Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

My apologies. This section in general deals with the issue of people working from home. It provides for a formalisation of the tax arrangements for employees who are working from home. This means that from 1 January 2022, an income tax deduction amounting to 30% of the cost of vouched expenses for heat, electricity and internet services income can be claimed, apportioned on the basis of the number of days worked.

While I welcome the moves to encourage and facilitate working from home arrangements, I have a few questions and comments on this section. I want to tease this out a bit because many people who are working from home are dealing with increased costs. I am not opposing the section; I just want to tease it out. I am interested to hear the Minister's view on the points I wish to raise. Some businesses provide equipment to employees to enable home working. For example, I previously worked in a bank which made laptops available to employees. The cost to businesses of items such as computers or office furniture qualify for a deduction through the capital allowances regime but in this Bill, there is no provision to allow workers to claim a tax deduction for expenditure on equipment used for remote working purposes. There is also no provision to extend relief to desk hire in remote working hubs. I ask the Minister to explain the rationale for this. I am very interested to hear his view on the matter. It should also be noted that the process for claiming the deduction can be quite burdensome. Recent figures from the Revenue Commissioners show that only one in ten remote workers claimed the relief. I ask the Minister to consider changing the relief to ensure that applications and claims are easier to make. Of course, it could be the case that many people are not aware of the relief and that raising it here might improve awareness but it does seem that the application process is quite burdensome for many.

The cost of this relief is being borne by the taxpayer and the State. The National Competitiveness and Productivity Council has prepared a report on the potential savings that may arise for employers from remote working. It finds that a move away from large scale headquarters in expensive city centre locations not only provides cost savings for firms in terms of office rental or acquisition, it also potentially reduces related costs like electricity, lighting, heating, cleaning and catering. A lot of businesses and companies are moving towards remote working or a hybrid model. Despite these savings, the State is bearing the cost of remote working. I am not saying that I am against these provisions but I wish to tease out the issues involved.

In Portugal, new laws require employers with more than ten employees to share the cost of remote working. Does the Minister accept that with this measure we are giving employers a bit of a free pass in view of the fact that in some instances they will benefit financially from the shift to remote working? It could be argued that workers who cannot work from home, like nurses and other front-line workers, cannot avail of such arrangements and are subsidising, through the tax system, working from home arrangements for those who potentially earn higher incomes. I also want to raise the fact that there is no tax relief for travelling expenses incurred by workers travelling to their place of work. Does the Minister accept that there is an issue of equity in terms of enhancing tax relief for workers working from home without addressing the costs incurred by those who do not have that option? Will he agree to a wider review of travel and subsistence reimbursements in that context, including the costs that should potentially be borne by employers?

I did not get the opportunity to speak on amendment No. 9, which relates to SARP, because it was not moved. I welcome the calls for a report on SARP. We often hear that the programme is necessary in order to attract top talent or retain existing talent, but the burden of proof is left with the employer that is actually benefiting from this tax subsidy. Why not give Revenue the opportunity to seek proof from employers and employees or would-be employees that the presence of SARP was the determining factor for employees who also received job offers in other jurisdictions? I would be quite surprised if that could be demonstrated. It is unfortunate that amendment No.9 will not be voted on today.