Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Finance Bill includes an income tax package that is clearly designed to give more to higher income earners. When one strips back the temporary but absolutely necessary interventions in this Finance Bill, the stark reality is laid bare. It abysmally fails to address the growing inequality that is crippling our society. It is not only me and Sinn Féin saying that. Social Justice Ireland estimates that this Finance Bill will widen the gap between rich and poor by €199 next year. It has stated that Ireland's poorest will be worse off when the one-off measures in budget 2023 are discontinued. The change to the highest income tax rate is the most expensive measure in the Bill but despite the cost to the public finances, 2.2 million workers will not benefit at all. This is unfair and economically reckless.

Low-income families spend heavily within the local economy, thereby supporting indigenous business and jobs. Businesses in small towns are now hibernating or getting ready to hibernate for the winter months because that is the only way that many of them will be able to survive. The reduced footfall and escalating costs combine to a reality where debts accumulate. Every choice made by the Government in this Finance Bill will have a knock-on effect on local economies. When we tally all the tax measures, people earning €100,000 will benefit four times as much as those earning €35,000. It is a measure designed to benefit high earners and leave low- and middle-income earners to face into the winter and a cost-of-living crisis.

The Government plans to push house prices up through the badly designed defective blocks levy. There are elements of the Government housing policy that can be tracked back to Sinn Féin, for instance, the tax back for renters and the ban on evictions. I welcome those measures. They are watered-down versions of our policies but at least they are a step in the right direction. The tax rebate will only work if there is ban on increases and we need to end the rip-off rents.

We need to delay the introduction of the new benefit-in-kind regime until some form of distinction can be made between a company car as a perk and company vehicles that are essential for work-related activity. That is important. I ask the Minister to look again at that measure to see how we can introduce some fairness.

I welcome the fact that student accommodation is now included in the tax rebate but there are still too many people paying rent who are excluded. I am concerned because the tax rebate will only extend to renters in accommodation registered with the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB. We know that many students will not meet that criterion. I ask the Minister to consider that matter and see how all people who are paying rent can be accommodated.

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

I am pleased to speak. In the short time available for me to speak on the Finance Bill, I am only going to be able to cover a fraction of the issues. I will certainly address the concrete levy because this is a farce. It is showing the white flag to the real perpetrators of that awful mica and pyrite crisis. Those perpetrators were the quarries. The Minister obviously has no appetite to touch big business. We see that across the country. He has decided to put the problem onto the building of every house. The levy will add at least €4,000 to the cost of building even a modest 2,000 sq. ft house. Under pressure, the Minister has backtracked and halved the levy. It is still the wrong way to go, however.

The sacred cows and the windfall profits of Cement Roadstone plc, which owns 99.9% of the quarries - if not in name it owns them indirectly - should be tackled.

The same applies to carers. While there are welcome increases in the threshold, there was nothing meaningful done for the carers, such as having their pay linked to issues like the fuel allowance or the plethora of other payments there are. They do an enormous amount of work and keep people out of hospital. Now we have the problem where we cannot get home helps. The Government certainly had an opportunity to do something here.

The announcement in respect of the Croí Cónaithe scheme was made at the ploughing championships. The Government is wonderful with announcements but it does not even consult any of the agencies which deliver this. That is why we have blunder and bluff.

The Government also announced funding for the temporary business energy support scheme, TBESS, which I welcome for businesses but in the Finance Bill we now see that the number of businesses which this scheme is covering has multiplied. The amount of money for the scheme was inadequate in the first place because shops and businesses I have quoted here have contacted me and they are still going to be paying €7,000 a month extra for their ESB bills compared with last year, and that is after having received the support from that scheme of up to 40%. Now if the number of people getting a slice of the cake grows in number, this sum will be totally inadequate. The Government is playing with people with these figures and giving them out in a spin.

This Finance Bill lacks any vision or any kind of imagination or understanding of why the people are hurting so much. This budget and this Finance Bill is the biggest con job that has ever been perpetrated on the people because the Government is taking the money. The price of diesel now at the pumps has gone up to €2.02, and I saw €2.079 yesterday in Mullingar, or somewhere in the midlands, on Sunday. Half of that is tax. The more the price goes up, the more the Government is reaping in. The price of fuel or oil is the common denominator whether it is social activity, at work, agriculture or industry.

Also, agus is mór an trua é an rud sin, benefit-in-kind was a good scheme which got people up early in the morning, out to work to travel the roads, and I had many such people on to me. These are excellent people who worked so hard and who want to work and pay their way. They were turning over, getting business and generating money for their companies and this was a savage attack.

Every aspect of this budget has the Minister, Deputy Ryan's fingerprints all over it, even on the bikes scheme. There is extra relief to get some kind of a cargo bike. Everywhere you go, you see footpaths and roads being dug up and being narrowed to crucify the motorists and to make lanes for bicycles and so forth. I am not anti such developments but common sense must prevail. Every aspect of this budget has been drawn in green ink and I was going to say red ink. It is a green document. It is not looking after the business people, the people on the housing list or anyone in that category. It is just looking after itself, to keep Government bums on those seats there and to ensure the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and his party will not pull out of Government.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The budget was a missed opportunity for many young people who are in a middle road-type situation. Fuel is hitting them very hard. They will see very little increases after the budget, only certain pain. When the Minister was announcing the budget here in the House and when I first looked at the document, to the naked eye the Minister was going to give a decrease in the cost of fuel, but all he did was to continue something he had done earlier. The pain has grown and grown and, like previous speakers have said, the cost of fuel has gone crazy, at more than €2 a litre for a litre of diesel. It is an insane situation and people are feeling that very hard.

Agriculture is facing a crisis. I was speaking to some of the organisations during the week with the fall in the price of cattle and there is a serious worry out there. Bills are rising, as are fertiliser bills and costs. These are out of control, especially for agri-fuel. It would have been especially welcomed if the Minister had lowered the tax take. It was a greedy tax take by this Government but, of course, it is the only way it can get its hands on as much money as possible so that it can cycle out great amount of grants for this, that and the other thing to see if it can get its senior politicians elected again.

Moving to the fishing situation in this country, I would love to ask the Minister what fishermen ever did to him in school. I suppose he never saw a fisherman in his life in school because he certainly has something terrible against them. The Minister gave them nothing, absolute zilch, in this budget. They exist and are a great part of this country. They look at being completely whacked left, right and centre. The best the Government can come up with for them is decommissioning and tying up boats with money from Europe. Looking at them there, the French and Spanish Governments have given their fishermen fuel subsidies. What have our fishermen been given? Zero. The Government has announced an energy rebate which businesses get, which is fair enough, but the fishermen ask me if they are going to get an energy rebate because they are using very significant amounts of energy. Where are they going to get a rebate in this? I hope the Minister will address that when he speaks in a minute because they certainly deserve to survive, the same as anybody else. I know the Government has almost wiped them out but they certainly deserve to live as well.

People talk to me about the carer’s allowance and I ask that perhaps, in time, the Minister might look at the situation where people who genuinely care for their loved ones are being means-tested. It should not matter a damn if someone spends so many hours every day caring for either a neighbour or a loved one, but they cannot get that money if their husband or wife or whichever way it is is earning a little bit more than they should. Here is a person who is basically caring for someone and paying for it out of their own pocket.

I have serious worries about the tourism industry VAT going, perhaps, from 9% upwards. We cannot accept that could happen and I believe the Minister will need to clarify that. We certainly know the hotel industry, and have met quite a number of its representatives, has not been fleecing the people in west Cork. I accept some hotels have been. Those in west Cork have been very fair to the people. The one thing they told me is that some family members of these family-run hotels will be working for nothing if these hotels are to keep their doors open. This is a very serious issue and is one area where, if the VAT rises, it will have serious consequences. I have very little time left but I need to know about the VAT.

I know money was given for school transport but the school bus tickets issue is still a fiasco. The Government made a complete mess of it.

There is also the blocks issue, and while I am aware the percentage of the levy has been dropped and the Government has accepted it is to go from 10% to 5%, it was not good enough in the first place.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to get the opportunity to raise issues about this budget. All we ever ask in a budget is that the Minister and the Government be fair with all sectors of the people. That has not happened in this budget. Sadly, people depending on diesel and petrol-fuelled cars, where they have no other option, together with lorry men who are on the road day after day, were promised throughout the summer that the Government would help them in the budget and it did nothing at all for them. The Government is saying that whatever few pence it did give them off the cost of fuel last May or June will end at the end of February and the first day of March next year. The Minister is saying he is managing the finances well and that is how he has the €11 billion, but I say to him that most of that €11 billion is money he collected off people on the road. Four years ago the barrel of oil was cheaper then than it is now. At the same time, everyone is paying double except the farmers who are paying a great deal more. The Minister gave them two cents off. They are paying €1.50 a litre now, which is almost three quarters the cost of white diesel. Heretofore, they were only paying a third of the cost.

I told the Minister to reconsider the concrete levy. He considered it a bit all right but he is still leaving it at 5% and that is too much because, like I said, people who are buying materials to buy house are paying extra VAT and tax on these materials already. They are paying extra for concrete already, which has gone up from €80 to €115 a cubic metre. These people are paying extra VAT and tax to the Government already.

On housing, the Government makes such a hullabaloo and acclaim about the housing policy it has. We see, however, where in Kerry there are 171 vacant houses and the Government will not provide the funding to put both houses or voids back into production. What is wrong with the Minister?

Would it not be very easy to do that? These 171 houses have been vacant for three or four years. What is wrong with the Government that it will not deal with that?

On the cost of electricity, there is no account of the regulator at all. The electricity companies are allowed to double and triple their profits. We would not mind paying more for electricity if it cost them more to generate it. We see how hard it is for some people to get social welfare payments. Many pensioners will not receive the €500 bonus because they do not get fuel allowance or the living alone allowance. Despite this, there are Ukrainian men of fighting age here getting the same dole and supports as others even though they are being housed, fed and every other thing. All I am asking for is fair play across the board. Irish people who have been here all of their lives are not getting that fair play. I ask the Minister to look at those things and to review some of the decisions the Government has made because they are very unfair.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to speak on the Finance Bill and on the budget the Minister introduced on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Ryan. I will first talk about the 9% rate of VAT. As a representative of the tourism capital of the western world, Killarney in County Kerry, I believe it is wrong for the Minister to allow uncertainty on this matter until February of next year. Having met with hoteliers last weekend, I know they are certainly not happy with what the Minister is doing or, as should I say, what he is not doing. With regard to the benefit-in-kind scheme, I also met with representatives of a number of businesses last weekend and they are extremely upset at what the Minister has done to that scheme.

With regard to the temporary business energy support scheme, which is very important, I welcome the extra relief to be given to dentists, doctors, solicitors, accountants and others in non-incorporated enterprises. That is very important because they were being left out.

With regard to the concrete levy, I was the first person to stand up in this House on behalf of the concrete providers in Kerry and those who export concrete products into the North and abroad who were extremely upset at what the Minister was doing. The Minister has created uncertainty and upset the system. He has upset the tendering process and shot our local authorities in his own foot in doing what he did. The half of a U-turn he has done shows he made a mistake. If he had not made a mistake, he would not have done what he has now done. All he has proved is that we were right to say he was wrong in the first instance.

With regard to the retrofitting scheme, of the 65,000 houses the Minister, Deputy Ryan, was blowing about being retrofitted, 80 have been completed, including fewer than eight in County Kerry. I do not know whether Deputy Ryan or the Minister for Finance are proud of that fact. They can blow all they like about retrofitting but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and only 80 of 65,000 have been completed.

With regard to solar panels, what did the Minister do in the budget to encourage people to install them? Nothing. The mantra among businesses that want to install solar panels is not to apply for the grant because the assistance available is difficult to apply for and will amount to nothing at the end of the day. Anybody in business who is going ahead with solar panels is doing so without the grant. So much for what the Government is doing for those people.

The small businesses that are being affected by the massive increase in costs, the microenterprises that employ up to nine people, employ more than 400,000 people, nearly half a million. The people running such businesses in County Kerry and who are really struggling with the increased cost of electricity, diesel, fuel and everything else are saying the budget did nothing for them.

This budget failed to give our farmers a break from the crippling cost of inputs. For example, the hiking of the carbon tax represents a major blow to hard-pressed farm families. To take the people now putting cattle in for the winter, for example, they endured the cost of feed and the costs accrued during the year to grow the grass to make silage for the winter, including fertiliser costs. These people are really worried. This is going to affect the beef sector after Christmas because there will be no profit to be made because of the high input costs that are putting people under tremendous pressure. I have a lot more to say but I cannot say it in the time I have.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister have any idea of the number of businesses around the country that were awaiting the details of this Finance Bill today? My God, were they surprised. A great many of them will not qualify for the temporary business energy support scheme, TBESS, as Revenue will need to see an increase of 40% or more in electricity or gas bills compared with bills for this time last year. Deputy Micheál Martin has, in the past, accused us of not understanding the consequences of the war between Russia and Ukraine but we seem to understand a lot more than the Government. The Finance Bill is of the Government's own making and, through the restrictions it has placed on this scheme it introduced in the budget, it has missed an opportunity to help businesses around the country. These restrictions will prevent many businesses from availing of the TBESS. Does the Minister know why? It is because, six or seven months ago, many businesses decided to take the Government's advice and try to save on energy. What did they do? They borrowed money to put in solar panels to reduce their energy costs. They bought generators to reduce their energy costs and now find out that, after making all of these investments, they do not qualify for this scheme. Many of these businesses have seen increases in energy costs of 25% and 35% but will not get any financial reward from the scheme.

I spoke to a quarry owner today. The U-turn the Government has done on the block levy is amazing. I myself highlighted to Government the lunacy of bringing in a concrete levy in the first place because it was targeting every person in the country building a house, renovating one, doing up a garden or replacing a driveway. The Government did not think it through and has now had to do a U-turn. Its backbenchers finally found a small bit of backbone and threatened it so it did a U-turn, although it only reduced the levy to 5% and delayed it until September of next year. If that goes ahead, Government backbenchers will come under far more pressure than they did this year.

What is the crux of this? How does the Government help people in an energy crisis? The price of fuel goes up and this Government's taxation system takes 50% on diesel and almost the same percentage on petrol. For every euro spent at the fuel pump, the Government takes 50%. What is used to manufacture food in this country? Fossil fuel-powered vehicles. Tractors set the seeds and bring in the silage to feed the cattle whose milk is then brought to the creamery by fossil fuel-powered trucks. Food is brought to your premises for you to eat by fossil fuel-powered vehicles. The Government levies taxes totalling 50% on these fuels. How many billions of euro has it taken in tax? Today, the Minister has said that the Government has managed to put together an €11 billion package for the country and did not have to borrow a cent, but that is because it robbed that money off the country in the first place. It robbed it off the squeezed middle. It robbed the entrepreneurs of this country who are trying to stay in business. When the Minister sees sorrow on the faces of children and people who can barely put food on the table this Christmas, I hope he will know that he was the cause of a lot of it. All he does is introduce tax after tax. If he is not taxing fuel, he is putting 23% on everything else and his Government is backing him. Shame on them.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill. Last week, we had the very welcome news that the bike-to-work scheme is to be extended to €3,000 to enable people to purchase cargo bikes. There is empirical evidence that cargo bikes give at least some families the option to get rid of their car or second car.

Many short trips that would be taken by car can and will be taken by bike or cargo bike with this measure, as well as others the Government has introduced. It is worth noting that nearly 40% of our transport emissions are caused by cars travelling short journeys. These are journeys in both urban and rural areas. These journeys, which are currently made by private car, are within the range of bike, electric bike and cargo bike.

With respect to cargo bikes, the opportunity is not just for families. There is enormous potential for last-mile delivery. Cargo bikes come into their own in this area because they are energy efficient, they are light and nimble and they can avoid congestion. There are negligible fuel costs. They do not require tax or insurance and they give business owners faced with a driver shortage an opportunity to move their goods cheaply and efficiently around urban areas. Additionally, they are a very good thing from the State's point of view because they do not cause costly wear and tear damage to road surfaces. They improve public health and reduce congestion. Whether it is cargo bikes, electric bikes or traditional pushbikes, and whether we are thinking of people living in Ballinamore or Ballybunion, measures to get people onto bikes, e-bikes and cargo bikes effectively reduce emissions. I repeat what I said earlier. Nearly 40% of all transport-related greenhouse gas emissions are caused by cars taking short journeys. For climate reasons alone, and irrespective of the evidence that it is good for our economy, for public health, for creating better, more attractive and safer urban and rural environments, and for reducing the cost to the State in multiple ways, we should be doing everything we can to get people onto these modes of transport.

The positive measures in this Bill should be just the beginning. We have to curb drastically the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles on our roads. Every new fossil fuel vehicle sold makes it harder for our State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I do not believe we went far enough in the budget. Electric vehicles cannot be the primary solution to the challenge we face. The OECD report released just two weeks ago stated that with regard to our transport emissions policy, we are off track and we are not doing enough to bring about system change. Only system change can deliver the reductions in emissions that we have set ourselves as a target. System change sounds idealistic and unattainable but as somebody who is passionate about transport planning and urbanism, I strongly believe it is very doable and not at all as difficult as many people in this House believe. I encourage the Minister, in all his future endeavours, to embrace system change for the benefit of our communities, our economy, our country and our environment.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Finance Bill. In the limited time I have, I will deal with one or two items. I welcome the broad thrust of the measures that have been put in place to ensure people can deal with their energy costs. I welcome the living city initiative from the Minister for Finance. It is hugely important to us in Limerick. The Minister has agreed to ensure security for the scheme and it is now extended up to December 2027. It was due to finish this year. That is five years of certainty for the scheme. The write-off can now be over seven years rather than ten and the relief can be carried forward from year to year. That is hugely important, along with the Croí Cónaithe scheme, which will have a huge benefit for the rejuvenation of Limerick city.

I also welcome the measures around pre-letting expenses for landlords. I just want to put that in context. I also welcome the certainty for tenants. Some 86% of all our landlords have one or two properties. They are leaving the sector and we have to ask why that is. We need them to stay in the sector. I hope the Government will look at this in the round and give serious consideration to what can be done to ensure these small landlords stay in the sector. They are part of the system. As I have said many times, there are rogue landlords and rogue tenants but there are also decent landlords and decent tenants. What we want is a system where there is a balance. I ask the Government to look at this in the round and to find out why small landlords are leaving the sector so we can give security to both the tenant and the landlord.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With 200 pages to cover in two minutes, I do not think the Minister can expect an in-depth analysis of the budget from me, unfortunately. It is very much a cost-of-living budget and this Bill underpins that. It was a response to an unprecedented level of crisis. Despite what Deputies across the House have asserted, I will reassert that this is progressive. It is the third such budget passed by this Government. The impact of the three budgets considered together is also progressive.

I will quickly acknowledge the changes made in it in the benefit-in-kind treatment of cargo bikes, which Deputy Leddin referenced. The Acting Chairman seemed unsure what a cargo bike is. I have had one for six years in Waterford. It has been a great workhorse for the family. If I can get it up Gallwey's Hill in Tramore, I think it would be suitable for Tipperary town or Clonmel as well.

There are changes to the taxation rules for traditional instruments. There is nothing quite like hearing the uilleann pipes played well. There is nothing quite like hearing them played badly either. I have somebody learning to play the violin at home. If he decides to take up the uilleann pipes, I will be holding the Minister personally responsible.

In my remaining few seconds I will focus on the 50% limitation on the amount of land that can be used when establishing a solar farm without losing capital gains tax retirement relief or agricultural relief from capital acquisitions tax. That should be looked at again. I have read the Minister's response to Deputy Richmond's parliamentary question on this matter in November 2021. I accept what he is saying about wanting to keep agricultural land active as we hand it over from one generation to another. However, that misses the fact that these farms can still have an agricultural use through running sheep underneath the solar panels. They can also have a biodiversity pay-off with wildflower meadows etc. It is something we should look at in order to activate as much land as we possibly can for the use of solar farms.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Workers and families face a cost-of-living crisis that the Government has failed to respond to adequately, a reality that will become clearer in the winter months ahead. I feel like an extra in "Game of Thrones" from repeating this but the reality is that for many workers and families, winter is coming. They simply do not know how they are going to get through this winter.

This Bill includes several so-called climate-related measures, including an increase in carbon tax on petrol and diesel. Petrol prices have increased and diesel prices have increased. The Government states that the cause of this is outside of its control and that international factors are contributing to the increase in petrol and diesel. We are not disputing this. It is how the Government responds and the measures it takes to tackle the cost-of-living crisis that are open to criticism. Carbon Taxes are a Government policy. Introducing carbon taxes is not a reaction to international conflicts; it is a Government decision. Taking what we know about the price of petrol and diesel rising and workers and families being pushed to the pin of their collars, the Government decided to increase the cost of petrol and diesel by introducing carbon taxes. Sinn Féin would not have penalised households with further tax hikes for heating their homes or running their cars. Instead, we would have focused on the alternatives that people need to move towards in a low-carbon economy, such as delivering on retrofits that are affordable and accessible. Carbon tax, lauded as an incentive for people to reduce carbon emissions, fails to recognise that most of those impacted have no credible alternative to their current car or heating system. The carbon tax is simply a charge for them going about their daily business.

The housing crisis is still the biggest issue facing people in my constituency. Ordinary workers and families are locked out of the housing market. Rents are through the roof in my area. There are thousands of workers and families on never-ending waiting lists for public homes. Homelessness and child homelessness is at an all-time high. One of the things that really galls people in my area is seeing vacant homes on a daily basis. These are homes that have been empty for long periods of time. These vacant homes, which could become a home for a family, are being left empty and idle. Sinn Féin has called for a vacant homes tax for years in the face of Government opposition. In fairness, this Finance Bill introduces one, but it excludes derelict properties and the rate being applied for long-term vacancy calls into question how effective it will be in putting vacant housing back into use for workers and families. Again, the Government's measures have failed to address this problem.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this Bill.

It struck me while reading this legislation that despite Ireland being ranked as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with a relatively strong economy, this is in no way reflected on the ground in our cities, towns or rural communities. When I make my way to work in the morning, whether it be to Leinster House or my constituency office in Killybegs, I see no indications of living in a wealthy country or even a functioning one. A functioning country looks after its citizens. A functioning country does not leave its citizens cold, hungry or struggling to make ends meet. It does not leave them abandoned in tents and crumbling houses.

This Government has failed its citizens time and time again and one only has to step outside this Chamber to see it. Every local closure, every tent and every single one of the 3,071 homeless children, is a stark and daily reminder of the failures of this State. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party have had an opportunity here to do something and I believe they failed yet again.

I see nothing of substance in this Bill. There is nothing but temporary scheme after temporary scheme, putting a plaster on a bullet wound. It does nothing to address the systemic change this country desperately needs but is temporarily covering up and facilitating the issues we are experiencing.

Section 88, for example, introduces the temporary business energy support scheme. On the surface, this scheme is welcome for small businesses that need urgent assistance with energy bills but unfortunately, this has come far too late. I have been contacted by a shop owner in my constituency of Donegal who has seen an incredible 118.8% increase in their energy bill, working out at an additional cost of €160,000 per year. When factoring in the increased costs in packaging and insurance, they were looking at a reduction of approximately €220,000 per year in their bottom line. This is completely unsustainable and without a doubt will force the closure of a number of local businesses in my town, throughout my constituency, and throughout the country.

The TBESS introduced in this Bill is too little too late. I put it to the Minister that it is not enough to help businesses in our rural communities get by this winter. It will however, go a long way to help big businesses and tech companies pay their bills, which will obviously be significantly higher. That data centres, which currently account for 14% of Ireland’s electricity usage, could be eligible for this scheme is outrageous. It is predicted that they will account for about 28% of Ireland’s electricity usage within the next ten years.

Temporary schemes, such as the TBESS and the help-to-buy scheme introduced and extended in this Bill, will only serve the system that is already failing the people of this country and will do nothing to address the energy crisis or the housing crisis that this Government is forcing its citizens to face alone. We need targeted supports that will directly assist the people who need it most. We need to start building more affordable homes and create incentives for landlords to prioritise long-term rentals by increasing taxation on short-term rentals such as Airbnb, and by giving them a quid pro quofor long-term rentals, perhaps by making them tax free of something like that.

With regard to mica, I do not see why we cannot tax the profits of the concrete industry rather than having the defective concrete blocks levy, which the Minister has now changed to 5%. This will do little to help with funding the mica redress scheme but will drive up exponentially the cost of building during a housing crisis. Where does the Government expect these families to live while their houses are being demolished and rebuilt? Unless the Government is planning to take over Airbnb, there is simply nowhere for these people to go in Donegal.

All in all, this Bill does nothing for most in this country. I am thinking particularly of student nurses, most of whom are just waiting for the day they get their nursing degree, leave this country and never come back. I was in contact today with a second-year student nurse from Donegal who is studying in Trinity. She can no longer afford to travel home to see her family due to high fuel costs and very high Dublin rent. She works extremely long days and has very little in the way of a life outside of her work. She is struggling with knee pain and says that most of her fellow student nurses struggle with back pain. I must stress that these are young people in their early 20s. She said:

If this was any other workplace, that would be enough to bring a problem of this extent to the eyes of our Government, which is supposedly looking out for the good of this country. I have yet to have a conversation with another student who isn't planning on leaving after college to work elsewhere. Nursing is a profession built off of caring for people, yet we students do not feel cared for. We feel hurt, and betrayed and we are exhausted. We do not deserve this, the nurses before us did not deserve this and the nurses coming after us do not deserve this. There needs to be a change in how student nurses are accommodated.

I reiterate the point that Ireland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and if we choose not to help the people who need it, it is a choice. It is not because we could not if we wanted to, it is a choice that we make every day.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While the budget sets out the fiscal parameters for next year, it is much more than that. It also provides the framework that finances the delivery of Government policy. This is what I want to focus on in my short contribution, namely, how this budget shaped the delivery of Government policy. Given that my time is limited, I will concentrate on the impact of this budget on people with disabilities and on families affected by disability.

Internationally, Ireland is seen as one of the better countries when it comes to the distributional impacts of our budgets. If we strip out all government support and look at just wages income, Ireland is quite high on the inequality spectrum. When we factor in our social welfare and Government supports, our levels of inequality diminish. A central question for me in any budget, and this budget in particular, is whether this budget continued with that trend. When one takes the once-off payments into consideration and looks at the budget in the microcosm of this one year, the answer is largely, "Yes". Every budget, however, must be assessed in context. The context is that this year's budget builds on last year's budget, and crucially, it provides the foundation for next year's budget. Once-off payments are not part of that foundation, however. While they are most welcome and badly needed, they are temporary. The tax changes that will benefit the better off more than those on lower incomes are locked in but the once-off measures that provide the safety net needed by many families and individuals will be long gone by next summer. That is not progressive.

With regard to disability, the ESRI has conducted an analysis of the impact on disability budgeting. The ESRI findings are clear. Compared to inflation-proofed 2022 policies, households affected by disability will be slightly worse off in 2023. That is the finding of the ESRI. This includes the once-off payments. When those payments end, the picture will be grimmer. Those are the findings from the ESRI. It is important also to state that the number of households affected by disability has grown by 50% since 2007. More families are negatively impacted. This does not take into consideration the cost of disability, which as the Minister will be aware, is hugely significant. The Minister's own report in 2021 found that the additional cost of disability ranged from €9,000 to €12,500 per annum. I note that estimate was made before the current spike in the cost of energy and the runaway inflation.

Staying with the issues for people who have a disability, in an important point raised by one or two colleagues, when people with a disability reach the pension age, they automatically go onto the old age pension and they will be excluded from the €500 payment. The disability remains, in fact a disability often worsens as people get older, but yet they cannot access this once-off payment. The Minister should try to see if he can find a way to change this. Given that it is a once-off payment, the cost would not be that significant.

In the same arena, I just want to say a few words about family carers. Some aspects of this budget were good and one really positive aspect was that most family carers, not just those on carer's allowance, could access the once-off payment. Yet, carer's allowance is still means tested and is still not a qualifying payment for fuel allowance. Those two changes would make a huge difference.

I have two small final points to make. For third level students, the €1,000 rebate is not available to graduate entry students, for example, if a student is studying medicine. The Minister will be aware these students are already paying the full fees. At the very least they should be able to avail of this rebate. We need to train as many doctors as possible. Is there any way that the Minister could look at this?

Finally, many people are now really interested in renovating old or derelict homes. Croí Conaithe is a good scheme, especially since its extension to rural areas, but it is crucial that local authorities are adequately resourced in terms of finance and personnel to support the scheme.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for remaining for the whole length of the debate. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the amount of work that has gone into a Finance Bill that runs to 93 sections and approximately 215 pages. I recognise that some good steps have been taken in relation to the temporary business energy support scheme, which needs to be closely monitored, the extension of the 9% VAT for gas and electricity and the welcome move to reduce VAT on newspapers to zero, as well as many other good things in relation to once-off payments.

However, notwithstanding that there has been a boast of €11 billion, I have been in the Dáil since 2016 and have been desperately waiting, campaigning and working for a transformative budget, one which recognises that we can never go back. Covid told us that, as did climate change and biodiversity. I have read some of the speeches made on biodiversity on the Government side. They are wonderful and acknowledge the seriousness of it. That is not captured at all in the budget. That is my difficulty with once-off payments. The Government had to give those payments, given rising energy costs and the spiral we are caught in, but at no stage since I came in in 2016 have I seen transformative change. I have seen the Minister's words to the effect that the planet is burning, or perhaps it was his colleague. That was welcome in the speech last year but was not repeated this year, though the planet is burning even more. We need transformative change; there is no going on in the same way. When we pass a budget like this with piecemeal measures, some of which are very welcome, it is ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that we have to change whether we like it or not.

I can pick out anything but will pick out the help-to-buy scheme.I have raised it many times. I have a file here. I have read all the reports. The Minister has in section 5 extended it for another two years. He has not taken on any of the recommendations in the Mazars report. If it captures anything, it captures the language used in relation to change and then there is absolutely no change. That is what has happened here. We have had report after report. It was introduced and mentioned in 2016 and came into the budget via the Finance Act in operation in 2017. In each budget it has been extended. The estimated cost, originally, as the Minister knows much better than I, was €40 million. It looks like it will cost over €1 billion by next year. The Minister can tell me if I am wrong about the figures but I have looked at and read all of the reports.

I thank the Parliamentary Budget Office, which did a brilliant report. I would love to know what the contracting out of reports costs us and what the Parliamentary Budget Office gets to do its very good reports. Key messages are:

By the end of 2021, the estimated total cost of approved HTB claims was €559.7 million, [at that stage it was] 43% above cost estimates. ... A third of recipients did not need HTB to meet the 10% deposit ... and could instead use the scheme to create larger deposits. This could be described as “deadweight loss”, which means activity which would have taken place [anyway] without the tax incentive.

There is much more in that but I will go to the most recent report. I would love if the Minister had the cost of it for me.

I will refer to the executive summary of the Mazars report, though I have read more than that. It is interesting that part of the logic for introducing this scheme was that the Central Bank was so strict in the criteria it laid down for what one could borrow. It was to step into the vacuum caused by the prudence of the Central Bank. Now we will face the situation in January where the Central Bank has altered its rules and we can borrow up to four times a salary to buy a house that none of us can afford really. It does not make sense that we persist with the scheme for another two years at a time when the Central Bank says we can borrow away.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not what they said.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They said you can borrow up to four times your income.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every potential borrower is still subject to the affordability test.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see. Maybe the Minister could address the point I am making, which is that the Central Bank at that time was extremely prudent and this was one of the main justifications for this scheme. The Central Bank no longer advises prudence but says one can borrow up to four times, yet we are extending this. When we are extending it, we are saying it had "two key objectives", namely, "to increase supply" and "to improve affordability". It did neither, mind you. The summary states "The rationale for introducing [the] scheme [was] that [it] would boost demand", some latent demand that was not spelled out. It goes on to give the finding that "The scheme promotes demand for new housing in a market where the problems that exist are unequivocally supply constraints." It continues:

There were also concerns expressed when it was introduced that it can be difficult to remove schemes such as this once they have become [embedded]. This has clearly been the case [because it has] been extended a number of times ... This was not foreseen in appraisals of the scheme previously undertaken.

We do not have financial expertise here and have to use whatever wit we have to read these reports. Here we have a complete failure to analyse this scheme at the time and make proper predictions. The summary continues, "Expenditure on the scheme has far surpassed projected values and is rising rapidly." As I understand, it would be over €1 billion at the extension time, and possibly more. The report states, "This trend appears likely to continue and may accelerate." It is extremely relevant that it states "The scheme is poorly targeted with respect to incomes, location, house prices and other socioeconomic factors ... it has socially regressive impacts, there is a considerable deadweight associated with the expenditure, and it is poorly aligned with spatial policy." The Green Party might listen to that point of being "poorly aligned with spatial policy'" and so on.

I am grateful for the time I have had that allowed me to do that because I have wanted to do it for some time. I advise all Deputies to read it. The summary continues:

The issues that were to be addressed, including the shortage of housing output and affordability ... have intensified since it was introduced with increasing deficits and higher prices [and so on]. ... The research indicates that many of the risks that were perceived... have not come to pass.

The conclusion states, "There are weaknesses in the Help to Buy Scheme and it cannot be concluded that it is sufficiently efficient to represent good value for money." That is some understatement, after that report. After reading out all of that, that is the strongest that Mazars can come up with. The final part I will read out states, "A rational approach would not design the scheme as it currently exists".

That is the report on the help-to-buy scheme that the Minister held onto for a few months. He has not told us its cost. He published it on the day of the budget when we had little chance to read it. I tried to read it quickly that day and have read it since. All the reports to date have said it was poorly targeted. The jury is out on whether it led to an increase in prices but that is because the market was rising so much anyway.

That is one scheme this Bill is copper-fastening for another two years without any logic behind it except it is now too big to fail, a phrase which resonates with me from the banks. The scheme is now embedded. It is not a rational or good one but it is embedded in Government policies. There is the key: Government policy, which is to feed the market at all times rather than to provide public housing on public land. We have this help-to-buy scheme, HAP, RAS, long-term leasing and all the other schemes and all the time in Galway, we have a task force that has sat for three years and should be abandoned. I was thrilled when it came to look at the housing crisis in Galway.

We have no overall vision and no city architect. We have lands in the docks that are being dealt with by a company to maximise the price for the sale of lands there for housing that should be public housing on public land. It is the exact same across the city and a mantra that this is good.

I will finish. I will not go over my time. I have a great difficulty with the cognitive dissonance that happens all the time between something that is said and something that is not done.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all Deputies who participated in what has been a very lengthy and substantial debate reflecting the importance of the Finance Bill, which is central to the management of our economy and which responds to the many pressing needs in our society of which I and the Government are so well aware.

In the time available to me I will respond to the five key themes that have been raised with me: the role of fairness; the role of middle income workers; the concrete levy; one-off measures and where we are with regard to taxation and the energy sector. As I respond to each of these themes, I want to frame where the budget stands overall. It is important, as some Deputies on the Government side indicated, that we make the case for the fact that our country and economy can bring forward an €11 billion budget without having to borrow for it so soon after dealing with the extraordinary cost of Covid and the impact that pandemic had on our country.

I remember in the early days of bringing in the first set of economic supports that were needed to help our country deal with the impact of Covid in 2020. At that time in the debate the question that I had to face again and again was whether austerity was coming. Analysts, the media and the Opposition made the case that in the aftermath of Covid the first response would be the need for austerity. I cannot predict what the future will bring or the circumstances that could yet happen as a result of what this war may make our economy and that of Europe confront. What I can say is that so soon after having to deal with the need to support our country in dealing with a pandemic, to be able to bring forward a €11 billion budget and respond to the array of needs that our country has at a time when prices are going up so sharply does demonstrate the need to be careful with public finances and does demonstrate the value of there being resilience within our economy. The key thing that has enabled us to do that is that at a time when corporate tax receipts went up again, from approximately €11 billion in 2020 to over probably €20 billion this year, the Government did not use those additional revenues to fund permanent increases in expenditure or taxation. When it comes to spending, there was not a day that I walked into the Dáil Chamber that I was not called on to do that but we did not do that. What the Government did was that we used the increase in corporate tax revenue to fund the emergency supports that we needed to deal with the impact of Covid. Those supports were then withdrawn as the impact of Covid on our society withdrew. That led to our country having a surplus, which is a rare thing across Europe at the moment, and that will allow us to fund what we need to do now.

That leads on to some of the criticisms that have been made of the budget, first, that it is not fair. The ESRI’s analysis and the distributional analysis of the Department of Finance on budget day showed clearly, objectively and based on evidence that those who have the least got the most in this budget as a combination of the taxation changes and particularly the social welfare changes that were brought in by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, and the one-off measures that have been brought in by various Departments mean that those on the lowest income and those who are most vulnerable received the most support from this budget. This is a fair budget and a progressive budget and is shown to be in any independent analysis since.

The second theme was continued criticism on the taxation changes brought in. It makes me wonder what the Opposition has against someone earning around €40,000. What is it that drives the tone that the Opposition has to changes in taxation when it is continually against any kind of changes that mean someone earning €40,000 or €45,000, a Garda or a plumber or someone working in any part of our economy who sees their wages go above €38,000, €39,000 or €40,000 and that they do not deserve recognition in this budget? Because they do. They absolutely do. All those workers who make such a critical contribution to our country, economy and society need recognition at a time when the cost of living is going up. I heard the point made that a person earning €140,000 gets a gain but nowhere in that analysis was it said that someone earning €140,000 is getting the same cash gain in the budget as someone who is earning €40,000 which means that the percentage gain to someone earning €40,000 is more than someone earning €140,000. This is a budget that has a particular focus in our tax code and in our tax changes on those on a middle income. I do not believe it is appropriate, and it is something that I have wanted to change in budget after budget, that someone who is on a normal average wage in Ireland is already on the higher rate of income tax. I believe that is worthy of change. It is what this budget does. The Opposition, particularly Sinn Féin, appears to be against this at every corner.

I refer to the changes I made in the concrete levy. Of course I was aware of the debate that happened in the aftermath of budget day. If happens with every budget. There is always a reaction to a particular measure, some of which deserves a response and some of which does not. Those who are against the specifics of a concrete levy are for the generality of spending billions of euro all the time. I remember being in this Chamber over many years and hearing debates on the need to spend more money to help those who need help; the poor families and poor property owners who have been afflicted by mica. Those making the case for more to be spent are against any effort to look at how it could be funded. What is as dangerous as any trade offs that can be created by a specific measure such as this is the idea that our country can spend billions of euro in the future and we need never find a way by which some of that cost can be funded. On the trade offs behind this measure and the impact it could have on construction costs are 0.2% to 0.3% for a house and 0.15% and 0.2% for an apartment. That is the actual change that it could deliver.

That leads to the fourth area. Some of the debate I heard particularly from Independent TDs and the Social Democrats suggested that all was well and good but we should really exclude the one-off measures when evaluating the budget. I want to tease out that logic. They say that first, we should exclude €4 billion from evaluating the budget. Second, a point made most clearly by the Independents at the end of the debate, they say that in the analysis for next year we should either say that the one-off measures should be made permanent, the very thing the think tanks and the independent institutes they quote warn us against doing - they say they should be temporary and appropriate to where the economy is at any time - or are they suggesting we do not do this at all?

What is the argument they are making? Is it to exclude €4 billion from a budget or make the measures permanent, which is the very thing the bodies they quote would warn against?

On the charge that the State is in some way profiting from the change in energy prices, which charge has been made by the Rural Independent Deputies, in particular, it is the case that as the price of something goes up, the VAT we collect on it does too; however, the other part of the story, which the Deputies did not go into, is that as the citizens to whom they referred spend less in our shops and economy, we collect less VAT.

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

A handkerchief.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a trend that could very well develop across 2023. This is a budget that is fair and that, in the context-----

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

The Government is robbing the poor to give to the rich.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----of all our country has gone through, with Covid and changing economic circumstances, can and will make a difference and shows the value in the decisions the Government has made in recent years.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before moving on, I want to draw the Deputies' attention to an erratum slip. There was an error in the numbering of sections 58 and 59 in the original explanatory memorandum. It has been corrected in the revised explanatory memorandum.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time tomorrow evening.