Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I join the Acting Chairperson in offering condolences to Senator Currie on the death of her father. I do not think we have spoken to each other since that sad event. I know all present join with me in offering condolences.

I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate. I appreciate all the points that have been made. I will go through the issues raised in sequence. Obviously, the issue of the hospitality sector was singled out as a key one for consideration today. The issue is now about how to survive at this stage, in light of the recent restrictions. The EWSS was mentioned by many Senators. The Minister has made clear that he wishes to deal with the sector through the CRSS method rather than the EWSS. I know it has been stated that the EWSS cannot be made sector-specific. It is probably the way it was drafted. I do not have the legal answer to that but I suspect it was because of the way the scheme was originally drafted. The CRSS is one way of providing some benefits to people in that sector. As I stated in my opening remarks, officials from the Department of Finance and Revenue are in detailed discussions on improving that. When the scheme came out first, it was on the basis of businesses that were closed. It is now being revisited on the basis of businesses that are open but suffering a reduction in trading income because of the restrictions that exist. We are remodelling the scheme specifically for that sector. As I stated, there will be announcements on that later this week. We do not have it today. I cannot pre-empt the process. Those discussions are ongoing and I am sure the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, will clarify all those issues as the week progresses. Beyond that, I am not in a position to comment. I hope that issue will have been well clarified by the time I come back here next week on Committee Stage. It may be another Minister who comes to the House for that Stage. The issue was raised because people are leaving the sector, in which there is good employment. Staff are a core asset, especially in that sector. The buildings, menus and products are there but what makes a business work is the actual staff. It is important that these measures are put in place very quickly to make sure the core assets of the business, which are its staff and reputation, are protected.

Reference was made to several budget measures across the board. I refer to the whole question in respect of coach providers and people affected in the area of tourism. I do not have a particular response on that but I acknowledge the point and will take it back to the Department of Finance.

A big issue mentioned is the question of capital gains tax on properties transferred by parents to their children in circumstances where there is a capital gain between the time of the purchase of the property and its ownership being transferred to another family member such as a son or daughter. As it is not the principal private family residence, that is the situation in the context of capital gains tax and there is no change in that regard in the Bill. It is has been more of a feature in society in recent times. It has not always been the case that people had a second property they could hand over. It is a First World problem. I do not mean that in a bad way. It is a sign that people had an extra property they could transfer. That said, it is an issue that can be examined in future but no commitment can be made here tonight on that particular issue.

The issue of aggregation of capital gains tax was raised.We know it is accumulative over a person's life. People who could do so took measures and then they were not taken into account in the final amount. People did it at stages rather than at a later date.

I thank the Senator who supported the SIPTU claim, as many of us did, with regard to childcare funding, and the fact we need a sectoral employment order concluded as urgently as possible.

The issue of energy prices has been mentioned. It is an issue that is much wider than the Finance Bill. It is an issue germane to almost every political debate in the country at present. Through social protection and other measures, the Government has given the free fuel allowance for an extended period. It can be given to people in two lump sums during the course of the period or on a weekly basis. There has been a reasonable increase. It does not cover the full cost of heating but it was always meant to be a contribution to the cost.

There was a suggestion that it is a waste of money for councils to lease homes for people to rent. I understand the councils do not own the properties at the end of the day. I agree with the philosophy on this but I do not believe it is a waste of money for the council to re-lease properties so people can have a roof over their heads. I disagree with the philosophy that it is wrong to do this if a council only has the funds to lease in the short term. It should at least do that much and give people a roof over their heads. The other issue of ultimate ownership is an important debate but it is not one that is any good to a person looking for a home at this time of the year.

Many people mentioned working from home. In the past, there was a small provision in place. It was very minor. Enhanced provision is now in place but it is coming into effect from now on. I acknowledge that it would be nice if it could be backdated but effectively it will not be. The old scheme was on an administrative basis and this will be on a legislative basis. It is a small step in the direction. There may be incremental moves on this depending on the working from home situation as time goes on and people get a clearer cost base and Revenue collects information on the sources of the expenses. It will vary quite a bit when the new measure is introduced.

People mentioned the extension of the help-to-buy scheme in the provisions of the Finance Bill.

The pandemic placement grant for student nurses was also mentioned. I will give no commitment on whether it should be a permanent placement allowance but it is good that it is in place for Covid. We are dealing with situations in this regard.

Senators also mentioned that they support the tax changes and the changes to the minimum wage, which are separate issues. There are measures to ensure people are not caught for the higher rate of PRSI.

There was also a welcome for the stamp duty for young trained farmers and the continuation of the bank levy.

Senator Dolan mentioned the issue of pre-letting expenses. There are major cash flow difficulties involved for people who do not have the cash. People can get tax relief for the expenses after the fact. I accept that there can be issues financing it in the short term. It is not a grant system, which would be neater. It is in respect of a business expense where there should be a stream of revenue down the line. A good accountant might be able to work with a bank to structure the tax benefit over a period of time when the costs will have to be repaid if bank financing is involved.

Senator Burke mentioned the €48 billion in Covid costs. This is for employees by and large through the EWSS and the PUP. The point he made very clearly was that a large amount of the extra €48 billion was not with regard to dealing with Covid in the health services and the additional costs in the health services. I do not have a breakdown of the figures. It is information the Department of Health should be able to provide as part of its normal business before Oireachtas committees with regard to how much of the extra €48 billion was for improvements in the health service and how much was strictly related to Covid and education. Clearly the Department of Education will be able to give a figure for the costs of Covid. It was not all handed out to employees or businesses through the PUP, the EWSS or rates relief. Much of it went on direct front-line services through these areas.

The Senator also mentioned cross-Border issues. As a result of Brexit, temporary measures were put in place. We did not ask for Brexit but we have it. This is one of the by-products of Brexit. It would not have been our choice to have to deal with this issue but it is there. In fairness, for the first year or so after Brexit, we can only deal with things on a temporary emergency basis. We do not know how it will evolve in future. It is important that it is there for now. Beyond that I cannot give a further response. I can only acknowledge the points that have been made.

Many people mentioned the zoned land tax. I covered it briefly and I am sure we can have a discussion in more detail on Committee Stage with regard to how much it might raise. It is not designed to raise money. The perfect land tax will be one people do not want to pay so they will get on and build houses and never get levied with the zoned land tax. I want to see movement on houses in order that no serviced site fully zoned for housing is sitting idle. It will be a failure of the building and construction industry if there is a large levy.

I thank all of the Senators for their contributions. I look forward to dealing with the various amendments on Committee and Report Stages.