In the first place, this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with indexation. It is a proposal from the Sinn Féin Party that we should carry out a report on removing people from the universal social charge. We do not need any reports in relation to this. We need to follow very carefully the advice and analysis available to those of us in government and to those in this House about the volatile economic situation in which we find ourselves geopolitically. On the day when the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council published its latest assessment and highlighted the need for anchoring down our public finances and our taxation plans in a multi-economic framework, the idea that Sinn Féin would propose this without any reference to that is interesting in itself. Of course, the budget did not do what the Deputy suggested. The budget actually endeavoured to save people's jobs in rural towns and villages. I think Sinn Féin supported the 9% VAT rate on hospitality. In fact, I think it proposed extending it to more sectors. Sinn Féin is in favour of that and that is one of the things we did. The second thing we did was to reduce the cost of building apartments, not for developers but for people to live in them. I remind Deputy Doherty that funnily enough people cannot live in homes if they are not built. Yesterday, in Dáil Éireann bizarrely Sinn Féin voted against a resolution that would have allowed approved housing bodies, many of which I am sure Sinn Féin Members meet, to actually benefit from that reduction. The next time they meet an approved housing body or one of the charities that help us build homes, they should let it know that Sinn Féin voted against it benefiting from that. Sinn Féin also voted in this House yesterday against young people being able to benefit from help to buy on those apartments that are built at a reduced rate. I accept that we have a difference in policy on the 9% VAT rate on apartments. However, Sinn Féin is being so partisan that when the Government has made it clear that we want to reduce VAT on apartments, it would not then make sure that at the very least that could be extended to include social housing, affordable housing, houses built by approved housing bodies and student accommodation. Had a majority of people in this House agreed with the Sinn Féin position - thank God they did not - the effect of Sinn Féin's vote yesterday would been no benefit to student accommodation, no benefit to approved housing bodies, no benefit to social housing, fewer apartments built in our country and an inability for first-time buyers to access the help to buy scheme on any of the extra apartments that will be generated. We have very different views on how Deputy Doherty presents the budget we delivered to this House. This is Report Stage of the Finance Bill. I was very clear when I took up this role last week that we were going to continue in a stable manned with the policies outlined by the Government in the budget. We have taken a number of measures to assist people in relation to energy bills, including reducing VAT for the next number of years on energy bills. That was meant to be a temporary measure. We are rolling that out for several years because energy bills are too high. We are reducing the public service obligation, PSO, on similar bills, and expanding the fuel allowance to more people than ever before. Deputy Doherty talks a lot about working people. We are making sure that for the first time if someone is on the working family payment they can now benefit from the fuel allowance payment, which is up to around €1,000 during the fuel season. In terms of the actual amendment, the USC yield was €5.7 billion in 2024. It has a yield of €5.6 billion forecast for 2025. In fairness, I know the Deputy has costed his proposals in his alternative budget. I am advised by Revenue that it is estimated to cost €1.44 billion in the first year and €1.65 billion on a full year basis. At the moment, it is estimated that 29% of all taxpayer units will currently not be liable for any USC. So, already 29% of taxpayer units are not liable for USC from next year. This proposal would obviously significantly narrow the tax base further and would mean around 63% of taxpayer units would not be liable for the USC at all. Deputies will recall that during the economic crisis, it reached a point where 45% of all income earners were exempt from income tax. So, we would be going much higher in terms of the percentage of the population exempt from the USC than we had the percentage exempt at income tax at the time of the financial crisis. There are commitments in the programme for Government I intend to deliver. This Finance Bill is one of five that will be delivered over the lifetime of the Government. We took decisions this year. I accept they were not universally popular. They were decisions to try to protect jobs and build more homes. In the years ahead and in forthcoming budgets, we will be working on delivering commitments around tax reform, including in the areas of income tax.

Sentiment score: 0.21

It is.

Sentiment score: 0.00

It is a viability measure.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Reducing the cost of building.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I did not say that.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Deputy Doherty has decided to continue to ignore the reality with his fanciful economic ideology of the fact that there are at least 42,000 apartments in this capital city that have planning permission today that have been deemed not viable to build. I want to build them while Deputy Doherty wants to continue to call people names. It makes sense to try to ensure those apartments are built because where are the young people going live if they are not built? It suits Deputy Doherty for the housing crisis to continue. We are trying to fix it. Sinn Féin oppose every single measure. Yesterday, when we brought in a measure to try to extend the benefit to approved housing bodies, to extend it to student accommodation and to make sure young people could benefit from the help to buy, Sinn Féin voted níl agus níl. That was Sinn Féin's decision, not ours. We have very different views in relation to this and I am very happy that we do and I am very happy to continue to debate that. On this amendment, the Government's position is clear. The programme for Government outlines where we want to go with taxation over the lifetime of this Government. The Finance Bill before the House is instalment one of five. I intend to make further progress with taxation measures over the lifetime of this Government and I believe, as do my Government colleagues and as did my predecessor, that the prudent thing to do at the start of a Government is to make sure we increase housing supply because of the housing emergency and to make sure we enact a promise that we made to the hospitality sector and the 190,000 people working in it to help protect their jobs and the viability of their businesses in rural towns and villages right across this country.

Sentiment score: 0.20

You see-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

The Deputy is wrong. When you run the economy well, wage growth counts-----

Sentiment score: 0.05

It is going to be a long night if the Deputy is going to be so rude the whole time.

Sentiment score: -0.59

I thank Deputy Nash for this proposal. I have heard him talk about this time and time again, and for good reason. I fully accept that budgets are about choices and we will have rigorous debates in this House about whether our choices are right. I contend – the Deputy will have a different view – that the choices we made this year were about trying to boost economic resilience, protect jobs and stimulate housing supply. We have had that debate and we will continue to have that debate. I wish to make a couple of points. I understand that the absence of indexation of income tax credits this year has an effect on workers within our country. I also, however, have to read and marry that alongside the fact that wage growth is still expected to take place in our economy next year at such a rate that we still expect that all income earners who experience wage growth will see a net increase in their after-tax income. That is a point worth making and monitoring in the time ahead. Obviously, I have made comments in the past in relation to indexation and those comments are accurate when it comes to not indexing. The issue of wage growth and how that interplays is also a fair point. I reiterate that this is the first of five budgets to be delivered by the Government. The Government and I, as the new Minister of Finance, remain committed to standing by the programme for Government commitment to make progressive changes to income tax - I have to say the next few words - if the economy remains strong. We all want it to remain strong. We have spelled out in the programme for Government what we will do and what we will defer doing if times become more difficult. On the broader issue of automatically indexing credits and bands, it is worth pointing out that no Government has done this to date. One can say that is a good or bad thing, but the reason we have not done this traditionally as a country is that it does not allow the flexibility to adapt spending as necessary to match the level of resources available in any given budget. There is an argument that it actually restricts the ability of a Government to target resources where the need is greatest. However, the programme for Government makes some commitments in this area. It commits to “implement progressive changes in taxation if the economy remains strong, including indexing credits and bands to prevent an increase in the real burden of income tax.” It also states, “In the event of an economic downturn and unexpected deterioration in the public finances ... [we would] postpone changes to income tax credits or bands, as we did in Budget 2021”. I am happy to engage further with the Deputy on this in the time ahead. In fairness to Deputy Nash, he has acknowledged already that some of his request goes broader than my direct ministerial remit for the purpose of this debate in terms of what would be included in the summer economic statement. Some of the items he referenced, as he said himself, are the responsibility of other members of the Government, but I understand the broader thrust he is trying to get at. My Department provides regular updates regarding the indexation of the income tax system. In recent years, information on the indexation of tax credits and bands has been included in the annual tax strategy group paper on income tax. Most recently, the budget 2026 strategy paper set out information relating to indexing the income tax system, including the estimated cost to the Exchequer. The costs used in this publication were taken from the Revenue Commissioners’ ready reckoner publication. This year’s annual progress report also included projections of wage growth to estimate the yield from non-indexation of the tax system. In other words, this is an affect of how much additional revenue the Exchequer would receive from the fiscal drag if income tax bands and credits were not adjusted to keep pace with wage growth. I understand that the tax strategy group paper on social protection included similar budgetary options for consideration in that space. It is our view, and certainly the Department’s view, that the information requested by the Deputy in relation to the specific amendment on indexation is already regularly addressed in the variety of areas I have outlined. This is a practice that I will request the Department continues to consider as part of future reports as well as any other useful information we can provide in this regard. While I am not in a position to accept the Deputy’s amendment as is, I am happy to see if we can constructively engage on this in the time ahead.

Sentiment score: 0.31

I thank Deputies Nash and Lawlor for tabling this amendment. I acknowledge that Deputy Lawlor had an initial conversation with me on it this week. I appreciate his genuine interest and expertise in this. I also find myself in much agreement with some of the points Deputy O'Callaghan made in terms of how we keep companies that we as a country invest so much in getting to that point in Irish ownership. It is a real policy issue that deserves genuine consideration. I am pleased the Deputy had a constructive meeting with my colleague, the Minister for enterprise, in relation to that. I also thank Deputy Nash for acknowledging the work that my Department has carried out in this area and the work the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment also has. That is a recognition by us that these are issues that merit consideration. The Deputies will be aware that last year, an independent review of share-based remuneration was carried out by Indecon on behalf of my Department, which was published last year. This review, which included a public consultation, considered EOTs, and makes a recommendation pertaining specifically to this matter, suggesting that there is "merit in considering reforming the taxation of employee ownership trusts in line with the treatment of such arrangements in the UK." The Deputies have contrasted the current situation here with the situation in the UK in their comments. The term employee ownership trusts does not appear in Chapter 2 of Part 17, or Schedule 12 of the Taxes Consolidation Act. However, as alluded to by the recommendation of the Indecon review, preferential tax treatment exists for EOTs in the UK. Preferential tax treatment is not available for these structures in Ireland. That is the issue people are trying to tease through. I want Deputies to know consideration is being given to all recommendations arising from the review, and my officials have engaged with relevant stakeholder groups in this regard. As was discussed on Committee Stage of this Bill, Department officials have met with representatives of the Irish Pro-Share Association, IPSA, to discuss industry proposals on employee ownership trusts in recent months. Following these discussions, I am informed by officials that changes to discretionary trust tax, capital gains tax, which was referenced here, and to the close company surcharge, have been raised by stakeholders as potential necessary amendments to the tax acts to facilitate EOTs. As part of any consideration of amendments to the tax Acts in light of this recommendation, we need to analyse and evaluate both the potential benefits and Exchequer costs of implementing changes to facilitate the establishment of EOTs, in line with my Department’s guidelines for tax expenditure evaluation. Generally speaking, and I will make this point alongside what I have already said, the Deputies will appreciate the decision to adopt an EOT, or similar structure, is a strategic decision for any individual business or company. Many other factors can also influence this decision that are ultimately outside my remit or the remit of my Department. My sense in terms of how we best take this forward now is that, given that the Indecon review of share-based remuneration considered and made recommendations on EOTs, and that my Department is currently engaging with relevant stakeholders in this regard, I am not sure it is necessary to carry out a further review on this matter. However, I accept it is necessary to have further engagement on the matter. I would be happy to meet with Deputy Lawlor, as he requested. I am happy to engage with interested Deputies, including the three who have spoken on this amendment and to keep them up to date with our stakeholder engagement.

Sentiment score: 0.36

I thank Deputies Doherty, Conway-Walsh and Ward for this amendment. Let me first read out some of the factual answer for the record and then I will try to engage on some of the issues being raised. Two amendments have been grouped and we are discussing amendment No. 4, which calls for tax-based measures to support rental property activation in areas affected by defective concrete blocks. Deputy Doherty referred to amendment No. 11 as the substantive amendment in terms of its effect being the disapplication of income tax, USC and PRSI from rental income received by a landlord where a property is being let to a person who is an applicant under the defective concrete blocks scheme. I appreciate there are real, unique difficulties faced by homeowners forced to vacate their homes temporarily because of this issue. That is probably an understatement. I did not meet people yesterday - I was not in a position to do so – but I have met people in Donegal who are affected by this. I cannot imagine the horror people are facing. This is the reason the defective concrete blocks scheme provides for up to up to €27,500 for alternative accommodation costs, storage costs and immediate repair works for eligible relevant owners who are yet to receive a determination in respect of remediation options and grant amounts. I also acknowledge these homeowners may face great difficulties in the face of shortfalls in the local rental accommodation supply. That is the issue the Deputies are trying to constructively engage on. We are committed to trying to address issues with this scheme. Even today at Cabinet, we had proposals in relation to legislation on defective concrete blocks that will come to the House next week. We have approved the priority drafting of the remediation of dwellings damaged by the use of defective concrete blocks (amendment) Bill, which will include details of the wider group of relevant owners who can avail of the increases. A number of additional amendments to the legislation are also proposed, including changes to payments of ancillary grants, whereby they can be applied for when the remediation grant determined has reached the scheme cap, which I think is part of the issue the Deputies were raising. I do not want to misrepresent Deputy Doherty, but one of the issues I think I heard him mention was that some of the schemes in place to enable people to rent a place tax-free up to a certain amount are no longer proving effective, or as effective, because people are there much longer than that amount of money would cover. He referred to a figure of €15,000.

Sentiment score: 0.05

That is a point that merits further consideration by us. While I am not in a position to accept the amendments, there is the legislation coming forward next week and there is also the commitment in terms of the planned review of the scheme. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage will, as required by section 51 of the 2022 Act, carry out a review of the operation of that Act. Legally, that has to start by June of next year and I believe it is now likely to start earlier than that as a result of the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, standards. I will certainly constructively engage, as part of that review, with the Minister on the issues that have been raised in the House this evening.

Sentiment score: 0.36

In truth, this is not about compassion, from our perspective. We feel very seriously and strongly about what people are enduring in relation to this situation. The time available to me is not enough to outline a number of the measures we tried to take to assist. These include significant changes to the current scheme, more legislation to come forward next week, and the review of the scheme that is to take place next year. I hope it will be as early as possible next year. I am genuinely grappling constructively with the point the Deputy made on the idea of the ARP. It is not an unfair point. That scheme is administered by the Department of justice. My Department carries out the tax treatment element of the scheme. It is open to other Departments to consider schemes in relation to this area. I will engage constructively with those line Departments in relation to that. There is going to be a review of the scheme and there will be legislation next week. I will engage constructively with the Minister, Deputy Browne, in this regard. If a Department brings forward a scheme, my Department engages with regard to the tax treatment of that scheme. On the ARP more broadly and with regard to people from Ukraine, we are reducing the level of income that can be generated from that scheme. I would like to see us continue in that direction in light of Deputy Doherty's legitimate points regarding the effect this scheme is having on the rental market. We will engage constructively on this. There will be legislation in the House next week. There will also be a broader review of the scheme. As recently as today, we were considering how we can make further improvements in relation to this horrific humanitarian situation.

Sentiment score: 0.13

I thank Deputy Farrell. The Deputies are requesting a report on the rent tax credit operating in the absence of a cap on rents, and making a direct comparison between the amount of the credit and rent increases. They suggest that the rent tax credit should be complemented by rent caps. There are currently certain limits to rent increases. Rent increases in a rent pressure zone cannot now exceed general inflation. The ESRI published research in 2022 on the positive impact of rent pressure zones. This research found a clear downward trend in rental inflation following the introduction of the rent pressure zone legislation. We have now taken a decision as a Government to ensure that rent pressure zones cover the entire country. When the Government came to office people were wondering if we would continue rent pressure zones but not only did we continue them, we have extended them to the entire country. That benefits counties including Deputy Doherty's that were not previously covered by rent pressure zones. The CSO consumer price index shows that private rents increased by 3.2% on an annual basis in October 2025. This is the tenth month in a row in which the rate of rent inflation has either decreased or remained stable. I know that rents are extraordinarily high for people, but it is now the tenth month in a row in which the rate of rent inflation has either decreased or remained stable. Other steps are also being taken to enhance the security of tenants. They include the introduction of tenancies of minimum duration and further restrictions on no-fault evictions. As Deputies will be aware, we have introduced new comprehensive rental reforms, which will take effect from next March for new tenancies. More broadly, the Government recently published the delivering homes, building communities action plan. Additional supply over time will help to moderate the housing costs in both the purchase and rental sectors. That is why the focus has to continually be on supply. This year, the Government has allocated €6.8 billion to capital expenditure on housing delivery, a more than sixfold increase in just a decade. This will help to moderate the housing costs in both the purchase and rental sectors as additional supply comes on stream. To date, more than 4,500 new cost-rental homes have been delivered since the launch of this tenure through various different channels, including local authority delivery, approved housing body delivery, LDA delivery and through the cost-rental tenant in situ scheme. In relation to increases in the credit, for the years 2022 and 2023 the rent tax credit was valued at a maximum of €500 per single individual and €1,000 per jointly assessed couple. For the years 2024 and 2025 the rent tax credit is valued at a maximum of €1,000 per single individual and €2,000 per jointly assessed couple. The Finance Bill extends the relief for a further three years. We should remember that the relief was due to end but we are now deciding to extend it in this legislation before the House for a further three years. In 2023, which is the latest year for which data are available, 315,000 taxpayer units benefited from the credit. That equates to almost 400,000 individuals benefiting. The extension of the credit in the Bill before the House tonight represents a commitment of approximately €350 million per annum in terms of support for renters. The programme for Government commits to "progressively increase the rent tax credit". That remains a commitment in the programme for Government. The priority this year was to extend the credit for a further three years. I intend to consider further increases to the value of the credit as part of each forthcoming annual budget and finance Bill.

Sentiment score: 0.32

One day, if Deputy Doherty can ever form a Government or can find people in this House who wish to form a Government with him, he will realise that you go out to the people and seek a mandate from the people on your manifesto. You get as many votes and seats as you can in Dáil Éireann. If you do not have enough seats to form a Government, you then seek other parties in the Dáil to work with you. You then sit down together. You bring your policy proposals and they bring their policy proposals and you agree a programme for Government. The programme for Government is then the contract between the people and their Government and the contract between the Government and the Civil Service. It is what we answer for in this House. The programme for Government is very clear in its commitment to progressively increase the rent tax credit during the lifetime of this Government.

Sentiment score: 0.25

That is the answer.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Deputy Doherty has not done it yet.

Sentiment score: 0.00

He put a question to me but he did not wish me to answer it.

Sentiment score: -0.44

The Acting Chair is grand. I say this just for the people watching at home. I did not have an opportunity to answer the question.

Sentiment score: 0.04

That is fine.

Sentiment score: 0.20

I move amendment No. 7: In page 13, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 477C of Principal Act (Help to Buy) 5.Section 477C of the Principal Act is amended, with effect as on and from 26 November 2025, in subparagraph (ii) of the definition in subsection (1) of “qualifying residence”, by the substitution of “paragraph (c) or (cac), as the case may be, of section 46(1)” for “section 46(1)(c)”.”. This amendment, much of which we probably discussed in recent days, endeavours to address an issue that arises with the help to buy scheme, as a consequence of the reduced rate of VAT applying to apartments. At present, section 477C of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 defines "qualifying residence" as one in respect of which the construction work is subject to the 13.5% rate of tax as specified in section 46(1)(c) of the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010. Consequent to the application of the 9% VAT rate to the construction of new apartments, which will be discussed further at amendment No. 31, it is necessary to amend the definition of "qualifying residence" to reflect the change to the rate of VAT. This amendment will ensure that apartments subject to the VAT rate of 9% will remain within the scope of the help to buy scheme.

Sentiment score: 0.13

I acknowledge the very constructive way Deputies Doherty and Cullinane are engaging on this issue. While I am not certain an amendment to the Finance Bill is the way to go about this, I am willing to work with them and maybe the relevant Oireachtas committee, at which I think Members had a decent discussion about this on Committee Stage. From listening to the two Deputies, I think they are pondering how best to address this issue. We have requested more information from the Department of Health because I accept there is a gap here. Deputy Doherty made a fair point about living donors. Section 5 of the Finance Bill relates to compensation payable to a living donor of a kidney or part of a liver under conditions defined by the Minister for Health. This is a payment that is exempt from various taxations and the likes but it is a Department of Health scheme. The Deputies have been at this a long time, but these are generally schemes devised by parent Departments and then my Department advises or assists on the tax treatment piece of the schemes. It is not a matter of passing it to another Department, but it is a discussion for maybe the Department of Health and my Department to have together. On the refundable tax credit - I say this to be helpful on an important matter - the Deputies will be aware that, in advance of budget 2024, the tax strategy group looked in its series of papers at the whole issue of refundable tax credits and outlined its concerns, not only about it being a fundamental change to the personal tax system but, on the other hand, that it would not necessarily assist as many people as we would like in the way we would hope. Based on that, I am not sure this is the best way to go. The Deputies have already acknowledged that there is a tax relief available where an individual proves that he or she has incurred costs in respect of qualifying health expenses. Specifically for home dialysis patients, tax relief may be allowed in respect of the following expenses: electricity, laundry, protective clothing, telephone and travelling. The flat rates available for kidney dialysis patients are operated by Revenue on an administrative basis and are updated annually in line with the consumer price index. Relief is calculated on these flat rates at the standard rate of income tax. Separate to this administrative practice, an individual may claim for the actual vouched costs of healthcare necessarily incurred by them, subject to relevant conditions being met. That, however, is not the point the Deputies are making. The point they are making has to do with people who do not reach the threshold of actually paying tax. Once I get more specific information back from the Department of Health on home dialysis patients, we will forward that to the committee. If taxpayer units with no income tax liability could claim tax relief in respect of health expenses incurred for home dialysis or other health expenses, it would effectively introduce a system of refundable tax credits. That is a debate to have. I think the Deputies are okay with that; we are not sure we are. It could open this up to many more areas. What would be the cost to the Exchequer and so on? We have a bit of thinking to do on this. As was committed to on Committee Stage, the Department of Finance has sought clarification as to what direct expenditure supports are in place, or indeed could be put in place. Once we have that, I will immediately furnish it to the committee, and I am happy to engage on this further in the time ahead.

Sentiment score: 0.27

I am happy to genuinely engage on this and engage with my colleague, the Minister for Health. The Deputies would expect me to say this as a finance Minister, but my sense of this is that it is probably something in the direct expenditure and mapping out space and probably a broader whole-of-government discussion, which I am, of course, a part of, as to how we support people in these situations and whether the tax system is the best way to do it. I take the point. There is a gap no matter how we take this forward. I say the following just to be helpful because the point Deputy Doherty made about people having to wait to get the credits is a real fear people have. I am advised that taxpayers in receipt of PAYE income now have the option to claim tax reliefs in respect of their health expenses during the year via Revenue's real-time credit facility, which can be accessed through a taxpayer's MyAccount. If the taxpayer is putting in a real-time claim, he or she is required to provide receipts at the time of the claim via the receipts tracker. I say that just to be helpful to people who, as the Deputy says, may need to recoup that benefit more quickly.

Sentiment score: 0.40

I thank Deputy Doherty. I will emphasise some of what he said. My Department commissioned Indecon Economic Consultants to carry out an independent review of the share-based remuneration scheme. The review made a number of recommendations pertaining to share-based remuneration and the PRSI exemption. The review found that the PRSI exemption is regarded as an important support for SMEs and other businesses in Ireland. We are all in agreement on that. Recommendation 1 of the review suggests that a cap on the level of the employer PRSI exemption should be considered as part of the process of determining future policy in this area. It is important that we get these calls right, in particular given the volatility in terms of trade and investment currently in the world. We are considering how best to determine future policy in the area. We are considering all of the recommendations made in the review and as part of these considerations, my Department has started engagement with relevant stakeholders. We intend to continue to do that and then decide how to respond to these recommendations. For that reason, I do not consider it necessary to carry out a further report on the PRSI exemption for share-based remuneration at this time. I want to assure the Deputy that work on considering how to respond the recommendations is under way.

Sentiment score: 0.24

I do not want to be overly argumentative because we have a lot to get through, but the amendment is only looking for another report. I am simply saying to people watching that we do not need another report about the report. We need to consider the recommendations of the report. This is an important area to get right for the reasons the Deputy referenced, including competitive advantage that matters to this country in terms of attracting jobs and keeping investment in the country. We will make decisions on the recommendations. We will complete our engagement with stakeholders and I will keep the Oireachtas and relevant committee up to date on our deliberations.

Sentiment score: 0.17

I do acknowledge that.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I move amendment No. 13: In page 29, to delete lines 25 to 28 and substitute the following: “ “ ‘relevant state’ means, as regards the years of assessment 2012 to 2025, the Russian Federation, and as regards the years of assessment 2012 to 2030, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of India, the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of South Africa, and includes—”. While taking this Bill on Report Stage having not taken it on Committee Stage, I want to acknowledge that this issue arose on Committee Stage. From my recollection, Deputies O'Callaghan and Nash and perhaps others highlighted this matter. I thank them for that. While there is a grouping of amendments, on this occasion we are all trying to achieve pretty much the same thing. The foreign earnings deduction, FED, is an income tax relief available to employees who are tax resident in Ireland but who travel out of the State to temporarily carry out duties of their office or employment in certain qualifying countries. By incentivising employees to make overseas trips, the deduction aims to support Irish businesses seeking to develop and expand exports and business in new and emerging markets. The Finance Bill 2025 provides for a number of amendments to the scheme, including a five-year extension to the end of 2030 and, in view of further encouraging market diversification, it also includes an increase to the maximum potential level of relief as well as its extension to the Philippines and Türkiye. As indicated on Committee Stage, officials engaged with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and, following that Department’s analysis and recommendation, an amendment is now being brought forward to rightfully remove Russia as a relevant state for FED. I would note that in 2023, the last year for which Revenue data is available, there were no claims for the deduction for business travel to or time spent working in Russia. The effect of this amendment will be that from 1 January 2026 it will not be possible to claim relief under the FED in respect of time spent working in Russia, bringing the relief into line with the wider Government and Irish policy in this area. As this Report Stage amendment is now being introduced, I will not accept the other amendments. We are all endeavouring to achieve roughly the same thing.

Sentiment score: 0.24

Those are all very fair points. My first response to the question of why Russia was included until now is that I do not honestly know the answer. I do not want to mislead the Dáil but what I can imagine from my involvement in past postings is that as the sanctions regime evolves and do-not-travel notices are issued, we are constantly looking at both the domestic and European levels for more opportunities to tighten up in terms of sanctions that can have an impact economically on Russia. As I said, based on the latest Revenue data, this scheme did not seem to have any Russian claims in 2023 and, therefore, it probably was not seen as particularly, or in any way, impactful as an economic sanction because it was not truly being utilised in that year. If there is any other relevant data from Revenue, I am happy to share it with the finance committee. Deputy O'Callaghan asked an interesting question that I, too, asked, which is why the exclusion is only taking effect from 1 January. The answer is that it would be very difficult to implement a retrospective application. Therefore, we consider a prospective amendment in the Finance Bill, applying from 1 January, is the most practical way to give effect to the provision because of potential legal issues considered in implementing it. It is appropriate as well considering the no previous claims for Russia in 2023. I take the Deputies' points regarding the deduction scheme. I am happy always to keep it under review and it is important that we do so. We published the foreign earnings deduction review on budget day. It found that the policy objective to support Irish businesses seeking to develop exports to new markets remains valid, particularly considering emerging challenges, heightened levels of uncertainty across the global economy and trends towards geoeconomic fragmentation. As colleagues will be aware, the report contained a number of recommendations. We also shared a note with the finance committee relating to any potential concern about misuse of the relief. We reaffirmed to the committee that it is considered that the relief is being availed of appropriately. I acknowledge the Opposition Deputies who raised this issue on Committee Stage. I acknowledge, too, my constituency colleague Deputy Timmins, who also highlighted it. I welcome this rare moment of unanimity in the House on this matter.

Sentiment score: 0.18

I will take amendment Nos. 17 and 18 together. These amendments relate to the temporary reduction applied to the original market value of cars in categories A1 to D, inclusive, and all vans for the purpose of determining the benefit in kind, BIK, payable. The amendments seek to keep the OMV reduction at €10,000 until 31 December 2028, in contrast to what we believe to be the tapering out of the relief provided for in the Bill as it stands. The Government remains committed to the environmental rationale behind the current emissions-based vehicle BIK regime, which has been in operation since the start of 2023. Temporary changes were made in 2023 in light of the inflationary context at the time. It is now appropriate that these changes are gradually phased out and we are trying to avoid a cliff-edge approach in this regard. As part of this Finance Bill, the OMV deduction is being extended for three further years of assessment on a tapered basis to the end of 2028. The OMV will be reduced by €10,000 for the 2026 year of assessment, reducing thereafter to €5,000 for the 2027 year of assessment and €2,500 for the 2028 year of assessment. With the temporary changes made to the BIK regime in recent years, there has been a level of uncertainty for employers when it comes to planning long-term fleet investments. A more strategic approach is required to give policy certainty to employers and employees. The tapering out of the temporary universal relief and the introduction of a new BIK rate for zero-emission cars provide greater long-term certainty in this area. The gradual phase-out of the relief will ensure that by 1 January 2029, BIK will revert to the structure as initially legislated for in the Finance Act 2019. The large-scale transition to electric vehicles is crucial to Ireland meeting its national and EU emissions reduction targets. We often talk about climate action and the importance of transitioning in this House. Continuing to subsidise fossil-fuelled vehicles through the BIK system is incompatible with such ambitious climate action targets. The OMV relief is being extended on a tapered basis in order to provide more time for employers to provide a lower emission car to employees over the next number of years in order to reduce the BIK liability. For the reasons outlined, I do not propose to accept these amendments.

Sentiment score: 0.19

There is a further offset for electric vehicles to try to incentivise the transition to them as well. I take the point the Deputy makes. What we are trying to avoid is a moment of cliff edge. You could have a cliff edge in the here and now or in 2028 but we are trying to adopt a gradual, tapered approach to provide that policy certainty and, over time, incentivise and enable people to move to the lower emission vehicles.

Sentiment score: 0.04

I thank Deputies Doherty and Gould for their contributions. I should point out for clarity these changes in relation to the standard fund threshold were legislated for in the Finance Act 2024. It set out three specific aspects of the SFT regime, one of which was a technical change. The then Minister for Finance did not bring forward further changes to the standard fund threshold above and beyond what was legislated for and outlined last year. In many ways - not to speak for his thinking but I was privy to it as a member of the Government - that was because we did not have an income tax package in this year's budget and it was important to have a balanced approach. Future changes to the SFT will be considered in the context of annual budgets during the lifetime of this Government. For context, I remind Members the SFT was reduced to €2 million in 2014 and has remained at this level since then. During that time there have been significant changes across a range of economic factors, including consumer price inflation and wage inflation. The then Minister therefore considered a targeted and focused examination of the current calibration of the SFT should be carried out. It was not carried out by the Government but by an independent expert, Dr. Donal de Buitléir. He was appointed to lead the examination with support from the Department of Finance. It looked at the current pension landscape, the current calibration of the SFT and the potential impact on recruitment and retention in the public service. I am not being argumentative but when we talk about these people, this is about roles in the public service and making sure we can recruit and retain people in the public service, including in senior positions involved in the security of the State and the running of public services. The purpose of the amendment, and of the identical one proposed on Committee Stage, is to require the preparation of a report on the costs of increasing the SFT to €2.8 million. My understanding is my predecessor explained there are difficulties in costing the changes to the SFT, perhaps for some of the reasons the Deputy outlined, in particular that information on the numbers and values of individual funds or on individual accrued benefits in pension schemes are not generally required to be supplied to Revenue. There is, therefore, no underlying data available to Revenue on which to base reliable estimates. The Minister made that clear on Committee Stage. Consequently, the Department prepared indicative estimated costs based on the information available and shared those with the Deputy and others in the House in response to parliamentary questions, most recently on 21 October. The then Minister also gave a perspective on these costings during the Committee Stage debate, including a commitment to provide whatever information could be gathered in relation to the number of persons in 2023 who have availed of the option to pay it over 20 years. In this regard information was supplied by the NSSO on this matter. The information that was supplied is independent of politics and is the best information available. Using the model, the indicative estimated costing of increasing the standard fund threshold is as follows: for 2026, the indicative costing is €10.5 million, for 2027 the indicative costing is €14.5 million, for 2028 the indicative costing is €8 million and for 2029 the indicative costing is €5 million. While the change in the SFT for 2030 is not set and will depend on the changes in earnings over the period from 2025 to 2029, an estimated cost of €500,000 has been included in the costing for this change. I would note that these estimated costs do not take account of behavioural changes - which is a legitimate point the Deputy raises - and are based on a reduction of the current CET yield. Any assessment of behavioural changes would be highly speculative and I am not convinced of the value of such an exercise. I will be considering the future impact of the SFT recommendations in the context of future budgets.

Sentiment score: 0.20

I have.

Sentiment score: 0.00

That is largely the point I was going to make. I am not unsympathetic to the important issues Deputy Gould raises. I see them in my own constituency. I deal with people like that every day in my role as a public representative in Wicklow and a Member of this House since 2011. That is why we took a number of measures to address child poverty and working family poverty in the budget. I will not have time to outline them and it would not be relevant to this amendment to do so but we took a number of decisions in respect of the working family payment, payments in relation to children and increases to social welfare. We made sure that all of the new expenditure measures in the budget were progressive. As the Deputy would acknowledge, we also did not bring forward additional legislative measures in this Finance Bill for some of the reasons he has mentioned such as the pressures that other workers in our economy are other. I will make any future considerations in relation to the SFT in the context of future annual budgets.

Sentiment score: 0.06

It was legislated for.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I move amendment No. 20: In page 36, to delete lines 19 and 20. I believe this to be largely a technical or cleaning-up amendment. As Deputies who addressed this Bill on Committee Stage will recall, there was a commencement provision included in section 28 to allow for state aid approval for the extension of the scheme as it comes under the agricultural block exemption regulation. The commencement provision is no longer required as the necessary consent from the European Commission for the extension of the measure has now been received. Therefore, this amendment removes the commencement provision because it is no longer required. The extension of scheme will now take effect from 1 January 2026.

Sentiment score: -0.06

The Deputy's initial analysis is somewhat right. He has the corporate memory to be able to go back to the then Minister, Michael Noonan. This scheme has not seen a very significant level of uptake. We have been trying to examine ways in which more people could benefit from this scheme, which brings properties back into use. Across the political spectrum, we all share the objective of trying to use every bit of underutilised capacity we can to provide housing. The Bill provides for substantial changes to the living cities initiative. The Deputy has noted the scale of the reform and the expansion of the scheme. These are significant changes but they are consistent with our policy intent. The changes were carefully considered and have built-in restrictions to limit the amount of relief that can be claimed. There is a €300,000 limit placed on an undertaking, which may include a business or landlord, availing of the scheme by the state aid de minimis regulation. To facilitate greater uptake of the measure, the Bill removes the restriction on connected persons to broaden the reach of the relief. This will mean that a person connected with a developer of rented residential or commercial property within the scheme will be in a position to retain the property for the purpose of letting, but it should be noted that the state aid cap will still apply over a rolling three-year period. In addition, the relief for income taxpayers is within the scope of the high earners' restriction, and any capital allowances remaining unused at the end of the tax life of the building will be terminated. A number of other features of the scheme implicitly set an upper limit on the Exchequer cost in respect of residential premises, including that the local authority must issue a letter of certification confirming that the cost of the refurbishment seems reasonable. It is a good question as to what towns are included or not included. Many Deputies have made representations for other towns to be added, although not on the record of this House. There are always compelling cases. Considering that this is a significant expansion, what we have decided to do is to utilise the towns identified as the five regional centres in the national planning framework. This is a scheme that I would not rule out extending to further areas in the future. That is the rationale behind what we are doing. I believe there are enough safeguards built in. As the Deputy rightly implied, as the take-up has been so low to date, the policy aim has been to increase uptake in the first instance. We will monitor it and see how it goes this year and in future finance Bills.

Sentiment score: 0.17

In the early days of my time in this office, I agree with the Deputy's broader point on spending reviews, not monetising every problem and making sure there is value for money. I will engage with colleagues in relation to that as well. I also acknowledge, and Deputy Doherty made this point earlier, and I was not saying it to be discourteous, that the way the rules of this place work is that people request reports by way of an amendment, but often they do that to vocalise their opposition to or, the odd time, their support for a measure coming forward. I do not believe a report into this matter in the Finance Bill per se is the best way to proceed. Let me deal with the substance of the issues Deputy O'Callaghan raises and share my perspective on them. We do take all decisions regarding taxation measures in line with our Department's tax expenditure valuation guidelines. These guidelines do make clear that any policy proposal that involves tax expenditure should only occur in limited circumstances where there are demonstrable market failures and where a tax-based incentive is deemed more efficient than a direct expenditure intervention. I have been making this point. We know we have different political viewpoints on this but we do have a significant number of apartment developments or planning permission for apartments. In this city alone there are more than 40,000 that people who build apartments have deemed unviable to construct currently. What we are trying to do here is reduce the viability gap through a number of ways. This is just one way by which we are trying to do it. The guidelines on tax expenditure valuations were most recently updated in 2024. They also set out the criteria that should be considered as part of the reviews of tax expenditures as well. Targeted tax incentives to encourage people to build more apartments and increased capital investment in infrastructure to support new schemes form the main housing measures of budget 2026. The root cause of viability issues in relation to apartments is structurally high costs. Accordingly, sustainable progress on improving viability requires a relentless focus on cost reduction that maximises private sector participation. We can all have our views on the profit levels of companies and everything else, but at the end of the day, we need these companies to build apartments. That also has to be effected. If they are not building today, they have decided it is not viable to build from their commercial proposition. Do we do something to make it viable or do we just not concern ourselves with that? I believe we seek to make those developments viable because we want people to have an opportunity to be able to access those homes. Where data exists in relation to the Exchequer cost of tax relief for housing market development, its is publicly available and is included in the Department of Finance report on tax expenditures published annually in advance of the budget, as well as in Revenue's publication on the cost of tax expenditures. The Finance Bill 2025 provides for the changes to the tax system announced on budget day that are intended to complement direct expenditure and capital investment in housing. Going forward, as data becomes available for these new schemes, it will be included in my Department's annual report on tax expenditures. In line with my Department's guidelines for tax expenditure evaluation, any expenditures that are expiring will also be subject to detailed review. These reviews are published by my Department. As the Deputy reminded us, my predecessor committed to continuing to review the interplay of different tax schemes. I, too, commit to doing that. Having regard to the fact that indicative costings have already been prepared and published for the new measures - and, as stated, these will be included in the annual report on tax expenditures going forward and as data becomes available - I do not believe that an additional report is specifically necessary at this time. However, I am happy to engage with the Deputy on the thrust of what he is trying to get at, which is to look at the interplay between the different tax schemes and the benefit involved in terms of advancing the policy objectives. I will undertake to do that. I will also undertake to engage constructively, no doubt at the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitisation and Taoiseach, as this issue arises in the period ahead.

Sentiment score: 0.23

I will endeavour to keep to the amendment at this late hour of the night. I have plenty I could l say about general election promises in other parties' manifestos and where the average price of €300,000 for a home in Dublin is, etc., which was promised by Sinn Féin. We will return to all that another day.

Sentiment score: 0.26

You dropped the promise and clarified it after-----

Sentiment score: 0.32

We will return to all that another day. I am just making the point-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am making the point respectfully-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am making the point respectfully that I sit here and hear wrongful framing and misrepresentation of my party, our manifesto and the general election. I look forward to debating that. As the leader of Fine Gael, I will debate that with the leader of Sinn Féin in due course. I look forward to that opportunity. In relation to the amendment before the House, I do not have a huge amount more to add other than to say that I agree on the need for spending reviews. The Minister, Deputy Chambers, does too. It is something I will take away from the points put forward by Deputy O'Callaghan. While some have been pining for Paschal this evening, and there has been a little bit of "Paschal said this and Paschal said that", Deputy Doherty made the point about budget books being different in the past. I will constructively engage with him and Deputy O'Callaghan on that. Transparency and maximum information for the Oireachtas is a good thing in how we make sense of policy decisions, and each of us doing our job as well. I accept there are many different views on the VAT measure but, from our perspective, it is a measure around viability and supply. The people will judge, at the end of the term of this Government, whether it has had the desired effect or not. It is about reducing the cost of building apartments. That does have benefits for housing supply. I should say, because a lot has been said about people trying to buy homes, that we are, thankfully, this year seeing the highest number of first-time buyers in this country since 2007. We are living through a housing emergency but that statistic should not be ignored.

Sentiment score: 0.22

It is the viability.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Exactly.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I actually did not, in fairness.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I responded to a mirage.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Thank you so much.

Sentiment score: 0.36

The Deputy should withdraw that.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Withdraw that slur. I did not make----

Sentiment score: 0.00

Yesterday, when we took a financial resolution in this House-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

-----I responded and the record of the House shows the response.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I thank the Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Ó Murchú for their good wishes. I acknowledge the input of Members of this House, including those I just mentioned, on matters concerning the audiovisual sector in recent years, including through the examination at the Committee on Budgetary Oversight. My officials have directly engaged with all relevant representative bodies in the sector, including those representing crew, cast, and producers, to understand the issues affecting the audiovisual sector and to try to chart a pathway forward. The attention brought to issues in the sector by representative bodies, and by Members of this House, has contributed to real progress being achieved on many fronts. A key point for all of us to understand is there is a copyright directive on related legislation, which established overarching principles, in this case, the right to appropriate and proportional remuneration. The details of what exactly that entails, for example, the balance of remuneration between upfront daily rates and potential profit sharing post-release and differences between large and small productions need to be agreed between representative bodies in the industry with the overarching protection of the legislative proposals. In January 2025, an interim set of guidelines relating to copyright was agreed by a number of stakeholders in the sector in Ireland. This is a very welcome development and one I hope will lead to a permanent agreement in the sector. It is my understanding that stakeholders still continue to work proactively together and the group is working collectively on the next level of detail on the operations of the oversight committee, which will result in the implementation of these guidelines and a best practice approach to reporting. An Irish negotiated agreement, built upon the foundations already laid with the agreement of the interim set of guidelines is the best course for the sector to take. Copyright law falls within the remit of the Department of the Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. Copyright is relevant for many workers in the film sector, whether they are authors, producers, broadcasters and performers, and there are complex legal issues involved. Deputies may be aware, from previous discussions in the House and during Committee Stage of this Bill, and what I just outlined a moment ago, that a process is under way to address these issues. An independent facilitator was retained by Screen Ireland in 2023 to meet with a group of key stakeholders to identify and understand issues relevant to the digital Single Market directive, referred to as the copyright directive. As a result of that we have gotten to the point in relation to interim best practice industry guidelines while they pursue a path towards a collective bargaining agreement. There are clear precedents for this form of progress in the sector. Deputies will be aware that there has been significant progress in the terms and conditions provided to film workers over the last number of years, including negotiated crew agreements for film and construction crew. For example, the construction crew agreement, in addition to setting pay rates, provides for the extension of coverage for pension, sick leave and other benefits to industry construction workers under the construction workers pension scheme. It also provided for the establishment of a joint monitoring structure that helps to ensure the agreement is appropriately implemented. It is appropriate for legal rights to be linked only to one set of circumstances, and I know that is not what the Deputies are hoping to achieve. We should not link legal rights only to a situation where a company avails of a tax credit. It is very important to recognise that the laws that underpin copyright apply regardless of whether a company applies for section 481, and they must apply equally. A company cannot choose to disapply the provisions of the copyright directive just because it is not applying for an allowance under the section 481. I acknowledge the constructive way in which this was put forward. I also acknowledge the work in this House and by Members, including Deputy Ó Snodaigh, has been very helpful in this regard but I am informed that good progress is being made and I do want an Irish negotiated agreement. We will continue to monitor this closely.

Sentiment score: 0.40

I thank the Deputies. We have a thriving audiovisual and film sector. Deputy Ó Snodaigh made that point. It is a good thing for our country, but at the same time we also want to make sure it is working well and working well for workers and that workers' rights are always to the fore. We have seen genuine progress in stakeholders engaging with the interim guidelines and I would like a full Irish negotiated agreement. I understand why the Deputies are bringing this up, and they are quite right in bringing it up in the Finance Bill because of the application of section 481. However, the issues the Deputies are rightly highlighting relate to employment rights. We have taken a number of steps in previous Finance Acts to reinforce the importance of adhering to employment rights legislation, including the Finance Act 2018, which amended the certification process to require that an undertaking for compliance with all relevant employment legislation is signed, that a skills development plan for workers on the production submitted and agreed, and the certification process provides that the Minister for culture, after considering the application applying a set of tests may issue a cultural certificate as well. A lot of this also falls down to how we ensure that rights are upheld. Certainly, on the foot of this debate, I will send a copy of the transcript to the Ministers for Culture, Communications and Sport and Enterprise, Tourism and Employment because organisations in the State have a statutory obligation regarding employment legislation and workers' rights. I acknowledge the point about when a production is finished, the company can disappear. My understanding is that the DAC must stay in existence for at least 12 months after the end of the production. Valid issues have been raised. I do not wish to link the issue of legal and employment rights to the application of section 481 of a Finance Act, but I do not dismiss the points the Deputy has made and I will undertake to carry out the actions I have set out.

Sentiment score: 0.23

The restriction on the amount of loss relief available to NAMA-participating institutions, which was introduced by the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009, as Deputy Doherty correctly recalls, limited the offset of losses carried forward to a maximum of 50% of the trading profits for each accounting period. The cap only affected the timing of the relief; it did not affect the overall quantum of relief, with restricted losses in any given year being carried forward to subsequent years. The only remaining NAMA-participating banks are Bank of Ireland and AIB. As tax losses forward are included as a deferred tax asset on a company's balance sheet, this restriction meant those assets would have stayed on the bank's balance sheets for longer. When the restriction was introduced in 2009, the Government had limited involvement in the banking system. However, by the introduction of the Finance Bill 2013, the State had acquired substantial shareholdings in the banking sector, specifically, 99.8% of AIB and 15% of Bank of Ireland. Furthermore, as a result of the EU's capital requirements directive, CRD, IV rules, deferred tax assets in respect of trading losses were no longer to be considered core tier 1 capital. Taking these factors into account, the restriction no longer served its original purpose and, indeed, worked against the Irish taxpayer. It created the risk that the accounting value of these tax losses could be reduced on foot of auditor recommendations, which would impact negatively on the State's equity investments. It increased the risk the State might have had to put more capital into one or more of the participating institutions as a result. That was the advice available to the Government of the day. The repeal of the loss restriction shortened the timeframe over which the losses were likely to be used and greatly reduced the deduction from capital required under CRD IV. It put the institutions in a stronger position when being assessed by regulators and investors and reduced the risk of a future requirement for State support. Deputy Doherty asked a specific question about the length of time for which AIB intended to utilise the losses. The information available to me, according to the most recent financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2024, is that Bank of Ireland projected it to be utilised in full by the end of 2028, Permanent TSB in approximately 12 years and AIB in less than ten years. However, it should be noted that this is tied to growth and a decrease in growth will result in the utilisation period increasing by approximately one year. That is the latest information available to me. As Deputies are aware, corporation tax relief is a long-standing feature of the Irish corporate tax system. It is a standard feature of corporation tax systems in most OECD countries. It recognises that a business cycle runs over several years and beyond and that tax income earned in one year will not allow relief for losses incurred in another. In 2018, officials from my Department produced a detailed technical note for the then Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach on the subject of both bank losses and corporation tax losses more generally. The technical note considered in some detail the potential implications of restricting the use of losses carried forward or the introduction of a specific time limit on loss relief as they might apply to Irish banks, the wider banking sector or, indeed, the corporate sector as a whole. Among other considerations, it examined the possible effect of such a restriction on consumers, with the probability that an increased cost base for the banks would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees and interest rates on loans or lower deposit rates. It also considered potential effects on competition within the banking sector in Ireland, which is a factor of increasing relevance as banks have since left the Irish market. The paper also noted potential negative consequences for capital levels in the banks, with possible resulting regulatory impacts. In the case of the banks, it is also important to acknowledge that the value of these tax losses to the State has been and will continue to be realised through share sales. The banks' share prices recognise a certain value for the tax losses and, as such, the State receives value for the balance of tax losses if share sales are completed. As we all know, the State retains approximately a 57.5% shareholding in Permanent TSB. Reference was made to what other countries do. While other jurisdictions may have restrictions on loss relief, direct comparisons are of limited value. This is due to the tax system in Ireland being a scheduler system of taxation in which income and gains are divided into different categories based on resource. Under this system, losses carried forward can only be used against profits from the same source. In many other jurisdictions, the tax system allows losses carried forward to be used to produce taxable income from other income sources. Therefore, Ireland's loss relief system includes features that are more restrictive than in other countries, notwithstanding that we do not have a cap or a sunset clause. I say all this in full acknowledgement that this was an extraordinarily painful time in our country for which many people - in fact, almost every person in every community in the country - paid a heavy price. Deputy Gould is right to remind us of the human cost and consequences of the failures of our banks in the past. The decisions made by Governments at that time, with the Deputy referencing from 2013 onwards, were guided by the best advice available, which was given to Governments by the Department of Finance and others, in terms of how to endeavour to provide some degree of protection to the taxpayer in what was a most horrifically difficult period.

Sentiment score: -0.06

The advice available to me is that the proposed amendment would possibly have a negative effect on consumers. I accept that is not Deputy Doherty's intent but there is the probability of an increased cost base for the banks, which would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees and interest rates on loans or lower deposit rates. Therefore, our view, as per the advice available to me, is that the effect of this, albeit inadvertent, would be negative for consumers in Ireland. That is not something I want to do.

Sentiment score: -0.13

That is not true.

Sentiment score: -0.33

The Deputy presumed to deliver my lines. Let me have a go at responding to him. First, as we have discussed, and I understand and acknowledge that this is how the rules of the House work, nobody is about to vote on anything other than an amendment to have a report on mineral oil tax. We need to be honest about the effect of this. No matter what way anybody votes, this is an amendment to request a report on mineral oil tax. It will not help anybody tomorrow in Cavan-Monaghan or elsewhere across the country. Mineral oil tax comprises a non-carbon and a carbon component, commonly referred to as the carbon tax. Legislation passed by this House provides for multi-annual increases to the carbon component of the mineral oil tax. I assume the Deputies are requesting a report on legislated increases in the carbon tax, including a distributional impact analysis of same. As they will be aware, the programme for Government committed to continue with the planned carbon tax increases, aligning with recommendations from the Climate Change Advisory Council and scientific experts, and to use the resulting revenues raised to support climate action measures and ensure the most vulnerable benefit from those measures and are protected from unintended impacts of the tax increase. This includes funding for retrofitting but also agri-environmental schemes, alongside targeted social welfare and other initiatives to prevent fuel poverty and ensure a just transition. These measures are designed to be progressive. To give effect to the programme for Government commitment to protect the vulnerable, a targeted package of social protection interventions has been developed. This was informed by ESRI research that was commissioned to address this specific issue. The allocation from within agreed expenditure allocations for 2026 is more than €1.1 billion, which is an additional €163 million on the previous budget. A total of €350 million of this is allocated to targeted social protection interventions. The Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation issues an annual publication on budget day entitled The Use of Carbon Tax Funds. This contains further detail on these allocations and includes information on the programmes funded from carbon tax revenues. Analysis undertaken using SWITCH, the ESRI's tax and benefit model, to simulate the impact of the carbon tax increase and the compensatory welfare package, estimates that the net impact of the combined measures is progressive. Half of households are better off due to the measures part-funded by additional carbon tax funds, with households in the bottom four income deciles benefiting the most. Furthermore, as part of budget 2026, my Department published the Beyond GDP - Quality of Life Assessment report. This publication complements economic and fiscal analyses with an assessment of qualify-of-life indicators. The report looks at a wider set of indicators that contribute to well-being, such as environmental, income and wealth distribution, and equality indicators and documents, to see how Ireland is performing in these areas. The taxation of fossil fuel products was also recently examined in the tax strategy group paper, Energy, Environmental and Vehicle Tax, published by the Department of Finance in July. All budget day publications and tax strategy group papers are publicly available. Therefore, I believe there are sufficient reports available in this area and there is no need for an additional report. As my colleague, the Chief Whip, pointed out, there are lots of benefits in this budget for people and families right across the country. Deputies opposite seem to find that funny but I do not think it is funny at all; it is important.

Sentiment score: 0.16

It is about the record level of funding for disability and health services, making sure we were able to increase the State pension and ensuring more people qualify for the carer's allowance. People in the Deputies' constituencies benefit from those measures.

Sentiment score: 0.57

No matter how much they wish to reduce the budget to a conversation simply about one element of economic policy in terms of the cost of living, every measure in the budget, right across Departments, is about trying to help people in this country. Indeed, there are many measures in areas Deputies highlighted and where they asked for increased spending. They have seen today, with the publication of the national development plan and revised plans for transport. Tomorrow, in regard to childcare, which the Deputies regularly raise with me, I look forward to seeing very significant capital investment in State-led childcare funding, and more disability capital funding as well.

Sentiment score: 0.32

As Deputies would expect, I reject how they frame our budget.

Sentiment score: -0.40

I move amendment No. 31: In page 97, to delete lines 36 and 37, and in page 98, to delete lines 1 to 19 and substitute the following: “ “Supply and construction of housing as part of a social policy. 9B. (1) In this paragraph— ‘apartment block’ means a multi-storey building that comprises, or will comprise, not less than 3 apartments with grouped or common access; ‘completed’ has the same meaning as it has in section 94. (2) The supply of immovable goods, as part of a social policy, which are or, when completed, will be— (a) one or more than one apartment, used or to be used for residential purposes, in an apartment block, or (b) an apartment block, used or to be used for residential purposes, but excluding any part of the apartment block that is not used or to be used for residential purposes. (3) Services consisting of the development, until completed, of immovable goods to which subparagraph (2) applies.”, (ii) in Part 3, by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 14 (amended by subsection (1)(b)(ii)): “Housing. 14. The supply of immovable goods used or to be used for residential purposes, other than immovable goods to which paragraph 9A or 9B(2), as the case may be, applies.”,”. As I noted earlier, this section which was amended on Committee Stage provides for a temporary 9% rate of VAT in respect of the supply and construction of apartments and apartment blocks, as per our social policy. The temporary 9% rate of VAT on the supply of apartments came into effect on budget night, but the extension to the construction of apartments and supply and construction of apartment blocks, including student accommodation, came into effect today. The 9% rate will apply until 31 December 2030. The VAT treatment of goods and services is subject to EU VAT law, with which Irish VAT law is required to comply. In general, the EU VAT directive provides that all goods and services are liable to VAT at the standard rate, which, in Ireland is currently 23%, unless they come within provisions that permit the application of a lower rate. Under the EU VAT directive, member states may apply a reduced rate to the supply and construction of housing as part of a social policy. Ireland has currently two reduced rates – 13.5% and 9%. In order to stimulate the development of apartments, which is high-density housing, it has been decided, on social policy grounds, to apply the second reduced rate of 9% to the supply and construction of apartments and apartment blocks. The legislation around VAT and property is complex. As such, I am bringing forward some further amendments to this section to ensure that the text is in line with VAT legislation and that it achieves the policy intention of the measure. It should be noted that the amendments brought forward on Committee and Report Stages do not increase the estimated cost of the measures because the changes do remain in line with the original policy intention. As data on actual sales of apartments is received, the Estimates may be revised over the coming years. My officials will continue to monitor the relevant data as it becomes available. Affordability and the chance to own a home lie at the heart of our housing policy. The Government has introduced a comprehensive implementation strategy, which is in place to support the various affordable housing schemes now being delivered by a range of partners. A record €6 billion capital investment in housing was announced in budget 2025. This is made up of €3.1 billion in Exchequer funding, €1.25 billion allocated to the Land Development Agency and €1.65 billion for the Housing Finance Agency. This is the highest ever capital investment in the history of our country. In order to meet the housing needs of our people, however, there needs to be private sector involvement too. Private sector involvement is not a dirty phrase. It is important as we seek to increase the supply of homes right across this country. That is what this VAT measure does. It endeavours to reduce the viability gap that those who build apartments face when considering whether to advance projects across the country that have planning permission but where the sale of apartments may not have been deemed viable. That simply is what this is about. Over the course of the past number of days we have taken measures to ensure that this reduced VAT rate applies to student accommodation, an issue that I know is very important to the Minister for further and higher education, making sure that the lower rate of VAT will also apply to purpose-built student accommodation and to approved housing bodies. This measure, which is consistently and constantly misrepresented by others, will actually have a benefit for people building social and affordable homes and student accommodation. We have also made a change in the resolution that came before the House yesterday - obviously, it is linked to these VAT amendments - to make sure that the help to buy scheme can continue to be accessed by first-time buyers who are purchasing apartments that have been built at the lower rate. This measure cannot be seen in isolation. It is one of a number of measures we are taking to reduce the viability gap. While we are living through a housing emergency and while many measures to address that are being taken to address by the Minister for housing, Deputy Browne, and all of Government, it is worth noting that we have seen the highest number of first-time home buyers this year since 2007. This latest measure needs to be seen as part of the overall policy jigsaw that has been put together to significantly increase supply. I commend the amendment to the House.

Sentiment score: 0.07

No, I did not.

Sentiment score: -0.30

Read the transcript.

Sentiment score: 0.00

It does reduce the cost of apartments.

Sentiment score: 0.00

It does reduce the cost of apartments.

Sentiment score: 0.00

It does reduce the cost of constructing apartments.

Sentiment score: 0.00

The 15th report.

Sentiment score: 0.00