not claim this. I would really encourage people, particularly in terms of the cost-of-living crisis, to claim for the flat rate expenses if they are on home dialysis, if they have a child with a disability or a life-limiting condition, if they are making those journeys, if they or a family member has CAPD, or if they have health expenses or other expenses that they have not claimed for. I will finish on the following. It is something I will revisit. I said this at the start and I just want to make the point again. I have focused on home dialysis, but this is broader than home dialysis. There are a number of health-related schemes. You could actually argue that all tax credits should be refundable and so forth. We could have that argument about the rent tax credit and so on, but I think most people will recognise that there is a uniqueness in relation to health issues and that there should be a differentiation based on your income and the support should be available to you regardless. This is not just about dialysis. It relates to other health-related schemes as well. We should make sure that nobody falls foul of the rules simply because they are too sick to work and to have a tax liability, they are caring for somebody else in a full-time position and do not have a tax liability, or their employment does not allow them to earn enough to have a tax liability.

Sentiment score: -0.00

No, I will withdraw it based on what the Minister has said.

Sentiment score: -0.30

I move amendment No. 11: In page 18, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “Amendment of Principal Act 13.The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 216F: “216G.(1) In this section— ‘qualifying residence’, means a residential premises situated in the State constructed prior to 2023 which has not been subject to a rental agreement in the three years prior to the year of assessment; ‘relevant income’ means all income arising in respect of rent paid under a rental agreement from a relevant person for the use a qualifying residence; ‘relevant person’ means a qualified applicant under a scheme administered by the Minister for Housing, Heritage and Local Government and known as the Enhanced Defective Concrete Blocks Grant Scheme; ‘rental agreement’ means an agreement or arrangement under which one party grants to a qualifying individual the right to occupy all or part of a dwelling, subject to the payment of money; ‘residential premises’ means a building or part of a building used as a dwelling. (2) (a) This subsection applies to an individual who has relevant income chargeable to income tax. (b) An individual referred to in paragraph (a) shall be— (i) an owner of the qualifying residence, and (ii) a natural person. (3) Relevant income shall be exempt from income tax and shall not be reckoned in computing income for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.”.

Sentiment score: 0.18

Tairgim leasú Uimh. 12: In page 28, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: "Report on the restriction of share-based remuneration to SMEs 19.The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the impact of the PRSI exemption for share-based remuneration for large corporations on the sustainability of the social insurance fund.". Molaim leasú Uimh. 12 ó thaobh PRSI agus nach bhfuil PRSI i bhfeidhm ó thaobh íocaíochta atá déanta do chomhlachtaí móra nuair atá scaireanna tugtha dá chuid fostaithe in áit airgid thirim. I propose this amendment in relation to restricting the PRSI exemption to SMEs and not having the PRSI exemption available to large corporations. This is brought forward on the basis of the sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund, which is obviously very important. It is important that fund is replenished and that we have an adequate amount in that fund to meet the needs of workers and citizens in the future. This amendment is about share-based remuneration and we have seen a number of reports done by the Department of Finance and, indeed, by Indecon on behalf of that Department on share-based remuneration and looking at international practices or competitors, what is available and what is not available. The Indecon report which focused on this was published last year. The Department of Finance found that some countries treat benefit accruing from share-based remuneration as taxable salary and is subject to social security contributions. Those countries include Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Israel, the United States, Germany, Poland and Italy. It found that attractive tax advantage schemes are provided for small enterprises in many important competitor countries and they included Portugal, Denmark, France, Spain, Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United States. The Indecon review on taxation of share-based remuneration found that: ... detailed analysis suggests that aspects where Ireland’s approach is out of line with some competitor countries include lower eligibility levels, the treatment of benefit in kind and the tax treatment of restricted stock units. Ireland’s PRSI exemption however appears generous compared to many countries where such exemptions are more focused on SMEs. We also see the value of share-based remuneration schemes has increased substantially in the past number of years. For example, in 2019 the value of share-based remuneration schemes stood at €945 million whereas the last figures I have data for shows that has more than doubled in those four years. In 2023 it reached over €2.1 billion. Where has that growth occurred? It has occurred in the multinational, the large company, sector where it has gone from €749 million - that is €749 million out of €945 million, so it was always those companies that dominated the area, which was understandable - to nearly €1.8 billion. Obviously, we imagine the figures for 2024 and 2025 will have further increased. What is this about? It is about ensuring that share-based remuneration can continue and that it is there. There are very strong arguments for share-based remuneration in relation to investment and buy-in of staff and so on. It is actually asking whether we need to exempt PRSI for share-based remuneration for large multinational companies, many of which are in scope of pillar 2, which means they have turnover in excess of €750 million, or whether it is better to ensure, given the Social Insurance Fund and making sure it is sustainable, that those larger companies continue to do share-based remuneration but have to pay PRSI on the share-based remuneration, although not small and medium enterprises where we would like to encourage more of that type of activity. The figures for micro-companies and small companies are quite small considering the value of the share-based remuneration scheme - it is growing for small businesses but staying static for micro ones. That is what the amendment is about. It is not about eliminating it completely. Rather, share-based remuneration would continue to exist and would be an issue for companies. It is about ensuring that the PRSI exemption does not apply to large corporations and the benefit is restricted to SMEs. This issue was identified by the Department of Finance in the Indecon review commissioned by the Department just two years ago. The report identified that we are a wee bit out of line and more generous compared with other countries. That is okay. Sometimes we can be more generous. We have to have tax advantages. I am all for that, tax sovereignty and all the rest. However, there is an argument that this generosity does not need to be extended to large corporations. The Social Insurance Fund is important as we have an ageing population. This is one way to ensure that funds are maintained and replenished.

Sentiment score: 0.26

We have raised the issue of share-based remuneration for a number of years in terms of restricting the measure to SMEs. We have since had the reports. In the finance committee, I mentioned that we have waited for four years for the Credit Review Bill to be given a statutory footing. It was announced on 6 July by Government that Cabinet had approved putting the Credit Review Bill on a statutory footing. Today, we finally had Committee Stage, which coincided with the Finance Bill. It is ridiculous that this is happening four years later. The slow pace of Government is frustrating. What was more frustrating was that just as we were on section 2, the Finance Bill clashed with it, which was a major problem for me because my amendments had to lapse. It is an example, with respect, of a Government decision with press all over the place. Everybody reported it and agreed with the Credit Review Bill being put on a statutory footing; there is no issue there. I had ideas to strengthen the Bill, but it took four years to bring it to Committee Stage and it will probably not pass into law until next year, which is really frustrating. I have raised the issue of share-based remuneration over a long period. The Department has had a report for a couple of years. Why does it take so long to make the decisions that are required? Decisions have to be made. I understand the Minister is new to the brief and all the rest, but his party has been in government and he has been in senior positions during those times. It is very frustrating. The public constantly tell me that it is frustrating that the Government takes so long to make decisions and effect change. Saying that the Government will not accept the amendment because it is considering a report which was published a year and a half ago is an example of a Government go-slow.

Sentiment score: -0.06

As I mentioned, the Minister is new to the finance brief. However, he may or may not know that the only way for us to put down this amendment-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

-----is to seek a report and all of his predecessors would acknowledge that what is behind the amendment is a proposal to restrict the PRSI exemption to the Social Insurance Fund. If we put down an amendment that gave effect to that without seeking a report, it would be ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle, and that is no fault to her. They are the rules of the House. That is why it is required. My issue stands. We have campaigned on this for quite a while. It makes sense. I am frustrated by the go-slow nature of the Government. The Credit Review Bill is one example of this. I will press the amendment.

Sentiment score: -0.11

I welcome the Tánaiste's response to this issue. In fairness to his predecessor, Paschal Donohoe acknowledged there was an issue. It was a mistake for the Government to bring forward an amendment to the Finance Bill that included Russia, as Deputies Timmins, Nash, Cian O'Callaghan and I highlighted. As the Tánaiste said, there was unanimity on this issue and it is to be welcomed that Russia is not included. There is a broader issue with the foreign earnings deduction. It has been expanded repeatedly. I have a map of the world in front of me that is nearly covered in terms of the locations to which the relief applies. There will be a need for a review of how it is working. There are changes in the Finance Bill in terms of the dates on which people must apply and so on. I have acknowledged that there has been a bit of tightening up in respect of issues with the scheme. However, a company does not have to be involved in exports at all to avail of it. If I set up a company in Donegal selling Irish flags but production was based in China and an employee of mine was in China looking at the production of those flags, I could avail of the scheme. That is not what it should be about. The scheme is about opening new markets and assisting companies to access those emerging markets. Further tightening up is needed. I support the scheme but did not support Russia's inclusion in it. As I said, there is a wider issue in terms of how it has expanded to take in different footprints around the globe. The argument could be made that there is a reason for that but we need an overall look at the scheme with a view to getting back to the fact it is supposed to be export-orientated and supposed to be looking at new markets, but that is not a requirement or condition for application.

Sentiment score: 0.10

I move amendment No. 17: In page 33, to delete lines 30 to 32, and substitute the following: ""(II) €10,000 for each of the years of assessment 2023 to 2028 (both years inclusive)",". These proposals apply to benefit-in-kind. There was an issue with a number of previous Finance Bills when the Government tried to do what it is doing here, which is reform the benefit-in-kind scheme. This will ultimately lead to a tax increase for many workers who are availing of company cars. The solution at that time was to introduce a €10,000 offset that allowed for the original market value, OMV, of the car to be reduced by €10,000. The Government now plans to phase that out from 2026 onwards, reducing it to €2,500 in 2028. The impact of this will be a tax increase. That is the impact of this. It is going to be a tax increase for employees. I am opposed to this section and, therefore, I have proposed these amendments to ensure that this tax increase will not be felt during these years. That is the subject of amendments Nos. 17 and 18.

Sentiment score: 0.16

I understand the Government’s point that this is reverting back to the original provision in the Act. When it was tried originally, obviously, there was huge uproar at what the Government was attempting. The Minister stated that this is for environmental reasons and so on, but this applies to electric vehicles and electric, carbon-neutral vehicles as well. Will it not increase the tax liability on individuals who are driving the cars that fall into that category as well?

Sentiment score: 0.21

I hear what the Minister is saying regarding tapering, but that can be translated into different language. It means that, for individuals, they will see their tax increase in 2027, 2028 and 2029. It will continue to go up because the OMV will basically increase each of those years because the offset is being reduced. It also applies to carbon-neutral cars, which means we are going to tax individuals. I have said before to the Minister that when you look at motorists and what is happening at the minute, the Government has increased tolls. It decided not to offset those increases. The Government has increased the cost of petrol and diesel in this budget. Over and over again, we have this penalty for people who cannot pay their motor tax. I have raised this continually each year and I am going to raise it now with the Minister for the first time. That is a bygone day. That motor tax penalty comes from the days when tax discs had to be posted out and we did not even have computers or the Internet. That is how far back that goes. It is ridiculous that people are penalised because they cannot pay motor tax in one go, particularly now that motor discs are being got rid of. This needs to be got rid of as well. This is another penalty that is going to be on drivers. I do not agree with it and I will push it to a vote.

Sentiment score: -0.03

I move amendment No. 18: In page 35, to delete lines 10 to 13, and substitute the following: “ “(B) €10,000 for each of the years of assessment 2023 to 2028 (both years inclusive)”,”.

Sentiment score: -0.15

I move amendment No. 19: In page 35, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “Report on costs of increasing standard fund threshold to €2,800,000 25. The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the costs of increasing the standard fund threshold to €2,800,000 taking account of behavioural change, clearly outlining the cost to the Exchequer, as well as the number of likely beneficiaries.”. I have raised the issue of the increase in the standard fund threshold from €2 million to €2.8 million on numerous occasions. I am sure the Tánaiste stands by the answers that have been given. He claims that the cost of this measure will be €10 million. I made the point in the finance committee that it will be laughable if this cost is €10 million. It is not going to be €10 million. It will be multiples of that. When I pushed the Department on this, it told me that it was based on no behavioural change. It was based on existing claimants. Of course, there will be behavioural change. If the standard fund threshold is increased from €2 million to €2.8 million, it will be the biggest tax break for an individual that I have ever seen in a finance Bill. No tax break in my recollection benefited an individual to the tune of €320,000. That is what people will be able to gain from this measure. Of course, there will be behavioural change. Wealthy people will put more into their pensions as a result of this. If someone with spare cash goes to a financial adviser, the first thing the adviser will say is, "Have you maxxed out your pension?" because that is the best way to gain wealth. For every euro a person puts in, for every €100, for every €10,000, the Government will give him or her 40% of that back in tax relief. That is the first thing an adviser will say. After that, they will talk to the person about investing elsewhere and so on. People with wealth will max this out. If I were in this position, had a pension of €2 million and had wealth at my disposal, of course, I would put the money in here because I would get 40% of it back, could draw down €200,000 of it tax free and €300,000 at a 20% rate and, after that, pay tax on a pension. This measure is only available to people who already have gold-plated pensions. The standard fund threshold is currently €2 million, which means that someone retiring at the age of 66 can get a pension of €85,000 and still be under the standard fund threshold. They could have a pension of €85,000 every single year and have a tax-free lump sum in excess of €100,000 and still be under the standard fund threshold. This wee tax break that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil introduced that would benefit an individual to the tune of €320,000 is only available to people who already have pension pots in excess of €2 million. These people are already entitled to more than €85,000 of an annual return. Most people - my constituents and those of the Tánaiste - do not have a whiff of €85,000. This is not about supporting them because they are not getting to that point. This is about people with serious wealth who will now be able to avail of this tax break for only wealthy people. The Tánaiste claims it will cost €10 million. It will not cost €10 million. This is the nonsense we have from the Government about budgeting. I have made this point on numerous occasions. I have attended the Committee on Budgetary Oversight. Some of the stuff coming from the Government at the minute in terms of budgeting is ridiculous. I have been doing this as an Opposition spokesperson for a decade and a half. There is less transparency from the Government now than ever before. That is just fact. The budget book presented by the Government has less information that would allow us to decipher what is going on than ever before. Standstill costs always used to be there and be clear. They do not exist any more in terms of the budget book. It is worse than ever. What the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council called the Government out on is true. It makes budgeting meaningless when the Government introduces a budget on budget night and says a measure like this will cost €10 million when it will cost multiples of that. Worse than that is when the Government introduces a budget and every year for the past five years, we know there will be billions more spent outside of the budget cycle. It is pathetic budgeting. We are talking about 12 months ahead. Of course we understand it in respect of things like the Covid pandemic or a flood of people fleeing war but the €2 billion on additional Estimates this year is not about any of those unforeseen things. Many of them were foreseen but were overruns or badly budgeted for or things like this. There is a wider issue about the standard fund threshold. This is a tax break that the Government has decided to prioritise and that will only go to people who already have gold-plated pensions. It is not about somebody who is working in the local shop or a butcher or nurse. They are not benefiting from this. This involves people who have wealth and will decide where to put it. A further issue I wish to raise is one I have been raising since 2018. I put down a parliamentary question. I raised the issue of a pensions loophole and in fairness, the Government closed it last year but people with serious wealth benefited from that scheme. It took me two years to convince the Government to close it down. There is a serious amount of transfer relating to pensions that is plain to see. Financial advisers are advising people to transfer their pensions to Malta because there are tax advantages in doing so. Someone can transfer their pension to Malta if they want to. It is legal to do so but only under certain circumstances. It is illegal to do it for tax purposes. That has to be clamped down on. It is happening, just like the loophole I raised a couple of years ago. Financial advisers are telling people to do it. That is what is happening at the minute. It has been pointed out by the Department and other practitioners. This is happening. It is happening in a big way. It is people with serious wealth who are not happy with even the regime here and want more tax reductions. As I said, it is illegal to do it if you are doing it for tax purposes.

Sentiment score: 0.08

The Minister reached for public sector workers in relation to this massive tax break. A figure of €320,000 is unheard of. When you think about it, most people in the country do not earn anywhere near that and this is a tax break worth €320,000 to a really wealthy individual. It is unbelievable. The de Buitléir report, which the Minister may have had a chance to read-----

Sentiment score: 0.23

-----actually dealt with how we deal with public sector pensions, especially the issues with members of the Garda and fast-accruing pensions. The way he suggested doing that was to change the valuation rate for defined pensions. That is not what the Government has done, so do not be going into the box and saying this is about gardaí and all the rest and public sector pensions. If the Government wants to deal with public sector workers, de Buitléir has proposed a change to the valuation rate, which used to be a factor of 20 and is now a range of factors on a sliding scale. I raised this with the Minister's predecessor in relation to the appropriateness of that valuation factor and how many people outside the public sector have defined benefit schemes. These are questions we would need to tease out. I would argue there are ways, because we differentiate in the tax code in terms of the standard fund threshold and the chargeable excess already. There is already a differentiation between private workers and public sector workers and we can take that further in relation to exempting the income above the standard fund threshold for public sector workers. As such, there are a number of ways the Government could do this if it wants to genuinely deal with the issue of the very few public sector workers who are in that category of pensions in excess of €90,000 in the first instance. That is not the issue here. The issue here is that the Government has brought forward a massive tax break for wealthy people. Taxpayers' money is going into these people's pockets to supplement gold-plated pensions.

Sentiment score: 0.02

The Minister did not have to bring forward other amendments in respect of the SFT. The Government has legislated for it to increase every year. That is why people are getting this €320,000 tax cut from Fine Gael. I must have missed that promise the Minister made. Which plinth was he standing on? During which press occasion during the general election campaign did he tell people he would provide a €320,000 tax break to people who have gold-plated pensions? I did not see anything like that in the run-up to the election.

Sentiment score: 0.07

It was legislated for in the Finance Bill just before the election, during the campaigning. That was a promise the Minister did not even make, but it is one he kept. He broke all of his promises to ordinary people. I will press the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.03

I move amendment No. 21: In page 43, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “Report on policy objectives and financial safeguards for Living Cities Initiative 30.The Minister shall, within 1 month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on policy objectives and the financial safeguards that are in place given the scale of the reform and expansion of the scheme in terms of eligibility and granting access to developers to the scheme.”. This amendment relates to the living cities initiative. This initiative has never taken off. If I am right, it was the brainchild of John Moran when he worked with the then Minister, Michael Noonan. He is now the directly elected mayor of Limerick. I could be wrong on this but I think it was focused on Limerick, inner-city Dublin and Georgian buildings. It did not really take off. Nearly every single Finance Bill was amended to expand the scope and criteria. The scheme has had an extremely low uptake. It is now being expanded again to include five other towns. From recollection, I believe that includes a town in my own county of Donegal. I have made the point that, based on the criteria, an argument could be made to allow Ballybofey, which probably has more vacancies than any other town in the county, to benefit from the initiative. The real issue here is that the scheme is being massively expanded. It is no longer just for Georgian buildings or buildings built before 1914 or whatever it was. It now applies to buildings built before 1974 or 1975. It was a date in that range. In some cases, there is no time limit whatsoever. When we debated this many years ago, the then Minister, Michael Noonan, said that with things like this, you bring them in, you review them, and if they are not working you get rid of them. He was making the point that you have to take a risk with some of these schemes. That is fine. I understand that you have to take a risk with schemes but you also have to ensure there are safeguards in place. The amendment is based on the scale of the reform, the expansion of eligibility for the scheme and developers being granted access to the scheme. That was an anti-avoidance measure. It was explicitly made clear that developers would not be allowed in this scheme. They are now being allowed in the scheme under the amendment included in the Finance Bill. We need to ensure that there are financial safeguards and that the objectives are met. I want to see a report in relation to that. What assessment is going to be carried out in that regard? What early warning signals will let us know if this expansion is being exploited in a way that does not meet the objectives of the scheme? When are we likely to see some concrete data in relation to all of that?

Sentiment score: 0.07

I will leave it at that.

Sentiment score: -0.05

I raised this issue earlier. We have later amendments in relation to the reduced VAT rate on apartments that have been ruled out of order. This amendment from Deputy O'Callaghan deals with the tax reliefs that have been brought in by the Government for property developers. The former Minister made the claim at the start of the debate on this Bill that this measure was designed to reduce the cost of apartments. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not about reducing the cost of apartments. I will again put on the record what the former Minister had to say only two weeks ago when he debated this issue with us at the finance committee. He stated: If we were to bring forward a measure like this, which would also be an affordability measure, logically, it could not be a viability measure at the same time. It cannot be both. He was open, transparent and, indeed, honest. This is not about reducing the cost of apartments. It is not about affordability. The former Minister made clear that it cannot be both; it is about viability. What does viability translate as? It means that profits for developers have to be sufficient for them to decide to build out at this point. I have made the point that there is good research - this does not mean to say that it applies here - in Britain that looks at the market dominance of a number of players and how they use that dominance in terms of land hoarding, building selectively, releasing certain properties at certain times and squeezing the UK Government for more incentives. By God, did developers here squeeze the Government and get what they wanted. We talk about finance measures and an element of deadweight, basically, the effect of the measure and that maybe 30% or 40% of the activity that it is hoped to bring about would already happen even without the tax measure. Has there ever been a tax cut like this where 100% of the expenditure for next year, namely €250 million, is considered deadweight? Every apartment that will be the subject of reduced VAT is viable. Every one of them is currently under construction. The former Minister told me that, since it was introduced on budget day, this measure has already cost over €20 million. That is what it costs per month. It is not even just next year that the deadweight will apply. It will continue into 2027. The vast majority of the €390 million that this is going to cost in 2027 relates to apartments that are already under construction. We know that because apartments cannot be built in a year. It just cannot be done. On average, it takes two years to build apartments. VAT is paid, obviously, at the point of sale in arrears. Therefore, the vast majority - if not all - of any benefit that will be accrued next year or the year after will be in respect of apartments that are either under construction or about to go to construction. That is the level of deadweight involved. That is the amount of money we are talking about. I have called those in this Government serial wasters in the past. My party president has raised the issue of more waste that we have seen in terms of steps in a public park that cost more than €700,000. There are many examples of this but, by God, what we are discussing here takes the biscuit. The Government is giving €640 million next year and the year after in a tax break to developers for apartments that are already being built. There are 18,000 apartments being built at present. Apartments that were sold last week benefited from this tax break. Apartments that are going to be sold next week will benefit from it. There are viable. If they were not viable, they would not be being built. The Tánaiste is talking about a measure and disclaims the fact that this is not about selective release, house prices, pushing up prices, etc. Let us pretend that is not the case for a moment. The Tánaiste is talking about a measure that is about releasing new apartments into the system. Of the €1.5 billion that this measure is going to cost for the three years that it will be in existence, however, over €600 million will go into the pockets of developers who are already building apartments. The Government has not even attempted to hide whose side it is on. I made the point earlier that these developers are making huge operational profits. The two largest companies in the State are publicly listed. Thankfully, they have to publish their accounts. We can see their operational profits of 20% and 21%, respectively. That is not somebody scrapping to get by; it is a massive transfer of wealth. The Government does that. The Tánaiste will defend this at a time when the Government screwed over so many people in the budget, when it left people so much worse off, when it refused to deal with the cost-of-living crisis, when so many people are under pressure with their energy costs, when so many are under pressure with their petrol and diesel costs and when so many are finding it tough to put food on the table because of grocery price increases. Of course, the Tánaiste has to balance the books. Of course, he has to make sure that the Government's priorities are to the fore. Of course, there is not an endless amount of money available to the State. However, the Government made choices. It made the choice to put €250 million into the pockets of developers next year in respect of apartments that they are already building. The Government made the choice to put €390 million into the pockets of those same developers the following year for apartments that are currently under construction. Those are the wrong choice. They are the choices of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. They are the choices of a Government that does not have the backs of ordinary workers, because it has screwed them over. Again, the Government's priorities are clear. There are always winners and losers. Under Fine Gael, the winners in this case with this measure are the developers. I missed the press conference before the election where the Minister promised hundreds and hundreds of millions of euro to developers. Was that just a wee side, secret, private deal with them? The Government broke all its public promises to renters, on childcare, and to the people who wanted the income tax relief it promised them.

Sentiment score: 0.12

No, we did not.

Sentiment score: -0.30

Do you want a shovel?

Sentiment score: 0.08

I will. I will make the point, first of all, that I am not sure whether the Tánaiste withdraws the fact that it is about affordability, or does he agree with his predecessor that it is actually about so-called viability?

Sentiment score: 0.07

Okay, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot make it up as you are going along, in fairness. It is too big an issue.

Sentiment score: 0.04

The Tánaiste did not address the fact that these companies are making huge profits in the first instance. I challenge the Tánaiste on this because he gave the impression in his comments that I was misrepresenting the promises he made to the electorate. In his response, will he explain? Did he not make the promise to reduce tax each year to workers? Did he not make the promise to provide a roadmap on childcare within 100 days? Did he not make the promise to reduce third level fees, which went up €500 compared with last year? Are these promises he did not make? Am I imagining things? Are the records and videos all false and AI generated?

Sentiment score: 0.10

The Tánaiste introduced this subject.

Sentiment score: 0.00

You did.

Sentiment score: 0.00

You introduced the subject that you did not make these promises. He introduced the subject.

Sentiment score: -0.15

I just wanted to remind the Tánaiste of the commitments he made-----

Sentiment score: 0.13

-----to the public that he is breaking, and the commitment he never made to developers, at least in public, that the Government was going to stuff hundreds of millions of euro into their pockets through a reduced VAT rate.

Sentiment score: 0.38

The Tánaiste did not answer the question from Deputy Gould-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

-----in relation to whether he believes that the 17,000 or 18,000 apartments that are being built are actually viable. If so, then why has the Government decided to provide hundreds of millions of euro into the pockets of developers for valuable apartments?

Sentiment score: 0.24

I move amendment No. 26: In page 86, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “Report on taxation of bailed-out banks 50.The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the amount of tax revenue lost as a result of bailed-out banks facing no restriction on their ability to off-set corporation taxes using historic losses related to the crash and making specific reference to the number of years the bailed-out banks will be able to avoid tax into the future as a result of these deferred tax assets.”. This amendment relates to the fact that the banks in the State pay little or no tax as a result of a measure introduced by Fine Gael a number of years ago. As the Minister may recall, during the financial crisis, the Minister for Finance at the time, Brian Lenihan, introduced, through the NAMA Act, a measure that would ensure that banks would only be allowed to carry forward 50% of their losses, recognising, as he did at that time, that despite the fact the banks were about to incur tens of billions of euro in losses they would some day be profitable. I think it was in the Seanad he said at the time that as soon as the banks were profitable they should pay tax to the Irish taxpayer. We know that was the case for a number of years. The Fine Gael and Labour Government changed the rules to allow them to carry forward 100% of their losses. The Minister may say that is what happens with all normal companies in the State. That is fine, but these are not normal companies. These are companies that only exist today because the taxpayer was forced to rescue them at that time and the Minister for Finance made it very clear in legislation that they should be treated differently and only allowed to carry forward 50% of their losses. In terms of what we allow in respect of carrying losses forward, we are out of kilter with competitors across the OECD. In some cases, there is a limit whereby companies can carry losses forward for ten years or cannot carry forward 100% of the losses all of the time. We do both. We allow for an undefined period of time. Companies can carry forward losses for eternity if the losses are there. We also allow them to carry forward 100% of losses. It is a wider point, but the reality is, as I mentioned, that banks in the State such as AIB and Bank of Ireland made €5 billion in profits between them last year and did not pay any tax to the State on that level of profit. That is absolutely appalling. Much of the profit being made is being made as a result of the interest rate environment and is off the back of the fact that they charge higher mortgage interest rates than our European competitors or the EU average. It is because people are being fleeced as a result of bank charges and so on. To add insult to injury, banks are not paying tax on that level of profit, which is not acceptable. I ask the Minister to provide clarity on the situation with AIB. We know Bank of Ireland will be able to carry forward losses for another three years until the end of 2028. It is likely that it will not be 2029 or the following year until Bank of Ireland is paying taxes because its losses can be carried forward. That is two decades after the crash. Permanent TSB is worse. It will be able to carry forward losses for another 12 years. It will be 2037 before Permanent TSB will have to start paying tax. I do not have the figure for AIB. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to how long he will allow AIB to not pay taxes in the State.

Sentiment score: -0.09

I intend to press this amendment. I do not dispute the history the Tánaiste outlined. The issue of capitalisation of the banks or the State having to provide additional capital, which was the excuse used at the time, does not pertain any more. The paper he referenced is a number of years old. The idea in it was about dividends to the State as a result of our shareholding and also recognising asset value. There is no asset value to be recognised now in AIB or Bank of Ireland. We do not get any dividends from them and the State is about to disengage entirely from Permanent TSB as well. This is about ensuring banks that are absolutely creaming it off the back of the Irish public and making €5 billion in profits pay a portion of tax. It is reverting back to what the late Brian Lenihan proposed, which was that as soon as they were profitable, they should be paying tax. It is unbelievable that there will be no tax paid. I understand how it works; if it is 50%, they will have the deferred assets for longer, but the fact is there will be no tax. We would be looking at AIB, 25 or 26 years on from the financial crisis, still not paying a cent in taxes, while making billions of euro in profits every year. It is ridiculous.

Sentiment score: 0.13

That is the most ridiculous comment. I presume the Tánaiste was handed it in good faith but it was obviously provided by bankers or people sympathetic to them.

Sentiment score: 0.19

Let me finish.

Sentiment score: 0.00

If I may finish, it is obvious the advice was given to the Tánaiste by bankers or somebody who is sympathetic to their situation. What does it translate to? If we ask banks to pay corporation tax on their €5 billion profit, they will increase the charges on Irish people. That is what the Tánaiste is saying. It is why the Government does not want to do anything and will allow the banks not to pay tax for another decade in some cases. That is the threat. God forbid we ask banks that are making €5 billion profit to pay the appropriate level of tax that everyone else pays. Indeed, under this measure, they would still be able to reduce their tax significantly because they would be able to carry 50% of their losses forward. It is just unbelievable that this has happened. The Government will not do it to banks, but it will put up the price for ordinary people. Motorists will have to pay more for home heating oil, petrol, diesel and the local property tax. They will have to pay more for bloody everything but when it comes to banks that are making €5 billion profit, the excuse the Minister for Finance is using to not do what I and Sinn Féin are asking is that he is protecting the public. He is not protecting the banks but, rather, the public - wink wink, nod nod. That is why he is allowing these two banks that make €5 billon profit to pay no tax. Some banks will not pay any tax for another ten years. Honest to God, Waterford Whispers News would not have a look in.

Sentiment score: 0.12

I move amendment No. 28: In page 91, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following: “Report on legislated increase to rates of Mineral Oil Tax 53. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the legislated increase to rates of mineral oil tax, including an analysis of the distributional impact.”. I have raised and referenced over and over again the issue of the continued increases in the carbon tax by this Government on petrol, diesel and home heating oil. This week, we see that the cost of a fill of home heating oil has gone up by €80 as a result of external factors, but that does not take away from the fact that the Government has been instrumental in pushing up the cost of a fill of home heating oil by a significant amount, €220, in terms of carbon tax so far. Worse than that, the Government plans over the next five years to increase the cost of a fill of home heating oil by another €150. I have made the point that there are two ways to bring taxes in. Taxes are brought in either to raise revenue for the State to provide services that are required by its population and people or to affect behavioural change. Alternatively, they can be brought in for behavioural change, which is absolutely valid. I have agreed with it on different occasions in different areas, such as the sugar-sweetened drinks levy or the plastic bag levy. There are examples where it can work and all the rest. Increasing carbon tax on home heating oil, however, just makes homes and households poorer. That is the reality of it. That is the effect of it at this point in time because people do not have the resources to provide the alternative types of heating that are required. That is the reality. We also see it when it comes to petrol and diesel. I come from and represent a Border county. It has been pointed out by Fuels for Ireland and others that the difference between the cost of a fill of home heating oil in Lifford compared with Strabane is €300. It is mad. What makes that difference? All the same global factors that are pushing up home heating oil prices, such as the war in Ukraine and the illegal invasion by Russia, are also pushing prices up in Strabane. The reason there is a €300 difference is that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have decided to increase taxes significantly on the cost of trying to keep your house warm. In my county, two thirds of people rely on home heating oil to keep their house warm in winter. Across the west of Ireland in counties like Galway, Roscommon, Mayo and Leitrim, two thirds of people - over 1 million households across this State - are being penalised as a result of the Government’s measures. We see increases over and over again, not only with home heating oil but also with petrol and diesel. It could be argued that it is about trying to get people into electric vehicles, as if everyone has €40,000 or €50,000 to spend on a new electric vehicle, even if the infrastructure were there for them in areas. For those who can afford it and make that change, it is excellent. The Government is way off its targets in this regard, however. It is aiming for 1 million new electric vehicles by the end of 2030. I could be wrong on this because I have not really looked in detail at the figures but probably every single car in the State, from now until then, would have to be an electric vehicle for us to actually meet that target. It is so far off. The reality is that people do not have that type of money to make that type of investment. We have seen petrol prices sky-rocket during the illegal invasion of Ukraine. They went up to €2.20 per litre and measures were introduced by the Government that brought them down below €2. It did not force people to stay at home, go off the road and all the rest, however. Indeed, the number of cars on the roads is actually increasing. This experiment happened in the last couple of years. Again, behavioural taxes work if alternatives are available and affordable to individuals. This is putting the cart before the horse. I call this the Healy-Rae amendment. I was telling Deputy Danny Healy-Rae that he was going to be the star of the show in relation to this. Maybe he will come into the Chamber, wherever he is. This is the Healy-Rae amendment because, by God, the Healy-Raes gave it hammer and tongs on the issue of petrol and diesel. I must say, if awards were going – Miriam Lord gives out awards every year - the “brass neck award” has to go to Deputy Danny Healy-Rae. Did the Minister hear him on the Order of Business today? He stood up and asked the Taoiseach whether there was any chance he could do something about the cost of petrol and diesel, as well as the carbon tax and all the rest of it. Just this week, he voted against measures from Sinn Féin that would actually reduce carbon tax. I am sure he will trot out later not knowing what is happening and vote again with and in support of the Government, as his brother, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, will do. They will vote to put up the price of petrol and diesel on farmers, motorists and commuters in County Kerry and elsewhere because that is the reality of them. They got their 30 pieces of silver and they have sold their soul and abandoned any integrity they had on this issue. I will press the Healy-Rae amendment tonight.

Sentiment score: 0.03

Do not get me started on disability services. The Government is breaking the law every day.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I will press the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am glad the Tánaiste has changed his tune and stated that this is a viability measure, because he started off this evening by saying-----

Sentiment score: 0.46

-----that this was to reduce-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

The record of the House will show it, folks.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I wrote it down because it was so laughable. The Tánaiste stated that this is about "reducing the cost of building apartments".

Sentiment score: 0.08

It was only when we pointed out that Paschal Donohoe made it very clear that this is not about affordability or reducing the cost of apartments-----

Sentiment score: 0.44

I cannot hear the Tánaiste.

Sentiment score: 0.00

This was not about reducing the cost of apartments. This was about so-called viability. Maybe this time next year the Tánaiste will be able to show me one apartment that is going to be sold, either in this city or anywhere else in the State, that was not viable at this point. This measure is going to cost us €250 million next year. Every apartment that is going to be sold next year - in the context of a measure that will cost €250 million - is already under construction. This is the biggest tax deadweight measure ever introduced.

Sentiment score: 0.00

One hundred per cent of it is going to developers who are already building these properties. Apartments that were sold last week benefited from this. The Tánaiste told us that this has already cost us €20 million since it was introduced on budget night. This is about filling the pockets of developers. It is doing what Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael do. At the same time, those in government have shafted ordinary people during a cost-of-living crisis. Shame on them all.

Sentiment score: -0.13

No.

Sentiment score: -0.30