Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)

I support the amendment from Deputy O'Callaghan. It is something we have raised ourselves on many occasions. It is a fundamental shift in relation to how taxation would apply but it looks at the issue of fairness. I was going to raise an issue regarding section 5 of the Bill but it may be appropriate to mention it here when we are dealing with the issue of refundable tax credits and particularly the Minister's comments regarding direct expenditure being the most appropriate way to support certain individuals. The issue is that this is not the case at the minute. If we look at amendment No. 4, it looks at refundable tax credits and "making personal tax credits refundable for low-income earners". If we look outside of personal tax credits and look at what else is available through the taxation system, there is a wide range of ways that we have, over many years, used the taxation system to support individuals who are in challenging difficulties. We know that from, perhaps not the tax credits but looking at it from the flat-rate expenses, that we do it for employees who are going to work and have to buy PPE and whatever but we also do it for individuals such as, for example, disabled drivers. The issue I was going to raise in section 5 was in respect of kidneys, that is, kidney donors. I have a connected person who would not benefit from this issue but is in a similar situation. If we take as an example that you are working and are currently going through home dialysis, you can avail of a flat-rate expense in excess of €4,000 for electricity costs because you have a machine that is going for about eight hours every single day and it costs electricity. Therefore, the taxation system has recognised that there is a flat-rate expense there in excess of €4,000 to assist you in terms of those additional costs. There are additional telephone costs and laundry costs because there are a lot of issues there. At this point, if you are one of the unfortunate people, including children, who have kidney disease and are doing home dialysis, you can benefit. Home dialysis is of huge benefit to the health system and it is great that this technology exists and that there are hundreds now doing it. If you are working you will get a flat-rate expense in excess of €7,000, which means that the benefit to you is about €2,800 in after-tax income. If you are not working you get none of that - not a penny - and that is not fair. In some cases, there will be a situation where people were working but because they are going through dialysis and chronic kidney disease they are not in a position to work.

I agree with what the Minister has said to a certain degree as regards direct expenditure being the best way to support these individuals but that is not the system we have. We have a system that has looked at the taxation code to be able to support different individuals at different times, and rightly so, but it leaves out so many others. There is an issue even for people who are currently working, just to take that situation of home dialysis as an example. The problem with that is people may not get that allowance until next year and their bills are increasing now. We all know the rip-off costs in electricity. There is a real issue here. Taking two people living side by side who are on home dialysis, one is supported by the State through taxation costs and because of their illness an additional need is recognised by the State. The other person, who may be working part-time but does not have a tax liability, is not able to benefit from that. That is not good or fair. That is our taxation code. Refundable tax credits would address that. This is not a credit; it is an allowance but the refundable nature of this would allow for that. We have to find a way of dealing with this. This is just one example of this but there are numerous other examples. These are individuals who would not be entitled to medical cards and so on. These are real pressures that are on the system at this point. The system needs a proper overview of how we are using the taxation code to assist individuals. That is fine in terms of assisting individuals. However, who does it leave behind? That is what is at the core of Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment. How can we ensure that those who are left behind are not left behind? It is not fair that just because a person is in employment that allows for a tax liability that one person on home dialysis is supported to the tune of nearly €3,000 by the State and another person is not. I do not think that was ever the intention. The intention behind bringing forward these types of flat-rate expenses is a good intention. It is about supporting people but people are being left behind in this regard. This a very real issue that exists now but there are many others. That is just one example I wanted to bring up because we are dealing with human donors in section 5. I may revisit that at that stage. However, there are other examples in the taxation code. I mentioned disabled drivers but there are other measures. Incapacitated tax credits are another example. Children are not supported if there is not a tax liability there. There are many examples where the taxation code does a really good thing to support individuals who have health conditions in particular, or disabilities, but so many people are not able to avail of that because they do not have a tax liability.