Dáil debates

Tuesday, 13 October 2015

Financial Resolution No. 4: Income Tax

 

8:20 pm

Photo of Richard BrutonRichard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

(1) THAT, for the purposes of the employment and investment incentive and seed capital scheme, Part 16 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (No. 39 of 1997) be amended with effect from, and in respect of shares issued on or after, 13 October 2015 as follows:(a) in section 488(1)—
(i) by deleting the definitions of “average relevant amount” and “average threshold amount”,

(ii) in the definition of “eligible shares” by substituting “the relevant period” for “the period of 3 years beginning on the date on which they are issued”,

(iii) by substituting the following for the definition of “qualifying employee”:
‘qualifying employee’, in relation to a qualifying company, means an employee (within the meaning of section 983), other than a director, of that company—

(i) who throughout his or her period of employment with that company is employed by that company for at least 30 hours duration per week, and

(ii) his or her employment is capable of lasting at least 12 months;”,

and
(iv) by inserting the following definitions:
“ ‘qualifying nursing home’ means –
(a) a nursing home within the meaning of section 2 of the Health (Nursing Homes) Act 1990 and which is registered under section 4 of that Act, and

(b) where applicable, a qualifying residential unit constructed on the site of, and operated by, a nursing home within the meaning of paragraph (a),

but does not include any nursing home or qualifying residential unit which is subject to any power on the exercise of which the nursing home or residential units, or any part or interest in the nursing home or residential units, may be revested in the person from whom it was purchased or exchanged or in any person on behalf of such person;
''qualifying residential unit’ means a house which—
(a) is constructed on the site of, or on a site which is immediately adjacent to the site of, a registered nursing home,

(b) is—
(i) a single storey house, or

(ii) a house that is comprised in a building of one or more storeys in relation to which building a fire safety certificate under Part III of the Building Control Regulations 1997 (S.I. No. 496 of 1997) is required, and prior to the commencement of the construction works on the building, is granted by the building control authority (within the meaning of of the ) in whose functional area the building is situated where—
(I) the house is, or (as the case may be) the house and the building in which it is comprised are, designed and constructed to meet the needs of persons with disabilities, including in particular the needs of persons who are confined to wheelchairs, and

(II) the house consists of one or two bedrooms, a kitchen, a living room, bath or shower facilities, toilet facilities and a nurse call system linked to the registered nursing home,
and
(c) is comprised in a development where—
(i) those units are operated or managed by the registered nursing home and an on-site caretaker is provided, and

(ii) back-up medical care, including nursing care, is provided by the registered nursing home to the occupants of those units when required by those occupants;
‘relevant amount’ means total emoluments (other than non-pecuniary emoluments) paid by a qualifying company to qualifying employees as referred to in the definition of employment relevant number, in the year of assessment in which, in relation to a subscription for eligible shares, a relevant period ends;

‘threshold amount’ means the total of the emoluments (other than non-pecuniary emoluments) paid by a qualifying company to the qualifying employees referred to in the definition of employment threshold number, in the year of assessment preceding the year of assessment in which the subscription for eligible shares was made but where there was a general reduction in the basic pay rate of qualifying employees then the threshold amount shall be reduced accordingly;”;
(b) in section 489 –
(i) by substituting the following for subsection (1)(b):
“(b) those shares are issued to the individual for the purpose of raising money by a qualifying company where that money was used, is being used or is intended to be used by the qualifying company –
(i) for the purposes of carrying on relevant trading activities,

(ii) in the case of a company which has not commenced to trade, in incurring expenditure on research and development within the meaning of section 766, or

(iii) in the case of a company that owns and operates a qualifying nursing home, for the purposes of enlarging the capacity of the qualifying nursing home,

and",
and
(ii) by substituting the following for subsection (10)(a):
“(a) (i) the employment relevant number exceeds the employment threshold number by at least one qualifying employee, and
(ii) the relevant amount exceeds the threshold amount by at least the total emoluments of one qualifying employee in the year of assessment in which the relevant period ends,
or";
(c) in section 494 –
(i) by inserting the following after subsection (4):
“(4A) A company that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 shall not be a qualifying company.”, and
(ii) by inserting the following after subsection (7):
“ (7A) A company whose relevant trading activities includes operating a qualifying nursing home and is engaged in enlarging its capacity pursuant to section 489(1)(b)(iii) shall cease to be a qualifying company unless it has expended all of the money subscribed for eligible shares on such activities, within a period ending 30 days before the end of the relevant period.”.
(2) THAT, for the purposes of the employment and investment incentive and seed capital scheme, section 27 of the Finance Act 2014 (No. 37 of 2014) be amended with effect from, and in respect of shares issued on or after, 13 October 2015 as follows:(a) in subsection (1)(a)(ii)(d) by deleting the word “average”;

(b) in subsection (1)(g) by substituting “Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 OJ No. L 187, 26.06.2014, p. 1” for “section 5.4 of the Community Guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investments3”;

(c) in subsection (2) by substituting the following for paragraph (b):
“(b) Paragraphs (a) and (c) to (g) of subsection (1) have effect in respect of shares issued on or after 13 October 2015.”.
(3) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

The purpose of the resolution is to extend the scope of the employment and investment incentive scheme and it will take effect from today. This change required state aid approval from the European Commission, which has been obtained, which is why we are now moving the resolution.

As Members are probably aware, this is an incentive scheme that allows investment in initiatives within companies that promote research and development, marketing, more employment and missions abroad - measures that will help a company to grow and expand its employment base. Under the changes proposed, the ceiling for investment in an individual company is being doubled to €5 million per year, with a lifetime cap of €15 million.

9 o’clock

The scheme offers tax relief to investors of 30% upfront and an additional 10% after three years if extra employment has occurred or if the money all has been spent on research and development.

This is a useful scheme that has started to grow. Last year, approximately 1,400 companies availed of the support of the scheme and it helped them to grow their employment base. One additional provision here is that an extension is being made to cover nursing homes in respect of extensions they undertake. Up to now, nursing homes were covered in respect of the operation and management of the nursing home but from now on, an extension, as well as a refurbishment, can be acceptable under the terms of the scheme. This proposal was recommended by economic consultants who reviewed the operation of the scheme on behalf of the Department of Health. It is a useful instrument for improving access to finance for smaller and medium-sized enterprises and I hope it commends itself to the House.

8:30 pm

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before calling on Deputy Sean Fleming, I ask Members who are having conversations to do so outside the Chamber.

Photo of Seán FlemingSeán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I seek further information from the Minister on this proposal. I was intrigued by his final remark in which he stated the scheme has been extended in view of expansion works or extensions to nursing homes following a review of the operation of the scheme by consultants and the Department of Health. However, the essence of his comments in the first half of his remarks was that the scheme was introduced in budget 2015 and now that it has got EU approval, is being commenced tonight. How could a review of the operation of the scheme be carried out in respect of nursing homes if the scheme has not been in operation at all and is only commencing tonight? Was this review conducted in respect of a different set of tax reliefs into nursing homes? It cannot have been on the operation of the employment and investment incentive because-----

Photo of Richard BrutonRichard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, the extension is the new piece.

Photo of Seán FlemingSeán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The extension is the new piece and as the Minister noted, it was introduced as a result of a consultants' report in which they examined the operation of the scheme. However, the Minister has told Members the scheme has not yet been in operation. This new scheme only received EU approval as a result of last year's budget. This measure was included in last year's budget, the Minister stated it now is being commenced and according to the note in the Minister's statement, the scheme is being commenced today. How has the Government been carrying out a review of something that has not even been commenced? Was that review into-----

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was 20:20 vision.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who copied Deputy Mattie McGrath's speech?

Photo of Seán FlemingSeán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the review carried out by those consultants on behalf of the Department of Health was a review that saw a gap that should have been included or dealt with in the first place or perhaps it was a review of another tax relief for the operation of nursing homes and this is an opportunity to broaden it here. The Minister might clarify this point.

Furthermore, does this proposal include retirement villages on the grounds of nursing homes because if it does, it is getting into a bigger area? I get the feeling it does because I am looking at the wording of the resolution. The Minister will understand that when an amendment is being made to a section, and when Members only have the amendments in front of them, it is hard to know what is behind it all. However, it refers to work being carried out on a single-storey house or a house that is comprising a building of more than one storey. If there are houses in such a village and they are not exactly single-storey houses, are they included or excluded from the scheme? Will some of this be necessary as a result of HIQA requirements for standards, perhaps on foot of HIQA reports? How many nursing homes are expected to benefit from this and who contacted or lobbied the Government in respect of this amendment?

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister described it as a useful instrument and I have no doubt but that benefits can accrue through the creation of capacity. However, I could be forgiven for thinking it is a useful instrument for the Government, which is failing in its duties to provide public nursing home capacity. That is the real failure and even considering the budget measures before Members today, they are quite pathetic - that is not too strong a word to use - with regard to the additional commitment to health for 2016. After taking in the Supplementary Estimate to the end of this year, one is only looking at €18 million in real additionality for the provision of general practitioner access for children up to 12 years of age and certain therapy supports for children. There is no other new commitment and yet, time after time, Members have spoken of the real capacity crisis within the health system. A particular component part of the range of measures that must be taken to address the build-up, the delayed discharges and the considerable crisis in emergency departments and through the hospital sector is the provision of public nursing home capacity, of which there is not enough. There has been no building programme in that regard. There is a continued dependency on the private sector to bail out the Government, which is clearly failing in its responsibilities and duties to provide for the needs of a particular sector of the population, not least for older citizens who most definitely need the option of care in a residential setting at some point in their later years.

It is most regrettable that as a society we continue to depend only on the initiative and entrepreneurial spirit of some and we fail societally in our responsibility to provide for citizens. This is exactly what has happened again with budget 2016. The Government has failed to provide for the needs of older citizens, particularly with regard to safe care and appropriate settings when that is the unquestionable need of the person concerned, who is no longer able to live alone or in the circumstances he or she has known as home for many years previously. It is a most worrying indication of where the Government is at and while I can appreciate this might be the natural penchant of the Minister, Deputy Bruton, in this regard, it strikes me as strange that the Labour Party would be a party to this continued failure to address the needs of senior citizens, particularly at present when there is an upturn in the economy. I must record great concern regarding the measure as presented for the reasons I have explained.

Photo of Billy TimminsBilly Timmins (Wicklow, Renua Ireland)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On measures such as this, it is very important that the Minister should outline all the detail of the change and the reasons behind it. I join with Deputy Sean Fleming in asking the Minister who lobbied on this or who sought this change. Did other organisations seek a similar change? As a concept, I welcome any reliefs that are put in place to ensure the quality and standard of nursing homes will improve. Equally, the case could be made for student accommodation in this regard, which could go some way towards addressing the shortage of student accommodation across the city. Were other sectors or sections given consideration for inclusion in this provision? There also may be scope in respect of nursing homes that are as yet incomplete, of which I am aware of a few. Perhaps this is something on which the Government could move with the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, or with financial institutions.

While it is not strictly the Minister's area, based on my reading of the five or six year capital expenditure programme launched a few weeks ago, projected capital expenditure on health for 2016 is €414 million but projected capital expenditure on health for 2016 under last year's programme was €450 million. The Minister for Health, Deputy Varadkar, might take up that point during his contribution over the next few days. Perhaps Deputy Buttimer, as the chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, will indicate if I am wrong that allocated capital spending on health of €450 million has been reduced. He might also clarify, if that is the case, what projects, which the HSE had in mind, have been shelved or delayed?

Will the Minister, Deputy Bruton, clarify if the EIS scheme, which follows on from the BES scheme, is limited to a geographic area? I think I am correct in saying that mid-east Dublin and Cork city, excluding the docklands, were not included in the EIS scheme. In other words, is this scheme geographic neutral? Does it apply right across the country or is there any area excluded? In responding to that question, the Minister might also indicate if sanction has been received from the EU in respect of the tax relief announced for Georgian properties in designated areas of Dublin, Galway, Kilkenny and Limerick?

8:40 pm

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this initiative. The Minister said in his contribution that to date 1,400 companies have availed of this scheme which was originally launched in November 2011. What has been the employment impact to date of the scheme and what is the projected impact of the scheme when fully operational? I am open to correction but my understanding is that this particular measure was originally announced in 2012 as part of budget 2013. It took the Department eight months to submit the original application for approval to the European Commission. Sanction has now been obtained and this measure will become operational from tonight, which is three years on from its initial announcement. Perhaps the Minister will clarify if that is the case and outline why it has taken so long to get approval for a measure that will have a significant impact on employment and on encouraging investment into business in this country.

My second question relates to the retirement villages aspect of this proposal. As the Minister will be aware, under the current restrictions only people over the age of 55 years or persons under the age of 55 years with a medical need can avail of accommodation in these retirement villages. I have a problem with this particular provision. I have been approached by a young man with a physical disability who cannot access bungalow-type accommodation which is wheelchair accessible in the private rented sector in County Roscommon. He wants to live independently but cannot do so. This particular accommodation in Roscommon town would be suitable for him but because he does not have a medical need at this point in time, he cannot access that accommodation, which means he is marooned in a house in a rural part of County Roscommon with no access to public transport. Another person, a young woman, who has a mental health disability cannot access apartment-type accommodation because she does not have an ongoing medical need. This provision needs to be reviewed. There are people with health needs who are being restricted from accessing these particular facilities.

While it may not be the case in other areas, in my area many of the rental properties in the retirement villages are unoccupied. Elderly people in rural areas will not sell their houses - many of which are three and four bedroom houses and are much needed in the housing market - to move into a town where all the services are available unless they have security of tenure. It is alien to people of that generation who own their properties to rent accommodation. This issue needs to be addressed. A scheme that allows them to purchase that property needs to be put in place, perhaps on the condition that it is sold back to the retirement village company when they no longer require it. The lack of security of tenure is, I believe, causing difficulties in terms of the release of rural properties. The introduction of this type of scheme could be of huge benefit in terms of the release of family-type homes in many parts of the country. Elderly people are wary of moving to rented accommodation. This particular issue needs to be resolved.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are four Deputies offering and as time is running out, I ask for brevity.

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On face value, this initiative is welcome. I understand it was first announced in last year's budget. Like the Fianna Fáil spokesperson, I am interested in hearing from the Minister on what basis it was reviewed given it was only recently sanctioned by the EU.

There are many issues arising regarding nursing homes. There is no doubt that we need additional nursing homes. We all know from our constituency work that earlier this year and last year, it was taking 18 to 24 weeks to access beds under the fair deal scheme. We also witnessed the onslaught on public nursing homes, including in my own constituency, many of which are old institutions and find it very difficult to meet the Health Information and Quality Authority standards. There are huge delays, including in relation to St. Theresa's hospital in Clogheen in my constituency. Some €250,000 has been voluntarily raised for a hospice but the Department of Health has not appointed architects to design and build it. There is huge bureaucracy in this area.

The Government is farming out health service provision in order to lessen the number of people on trolleys. While I welcome any initiative that will assist in reducing the number of people on trolleys, we must be careful we do not limit provision in that regard to private developers of nursing homes and retirement villages who are not experienced in the area of nursing home management and so on. These privately built facilities do not provide the same level of care provided by district hospitals in terms of the training and supports available therein. While this initiative is, as I said, welcome, there are many aspects of it that have to be frowned on. The experience to date in respect of large nursing homes and the retirement villages attached to them is that they are not very good at their job.

I agree with Deputy Naughten that it is very hard to get elderly people in Ireland to sell their homes. Home ownership is systemic in Ireland. While a person's house may not be wonderful, it is his or her home and castle. This is a particular issue in the voluntary sector. I am disappointed that there is no aspect of this initiative which deals with voluntary groups as they have a proven track record in this area because they are not-for-profit and are of the people and the communities. They have done great work in this area. It is unfair that they are excluded from this initiative because they are the ones who often have no problem acquiring sites or getting planning permission. While they are developers in their own right, they are volunteers operating on a not-for-profit basis in the provision of rest homes and retirement homes and catering for people deemed not to be in need of hospitalisation but capable of living in these facilities with the help of a visiting nurse and so on. There is room for extension of this scheme to the voluntary sector. It has a track record in this area and it can and will deliver projects within 15 to 20 months. We should not be waiting for private developers to decide whether they will build.

The Minister mentioned that private developers have welcomed this scheme, for which they lobbied. I note he also said that it commends itself to the House rather than that he commends it to the House.

Perhaps it was just phraseology and the Minister did not mean anything by what he said. However, he indicated that it commends itself to the House rather than that he commends it to the House. There is a need for this measure. It must be properly managed and policed. I would like it to be expanded into the voluntary sector - the not-for-profit sector - in order that the latter might build a facility because it would want to keep people in the community, it would want them to feel safe in their own homes and it would want there to be a community feel to it, rather than it being a big nursing home with an extended holiday village. While I welcome this measure, it needs careful examination, careful observation when it proceeds and a review mechanism after six, eight or nine months to monitor how it working. Perhaps the management of this could be transferred to the voluntary sector where there is no element of greed involved and where those who work in the sector do so to serve the community and our older and vulnerable people.

8:50 pm

Photo of Tommy BroughanTommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to echo some of Deputy Ó Caoláin's comments on this financial resolution. The health capital budget and the entire capital programme up to 2020 was extremely disappointingvis-à-visthe amount we could spend up to the time of the decision by the Minister and his party to support to the disastrous blanket guarantee for the banks. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael together brought the relevant legislation before this House and left us with billions of debt to repay year in, year out. Therefore, the size of the capital budget is very disappointing.

There are schemes in the constituency the Minister and I represent which require funding. For example, there is a crying need for a new accident and emergency unit at Beaumont Hospital and I understand this matter has been brought to the Minister's attention. There is no indication of provision being made for this new unit in either the budget or the capital programmes. It has been very much placed on the long finger. An approach could have been taken to have a serious State programme to develop the nursing home places that we need. Analogous to the Government's decisions regarding social housing, it continues to leave the vital area of health infrastructure largely in the hands of the private sector. I would have reservations about that.

Specifically, I would like to know the cost of the scheme. We will be dealing with the Finance Bill next week. Previous Finance Acts provided for a range of ongoing tax expenditures which have continued for decades and of which the general public have almost no knowledge. We do not receive detailed information on exactly what will be the impact of this and the other resolutions. That is rather insulting to the House and to us, as representatives. We need more nursing home places, although in the constituency that the Minister and I represent, at least one very large nursing home is about to open shortly and many others are planned. Some people have said that, in light of the current situation, housing is perhaps a greater necessity at present and perhaps these buildings should be utilised to house families. I would like to know the cost of this scheme, the ongoing cost involved and, basically, for the Government to come clean on tax expenditures.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had forgotten about me as I have been here from the start. It is important to recognise that what is being provided builds on the capital plan. Deputy Mattie McGrath failed to make reference to the fact that the capital plan announced last week will provide moneys for the refurbishment of the old county homes or old hospitals and thereby become HIQA compliant.

Deputy Timmins raised an interesting point in respect of student accommodation, with which I agree. There is a need to examine how we can build student accommodation. Tax reliefs and incentives were in place in the past for developers but that was not enough in terms of the development of student accommodation in, for example, areas such as Cork city where there is a high demand for such accommodation. We should examine this measure as a means to address that. I would be happy to debate that at another time.

In the context of the health budget, Deputy Timmins will note that today we heard that €13.2 billion is to be given to the Department of Health. That allocation is up to the 2008 level. I am sure the Deputy will welcome that expenditure as part of a progressive health system.

Photo of Billy TimminsBilly Timmins (Wicklow, Renua Ireland)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to see results.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nursing homes are pivotal and critical in changing the health landscape. They face challenges with the registration process. Deputy Ó Caoláin failed to recognise that, under the fair deal scheme, 200 beds have been freed up, 173 community beds have been freed up and 65 beds are being provided at Mount Carmel. That means that 238 new beds, as of today, have been provided. I know the Deputy will join with me in welcoming as part of the clearing of the backlog.

We need to have a debate on a wider level around the provision of retirement villages. I am familiar with two complexes in my constituency. The Lyons Club in Bishopstown has a retirement housing scheme and Aras Leon, or Lyon House, in Douglas provides independent living for people of a certain age. That raises a question in the context of the HIQA protocols to which Deputy Naughten referred regarding people with a disability and those under a certain age. We must think differently and be creative in how we can challenge each other to come up with different models of living for elderly people and for those with disabilities who can live in independent settings. The Government has provided €74 million in additional funding to provide long-term home care places and transitional care beds, which has not been acknowledged. Extra beds are being freed up. In welcoming this resolution, we need to invest in our nursing home sector and that means speaking to Nursing Home Ireland.

Photo of Paul MurphyPaul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join Deputy Broughan in asking what will be the estimated cost of this extra tax expenditure. I presume the Minister is not talking about a huge amount of money but for me this is a microcosm of the approach of the Government on a range of issues, which is to go for corporate welfare as opposed to public investment in services. The total corporate welfare bill is conservatively somewhere around €15 billion a year in terms of tax breaks and expenditure aimed at corporations. This will increase it somewhat. We would like to see the figures to see how much it is. It is based on the logic of Thatcherism, which is to run down public services and then to use that as an excuse to say we do not have nursing homes so we have to give them tax breaks in order to extend nursing homes to have appropriate nursing homes, as opposed to publicly investing in building public nursing homes in the first instance. It sums the Government's approach to the budget and its claim to the effect that it has restored health spending to pre-crisis levels. It is evident that the latter is not the case and that the amount involved is still €3 billion below pre-crisis levels. The Government's response in the context of this budget has been to opt for tax incentives as opposed to public investment.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Minister to reply.

Photo of Richard BrutonRichard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions, which were pretty wide-ranging in nature. Perhaps I did not explain the position adequately. The original employment investment incentive, EII, was approved in 2012 and came into effect at that time. However, changes were announced last year which are only now coming into effect and that is what triggered the need for these new changes. One of the issues negotiated during the course of the year was to have the employment investment incentive scheme, EIIS, included in the global block exemption. By doing that, we have bypassed the concern that Deputy Billy Timmins expressed to the effect that certain parts of the country were excluded from its remit. The changes being introduced today mean that medium-sized companies in non-assisted areas can now qualify for the employment investment.

The extension to the nursing home element comes about on foot a decision taken earlier this year, not last year. This extension is possible because of the global block exemption that has been agreed. The backdrop to this was that consultants were appointed to review nursing homes and this is a specific recommendation with which they came forward. They obviously had stakeholder consultations ahead of making the recommendation to the Minister for Health who, in turn, has supported the amendment that is being made.

Deputy Ó Caoláin raised the issue of why would we not build public nursing homes. This co-funding will make it cheaper for the Exchequer to provide the service of nursing homes.

Access to the nursing homes is on a single basis under the fair deal scheme, so the same terms of access apply for a patient entering either a public or a private nursing home. People can choose their nursing home and get the same level of support. If you like, the private sector is providing the nursing home, but access to it is dictated by Government policy and administered on an equal basis to all concerned. It is not giving people some inside track in getting access to nursing homes. The cost of the changes being made to the scheme through this resolution is estimated at €3 million.

I may have inadvertently given an incorrect figure earlier when speaking about the employment and investment incentive scheme. Fourteen hundred was the number of investors who qualified for relief last year. Since the new scheme came in, the number of companies involved has been 507. The typical amount of investment was just under €250,000 in each company and the relief was under €70,000 for each company. It is a way of getting access to credit and finance for small and medium-sized enterprises to make investments that have an impact on employment. At this point, we do not have an estimate of the jobs impact in the 507 companies involved, as sought by Deputy Denis Naughten. However, the scheme provides that there must be an employment impact for the full benefit to be derived. Clearly, this is a scheme that can be subjected to review, like any other. It was subject to review several years ago and was seen to be beneficial in terms of its impact, while many of the property-based reliefs were not. Property is excluded from eligibility under the scheme, ensuring that it cannot be used for buying land or solely developing or building a home. It can only be for extensions to improve or expand the operation of an existing nursing home.

To take up Deputy Mattie McGrath's point, in principle, there is no reason investors in not-for-profit institutions could not qualify for tax relief on their investments. I will bring this to the attention of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, who will examine whether this would be a worthwhile change in the forthcoming finance Bill.

9:00 pm

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was it in 2012 that this provision was initially announced?

Photo of Richard BrutonRichard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. It was last year. The revision of the employment incentive scheme was introduced in 2012. The change announced last year was the increase in the threshold for investment to €5 million. I understand the extension of the scheme to include extensions to nursing homes was promulgated as a proposal in August 2015.

Photo of Seán FlemingSeán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about retirement villages?

Photo of Richard BrutonRichard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The scheme states that the investment must be for a nursing home or a residential care unit associated with a nursing home.

Question, "That Financial Resolution No. 4 be agreed to," put and declared carried.