Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Nov 2017

Vol. 962 No. 2

Finance Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

Deputy Paul Murphy

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 47, after line 35, to insert the following:

"Chapter 7

Financial Transaction Tax

34. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, bring a report on the potential additional income that would be raised by imposing a Financial Transaction Tax.".

I will be extremely brief in discussing the next couple of amendments because I do not believe there is any point in forcing us to stay here for hours more than necessary. We are not going to convince the Minister. Amendment No. 51 is to call for a report on the potential income that would be raised by imposing a financial transaction tax. All the indications are that the revenue raised would be heading towards €1 billion. The European Commission is in favour of such a tax, as are many of the European states. It would be charged at a rate of 0.1% on transfers of shares and 0.1% on derivatives, but the Government will not countenance it because it touches in some small way on the interests of finance capital.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Paschal Donohoe)

I outlined my reasons for opposing this amendment on Committee Stage. I will continue to oppose it and am not in a position to accept it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I move amendment number 52:

In page 47, after line 35, to insert the following:

"Chapter 7

Landlords’ Tax

35. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, bring a report on abolishing the Local Property Tax and replacing it with a Landlords’ Tax of €600 per annum on a second home and €1000 per annum on a third and all subsequent homes.".

Again, I will not take a long time discussing this amendment. We are calling for a report on abolishing the local property tax, which is in reality a home tax, and replacing it with a so-called landlords' tax of €600 per annum on a second home and €1,000 per annum on a third and all subsequent homes. The tax would not raise enough to cover the entire cost of scrapping the local property tax but it would cover over half that cost. I do not believe the Minister will accept the amendment.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I have already debated elements of this amendment with the Deputy and I am not in a position to accept it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 47, after line 35, to insert the following:

"Chapter 7

Millionaire’s Tax

36. (1) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, bring a report on additional revenue that would be raised by introducing a Millionaires’ Tax of 2 per cent on net wealth exceeding €1 million.

(2) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, compile a national database on the distribution of wealth and assets.".

This is a proposal for a millionaires' tax. There are wealth taxes in other countries in Europe. They are not of the scale of the proposed millionaires' tax. We heard in the past week or so about the 13,000 who have become dollar millionaires in Ireland over the course of the past year. My figure is a euro millionaire figure so it would not be quite so large, but presumably not far off. The numbers of millionaires and homeless people are increasing simultaneously. We believe we should be taxing the wealth of the very wealthiest in society with a tax such as the millionaires' tax.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I have already outlined the reasons I could not support this amendment. It does not take account of the ability of individuals to move in and out of our State. We already have a highly progressive tax system in which those who have more pay more. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

We have had this debate often and we will have it again. A survey was carried out recently that showed that eight people out of ten in the country want to see a wealth tax. Therefore, the Minister might consider it, even in the interest of what the majority of people want. The people want it particularly because the level of household wealth has grown by 51% since the trough in 2013. The top 10% own 53% of it. The number of millionaires has increased exponentially and it would be entirely justified to tax them.

Even setting aside our differences on that, does the Minister not believe we should have a database on wealth distribution? In this sort of debate, we often end up saying a tax would not raise that much and that it is all pie in the sky. We should have a proper database on the distribution of wealth rather than just the aggregate figures that are available through the Central Bank or CSO. Would that not be a way to assess whether the proposed tax would be useful? We are convinced it would be. The tax would be a fair one the objective of which would be to share the wealth in Irish society. A database would help to provide evidence on which to base a serious discussion given that many people believe the proposed tax should be considered.

Will the Minister at least consider that we should have a database on the distribution of wealth?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I have outlined the reason I do not believe such a tax should be introduced. The reason is that we already have such a progressive tax system in place in which those who have more income pay more tax. Many different evaluations of the tax code that have been carried out by the OECD and international experts have recognised that. The reason we do not currently have a database to assess wealth is because of the difficulty, for example, in how we would value different forms of wealth. It may be possible to evaluate the value of assets that are regularly traded such as stocks and shares or even property but, for example, when one gets into other forms of wealth that are not traded as often it is more difficult to value them and therefore to tax them. I am not currently aware of there being such a database in other jurisdictions but I imagine if there is Deputy Boyd Barrett will tell me in a moment. One of the reasons no such database exists is because of the difficulty in defining and measuring wealth. That is one of the reasons I cannot accept the amendment.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

There is such a database in France, for example. The aggregate figures are collected and various bodies collect figures on wealth distribution, for example, Credit Suisse. The survey on income and living conditions, SILC, report provided by the CSO has begun to give an assessment of the distribution of wealth, hence the figure which confirmed many of the other studies that were previously rubbished by the former Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, about the top 10% having 54% of the wealth. Of course we can find out. We do not believe in a local property tax but we have a property tax base. The Minister established a database to find out the value of property. We can easily find out the value of property wealth and we have those figures. We can find out the volume of deposits and the size of them via the banks and the Central Bank and likewise with shares and other such wealth. There are ways of doing those assessments if there is a will to do them. It is done in other countries but it seems there is no real will to do it here.

The Minister referred to the progressive tax system but that simply does not acknowledge the exponential growth in the number of multimillionaires in this country, which every single report on wealth distribution shows is increasing dramatically. The overall aggregate household wealth is increasing dramatically also but most ordinary people are not feeling it. Even at an anecdotal level that would suggest there is a small group of people who are getting wealthier and in the interests of fairness it should be something the Government would examine in order to get some assessment of the wealth, where it is, how it is distributed and how we could distribute it more fairly.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 48, to delete lines 3 to 35, to delete pages 49, 50, 51 and in page 52 to delete lines 1 to 27.

We might take a little bit longer to discuss this amendment although I do not suggest it will take a very long time. Effectively, our amendment would delete the so-called sugar tax from the budget. We are against the sugar tax and I have not been convinced by the arguments that have been put forward in its favour. I should qualify that by saying that in no way are we defenders of the soft drinks industry or the sugar industry nor do we underestimate or understate the negative impact of soft drinks on health in terms of problems of obesity and diabetes. Those are very real problems and I discourage people from drinking soft drinks at all or if possible at least to minimise their consumption. I do not believe a sugar tax is the answer.

Another amendment which has been ruled out of order sought to have a report carried out to assess the situation but evidence already exists from other jurisdictions. For example, in a number of American states, for example, in Philadelphia, it was shown that the impact of a sugar tax was regressive in that it would affect people on low incomes and people of colour the hardest; significantly harder as a percentage of their income than higher income earners. We are against regressive taxation. One could dress up water charges as a green tax or other measures as health charges but fundamentally they amount to regressive taxation and in this case it puts the burden onto the consumer of those drinks, which we are against. The tax will act in a regressive manner to shift wealth disproportionately away from lower income groups.

If the Minister could convince me that the measure would have a massively transformative impact over the other measures that could be taken I would be happy to debate the issue but I do not believe it would have the impact other measures would have. The kind of measures I favour in terms of dealing with health crises, including those caused by sugar, include regulation, policy and measures relating to ownership and taxation but on the companies that produce the drinks rather than taxes that are simply paid by the consumer. If the Government is serious about an approach in terms of a healthy lifestyle then let us have a carrot approach and a serious approach to increasing the amount of physical education in primary schools, which is on average one hour a week. A study by UCD pointed out that for girls it is an average of 46 minutes a week but in reality that amounts to very little when the before and after bits are taken out. Let us contrast that with religion, regardless of ethos, where it is two and a half hours a week. We are the third lowest among 37 European states for time spent on physical exercise in primary schools. If the Minister is serious about young people being healthy then he will significantly increase the amount of time spent on physical education in the school curriculum. He would also build a real national health service which includes free visits all the way through people's lives to dentists and doctors, which would allow them to have a relationship with those health professionals and instead of this country being a low spender on health promotion we would become a high spender. Those things would have much more of a radical impact in terms of people's lives and as part of an education and health promotion campaign could dramatically reduce people's consumption of high sugar soft drinks.

In addition, I favour regulation such as the measures relating to alcohol that are very controversial. We support the ban on alcohol advertisements for anything to do with sport and the same approach should apply to soft drinks. It should not be allowed to promote drinks that are full of sugar which have a very thin veneer of connection to sport. We should regulate that out of existence. Similarly, we should regulate the existence of vending machines for soft drinks cans in places where young people congregate, which I think still includes some schools, community centres, swimming pools and other such venues whereby people are able to access such drinks if they want but if they are not pushed in the way they currently are it would have more of an impact.

I am in favour of taxing corporations. Let us have an extra tax on the profits of those corporations which are primarily involved in the production of junk food and junk drinks.

The same applies in terms of regulation of advertising of soft drinks and junk foods.

I will make another point quickly. I agree it is not the same and I am not trying to suggest it is the same. I accept that all the scientific studies required have not yet been done. However, we should not suggest that the alternatives to full-sugar soft drinks, including drinks with saccharine and all the other additives, are not without complications. A number of studies indicate the complications of artificial sweeteners. They have the same effect of getting people used to sweet tastes and, therefore, they can make people consume more sugar elsewhere in their lives and diets. This is not the answer to a problem. It causes problems and is a regressive measure.

Deputy David Cullinane

Sinn Féin will oppose the amendment. While speaking on the issue, I am deeply conscious that I am filling in for Teachta Doherty, who has gone out for his tea. Most likely, he is having beans, chips and a can of Coke. He is one of those people who should be in the Chamber to listen to this. He is one of those people who likes soft drinks but still supports the principle of the tax.

This is not a new idea; it has been around for a long time. It has been examined by different sectoral committees, including the Joint Committee on Health. I am not convinced by the arguments of the previous speaker that this is somehow a tax on the poor or the working class or anything like that. It should never be a case of either-or. My party supports higher taxes on wealth and higher incomes. We support effective corporation taxes and so forth. It is not the case that someone could on the one hand support this but not be in favour of progressive taxation on the other hand.

Incidentally, we had a proposal to include a sugar tax in our alternative budget. While I am putting this question to the Minister, I am conscious that we would use associated revenue to spend generally across all services, albeit we proposed an increase in health spending. When people see new taxes like this introduced, they need assurance. We can win the support of the public if they see that the money is actually used for practical purposes. Given that this tax is being sold on the basis of encouraging people's behaviour and so on, will the Minister give consideration to ring-fencing money raised from the sugar tax for the issues about which we have spoken, including the promotion of healthy living, illness prevention, primary care and so on? Can that link be demonstrated? We must try to win support for these types of taxes. People need to see that the money is actually being used rather than simply going into a black hole. We need to ensure that we invest in comprehensive holistic primary care and so on. The Minister might outline his intentions to ring-fence, if at all.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I agree with the last speaker that a sugar tax is a good thing. I agree with what the Government is doing. We should ensure the money raised is put into education and health. Better education will help our youngsters, and our grown-ups in some cases, to use better food and to avoid these soft drinks. I will oppose the amendment. I commend the Government on what it has done.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Deputy Pearse Doherty is welcome back. I am unsure whether he realises that his colleague has accused him of drinking a can of Coke during his break.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I will have to correct the record.

Deputy David Cullinane

That would be the third correction of the Dáil record today.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I can vouch that Deputy Doherty is prone to the odd can of Coke, as I am myself, unfortunately.

I oppose the amendment and support the initiative by the Government, not as a revenue-raising measure but principally as a public health measure and intervention. The effectiveness of the measure will not be measured by the amount of taxation it brings in for the State but rather by how it changes the offering of companies and the behaviour of consumers. Certainly, soft drinks suppliers are changing and diversifying their products. They were doing so even before the introduction of this tax. In that respect, it has already made a contribution as a public health measure. The effects of this tax are largely unknown. It would be wrong to overstate the importance or likely consequences.

It is easy to put more and more responsibility on schools and maintain that schools should be doing this or that. Schools have limited resources and are stretched. Their core function is one of education. The big issue in many schools in my area relates to overcrowding and schools awaiting new developments. These schools only have small yards and the children cannot even run in them. That is the reality in many schools in my area.

I welcome this initiative. Fianna Fáil supports it but we do not support the amendment.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

At one point when the double doors opened and Deputy Doherty walked in, I thought he would have a can of Red Bull in his hand, such were the points his colleague made in his absence. Anyway, I am glad the Sinn Féin policy on this matter is clear and that the party supports the principle of the sugar tax.

In some ways, Deputy Paul Murphy is one of the most unlikely socialists I have ever come across. He continually preaches the need for higher taxation. He points to the role of taxes and how taxes need to be used to change behaviour. Yet, every time we bring in a tax with that intention, he appears to oppose it. I would have thought that if anyone can agree with the principle of tax policy being used as a way of influencing behaviour, surely it would be someone such as Deputy Murphy, who advocates higher taxes on many forms of activity every day of the week. When I saw that Deputy Murphy had tabled an amendment in this regard, I initially assumed that he must have been calling for a higher tax, since that appears to be his normal response to every other form of tax policy that we introduce.

The Deputy made the point that he is not convinced by some of the arguments put forward. Of course, that is always his right. In recent years, however, in the debate on issues like childhood obesity, many of the clinical experts in this area have called for tax to be used to reduce the excess consumption of drinks that have a high sugar content and that can cause great difficulties for children in later life. That is why we are bringing in the measure.

It will bring in a yield to the State of approximately €40 million but the reason we are bringing in the measure is because we believe it can play an important role in the Government’s action plan, A Healthy Weight for Ireland. The plan is about trying to put in place a number of different measures to deal with the growing difficulties we have relating to obesity. This tax is not being introduced in isolation. It is one of a range of different policies that either have been brought in or are in the process of being brought in, such as legislation relating to food labelling, calorie posting in restaurants and incentives for industry to reformulate products. This tax is a classic example of how it can be done and there is some evidence that it is already happening. Other measures include providing health services in primary and secondary schools, better provision of information and guidelines for people through the media, training of health care staff and healthy eating initiatives.

I do not contend for a moment that this tax on its own will change all of the behaviour we seek to change. I do believe, however, it will make a contribution. I would have hoped Deputy Paul Murphy, as a full-throated socialist, would embrace this tax rather than seeking to oppose it.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

While I did not hear the comments made by my colleague, Deputy Cullinane, it is fair to say they were scurrilous.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

An inquiry may be necessary.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I will correct the record by pointing out that I supported the dairy industry by having a good, healthy glass of milk with my dinner. As Deputy Michael McGrath stated, I enjoy a can of Coke sometimes. This is an important issue. I told Deputy Cullinane that if he stated in the House that I was drinking Coke, my wife would have a good go at me when I arrive home tonight because I am trying to lose weight.

A while back, while waiting to be interviewed on "Morning Ireland", I had a conversation with a clinical expert on obesity who was about to be interviewed in a slot. We discussed the issue of obesity and another issue about which I was due to speak on the programme. He told me my party needed to get to grips with obesity, an issue which impacts most on deprived areas. He pointed out that, as a result of obesity, people in these areas are also deprived of many opportunities and stated that one of the key steps, albeit not the only one, was a sugar tax. Investment is needed in physical education in schools and in making sport accessible in deprived areas. While I do not wish to diminish the great work done by the GAA, soccer academies and a wide range of other sports, it can be expensive to keep up with a sport, whether paying for new football boots or a sports bag or making the weekly voluntary contributions. These issues must all be addressed.

The imposition of a sugar tax is a good move. Deputy McGrath is correct in this regard. We have learned already that the estimated revenue from the tax has been revised downwards on the basis that companies have decided to alter the ingredients of their products. Moreover, arising from the decision to introduce a sugar tax, people are becoming more aware that these products are one of the causes of obesity. This can only be good because obesity is a major killer.

I was convinced by the arguments made by the clinical professor to whom I spoke in the "Morning Ireland" waiting room, although I was not happy when he broke the news to me that I was obese, even if he did not do so on air. It is for this reason that I no longer drink Coke. We all have to try to lose a couple of inches from our waistlines.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The Deputy will put on a few pounds drinking milk.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

At least drinking milk is for a good cause. There is a big difference between a glass of milk and a glass of Coke. Deputy Boyd Barrett is scraping the bottom of the can in support of his amendment.

The sugar tax is a good measure but it will not be the be all and end all. We must do much more as a society to tackle obesity, which will require more than taxation measures, although these also have a role to play. That is the reason I am pleased to support the measure.

My only concern is that all forms of taxation need to have a shock effect and achieving this is a balancing act. I am not sure the levy is set at a sufficiently high level. Sinn Féin, in our alternative budget, went further than the Minister's proposal on the basis that a significant increase in price is needed to achieve a change in behaviour. If one incrementally increases a tax, people become used to paying a little extra and they are not presented with an in-your-face choice as to whether they wish to continue down a particular route or consider alternatives.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I predict this tax will have little or no impact on the consumption of sugary drinks. I do not believe imposing additional costs on products such as these will reduce consumption any more than I believed increasing the costs of bin collection would reduce waste output. What is needed are alternatives that enable people to recycle. If recycling is promoted and recycling infrastructure is provided, people are sensible enough to do the right thing. Much the same applies to the consumption of sugary drinks. We need to appeal to people's intelligence rather than hitting them in the pocket without explaining what we are doing.

Young people these days are very intelligent but they are battered with advertising which suggests these types of drinks are fun and will enhance their quality of life. They become addicted to these products as a result of advertising. Once they are addicted, it is difficult to wean themselves off these drinks. Consequently, I do not believe this tax will make much, if any, difference.

I also note there is no commitment to ring-fence the revenues from the tax for health promotion measures. I would give the measure some credence, although I would still disagree with it on the basis that a regressive tax is the wrong approach to the problem, if the Government gave a commitment to invest every single, solitary cent of revenue from the sugar tax in various forms of health promotion. This would include, as Deputy Paul Murphy stated, the banning of advertising of sugary drinks in sport, removing vending machines and ensuring sugary drinks are no longer sold in schools or where young people gather. Critically, it would involve resourcing physical education, not only in terms of hours, as Deputy Murphy suggested, but by addressing the lack of facilities for engaging in sport in schools in working-class areas.

The Minister may not be aware of it but some of his colleagues are certainly aware of a battle being fought with the Christian Brothers who plan to sell the playing fields of Clonkeen College. This school, which is in my local area, has a fantastic record and history in Gaelic football, soccer and so on. The sports fields it has used for years are being taken off them and despite appeal after appeal being made by parents, teachers, students and Deputies, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Richard Bruton, will not lift a finger because, he says, the decision has nothing to do with him. This is a publicly funded school, yet the Minister is allowing the Christian Brothers to pay off debts incurred as a result of the abuse they inflicted on previous generations of children by taking playing fields off future generations of children who need them for sport.

The Government must resource and provide facilities at school level. Gyms are needed, as are education and health promotion initiatives to encourage people to engage in healthy activity and to see the folly of imagining that life would be made better by drinking sugar-filled drinks. As has been stated, these measures could be paid for by taxing some of the companies concerned but the Government never adopts that approach. Instead, it always chooses to hit people in the pocket. Any charge based on consumption inevitably hits the least well-off. The wealthy, who, incidentally, have access to playing fields and gyms and money to pay for all these types of activities, will not be hit by this tax. The Government is going about this in the wrong way and its sugar tax will not work. Notwithstanding my differences with him on this issue, if the Minister were serious about the tax, he would give a firm commitment here and now to ensure every cent generated by the tax will be used for health promotion of the type I have described.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I am astounded each time the Government expresses astonishment that we oppose regressive taxes or asks how socialists could possibly oppose them. To go back over recent years, when the household tax was introduced it was described as a tax for local services. We were asked how socialists could possibly be opposed to developing local tax structures when socialists across the world support such structures. The household tax was then replaced by the property tax.

We were told it was a tax on wealth, that socialists across the world support taxes on wealth and were asked why we did not support this tax. It was added to by the water tax, which we were told it was a green tax. We were told socialists across the world support taxes on the consumption of water and that it is an environmental measure. Now we come to the sugar tax, the Minister states he is shocked and surprised again that socialists are opposed to these sorts of taxes. The Minister might want to draw some broader conclusions about our approach to taxation because I do not agree. We do not put forward regressive taxation measures on ordinary people as a way of changing behaviour. That is not a socialist approach to taxation.

While we call for more taxes on the wealthy, it has nothing in common with that kind of nudge theory of trying to change individuals' behaviour. We are in favour of taxes to raise wealth and resources in order that they can be used by the public - by the State - to improve people's lives. That is what we are for. If one seeks a contrast between the approach of Hillary Clinton, a liberal in an American sense, and Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, the former was in favour of the sugar tax in the US presidential election. She was in favour of this sort of nudge theory whereas Bernie Sanders was against such a tax because it is a regressive tax and was instead in favour of the kind of measures we propose. We are debating a sugar tax but fundamentally, there is a philosophical economic approach to how one sees taxation and what the purpose of taxation is.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I outlined the rationale for this tax. It is a tax that is supported by the majority in the House. I am not accepting the Deputy's amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lahart)

Amendment No. 55 in the name of Deputies Boyd Barrett, Paul Murphy, Bríd Smith, Gino Kenny, Barry and Coppinger is out of order. Amendment No. 56 in the names of Deputies Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith and Gino Kenny is out of order. Amendment No. 57 in the name of Deputy Brophy is also out of order. It does not arise from Committee proceedings and involves a potential charge on the people. Deputy Brophy's amendment No. 58 is also out of order. It does not arise from Committee proceedings and involves a potential charge on the people. Amendment No. 59 in the name of Deputy Wallace is out of order. It does not arise from Committee proceedings.

Amendments Nos. 55 to 59, inclusive, not moved.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lahart)

Amendment No. 60 in the name of Deputy Michael McGrath arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 55, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

54. The Minister shall within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Oireachtas a report on the impact of amending the definition of "qualifying organisation" under the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passenger (Tax Concessions) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 to allow all charitable organisations who are engaged in the care and transport of severely and permanently disabled persons.".

This amendment relates to the disabled drivers' and disabled passengers' tax concession scheme. All Members will be familiar with that scheme and will have received many representations on it in the course of their work, principally on the issue of the qualifying criteria for the primary medical certificate. Deputies will be acutely aware of that aspect but that is not the issue my party is raising here.

Certain qualifying organisations may also qualify under the scheme but the existing criteria are narrow. Principally, an organisation, in order to qualify, must be chiefly engaged in the care and transport for severely and permanently disabled persons. My colleague, Deputy Thomas Byrne, raised an issue with me relating to a special needs school he is representing and hopes to help. The school is seeking to purchase a bus for the transport of pupils attending it. However, the majority of the pupils do not have the primary medical certificate and under the existing law, the school would not be in a position to qualify. We do not seek to change the law for an individual case but the case highlights a genuine issue that needs to be addressed relating to the qualifying criteria for an organisation to benefit from this scheme and avail of the tax concession.

I thank the Minister and his officials for engaging on this issue. I understand the Department is willing to consider an amendment to a statutory instrument, SI 353 of 1994, which, if the Department is in a position to proceed, will come before the House and so on. Essentially, what I think is under consideration, which we would welcome, is that instead of the definition being that the organisation must be chiefly engaged in the care and transport of severely and permanently disabled persons, it would be replaced with a requirement that at least one service user for whom the organisation provided care and transport services would have obtained a primary medical certificate. That would be an important change that we would warmly welcome. I encourage the Government to proceed with that and take the necessary steps for it to be executed. While it could certainly benefit a certain number of special schools, it may also benefit other service providers around the country.

The Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, took a particular interest when I raised the issue and I thank him for his engagement. That would be real progress. It does not redefine the eligibility criteria for the primary medical certificate. That is an issue we have raised previously and will raise again but this is at the level of the qualifying organisation. It is an important change that it is to be hoped will happen and that we would welcome.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am delighted to be able to speak on this amendment and I thank Deputy Michael McGrath for putting it forward.

There are many such situations in County Tipperary but I have one organisation in particular in mind that is in the process of buying a new bus, namely, the Tipperary day care centre. It is a wonderful facility with a voluntary board scrapping and scrounging to try to pay the excellent manager and staff using community employment schemes. Across the border, in County Limerick, the HSE is funding the staff but it is not doing so in this case. The centre has received a generous contribution from one J.P. McManus but now it is caught in this trap. Its dealer told the centre to get rid of its old bus, which is not actually old as it dates from 2010, but which has given endless trouble and has cost it a fortune. Consequently, it must upgrade the bus.

I am sure all Deputies visit day care centres and know of the work they do and how the elderly, who are so isolated now in towns and rural areas, as well as in the cities, need these services. There may be a couple who have the primary medical certificate but there is a need for change in this regard. A change was made because as I stated, the centre bought the bus in 2010 and at that time, it was allowed to get the rebate. Subsequently, a statutory instrument or something was signed or a ruling made by the HSE that the centre cannot get it. It is the cruelest of blows because the people who go to that centre love it. They look forward to being picked up at their homes once or twice a week. As I said, this change is necessary. Deputy Michael McGrath stated the Minister is looking at changing it. It has to be changed as it was a hammer blow to these people.

We also heard mention of VAT in the budget and a start was made to give VAT back to voluntary groups. I refer to organisations such as Knocklofty RehabCare centre and RehabCare Clonmel, as well as special needs people throughout the county who need this.

One will never have a situation where all the people qualify. They might be hugely restricted in their development but may not be missing a leg or a limb. I am sorry to use such crude language but that is what qualification entails. One can be profoundly disabled and be able to move around or profoundly ill in other ways. These are the people who we are trying to keep out of the nursing homes and hospitals. This is a support for half a day or three quarters of a day, where they are picked up in the morning, brought in for their tea and a scone and where they avail of a chiropodist, hairdressers and so on. They have their meal and have a little entertainment and games and then are brought back home again. It is a lifeline, keeping such people alive, out of hospital and out of nursing homes. It is mainly organised by a board of directors who are volunteers and we cannot ever forget that.

I do not know whether the Department of Finance or the HSE changed the rule but it was a mean, lean decision. It flies in the face of all we are trying to do for social inclusion.

We talk about equality but where is the equality in that? Do we want them all to be without a limb? Is that what we are down to? Goodness, this is hapless. They need supports in many other ways. This is stimulation and it reinvigorates them, and while they may be lost then from the Thursday or Friday until the following Monday or Tuesday, at least they can look forward to this. We will all be visiting these places at Christmas, we hope, for the different celebrations.

This has to be changed. I hope that common sense will prevail. There is no-one trying to cod the system here. It is not like the Ponzi schemes we were talking about in the context of other amendments, where billions have been written off by big businesses and companies. This is about ordinary people, the enablers in Ireland who are providing these day care centres. They are fundraising in the main, with some support from the HSE. In terms of upkeep, damage from storms, no matter what it is, they have to fundraise. This is a shock, though, because they could buy a bus in 2010 and get a certain amount of the funding back under the grant scheme. Now they find that when they are forced to buy a bus in 2017 they cannot avail of the grant scheme because not all of the users are on crutches or in wheelchairs. There are some who are in wheelchairs, certainly but many are able bodied and can walk.

I hope that the Minister and his officials will look at this again because it is a wrong move and it is detrimental to the well-being of the elderly, the not-so-elderly and the vulnerable, as well as to the volunteers who try to run these places outside of their normal jobs. They have already paid their taxes.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I commend Deputy Michael McGrath on tabling this amendment. There are community centres all over the country where people voluntarily cook food and provide different types of activities for people who would not see another person were it not for the community centres and the services they provide. As was rightly pointed out earlier, some of the people concerned may not be without a limb but they are not able to walk. Many are in wheelchairs and have family members or neighbours helping them to get out of bed in the mornings. Then people from the community services come to help them. A lot of these community services are struggling to survive and do not have a lot of money. When they go about buying a vehicle, they try to avail of whatever tax allowances are open to them.

In terms of the medical certificate side of things, there are massive problems. We all talk about helping people with disabilities, but one thing we should do, as politicians, is make sure that we do not put obstacles in the way of those who are helping to improve the lives of those with disabilities by bringing them out and enabling them to have a chat with others in a community centre or a local hall. These services are provided in cities, towns and rural areas. There are great community organisations which are bringing these people to local community centres three to five days per week. They can have a wash, have a meal and get involved in various activities. The work of these community organisations is invaluable.

When these organisations try to improve things by getting a reliable bus that will bring people to the centres, they have difficulty with Revenue in terms of getting money back because of regulations or because of the way something has been put in place. We need to take the obstacles out of that. I know that many of them have charitable status, which is welcome. A bus is a big investment. Some of the roads that the buses are travelling on are not in great shape, and after a certain amount of mileage, the buses get worn out. In many cases, it would cost more to fix them than to replace them. These community organisations are fundraising too. Every community fundraises and they are doing all of this off their own bat. There are good people throughout this country who are doing this day in and day out. It is the quiet people around Ireland who are making these sacrifices and doing this work. Then they see an obstacle that is blocking them from getting something to which they should be entitled automatically. There should not even be a question about this.

I would say to the Minister that while this may be an oversight, it needs to be addressed. It is not as if it will cost a massive amount of money. It is well known in all relevant Departments that the numbers involved are small. In my own area, people from four parishes would be brought into one community centre. That is the way they do it. It is done efficiently. We should make sure that we facilitate these people for the good deeds they are doing out there.

Deputy John McGuinness

There are community organisations throughout the country, in both urban and rural settings, that are providing a valuable service to people in this category, enabling them to participate somewhat in the activities of that community and in society. Without that service, which involves being collected by a bus or organised transport and being brought to the community centre, they would be prisoners in their own homes and would not be able to enjoy the activities that are being provided. The Government would pay a hell of a lot more if these people ended up in institutionalised settings or in need of further care in their homes. These community organisations are doing the Government a service and the least we could do is go some of the way towards assisting them in what they are doing. Any responsible Government taking care of its weaker citizens would reach out to them in the context of this provision in the Finance Bill and assist them.

Deputy McGrath's amendment simply asks for a report on some of these matters. I asked on Committee Stage if the Minister would consider reviewing the other area of the primary medical certificate, how people make applications and so on. Even at this stage of the day, we still have not received some of the information requested at that committee meeting. I mentioned it to one of the Minister's officials who said that it was being prepared today and that the Minister was signing off on it but we still have not received it. It may have come by email in the past while but my point is that a commitment was given to provide us with the necessary information which would inform our Report Stage debate. It might have eliminated the need for some of the discussion around these amendments but we did not get that information. I do not think that is fair play.

In terms of the amendment before us, the request made on Committee Stage was that the Minister would give us the opinion of the Department, his own opinion or the policy being pursued with regard to primary medical certificates and all of this area. Can it be loosened up? Can we be of more assistance in the context of these schemes? I ask the Minister to look at that scheme again and to look at the amendment before us.

He must try to understand people in rural communities in particular, but also in urban centres, and give them an opportunity to have a reasonable outlet in their lives, provided by communities in the context of a bus collection service, and allow them to qualify in some way for the scheme.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Michael D'Arcy)

Before I respond on the amendments, I wish to advise that a Clerk's correction will be required in regard to an error on page 53, line 4, of the Bill. The reference to "No. 2" on line 4 is incorrect and needs to be deleted. This has been checked and clarified by the Bills Office.

I propose to take amendments Nos. 60 and 61 together.

To respond directly to the Chairman of the finance committee, I spoke to Deputy Michael McGrath, who put forward the amendment on Committee Stage, and clarified this matter with him, as did the Minister, Deputy Donohoe.

These amendments concern access to the disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme, which plays an important role in increasing the mobility of citizens with severe physical disabilities. The scheme is a significant tax expenditure, costing €65 million in taxes foregone and grant payments in 2016. This does not include the revenue foregone to the local government fund in respect of the relief from motor tax provided to members of the scheme.

In accordance with SI 353 of 1994, registered charitable organisations are eligible to become members of the disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme where they are chiefly engaged in the care and transport of disabled persons who have obtained a primary medical certificate. The effect of the amendment, by removing the word “chiefly”, would be to significantly broaden access to the scheme for charitable organisations. The amendment could open up the scheme to organisations which are not primarily involved in the care and transport of persons with disabilities. As such, it would result in a poorly targeted scheme and a large additional liability to the Exchequer.

Following discussion on Committee Stage, officials have brought forward proposed amendments to the regulations governing the scheme to address the issue raised by Deputy McGrath. If the Deputy will withdraw the amendments, I will make the necessary changes to the scheme through the regulations.

I too was spoken to by the group in my local area, St. Aidan's in Gorey, which is also buying a bus. I was aware of this issue prior to it coming up in Finance Bill. While it was being progressed in any case, I am glad we had the opportunity to speak in a constructive way with Deputy McGrath. I am satisfied the matter will be concluded to the satisfaction of all those agencies involved.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. It would be an important change. The difference it will make in practice, in some cases, means the difference between a bus being bought or not - that is the simple reality - and that difference is life-changing for some people in terms of their quality of life on a day-to-day basis, in particular their experience of getting out and about, and so on. It is very important. I acknowledge that, back in 2015, an amendment to the scheme provided wider access to charitable organisations because, up to that point, relief was confined to bodies not primarily funded by the State. That was changed then and if the Government proceeds with the change we have discussed, and which will have to go through all the usual channels, the removal of the word "chiefly" will open up the possibility of making this scheme available to many service providers. That is critically important. The essential change, which is a significant one, is that the existing requirement that more than half of the service users need to have a primary medical certificate will be replaced with a requirement that just one service user will have a primary medical certificate.

I can understand the perspective of the Minister of State, the Department and Revenue on what they call tax expenditures and the need to control that but, I believe this is quite narrow in scope. When we consider the difference it will make and the impact it will have on the lives of people who are very vulnerable, I believe there is very strong support for this in the House. I urge the Minister of State and his officials to work on this and to bring forward the amendment to the statutory instrument as quickly as possible, and to assist - we can all play our part - in making organisations aware of the change and the benefit. It should be acknowledged that the savings under this scheme are very significant. I thank the Minister of State. I will withdraw amendment No. 60.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I thank the Minister of State and Deputy Michael McGrath for dealing with this issue. I acknowledge what the Minister of State said about his own situation in Wexford and I am sure there are many such cases. I have a question about the mechanics of how and when, and the delay. In the case of St. Vincent's day care, a wonderful institution in Tipperary Town, it had literally bought a bus when this cropped up. Those people got good support from a certain equine industry across the border in Limerick - we in Tipperary never refuse money from any county. I salute J.P. McManus for this. They wrote to him, he assessed it and he did this. However, they are stuck with this difficulty. Many organisations are in the same position and this is the time of year when they are changing vehicles and garages might have special deals. In this case, however, the group has bought the bus.

It was pointed out that "chiefly" is a very important word in this regard, which I accept. How long will this change take? This group has bought the bus and it cost them a fortune as it is not an old bus. As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, the roads are not great and this bus was just a bad model, so it was hard luck they ended up with it. The dealer told them it would cost too much to keep it going and that they should take it off the road. This is what they have done. They went looking for money and have been fundraising, which they would have been doing anyway. It is the difference between seeing people get out of this day care centre or not. The group has volunteer drivers much of the time. This is very necessary and I hope the bureaucracy will not delay it too long. The Minister of State might give some clarification as to when it will be enacted.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I commend the Minister of State on what he has said. In every part of the country this is one of the problems Deputies have faced. I thank him for giving this because, while it is small thing, it is important and helps communities throughout the country. While the Minister of State might not be able to do so, he might clarify for those who have sent in paperwork during this transitional period whether that will be sorted out. Will it be looked on favourably from now on and when will it be sorted out?

Deputy Michael D'Arcy

We intend to move on it immediately.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 61 not moved.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 55, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“Taxation treatment for self-employed contractors

54. The Minister shall within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Oireachtas a report assessing the taxation treatment of travel and subsistence expenses incurred by self-employed contractors, including but not limited to a comparison between the treatment in Ireland and other EU Member States and an impact assessment on foreign direct investment.”.

I do not propose to dwell on this because we had a good discussion on Committee Stage. To be fair to the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, he has agreed to engage on the issue to see whether it can be progressed. The issue we are raising relates to the taxation of travel and subsistence expenses actually incurred by independent professional contractors, many of whom, as we know, are working in the areas of IT, engineering, pharma and biopharma in regard to delivering major capital projects across the country. We are certainly not talking about bogus self-employment in any respect. These are people who are moving from project to project, which is the nature of the work they do. They are incurring actual expenses which I would argue are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of their business. The Revenue and the Department appear to take a different view.

It is an issue in the sense that we have to remain competitive in the delivery of major capital projects around the country. We have lost many key independent professional contractors with expertise to overseas because they travel from project to project.

This issue needs to be examined. I appreciate the fundamental nature of the requirement that all self-employed expenses must meet the key test of being wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes. That cannot be compromised. In respect of employees, there is an additional requirement that expenses be incurred in respect of the performance of their duties.

I will engage with the Minister on this matter. If there are proposals, they will be tabled at the finance committee in the normal course. I will withdraw the amendment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lahart)

Given that the amendment is being withdrawn, does Deputy Mattie McGrath still wish to comment?

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Briefly. I concur with Deputy McGrath. We must show encouragement. Being self-employed is not easy. One is responsible for everything. If one gets sick, one has nothing on which to fall back. Some moves have been made by the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, regarding PRSI, but the cohort of people to whom Deputy McGrath referred are mainly from abroad. We need every innovative and highly skilled person, including in IT terms, to assist in our economy's recovery. As such, I support the amendment.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will be brief. On Committee Stage, I outlined my concerns about the approach for which this amendment calls. Moving in this direction would breach the policy that it is not appropriate for travel to and from work to be a tax deductible expense. Regarding the taxation of expenses, the Revenue Commissioners have specific concerns about the practicality of the proposals. Based on the figures that have been shared with my Department, the impact on the sector of the current treatment of such expenses for contractors appears to be relatively small.

I have raised these issues with Deputy Michael McGrath. He is still of the view that further engagement could be helpful. He is aware of my concerns on the matter. I am happy to meet groups that hold this view to determine whether a further teasing out of the issue is merited. Based on my current views, however, I appreciate the Deputy's withdrawal of the amendment. I will engage with the group, perhaps early in the new year.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 57, after line 32, to insert the following:

“VAT treatment in respect of children’s footwear and clothes

58. The Minister shall within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Oireachtas a report examining the options for reviewing, in respect of children’s footwear and clothes, the size limits that are currently zero rated for VAT purposes subject to our obligations under EU law.”.

This relates to the application of VAT to children's footwear and clothing, which was discussed on Committee Stage. The purpose of raising it again is to refine and clarify the commitment that we have been given.

Children's footwear and clothing are zero rated, but only up to certain size thresholds that were set in 1984. Current Revenue practice in respect of the footwear threshold is up to and including size 5.5 and, in respect of clothing, up to and including a 32 in. chest or a 26 in. waist. The position appears to be that, under the EU VAT directive, the ten years of age cut-off point cannot be changed. This may be an interpretation of the directive, but the Department's position is that it cannot change. However, what can change - if there is evidence - is the average shoe and clothing sizes of ten year olds. These sizes were last considered in 1984, presumably in consultation with the industry and so on.

I raise this issue because, as every parent knows, the difference in the price of footwear between sizes 5.5 and 6 or 7 is not just down to VAT. The difference is significant. A size 5.5 runner might be €40 whereas a size 6 runner might be €70. VAT does not explain the difference.

This is an important issue for families. Will Revenue commit to engaging with stakeholders to examine whether there is a basis for revising the average sizes of footwear and clothing for a ten year old? That is my essential request and is what I would like to have done.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I will not labour the issue. I first have to declare an interest, in that I have a number of children.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lahart)

And that they wear shoes.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

We are christening our fourth grandchild, thanks be to God, on Sunday. Most of my children have gone past the age in question, but it is important that I declare an interest.

I have a memory of listening to a budget on radio. I had a vision of the then Taoiseach kneeling down in front of former Deputy Jim Kemmy over VAT on children's clothes or-----

Deputy Michael McGrath

Shoes.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Yes. It is an appropriate word at the moment. We will need good shoes for this weather if we are going to be out walking up to people's doors, seeing as how matters could spill out of control. Nonetheless, there should be a re-examination of the interpretation of the EU directive and the cut-off point at the age of ten. The prices can be enormous and vary considerably. Even a small baby's shoes are expensive. One has to walk in those shoes to understand it.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I agree with the amendment. It was 1984 when the thresholds were revised, which was 33 years ago. We penalise a kid for growing too tall or being a bit heavier than other children. This issue needs to be examined, given that the current approach is not working. Deputy Michael McGrath has been fair in how he has tabled this amendment, and I ask the Minister to agree to it.

Deputy Michael D'Arcy

The VAT rating of goods and services is subject to the requirements of EU VAT law, with which Irish VAT law must comply. Under Article 110 of the VAT directive, member states may retain the zero rates on goods and services that were in place on and from 1 January 1991 but cannot extend the zero rate to new goods and services after that date.

Since the mid-1980s, Irish VAT law has defined children's clothing and footwear as that not exceeding the size appropriate to children of average build and foot size of ten years of age. This includes clothing described, labelled, marked or marketed as being for children under 11 years of age. As the legislation in 1991 provided that only clothing and footwear appropriate to children up to ten years of age could avail of the zero rate of VAT, extending the provision to children older than that would be counter to Article 110. In order to remain compliant with the EU VAT directive, the age limit to which the zero rate applies in this case cannot be raised.

The practical application of the measure is that zero rating applies to children's clothing of sizes up to and including a 32 in. chest, 26 in. waist or 152 cm in height, and children's footwear up to and including size 5.5, or 38. These sizes were determined in 1984 after consultation with clothing and footwear trade interests at manufacturing and distribution levels.

While EU VAT law prohibits any increase in the age of children's clothing to which the zero rate applies, the practical application of the current zero rate to children aged up to ten years can be redefined where there is evidence that the size limitations have changed since the current criteria were agreed in the 1980s. A further detailed review of the average size of footwear for children was carried out in 1997, but there was insufficient evidence to warrant a change in the 5.5 limit. If sufficient evidence is supplied to the effect that average shoe and clothing sizes for ten year olds have changed since 1984, the Revenue Commissioners could review the matter. Where the industry representing children's footwear and clothing has reason to believe the current practical size measurements no longer reflect the average child aged ten, it should contact the Revenue Commissioners, who will review the matter.

Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

Legislation currently deals with VAT on the average shoe size of 5.5. A second part of this conversation is why a shoe size of 6 can be nearly double the price of a pair which are 5.5. The VAT rate does not explain that. Perhaps we need to seek an explanation from the clothing and footwear industries. Perhaps the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach could invite them into explain the significant anomalies. I know from my children that the price of shoes increased from €30 or €35 to €70 when going from 5.5 to 6.

Deputy Michael McGrath

If we carry out a review we will flush out that issue. The price differential is not solely explained by VAT. Products are marketed in a way that shows a range up to 5.5 for footwear, but beyond that the range differs and a completely different price model is used. That is the reality. VAT is part of the price differential because the simple truth is that clothing and footwear sizes appropriate to an average ten year old are VAT exempt and zero rated. Beyond that, the rate is 23%. It is a hefty increase and, as I said, a burden on parents and families.

The Minister of State is putting the onus on the industry, but there is no incentive for it to ask Revenue for a review and-or to suggest the thresholds need to be raised. I would like the Department and Revenue to take the initiative and undertake a review. The Minister of State needs to examine the files from 1984 – the organisations have probably changed since – and find out who Revenue engaged with at that time and how it arrived at these thresholds.

The evidence is clear. I am asking for a review and not for Revenue and the Department to wait for others to come to them because I do not think that is going to happen. I do not think there is a commercial incentive for the industry to do so. It is taking advantage of the situation and will not seek to change it.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

We had a good discussion about this on Committee Stage and the Minister of State read out the same note. A strong case was made for a report to be produced by the Department on this issue. The rate was established in the 1980s. I am not sure whether body sizes have changed since that time because we do not have a report. We all have knowledge and experience. There is a major jump in prices, which puts pressure on families. Not all families are average.

As I said on Committee Stage, my 11 year old wears size nine shoes and school trousers for a 15 year old; he has been buying adult clothes for quite some time. This type of analysis should be carried out. The price differential is a serious issue. I can understand that changing the rules on shoe sizes would affect many adults. Can the Minister of State explain why the Department will not commission a report at this time? Why would the Department not carry out research instead of asking the industry or somebody else to come to it?

Deputy Michael D'Arcy

Revenue has retrieved the files relating to the issue as far back as 1981. Some people in the House were not even born then. They are currently reviewing the information contained therein. In 1984, clothing and footwear sizes were determined after consultation with footwear trade interests at manufacturing and distribution levels. The panel included the Federation of Irish Footwear Manufacturers, the Federation of Irish Sports Distributors, the National Federation of Drapers, Start-rite shoes (children only) and the Irish Wholesale Footwear Association. An investigation has revealed that further consultations were undertaken by Revenue with the footwear industry in 1997 following calls by the sector for a review. This included KPMG, the Irish Footwear Association, Dunnes Stores, Clarks, Fagan and Associates, Dubarry, Deloitte, Goodbody, Coopers & Lybrand, PwC and BDO. We will ask Revenue to review the determination of sizes for the average ten year old.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I was not aware there was a review in 1997. I welcome the commitment from the Minister of State. I take it the Department will ask Revenue to come back to us through the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach once the matter has been scoped out. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 57, after line 32, to insert the following:

“58. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, bring a report on the second reduced rate of VAT of 9 per cent and additional revenue that could be raised by bringing this rate back to 13.5 per cent.”.

We had quite a bit of discussion on Committee Stage about this. I will be brief. If we returned to the 13.5% VAT rate on the hospitality sector it would raise €491 million. That is a lot of money, which could be better spent elsewhere. I did not necessarily agree with the decision at the time, but there was a case for giving a tax break to the hospitality sector when we were in the depths of recession. However, it has boomed since. One only has to walk the streets of Dublin to see how well the hospitality sector is doing. I do not think we could justify using €491 million in this way. It could be spent on plenty of other things, most notably addressing the housing crisis. Many other areas could benefit from this money. We should return to the 13.5% rate. The Minister made it clear he did not agree and I do not expect he will change his mind on foot of what I have said.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

This is a hard ball to juggle. Some parts of the country, such as Dublin, are doing well and hotels are flying. Unfortunately, hotels down the country have struggled. The 9% VAT rate needs to be left in place. The Department needs to come up a system which deals with areas where hotels are filled to capacity, such as in Dublin where those looking for hotel bed cannot get them. On the other hand, busloads of people could be brought into hotels every night of the week in other parts of Ireland and plenty of beds would be available. It is a problem. The Minister had to leave the rate at 9%, but we have an opportunity to make sure we deal with areas of major economic growth where hotel beds are full.

The Department will be able to tell that to the Minister. One cannot just raise it right around the country, which is why I oppose the amendment.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Like Deputy Fitzmaurice, I understand the position very well. In the negotiations on the programme for Government, we in the Rural Independent Group lobbied for the further take-up of this very successful scheme in order to apply it to building. It was necessary at a time and we did not even have to give it to builders. We could have given it to people buying the houses in order to increase the building of houses.

This is desperately needed down the country, where the recession has not ended at all past the Red Cow interchange. It is needed in the accommodation and other services, including those dealing with food. Deputy Fitzmaurice stated a busload of people could be put into some hotels but a train load could be put into many hotels and there would still be availability. There is not a bed to be got in this city but offices are being built so I do not know where employees will rest, unless they are worked around the clock. I do not think we are that bad yet. I do not agree with the amendment because this VAT rate is required.

Although I am straying, it is interesting because we had a debate on rural crime the other night and there was nobody to contribute from Labour, Deputy Boyd Barrett's group or Independents 4 Change. There are two different Irelands; we live in one where it is desolate, there are no services and there are not enough gardaí to patrol it. We are being stripped of services every day of the week. This is needed; we must live too outside the Pale.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

This is a very significant concession within the tax code. The annual cost of the lowering of the VAT rate from 13.5% to 9% is €491 million per year, with a cost per VAT percentage point at €109 million per year. This is an exceptionally significant recognition through the VAT code of a very important sector within our economy. In addition to the costs I have shared, it should also be noted that in the sectors covered by this rate, employment has increased gradually each year since 2011, with an overall increase of over 35% in the period from the middle of 2011 to the start of 2017. That is equal to an increase of 40,500 jobs, which is a very significant number.

As is the case with all parts of the tax code, no change made in the past to help with the recovery of the sector can now be taken to be given in future. That is why I made the decision I did on stamp duty for non-residential commercial property. That change was put in place to support the recovery of a sector. Many parts of the sector have now recovered and therefore it is no longer appropriate to have the lower tax rate in place. In the run-up to budget 2018, I considered this change, as I considered many others. I decided it should not be made for two reasons that were touched on by Deputies Mattie McGrath and Fitzmaurice. First, although there are many parts of the country in which hotels are at full capacity - Dublin and Killarney are two very good examples - the reality is we still have many hotels and companies in the services sector in other parts of the country still working to get back to a decent ongoing position for their businesses. As a result, I decided now is not the time to make the change. A further reason I decided it should not be made this year came from consideration of the changes in the value of sterling. Everybody is aware of that and I want to see the effect on short-haul tourism into Ireland from the United Kingdom market. The performance of that market is crucial to how tourism in Ireland performs overall. For both those reasons I decided not to make this change. As a result, I am not in a position to accept the amendment put forward by Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

We have had the debate and there is a difference. We are in the minority. I agree with Deputy Mattie McGrath and others concerned about the rural-urban divide, or the areas that have seen recovery in this sector against those which have not. Those areas need help. There is another side to the equation that can be seen with the figures we got from the Department of Finance concerning profitability in food services and accommodation. Profits have increased by a fairly extraordinary 37%, so the areas that have recovered are making extraordinary profits. Would it not be better to redirect this tax expenditure towards the areas that need help, such as the rural areas mentioned by the Deputies? That is instead of giving this big tax break to all elements of the tourism, accommodation and food sector. I know it will not happen this year but it might be worth considering for next year. We could redirect the tax expenditure to help some of the areas that clearly are struggling or where resources could better assist in sharing the recovery.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I have a brief point in defence of my two erstwhile colleagues from Killarney, Deputies Danny and Michael Healy-Rae. They would not agree that Killarney is in the same league as Dublin. My daughter is dancing there this weekend and my wife is down there. She might report when they come back from the competitions on Monday. Deputy Boyd Barrett made a point about increased profits but with such increased profits come increased taxes. There is a knock-on effect. It has been a good and successful scheme and it is still necessary for large parts of Ireland. I am not just talking about rural areas but everything below the Red Cow.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I understand where Deputy Boyd Barrett is coming from and, in fairness, he has done his figures fairly well. The problem is if something is introduced, the businesses that are just surviving may be blown out. It is a balancing act in business for a Minister or anybody else. I understand fully where the Deputy is coming from and I know the Deputy wishes to help weaker businesses in what he is saying by ensuring stronger businesses pay a bit extra. The Department could formulate something, such as a bed tax or something for cities that are going well, if that is possible. It might have the same result as the Deputy's amendment. If we increase the VAT rate, businesses could be gone before they get help, which is a big problem in some areas. This would not apply to all areas and thank God we have seen recovery in certain parts of the country, which is great and welcome. It is a balancing act and we must keep it going.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lahart)

Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 58, to delete line 10 and substitute the following:

"(i) in paragraph (4), by substituting “2 per cent of stamp duty for the first €300,000 on non-residential holdings” for "2 per cent", and".

This move in the budget caught many by surprise. On the evening of the budget I tweeted that this tax was an attack on rural Ireland and the agricultural community from a party that always stated that it stood for farmers.

The rate was 2%. As all Members know, it is great that some parts of the country are doing well but, unfortunately, more areas are struggling a little. However, there has been some recovery. Every Deputy, be they a member of a political party or an Independent, is trying to encourage people to reopen buildings that, unfortunately, closed in our towns during the recession and support young farmers who need an extra bit of land to survive because it is now harder to live on what our fathers and forefathers could live on. In 1980, the sale of three good cattle was enough to buy a Ford Escort.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

An Escort mark I or mark II?

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

One would now need 33 such cattle to buy a middling car. That is how times have changed.

We have to be mindful of businesspeople. Members encourage people, in particular in rural areas, who run businesses such as hardware stores, small shops or pubs and tell them to be entrepreneurs. Many of their premises will be bought for €200,000 or €300,000. The increase in stamp duty encourages them to go off to Australia if they want and not to go into business because they would now pay an extra €12,000 duty on a purchase of €300,000. People have come to me who bought land last February and March and paid their deposit and completed the first bits of contracts but there was a hold-up and problems with the purchase. Clarification of this issue is badly needed. Those people would have gone through with the purchase before this measure was announced if everything was right but they have been left in a quagmire and, unfortunately, it looks like they are going down the road. Some such people borrowed to their limit. Some others might not understand that. A purchaser might have been bidding at an auction and made an extra bid, possibly to try to give a future to their children. Some have gone to the banks and could not get the extra money. Sales are in jeopardy.

The Minister should go around the country and look at the small towns in which every Member is trying to encourage people to turn on a light in a dark area of town. It gives all Members great heart when that happens, no matter what side of the political divide he or she is on. Unfortunately, this measure has come out of the blue. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, said on the evening of the budget that it does not affect farms. That was quoted to me by members of the Opposition that night. We must be very clear that that is what he said. Unfortunately, no one realised that residential and non-residential property are affected. Many people have been caught in the crossfire. Solicitors have put letters in newspapers about the problems it has caused and auctioneers have told us about them.

I welcome the measures taken by the Minister in regard to consolidation and I am not taking from that. I also welcome the abolition of the age limit of 67 in respect of intra-family conveyance or transfer. I applaud the Minister for that.

The amendment quotes the figure of €300,000. One will not buy a 2,000 square foot hardware store in Dublin for €300,000 but one could buy such a store for less down the country because, unfortunately, in some areas no one wants to open businesses. When we encourage a person to open a business, we should not kick that person but, rather, should be pro-business. I acknowledge that the Minister is fond of making sure things are pro-business. We should send out that message rather than telling people that €12,000 has, unfortunately, been put out of their reach and they can say goodbye to it.

I want doors to be opened in towns. I want young farmers to come back to the land rather than it being deserted. I want rural Ireland to thrive, as it can. Some good measures have been implemented. I am not criticising that. My God, we need to deliver this amendment for those who are affected because the stamp duty increase sends out a signal that they are going to be further crucified. There is revenue of about €12 million or €14 million per year on stamp duty on land purchases. Are we going to run youngsters off the land? While €12 million or €14 million might not be a lot for a country, €12,000 or €14,000 could be the difference between a youngster taking over the land or staying in some city in some country. Unfortunately, we have lost many youngsters to immigration, in particular from the west of Ireland. We are trying to bring them home and there are some good incentives in place such as the young farmers scheme. I ask the Minister to rethink the stamp duty increase and allow an exemption up to €300,000. If he wanted to make it higher thereafter, I would support him but I ask him please to give people that opportunity.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the stamp duty increase. We debated the amendment on Committee Stage and withdrew it and are now putting it forward for debate in the Chamber. The shock was the surprise. There are rumours that a farming organisation was in the know about the measure on the Friday before budget day. I do not know if that is mere speculation but the Minister, Deputy Creed, did not seem to know about the measure when he made a statement on it. He was either given the wrong information or he did not understand it. It is a serious situation because many people have been caught by surprise. They might have been planning to purchase a shop, a hardware store or a site.

The former Taoiseach went to Edgeworthstown and announced in a blaze of glory that every road from Glenamaddy was going to be redone. He did not have the skills of the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, in terms of tweeting and hashtag #Leo, but he did it with blunder and bluster. All the roads were going to be rejuvenated. There was going to be money for everything and every rural town and village was going to be enhanced and window boxes would be put in with shamrock that could be picked from them to win the parade that year. However, nothing has happened because the money rural Ireland got from the scheme the former Taoiseach announced would not buy a stamp for the application of each business in the towns and villages I represent where there are derelict and closed-up houses. We need to open the closed-up houses and shops and open businesses. We need people to buy them.

As I said, the figure of €300,000 referenced in the amendment is pretty high if one wants to buy property in the countryside but in Dublin it would not be enough to use as hello money to go in to meet the auctioneers and the lads or get a business to the Central Bank with the Government or the bankers. However, rural Ireland needs to be rejuvenated. We will do several things. We are going to go into derelict sites in every village and town in the country. It would make sense to go with the measure I sought previously regarding the VAT rate in regard to hardware shops, building materials, plasterers and builders, although not big developers. Those businesses should be given back the VAT charged on purchases. If that were done and the Government encouraged councils to reduce their charges we would have living towns and villages and halve our homeless crisis. The Government either cannot see that or has an anathema toward house building.

As I said, and as Deputy Fitzmaurice referred to, many people go to an auction with some support and so on to buy a property but might be a bit nervous and go farther than the bank had sanctioned. Many such people get a call from the bank's junior manager to tell them they have overstepped the mark and that the bank cannot loan them the sum they bid because the person had submitted projections of earnings and income that no longer add up. Such people would have gotten a dig out from their families of €20,000 or €30,000. That is not the type of dig out that has been mentioned in respect of another former Taoiseach.

That happens in families and communities. That is how we live in rural Ireland. The Deputies who live in this city might not understand it. They should come out beyond the Pale more often to see what goes on down in the real world. This measure will add €12,500 extra, which they cannot borrow. It was not accounted for in the original figure and they will have to try to make up the shortfall and get a dig out. This is a very necessary amendment to get businesses thriving. We need to encourage people to set up businesses. Deputy Michael McGrath tabled an amendment for professional people to get tax concessions. These are ordinary people whom we have educated. Many of them have gone abroad and want to come home. We need to make it attractive for them to come home and we need to support and encourage them to start families to keep the schools, sports teams and the communities alive. Otherwise, there will not be anyone to go on the bus and we will not need the blooming bus. Rural Ireland will be a wasteland. It will be all either planted or owned by the conglomerates, the vulture funds and indeed some of our own homegrown vulture funds. This amendment should be considered. Deputy Fitzmaurice and I will support anything above the threshold of €300,000 that we have put into the amendment and we want to stimulate those young people to set up businesses to become the innovators and employers. They will pay taxes, rates, value added tax, VAT, and so on.

I was invited tonight to the reopening of a pub in Tipperary, The Lady Gregory, a wonderful pub. Everybody is delighted it is reopening and I wish the new owner or operator the best. We need these types of places open. We need them to keep the rates and the wages and everything else paid and to give people an outlet where they can go to celebrate. We need shops and businesses so that people are not running into big supermarkets. We do not want a branch of Tesco on every boreen in the country. It was always the small shopkeeper and the small farmer that kept things going in rural Ireland. They got us out of many recessions. They give credit as well. We do not get much credit from Mr. Tesco, or Mr. Lidl or Mr. Aldi or any of them. I am not knocking them but we do not get much credit there. We get it in the hardware shops, from the small shopkeepers. We could put post offices, which are closing in other areas, into them too.

I am asking for common sense in this regard because this measure in the Bill is sharp, with no grace period. Some people were tied up in negotiations with solicitors, some had the deal done and had spit on their wrists and shook hands but their solicitors have not fulfilled the transactions, leaving them in limbo. It is a very mean and cheap hit, especially when there is a fanfare about rejuvenating rural Ireland. That is idle talk. This amendment is an effort to rejuvenate rural Ireland. We are asking the Minister to put his shoulder to the wheel. The Minister of State and the two Deputies behind the Minister are from rural Ireland. They know what I am talking about. They know the villages and the towns in their areas. This amendment will help the homeless, get living towns up and running and enhance the environment with the Tidy Towns committees which do voluntary fundraising as well as brilliant work. They will be helped as well. It is a win-win situation.

This provision in the Bill is a mean cut. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine said he was not aware of it or did not understand it. We think a farming organisation knew about it beforehand, which is not nice. We are giving the Minister a chance to correct this tonight and rejuvenate rural Ireland, support young people to come home, support the families in rural areas and keep the schools, clubs and everything else going in those areas. Without rural Ireland alive we will only have trees growing, forestry plantation and desolation.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I was waiting while Deputy Mattie McGrath was in full flow. He is like the Duracell bunny at this time of night. He will be lucky to make the last orders in The Lady Gregory if he keeps on making speeches like that.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Hopefully there is no after-hours.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

Good luck to him with that.

I do not agree with amendment No. 65. I understand the thought process behind it but I do not think the first €300,000 in commercial property should be at 2%. I support the 6%. It is there not only to raise money but to have an effect. There has to be a cooling down of the commercial property market.

I support amendment No. 66, as tabled by Deputies Fitzmaurice and Mattie McGrath. This is a sensible amendment. It will go back to 2% for the first €300,000 of agricultural land. That is sensible. Tax can do two things: raise income and lead to behavioural changes. We need to support the agricultural sector. Deputies Mattie McGrath and Fitzmaurice are completely correct in that.

I acknowledge, as others have done, the changes made in this Bill and the last one that support that sector. In this Bill, however, the increase in stamp duty is not supportive and this is a problem. That is a sensible half-way meeting point where the first €300,000 would be subject to 2%. I support that.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The broad background to this is that the rate for non-residential commercial property for many years at different times in our economy was 9%. It then moved down to 6% and then to 2%. It went from 6% to 2% because so little activity was happening in any of the different forms of non-residential commercial property to which the rate applied.

At 2% it is a quarter of what it has been at most recent points in our economy and it is one-third of what it was some years ago. If we do not use opportunities like this in our economy to bring rates like this back to a normal level we will be back to where we were before the many different crises that we are trying to get out of hit us. That is rates of taxation that are too low, across too narrow a base to fund public services that people need. It is for this reason that this budget contains measures to raise taxes because if we do not do that now the next difficulty we get into we will be doing again what we do every time there is a big difficulty in Ireland, namely, increase taxes. Most other economies around the world decrease them when they get into difficulty. That is the background to this change and why it is the right change. We are simply going back to where we have been for most of our very recent past.

On some of the points put to me, Deputy Mattie McGrath appears to think it is a bad thing that I did not flag this move in advance. If I had flagged it in advance it would have been to the benefit of several people in our economy who would have made a very significant sum of money if I had let them know what we were going to do. If I had done it I can only imagine what Deputy Mattie McGrath would be accusing me of doing the next day in the Dáil.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Never.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

That is why I did not indicate to anybody what I was doing and the budget speculation on this measure began only a day or two before budget day, but it was contained in the tax strategy papers I published during the summer. Anybody who says they were not aware this was an option the Government was considering needs to read the papers we publish during the summer much more carefully in future.

In response to the two different points put by Deputy Fitzmaurice, I think he agrees with much of the rationale for my doing this. He has a significant disagreement about its impact on people in rural Ireland who are involved in land purchases or are looking to make land purchases in the future.

I understand the concerns raised by organisations and members of farming organisations and those involved in buying agricultural land. Different Members raised those issues with me. I acknowledge in particular the work of Deputy Deering in the aftermath of the budget in articulating issues of concern and working with me, as did the Ministers of State, Deputies D'Arcy and O'Donovan, and Deputy Heydon. They helped me understand issues that were developing and how we could respond to matters while retaining the overall shape of what we were trying to do.

That is why I made the decision to remove the age limit in the implementation of consanguinity relief. I undertook considerable work on the matter. Some people advised that I move the age from 68 to 69 years. I was even advised to bring it to 70 years but I decided the best course of action would be to remove it entirely and instead to provide an incentive for farm consolidation by subsetting that for a number of years time, and flagging that this clause and relief is available for a period of some years after which a new age limit will be put in.

After we dealt with that another issue was raised regarding farm consolidation and the very same young farmers to whom the Deputy referred who may own many different pieces of land, or may want to acquire another piece of land, either to consolidate their farm holding or have a single farm holding with that farm holding to be located in a number of different places. That issue was raised with me, particularly in the context of dairy farmers, which is why I made the next change by bringing in relief in relation to farm consolidation, which I set at 1%. I did so in order to bring it into line with what we are doing in relation to the management of consanguinity and abolishing the age limit in relation to it.

If I accept these amendments, my challenge is that for the first time I will be separating different forms of non-residential commercial property and while the Deputy will raise an issue with me on non-residential commercial property in rural Ireland what will happen after that is that small business owners will make the point to me that if this relief applies to a small farmer why does it not apply to a small business. If we go down that route, we begin to fragment a tax base that is essential for the type of change in the tax code to which I referred earlier and is important to make.

For those reasons I am not in a position to accept the Deputies' amendments.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

The Minister talks about separating things out. If the Department of Finance was in tune it would have a separate thing for agricultural land. The Minister says he cannot separate one from the other, but there is a scheme for farmers under 35 years. Unfortunately, there is a situation where the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine says a young farmer is one under 40 years and the Department of Finance says it is 35 years. I wonder which it is.

I did not ask the Minister to lose money in any of this. He could have taken the hint from what myself and Deputy Mattie McGrath did. I tabled amendments that were twice ruled out of order, though I raised it here and I argued the toss, but I have to accept the Ceann Comhairle's ruling. I proposed a measure that would bring in perhaps twice as much money from the likes of these vultures by introducing a 50% tax, as people such as David Hall have called for, and those who are shafting people would have to pay the tax.

Fair play to Deputy Deering, the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, and every other Deputy mentioned by the Minister for what they have done. It is a pity they did not also tell the Minister about the small farmer who is trying to buy the 20 acres, or about the small shopkeeper. We have choices to make. If someone opened a shop in rural Ireland, the council would be due rates immediately. That is less money for the Exchequer to send down. These are the things that will benefit rural Ireland and are needed.

Young farmers who want to buy bits of land are walking away from it. Look at the rates that were there, which were 9% rates, that is four times what the Minister said. What is the result of this? Most of our farmers are now over 55 years. When the Government includes incentives, they will ensure that young farmers will come in, but what we are doing is removing the incentives and we will end up with farmers who will not bother taking over the farm. This is the consequence.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lahart)

The Deputy will get another go later if he wants.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

The Minister is misunderstanding us. We spoke earlier about vulture funds.

Different amendments were discussed this evening about the €5.5 billion written off for our banking friends, and the Minister did not want to listen to that either. This is rural Ireland that we are talking about.

I want to pick the Minister up on the idea that he did not tell anyone. Someone told a leading farming organisation. We did not have time to read the Minister's books during the summer before the budget but we will have plenty of time if he keeps going the way he is because we will have nothing to do in rural Ireland except watch the computer and we cannot do that because we cannot get broadband. We will have to buy the papers or we will have to go into the towns to go onto the web. The people of rural Ireland have nothing else to do. This is a simple issue that will rejuvenate small villages and do the very things that the scheme rolled out in Edgeworthstown is supposed to do - the four roads to Glenamaddy. All that was missing that day was Big Tom. This would help but this was not allowed. We are not talking about all farmers; we are talking about small businesses and shopkeepers. We said non-residential holdings; that does not mean all land. It is shops for clothes and hardware, hairdressers and whatever else; they are all over the place. If one drives anywhere, one will see them. The Minister is missing the point. The whole area of stamp duty is a dangerous one on which to put a budget. We know where that got us before. It got us into a huge lot of trouble. It is not very set or fixed revenue. Farmers cannot get an extra €12,000 or €15,000; the solicitors had not completed the transaction. Will the Minister indicate if there will be any grace period for those caught in the transition, those who were in the process of buying somewhere but had not signed the contract? I welcome the consanguinity rule and the situation regarding consolidation of holdings and the changes on age. I am not a naysayer. I want to make that point to Deputy Doherty because if his current leader gets his way we will not even be able to get a cup of tea in this bar.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I fear there is a big black hole in the budget and it is around the issue of stamp duty and the expected yield. I raised this during Committee Stage. Experts are suggesting that it could be €2 billion to €2.5 billion of commercial property transactions in 2017. The Minister's figures are estimated on a yield of transactions of about €4.5 billion, which is way off what analysts such as Jones Lang Laselle, experts in the field, have suggested.

Second, there are no anti-avoidance measures built into this. I asked a Parliamentary Question on the matter which was answered two days ago. The Minister said he would deal with it during further stages of the Finance Bill. We are at the last stage here and I do not see it. We had Davys tell us after budget day that they expect tax avoidance measures to pop up again as a result of stamp duty because what happened in the past when stamp duty was at 9% was that assets were put into special purpose vehicles and thus availed of the 1% stamp duty rather than the 9%. When stamp duty was reduced to 2% that incentive was not there because the differential was not that much but now that it has increased to 6% they are saying that it is likely there will be tax avoidance issues. I can see no measure here that deals with that so that it is possible to structure assets into special purpose vehicles, sell them on and then sell the shares on with a liability to pay 1% rather than 6%.

The other, bigger issue relates to the stability of this policy. The commission has echoed what we said on budget night, namely that it is a very unstable type of tax and the Government is basing a lot of its budgetary arithmetic on increased resources that are made available to different expenditure heads on it. The Minister needs to listen to what the commission said in its report over the last couple of days.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

On anti-avoidance, I indicated on Committee Stage that I would bring forward an amendment to provide for certain anti-avoidance measures in connection with the upward adjustment to the rate of stamp duty on non-residential property.

I will get those measures right because I know what happened in the past and I am determined to ensure this measure is implemented fully in the way that I intend. It is a complicated area that presents a number of challenges and I will seek to fully address the issue when the Finance Bill is in the Seanad. I will deal with the matter then.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

Will it come back here then?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

It is likely we will have to come back just to address that matter because I want to see the issue dealt with fully.

On the yield, the first nine months of revenue receipts relating to commercial activity were in the order of €6.4 billion. If I look at the continuation of the level of that yield into next year, I believe the yield I have forecast will be delivered. That being said, there are two other factors to be noted about the figures. The first is that the contribution property-related transaction taxes are making to the total figures for the budget next year are 3% of the total value of the revenue needed for 2018, which is significantly lower than that before the crash period. The second is that, as important as the yield is to deliver the overall figures of the budget, there are other reasons for this measure, including shifting, in particular, human capital and workers into other forms of construction, especially the delivery of homes. Reference was made to what the Commission said. It also stated today that the overall figures in the budget and the macroeconomic approach are plausible in terms of delivering the deficit targets for next year.

Amendment put.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Thomas P. Broughan, Joan Collins, Michael Fitzmaurice, Michael Harty, Seamus Healy, Mattie McGrath, Catherine Martin and Maureen O'Sullivan rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the amendment defeated. The names of the Deputies who claimed a division will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 58, to delete line 10 and substitute the following:

"(i) in paragraph (4), by substituting "2 per cent of stamp duty for the first €300,000 for agricultural land sales" for "2 per cent”, and".

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 48; Staon, 32.

Tá

• Brady, John.
• Collins, Joan.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Cullinane, David.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Kenny, Martin.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• Martin, Catherine.
• Mitchell, Denise.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• O'Reilly, Louise.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Quinlivan, Maurice.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stanley, Brian.

Níl

• Bailey, Maria.
• Breen, Pat.
• Brophy, Colm.
• Burke, Peter.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Canney, Seán.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harris, Simon.
• Harty, Michael.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kyne, Seán.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• Madigan, Josepha.
• Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Naughton, Hildegarde.
• Neville, Tom.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connell, Kate.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Ring, Michael.
• Rock, Noel.
• Ross, Shane.
• Stanton, David.

Staon

• Aylward, Bobby.
• Brassil, John.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Browne, James.
• Butler, Mary.
• Cahill, Jackie.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Casey, Pat.
• Cassells, Shane.
• Chambers, Jack.
• Chambers, Lisa.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Curran, John.
• Donnelly, Stephen S.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Lahart, John.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Kevin.
• O'Rourke, Frank.
• O'Sullivan, Maureen.
• Rabbitte, Anne.
• Scanlon, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smyth, Niamh.
• Troy, Robert.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Mattie McGrath and Michael Fitzmaurice; Níl, Deputies Joe McHugh and Tony McLoughlin.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 67 not moved.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 59, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“Repayment of stamp duty where land used for residential development

60. The Principal Act is amended by inserting the following section after section 83C:

“83D. (1)(a) In this section—

‘appropriate part’, in relation to land, means the whole or, as the case may be, the part of the land to which the relevant residential development, the subject of a claim for repayment under this section, relates;

‘building control authority’ has the meaning given to it by section 2 of the Building Control Act 1990;

‘completion certificate’ means a Certificate of Compliance (within the meaning of article 5 of the Regulations of 1997)—

(a) submitted on completion to a building control authority, and

(b) the particulars of which are entered by that authority on the register maintained under Part IV of the Regulations of 1997,

in accordance with article 20F of those Regulations;

‘commencement notice’ means—

(a) a commencement notice within the meaning of article 8, or

(b) a 7 day notice (within the meaning of article 5 of the Regulations of 1997) required under article 20A of the Regulations of 1997,

that is acknowledged by a building control authority in accordance with article 10(2) or 20A(3), as the case may be, of those Regulations;

‘construction operations’, in relation to a residential development or relevant residential development, means the construction of buildings or structures including the preparatory operations of site clearance, drainage, earth-moving, excavation, laying of foundations and the provision of roadways and other access works;

‘dwelling unit’ means—

(a) a building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling, and

(b) the curtilage of the dwelling, up to an area (exclusive of the site of the dwelling unit) of 0.4047 hectares;

‘gross floor space’ in relation to a dwelling unit means the area ascertained by the internal measurement of the floor space on each floor of a building, including internal walls and partitions;

‘land’, where used without qualification, means the land that is conveyed or transferred by an instrument;

‘planning permission’ has the meaning given to it by section 2 of the Planning and Development Act 2000;

‘Regulations of 1997’ means the Building Control Regulations 1997 (S.I. No. 496 of 1997);

‘residential development’ means the construction of one or more dwelling units and references to ‘relevant residential development’ shall be construed in accordance with paragraph (b).

(b) References in this section to ‘relevant residential development’ shall be construed—

(i) in a case in which a claim for a repayment under subsection (8) is, pursuant to subsection (7)(b), made in respect of such of the construction operations as for the time being are being carried out pursuant to a particular commencement notice, as references to the residential development that comprises those construction operations, or

(ii) in either—

(I) a case in which, as mentioned in subsection (7)(b), the making of a claim for repayment under subsection (8) is deferred until completion of the residential development concerned, or

(II) a case in which the residential development concerned is not carried out in a phased manner,

as references to the entire of the residential development concerned.

(c) Without prejudice to subsection (4)(i), for the purposes of this section relevant residential development shall be regarded as completed if there exists in respect of the development a completion certificate.

(2) In this section a reference to an instrument is a reference to an instrument executed on or after 11 October 2017 that has been stamped in accordance with paragraph (4) of the Heading in Schedule 1 titled ‘CONVEYANCE or TRANSFER on sale of any property other than stocks or marketable securities or a policy of insurance or a policy of life insurance.’ where—

(a) the instrument was chargeable to stamp duty at a rate of 6 per cent, and

(b) the property so conveyed or transferred was land.

(3) (a) Subject to subsection (18) and the other provisions of this section, stamp duty paid on an instrument may be repaid in accordance with this section in relation to the land if construction operations on the land commence pursuant to a commencement notice within the period of 30 months following the date of execution of the instrument.

(b) If the residential development concerned is carried out in a phased manner such that there are 2 or more commencement notices in respect of the construction operations on the land, the reference in paragraph (a) to a commencement notice is a reference to the first of those commencement notices.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the stamp duty repaid under this section shall be liable to the clawback provided for in subsection (12) if—

(i) the relevant residential development specified in a commencement notice is not completed within the period of 2 years after the date of the sending by a building control authority, in accordance with article 10(2) or 20A(3)(b), as the case may be, of the Regulations of 1997, of an acknowledgment in relation to that notice, or

(ii) when completed, the relevant residential development on the land, being the land to which that relevant residential development relates, is not such that—

(I) at least 75 per cent of the total surface area of that land is occupied by dwelling units, or

(II) the gross floor space of dwelling units amounts to at least 75 per cent of the total surface area of that land,

and subparagraphs (i) and (ii) are subsequently referred to in this section as the conditions for the avoidance of a clawback under this paragraph.

(4) Where—

(a) the land is acquired for the purpose of constructing a single dwelling unit, and

(b) a declaration of intention to opt out of statutory certification submitted in accordance with article 9(5) of the Regulations of 1997 has been included on the public register in accordance with paragraph (10) of article 20F of those Regulations,

then—

(i) the dwelling unit specified in a commencement notice shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as completed when a completion certificate is issued under subsection (13) or (14) of section 9D of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 not later than 2 years after the date of sending by a building control authority, in accordance with article 10(2) or 20A(3)(b), as the case may be, of the Regulations of 1997, of an acknowledgment in relation to that commencement notice, and

(ii) subsection (3)(c)(ii) shall not apply.

(5) (a) Where the satisfaction of any of the following—

(i) the condition specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (3),

(ii) the conditions for the avoidance of a clawback under paragraph (c) of that subsection, or

(iii) the condition specified in subsection (4)(i),

is prevented by—

(I) an appeal made under section 7 of the Building Control Act 1990, or

(II) an order made by a court requiring that construction operations cease to be carried out,

the period commencing on the making of the appeal or the making of the order by the court and ending on the determination of the appeal or the discharge of the order shall not be reckoned for the purpose of computing the period of 30 months specified in subsection (3)(a) or the period of 2 years specified in subsection (3)(c)(i) or (4)(i).

(b) Subsection (18) shall apply notwithstanding the effect provided for by paragraph (a) in relation to the periods referred to in that paragraph.

(6) (a) The amount to be repaid in accordance with this section shall be determined by the formula—

A x B x

where—

A is the amount of stamp duty paid, at the rate of 6 per cent, on the instrument, and

B is the proportion of the area of the land represented by the appropriate part, expressed as a fraction.

(b) In relation to the construction of a single dwelling unit—

(i) a claim for a repayment under this section shall not include any stamp duty attributable to any part of the land not occupied by the dwelling unit, and

(ii) for the purposes of the formula in paragraph (a), B is the proportion of the land occupied by the dwelling unit.

(7) (a) A claim for a repayment under this section shall be made in accordance with subsection (8).

(b) If the residential development concerned is carried out in a phased manner such that there are 2 or more commencement notices in respect of the construction operations on the land, subsection (8) shall, without prejudice to the accountable person’s right to defer making a claim until completion of the residential development concerned, be construed as enabling a claim to be made in respect of such of the construction operations as for the time being are being carried out pursuant to a particular commencement notice.

(8) A claim for a repayment under this section shall—

(a) be made by an accountable person,

(b) without prejudice to paragraph (d), be made in a form and manner specified by the Commissioners,

(c) include a statutory declaration, in such form as the Commissioners specify, stating—

(i) that the condition specified in subsection (3)(a) has been satisfied, and

(ii) where a claim relates to a part of the stamp duty paid on the stamping of an instrument, the proportion of the area of the land represented by the appropriate part, or as the case may be, the proportion of the land occupied by the single dwelling unit,

(d) be made by electronic means and through such electronic systems as the Commissioners may make available for the time being for any such purpose, and the relevant provisions of Chapter 6 of Part 38 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 shall apply,

(e) not be made until such time as construction operations have commenced pursuant to a commencement notice.

(9) For the purposes of satisfying themselves that either the conditions for the making of a repayment under this section or the conditions for the avoidance of a clawback under paragraph (c) of subsection (3) are satisfied, the Commissioners may specify documents and particulars to be submitted by an accountable person, including the following:

(a) a copy of any commencement notice;

(b) a copy of any acknowledgement sent by a building control authority in accordance with article 10(2) or 20A(3)(b), as the case may be, of the Regulations of 1997;

(c) a copy of any planning permission;

(d) the number and gross floor space of dwelling units constructed; and

(e) the area of the land expressed in hectares.

(10) Subject to the requirements of this section, a repayment of stamp duty under this section shall—

(a) be made by the Commissioners pursuant to a claim made in accordance with subsection (8),

(b) not carry interest, and

(c) not be made after the expiry of 4 years following, in relation to the relevant residential development, the date of acknowledgement by a building control authority in accordance with article 10(2) or 20A(3)(b), as the case may be, of the Regulations of 1997 and this paragraph applies notwithstanding anything in subsection (7)(b).

(11) (a) Where the Commissioners are of the opinion that the requirements of this section have not been met in relation to a claim for repayment, they shall decide to refuse the claim and shall notify the claimant in writing of the decision and the reasons for it.

(b) An accountable person aggrieved by a decision to refuse a claim for repayment, may appeal to the Appeal Commissioners against the decision in accordance with section 949I of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, within the period of 30 days after the date of the notification of the decision.

(12) (a) In either a case in which any of the requirements of this section in relation to an accountable person’s eligibility for a repayment of stamp duty are not met or the conditions specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (3) for the avoidance of a clawback under that paragraph are not satisfied, an accountable person shall be liable to pay to the Commissioners the stamp duty that had been repaid under subsection (10) to the accountable person (and that stamp duty to which the foregoing liability attaches is referred to in this section as a ‘clawback’).

(b) Interest shall be payable on the clawback calculated in accordance with section 159D from the date on which the repayment was made to the date of payment of the clawback to the Commissioners.

(13) (a) Where an accountable person fails to pay the clawback, the Commissioners may make an assessment of the amount of the stamp duty concerned as if the failure to pay were a failure to deliver a return under section 20(2).

(b) Where there is more than one accountable person in relation to an instrument and a clawback, they shall be liable jointly and severally whether or not an assessment is made.

(14) For the purposes of this section, section 128A shall apply as if the period of 6 years referred to in subsection (4) of that section commenced on the date of acknowledgement, in relation to the residential development concerned, by a building control authority in accordance with article 10(2) or 20A(3)(b), as the case may be, of the Regulations of 1997.

(15) The submission to the Commissioners of an incorrect statement, document or particulars under this section shall be deemed to constitute the delivery of an incorrect statement for the purposes of section 1078(2) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.

(16) (a) Where a repayment has been made under this section and it is subsequently found that a declaration made in accordance with subsection (8)—

(i) was untrue in any material particular that would have resulted in a repayment, or part of a repayment, allowed by this section not being made, and

(ii) was made knowing same to be untrue or in reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true,

then the person who made such a declaration shall be liable to pay to the Commissioners as a penalty an amount equal to 125 per cent of the stamp duty that would not have been repaid had all the facts been truthfully declared, together with interest charged on that amount as may so become payable, calculated in accordance with section 159D, from the date on which the repayment was made to the date the penalty is paid.

(b) A person shall not be liable to a clawback under subsection (12), or a penalty under paragraph (a), as the case may be, if and to the extent that such person has paid—

(i) a penalty under paragraph (a), or

(ii) a clawback under subsection (12).

(17) (a) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, the Commissioners may, by notice in writing, request a building control authority to provide them with such information as is in the possession or control of the building control authority as the Commissioners may reasonably require for the purposes of verifying—

(i) that a thing referred to in the definition of ‘commencement notice’ in subsection (1)(a) exists or has been done,

(ii) the commencement of construction operations,

(iii) the completion of residential development, or

(iv) the proportion of the land occupied by dwelling units.

(b) Where the Commissioners make a request under paragraph (a), the building control authority concerned shall provide such information as may be specified in the notice within the period specified in the notice which period, in any case, shall not be less than 30 days.

(c) Taxpayer information within the meaning of section 851A(1) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 may be disclosed by an officer of the Revenue Commissioners to a building control authority for the purposes of enabling the building control authority to comply with a request made under paragraph (a).

(18) This section shall not apply to construction operations comprising relevant residential development commenced, pursuant to a commencement notice, after 31 December 2021.”.”.

In tandem with my budget announcement of the increase from 2% to 6% in the rate of stamp duty on non-residential property, I announced that, in relation to land purchased for the development of housing, I intended to introduce a stamp duty refund scheme. Not only will this ensure that the increased rate of stamp duty does not contribute to house price inflation, the design of the scheme will provide a stimulus to the timely delivery of badly needed new residential property. This new section 83D in the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999 provides for this refund scheme.

Because of the seriousness of our housing supply challenge, the refund scheme has a number of conditions that are designed to ensure that only those builders and developers who provide completed housing units within a reasonable period of time can qualify for a refund of the difference in the amount of stamp duty payable at the rates of 2% and 6%. The refund scheme will apply to both one-off houses and to larger housing developments. In the case of larger housing developments, there is a requirement for efficient use of a site in that a specified proportion of the site must be developed for housing. It will be possible to develop a site for non-residential purposes as long as that does not compromise the required amount of residential development.

I am aware of the pressures being experienced by some developers in raising the necessary finance for housing development. For that reason, I have made provision for the refund to be available at a relatively early stage in the development process but I first want to be sure that there is evidence of a real commitment by developers to providing the required level of housing within a reasonable period of time. Before a refund can be claimed, developers must have submitted a commencement notice to a local authority as required by the planning regulations, the local authority must have acknowledged the commencement notice and then construction operations must be commenced within the period of 30 months immediately following the acquisition of the land.

Where a large development is being carried out in a number of phases, a refund can be claimed only in respect of a phase where construction of the houses in the particular phase has actually commenced. To ensure the efficient use of sites for residential development, a certain proportion of a site will have to be developed for housing. There are two alternative tests to be satisfied in this respect. Either at least 75% of the area of a site must be occupied by housing or the gross floor space of the housing units constructed must account for at least 75% of the area of a site. These alternative tests will ensure that both low-rise and multi-storey apartment buildings will be accommodated. The appropriate test must be applied in relation to the part of a site being developed in each phase of a multiphase development. In the case of one-off houses constructed on a site that exceeds one acre, the refund will only apply to the stamp duty attributable to an acre.

Following the commencement of construction and the making of a refund, a further condition must be satisfied. This is that the development, or a phase of a development, must be completed within two years of being commenced. The test for completion relates to the certificate of compliance that must be submitted to a local authority when development is completed. When development is not completed within the two-year timeframe, or where the relevant 75% "substance" test is not satisfied, a developer will have to repay the refunded stamp duty to Revenue together with interest calculated from the date on which the refund was made.

A further measure designed to ensure the earliest possible delivery of housing is that the refund scheme will be time-bound. To be eligible for a refund, construction must commence on a one-off house, on a housing development or on a phase of a housing development before the end of 2021 and be completed within two years of commencement. That means that the latest date for the completion of development will be the end of 2023.

The refund scheme will be administered by Revenue on a self-assessment basis. However, as happens with the administration of the general tax assessment and collection system, Revenue will carry out compliance checks to ensure that refunds have been correctly claimed and that any follow-up conditions for the relief have been satisfied. Standard interest and penalty provisions are being applied in the case of incorrectly claimed refunds and false declarations.

Deputy Michael McGrath

This is a seven and a half page amendment to the Finance Bill, which is coming in on Report Stage. While I support the substance of it I reiterate the point that was made earlier by a number of Deputies about adequate briefing material being provided in advance to enable us to properly assess amendments. It is a point that is well made. I ask that in future it would be accommodated.

This is a very detailed amendment and I have gone through it as best I can with the cross-referencing back to the Principal Act. I support the fact that the Minister is facilitating a refund where land is being developed for residential purposes. That is an issue I raised directly with the Minister. Will the Minister give the House some information on how he arrived at the timeframe in terms of the requirement that construction would commence within a period of 30 months? Some might argue that is tight, perhaps it is not, but will he give us a sense of how he arrived at the timeframe?

The amendment also provides for an apportionment of the reclaim in areas where only some of the land will be developed for residential purposes. Will the Minister clarify the role of land within a residential development that is open space provided for recreational facilities? Is that regarded as residential development? If it is not then the way the provision is structured would discourage the provision of open space and recreational facilities as part of residential developments. That is an important issue.

With regard to the issue of the clawback provision set out within the amendment, the amendment provides for a scenario where residential development specified in a commencement notice is not completed within a period of two years after the date of the sending by a building control authority of an acknowledgement in respect of that notice. Major developments can take longer than two years to complete. Small and medium-sized builders secure much of the funding available to complete the work all at once. Will the Minister address the point about the clawback and the two-year provision? Under the clawback provision, less than 75% of the total surface area of the land in question must be occupied by dwelling units. Alternatively, the gross floor space of dwelling units must amount to at least 75% of the total surface area of that land. There needs to be clarity on whether open spaces required by the planning permission are included or excluded from the 25% calculation. Will gardens be included or excluded?

On the reclaim of 4%, that is, the differential between the two points. It is made clear in the amendment that it can be made through the Revenue online service as soon as construction operations have commenced. However, there is no indication of when the refund will actually be made. If this is not set out in the legislation, then at least there should be a requirement, provided everything is in order and all of the appropriate documentation has been provided to the satisfaction of the Revenue, that there would be a refund within a defined period of 30 months.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Bringing in an amendment of this size and significance at the last minute without Deputies having the opportunity to examine it or explanation notes or having questions answered on a range of areas is simply not on. I am inclined to oppose it.

Yet again, the amendment seems to be providing some sort of tax incentive for private developers. I could be wrong because I have not had a chance to study it, but I am concerned that this is the case. To my mind, we do not need to organise more giveaways for private developers. Will the Minister explain fully what it is? At this late stage I am somewhat suspicious of it.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

There is a lot of stuff in this amendment and a lot of pages. It is welcome that there is an incentive and that stamp duty can be drawn back. It may be a good idea. It is a pity this arrangement was not made for other things.

The amendment recognises the problem with the housing crisis in different parts of the country. The measure is welcome. What happens when the payments are being brought back? These people are probably investing large amounts of money. The Revenue should ensure that the payments are prompt or fast and are not held up.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I take the Deputies' points regarding the need for briefing on an amendment of this scale. It is something that I will take account of in future. I introduced the amendment on Report Stage because when I was working through the implementation of the change in non-residential commercial property and considering the consequences, it became apparent that there was potential to feed in to an increase in prices for non-residential commercial property that was being sold and that might be used for residential development in future.

I wish to address the point Deputy Boyd Barrett made. This is not about providing additional relief. We should see this measure in the context of the debate on non-residential property.

Perhaps you will give me a little more than the two minutes allowed, a Cheann Comhairle, so that I can answer all the questions put to me. If I miss any of them, I will respond further, given the scale of the amendment.

I will address the point about whether this is tax relief. As I have said, we should see this move in the context of going from 2% to 6%. The change from 2% to 6% amounts to a revenue gain for the Exchequer. As I outlined earlier, the amount is between €370 million and €380 million. This represents additional taxation for the development sector that we do not have in our base. I am keen to ensure that if land is to be acquired for homes and that land is currently classed as non-residential commercial property, then the higher rate does not lead through to the price of the homes going up at the other end or that the rate would not be used as a reason to push up the price of the land.

I am proposing to rebate four points of the six points, or 6%, to anyone who has a credible plan to provide more residential development. Let us suppose someone acquires land. The purchaser would have paid stamp duty of 2% on it. The rate now moves up to 6%. Indeed, it has been at 6% since the financial resolutions were passed. Upon enactment of the Bill, the purchaser will then get four points back. The rate will go back to 2% as it was before budget night.

This is not only about ensuring that it does not have inadvertent but likely consequences, such as pushing up the price of homes when they are built, but also serves to provide another incentive or reason to use land that has been acquired to supply residential development as opposed to other forms of development. That is the broad approach.

A specific question was put to me by Deputy McGrath on the timeframe. I engaged with the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government on the question. The advice that Department gave me was that the 30-month period and, to address an additional question put to me by Deputy McGrath, the two-year period were reasonable timeframes to allow the planning process to start and end as well as to allow for the overwhelming majority, if not all, of residential development to be delivered. That was the assessment on the basis of my engagement with the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government.

Deputy McGrath asked about green space. Deputy McGrath drew attention to the 75% and 25% proportions. These proportions are in place because I am keen to ensure that if land is bought and stamp duty is paid at 6%, then we do not end up in a position whereby a purchaser can buy 100 acres only to build two homes. Then, that person could come back and claim to have delivered residential development. That person could argue that since he had delivered residential development, he can take the 2% rate. We put in place criteria specifying 75% use of land. Alternatively, let us suppose someone buys land but decides to use that land to deliver high-density development, for the sake of argument, a large apartment block. We have provided that 75% of that development has to be used for residential property.

We are looking to deal with any avoidance measure in respect of the delivery of a small number of houses using the 75% criterion of the area of land. Furthermore, to ensure that high-density development is not impeded, we have set down the 75% proportion for the footprint of the building.

This leads to Deputy McGrath's question on green space and where it sits. Green space would then sit in the 25% proportion, unless it is green space that forms part of a garden. Again, I will explain the advice that I have received. Let us suppose some land is acquired and the owner develops a normal housing development. A measurement of the houses and a reasonable expectation regarding the gardens and the curtilage around the properties would get to the 75% proportion that is expected. We expect that requirement would be met easily. That would then deliver the 4% rebate. The green space would be in the other 25%.

Either Deputy Michael McGrath or Fitzmaurice asked about the timing of repayments. I expect that the Revenue Commissioners will repay the money as quickly as possible and I will ask them to do so because we want this to be another incentive for delivering residential development. Within reason, garden space is taken into account when defining a residential unit.

Deputy Michael McGrath

On the issue of 75%, while I realise this is a technical and detailed anti-avoidance measure, must the footprint of the buildings account for at least 75% of the total surface area of the land to avoid a clawback? Must the open space, roadways and so on in the estate account for less than 25% of the total area?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The roadways will be included in the 25% element.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I assume there has been full consultation with the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government on the planning guidelines in place for residential developments. The figure appears to be very low.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

One of the reasons I am introducing this measure on Report Stage is the significant engagement we had on this issue with the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 76 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Michael D'Arcy

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 61, line 2, to delete "and" where it firstly occurs.

Section 851A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 provides for the confidentiality of the information given by the taxpayer to the Revenue Commissioners. It provides for the limited circumstances in which taxpayer information can be disclosed by the Revenue Commissioners.

Amendments No. 69 and 70 are entirely technical and are required from a drafting perspective due to previous amendments to section 851A. The purpose of amendment No. 76 is to refine and provide further legal clarity regarding the application of this section in respect of matters relating to state aid. This amendment to section 851A will provide for the disclosure of taxpayer information by the Revenue Commissioners to the Department of Finance and-or the European Commission solely for specific purposes relating to state aid. This will ensure that the interests of the taxpayer and the State can continue to be represented in the best possible manner in all such engagements with the European Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Michael D'Arcy

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 61, line 8, to delete "1408/2013 of 18 December 2013." and substitute "1408/2013 of 18 December 2013.".".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 65, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“Farm consolidation relief

65. (1) Section 81C of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) by substituting “24 months” for “18 months” in each place where it occurs,

(b) in subsection (1)(a)—

(i) by deleting the definition of “PPS Number”, and

(ii) in the definition of “relevant period”—

(I) by substituting “1 January 2018” for “1 July 2007”, and

(II) by substituting “31 December 2020” for “30 June 2009”,

(c) in subsection (3), by substituting “at the rate of one per cent on an instrument executed on or after 1 January 2018” for “on the instrument”,

(d) by substituting the following subsection for subsection (6):

“(6) A claim for relief under subsection (3) or a claim for relief by way of repayment under subsection (5), made to the Commissioners under this section, shall be allowed where it is the intention of the person purchasing the land to—

(a) retain ownership of his or her interest in the qualifying land, and

(b) use the qualifying land for farming,

for a period of not less than 5 years from the date on which the first claim for relief in respect of the qualifying land is made.”,

(e) by substituting the following subsection for subsection (7):

“(7) This section shall not apply to an instrument unless it contains a certificate, by the person or persons to whom the land is conveyed or transferred by the instrument, to the effect that that person is or those persons are, as the case may be, entitled to claim relief in accordance with this section.”,

(f) by deleting subsection (8),

(g) in subsection (9)(c)—

(i) by substituting “a certificate referred to in subsection (7)” for “a declaration referred to in paragraph (d) or (e) of subsection (6)”,

(ii) by substituting “the person or persons to whom the land is conveyed or transferred by the instrument” for “the person or persons who made such a declaration”, and

(iii) by deleting “due to all the facts not having been truthfully declared”,

(h) by deleting subsection (9)(d),

(i) In subsection (10)—

(i) in paragraph (b), by substituting “under paragraph (a) or (c)” for “under paragraph (a), (c) or (d)”,

(ii) in paragraph (c), by substituting “under paragraph (c) of subsection (9), and” for “under paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (9),”,

(iii) in paragraph (d), by substituting “under paragraph (a) of subsection (9).” for “under paragraph (a) or (d), as the case may be, of subsection (9), and”, and

(iv) by deleting paragraph (e),

and

(j) in subsection (12)—

(i) by substituting “1 January 2018” for “1 July 2007”, and

(ii) by substituting “31 December 2020” for “30 June 2011”.

(2) Subsection (1) comes into operation on such day as the Minister for Finance may appoint by order.”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 72 to 74, inclusive, are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 72 to 74, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 66, after line 36, to insert the following:

“69. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Oireachtas a report on the options to incentivise donations to charity in legacies and also options to incentivise donations to charity through the donation of shares.”.

This amendment provides that the Minister prepare a report within six months on the options to incentivise donations charity in legacies and also options to incentivise donations to charity through the donation of shares. This is an important issue. Research into legacy giving in Ireland in 2016 indicates that legacy income accounted for 11% of fundraised income over the period from 2012 until 2014. In January 2017, the Institute of Fundraising reported that legacies in England and Wales account for one quarter of the total amount given to charities each year and exceed £2.24 billion per annum. I ask the Minister to consider introducing changes to the capital acquisitions tax code to incentivise the giving of donations to charities as part of legacies. This is the key request.

The second element relates to donations to charities through the donation of shares, a practice that is extremely limited at present. The overall thrust of the amendment is to support, through the tax system, the gifting or donation of assets, shares and so forth, through the inheritance tax system, to charities that are fully registered and regulated.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I support the amendment. Generous conditions are applied to ensure charities can survive. The report requested in the amendment should be done for the two reasons set out by Deputy Michael McGrath. In addition, we must ensure we deliver on this issue for the simple reason that it would be of assistance. A large number of legacies go unaccounted for and the State grabs nearly everything. If people had an incentive to leave legacies to charitable organisations, some would be willing to do so, which would help struggling charities to survive.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Deputy McGrath has proposed that a report on the options to incentivise charitable donations in the form of bequests and the transfer of shares to charitable organisations be prepared and laid before the Dáil. Capital acquisitions tax is a tax on the beneficiary of a gift or an inheritance. Section 76 of the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 provides that a gift or an inheritance which is taken for public or charitable purposes is exempt from both gift tax and inheritance tax and is not taken into account when computing tax to the extent that Revenue is satisfied that it has been, or will be, applied for purposes which in accordance with the laws of the State are public or charitable. As there is already provision for the transfer of gifts and inheritances of assets, including shares, for public and charitable purposes free from capital acquisitions tax, I do not see a need to consider any further options to incentivise such donations.

Should the Deputy require further clarification on this matter, I will be pleased to engage with him on it. I would also be happy to meet groups which may have ideas in this area. I ask the Deputy to accept my view on the amendment and consider withdrawing it.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I accept the Minister's reply in good faith. Certain groups have made specific proposals to improve legislation in this area, notwithstanding the existing tax code and the provisions the Minister set out. I will engage with the Minister and his officials on the matter and withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Michael D'Arcy

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 67, to delete lines 27 to 30 and substitute the following:

“Taxpayer information

72. Part 37 of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in section 851A by inserting the following paragraphs after paragraph (m) (inserted by section 62):

“(n) where the taxpayer information is disclosed to an official of the Department of Finance solely—

(i) for the purposes of or in connection with the compliance by the State with its obligations under—

(I) Article 108 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, or

(II) regulations made pursuant to Article 109 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,

or

(ii) for the purposes of or in connection with the preparation of a response to the exercise by the Commission of the European Union of its functions under—

(I) Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, or

(II) regulations made pursuant to Article 109 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,

and

(o) where the taxpayer information is disclosed to the Commission of the European Union solely for the purposes of or in connection with the compliance by the State with its obligations under—

(i) Article 108 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, or

(ii) regulations made pursuant to Article 109 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union.”,

and

(b) by inserting the following section after section 851A:

“Use of, and access to, taxpayer information

851B. (1) In this section—”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 69, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“73. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, bring a report on the revenue implications of bogus self-employment, i.e. the misclassification of PAYE workers as self-employed.”.

While I realise we are approaching the end of the debate, I consider this amendment one of the most important that we have tabled. It calls on the Minister to produce, within six months, of the passing of the Bill, a report on the implications of bogus self-employment, namely, the misclassification of PAYE workers as self-employed. This is an important issue for workers and their rights, particularly in the construction sector.

I put forward this amendment as a tribute to a friend, colleague and comrade who tragically lost his life on the weekend before last. His name was Bill McClurg and he was a bricklayer and trade union activist. He was somebody who acquainted me with the plight of building workers and bricklayers who were fighting for the right to have decent conditions of employment and pay on building sites in the construction sector. His loss is, obviously, first and foremost, a loss for his partner, June, his children, Emma, John and Rachel, and his many grandchildren and family and friends. They will feel the loss of him, as a father and a family man, acutely, and even more so because the particular conditions of his death were tragic in that he took his own life - something his family were happy that I would say publicly because they, like many other people, feel that the issue of suicide needs to be highlighted so that we confront it and let people know out there who have suicidal ideation that it is okay to speak out about these matters and that we should have a society that supports and helps those who face that dilemma.

I knew Billy as an activist. He taught me about the continuing dilemma of thousands of building workers who want to fight - this is the irony of many of the issues we have discussed over the course of this Bill - for the right to pay tax. Is that not amazing? We have spent all of ten or 11 hours discussing how some, such as big corporations, property speculators, banks and the very wealthy, do everything in their power not to pay tax but there are thousands of workers out there in precarious situations, skilled workers in the case of the late Billy McClurg, trained, qualified and passionate about what they do.

Billy, in particular, was a precision bricklayer. In and out of work, he was concerned that things were done perfectly, whether it was his garden, in respect of the state of the roads and the streets in his area, or on the building sites that he worked, and that the work was done properly to the highest standard. He spent much of his working life fighting for the right to pay tax and to be employed properly with proper pay and conditions.

He and his many of his comrades - I stood with them at many building sites around this city - were forced to protest and to take strike action because they were denied the right by building contractors to be directly employed. Those contractors wanted to misclassify them as being self-employed so that they would not have to pay for their employees' benefits, such as PRSI, sick pay, holiday pay, pension entitlements and bank holidays, and would be able to dismiss them, hire them and fire them whenever they wanted - something that tens of thousands of workers are still affected by. These were workers who wanted to pay tax and they wanted to ensure that work of the best standard was done on building sites.

Thirteen years ago, I stood outside a picket in Ballybrack on a public contract site where we were protesting. Billy and two of his colleagues ended up in prison for that protest because they defied an injunction telling them to stop picketing. I remember Billy pointing at the subcontractors who were inside who were supposedly self-employed and saying, "Those guys are not qualified bricklayers. These houses will fall apart in a few years". They were council houses which were being built to replace council houses that previously had fallen apart because they had also been built by cowboy builders. Ironically, 13 years on, just as Billy predicted, because the building standards were not applied and, almost certainly, the bricklayers who were working on that site were not qualified bricklayers, those houses are falling apart and will have to be paid for to be remediated with public money. Here was somebody who fought all his life and went to jail because he wanted the right to pay tax and he wanted the work done properly on building sites.

What he was fighting for is still relevant today. Up to 60,000 construction workers working on building sites are being falsely classified by employers as being self-employed when they very obviously are not and, consequently, they are losing as workers, in terms of pay and conditions. We will only find out in years to come that in many cases the quality of the work from the Celtic tiger era may be substandard, but also the public purse is losing out because if they are not PAYE workers, we do not get the tax revenue in.

An Ceann Comhairle

I need the Deputy to conclude.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

In tribute to the late Billy McClurg, to his family, to his colleagues and his comrades, I put this amendment forward as a serious attempt to address what is a scandal in the construction sector around the issue of bogus self-employment. I ask the Minister to look seriously at cleaning up the construction sector and stop this abuse and ensure that the thousands of workers like the late Billy McClurg are treated properly and respected as skilled workers who contribute to our society.

Deputy Michael D'Arcy

Allow me to express my condolence to Mrs. McClurg and his family.

The Deputies will be aware that a consultation process on the use of intermediary-type structures and self-employment arrangements was jointly agreed by the then Minister for Finance and the then Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection last year. This consultation invited submissions from interested parties on possible measures to address the loss to the Exchequer that may arise under arrangements of this nature.

I am pleased to note that the Minister has now received the report informed by this consultation and which was prepared by a working group of officials. The report is intended to broaden and deepen the understanding of the impacts for Exchequer revenue of what is often termed "disguised employment". It will inform the debate on any potential measures to address these impacts. Obviously, I will need to consult with my colleague, the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, but I would intend bringing the report to Cabinet very shortly and publishing it as soon as practicable.

As the report examines the issues identified by the Deputies, I do not see the need for this amendment.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I do, because this has gone on and on. Billy fought for most of working life on this but so have many thousands of building workers. Indeed, I have cited to the Minister recent examples of where this sort of practice continues to go on.

Let me cite a few facts. Billy and his colleagues would always say, "It is not just that we lose out, but that the public is losing out," because if they were paying tax there would be more money available for housing, health, etc., and it is a fact. I asked the Minister about this, and there was a table he promised me on the figures relating to the tax that comes back from relevant contracts tax, RCT, as against PAYE in the construction sector, and two weeks after I asked the question I have not got the table, but I got some figures myself. In 2016, €255 million came back in tax revenue from RCT, the supposedly self-employed sector, but over €200 million of that was given back in offsets and refunds, and only a net amount of €49 million came in to the Exchequer. That covers I do not know how many workers because the Minister did not give me the figures. I would say it covers approximately 60,000 workers and all we get back is €49 million in tax whereas in the same year the Exchequer got back €536 million from approximately the same number of directly-employed workers in construction.

That is what Billy and his colleagues always fought to be and what construction workers today are fighting to be, namely, directly employed PAYE workers. That is a loss to society as well as to the workers who are having to fight for proper conditions.

Deputy Michael D'Arcy

That table was to be given to the Deputy and I apologise for the fact that it was not. We will get it to the Deputy as soon as possible.

The joint investigation unit undertakes highly visible site visits and inspections on construction sites. The work involves the examination of contractors and employees on such sites. A key objective is to ensure that all visits are properly planned, executed and reported upon. There were 2,126 construction site visits last year. Visits are generally unannounced but efforts are made to ensure that disruption to construction activity is minimal. They serve to support compliance by affording Revenue and other agencies an opportunity to engage with contractors, subcontractors and employees present on a site to ensure that they are aware of their obligations and to detect, disrupt and deter non-compliance. This is achieved by interviewing those persons present on a site. A total of 11,699 interviews were conducted last year. In 2016 special emphasis was placed on challenging the inappropriate classification of workers as self-employed contractors. Principal contractors engaging a large number of individual subcontractors and with several layers of subcontracting below them were selected for examination. This activity resulted in 848 individuals being registered as PAYE employees and in the reclassification of 345 subcontractors as employees.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I am glad there is some response from the Government and the authorities in the form of these raids, which should be happening on a much bigger scale and should have been happening a long time ago. During the Celtic tiger period, they just were not happening at all and many workers lost out very bitterly as a result of that. Those who stood up for themselves, who fought and protested were often derided, blacklisted and denied the right to work. I am glad that there has been a bit of an improvement but it is still rife, if not rampant.

While there are building contractors who play straight up and do things as they should be done, there are also many cowboys out there who are abusing workers and almost certainly doing shoddy work because they do not want to pay building workers properly. They think, because of the transient nature of construction work, they can get away with it. It is being done on a wide scale and the very tiny amounts of tax revenue that are coming back from the RCT sector in construction as against ten times that amount in the PAYE sector for the same amount of workers is a clear indication of the abuse that is going on. We need far more enforcement in this area. Any big contractor who is found guilty of abusing workers' rights and the tax code in this way should never again be awarded public contracts. This has to be wiped out so that people like Billy and his colleagues in the construction industry, who have had to fight week in and week out against this kind of abuse by cowboy contractors, will no longer have to do that and can just get on with their jobs.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment being pressed?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Yes.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 45; Staon, 28.

Tá

• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Brady, John.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Collins, Joan.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Kenny, Martin.
• Martin, Catherine.
• Mitchell, Denise.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• O'Reilly, Louise.
• O'Sullivan, Maureen.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Bríd.
• Stanley, Brian.

Níl

• Bailey, Maria.
• Breen, Pat.
• Brophy, Colm.
• Burke, Peter.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Canney, Seán.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Coveney, Simon.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harris, Simon.
• Harty, Michael.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kyne, Seán.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• Madigan, Josepha.
• Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Naughton, Hildegarde.
• Neville, Tom.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connell, Kate.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• Ring, Michael.
• Rock, Noel.
• Ross, Shane.
• Stanton, David.

Staon

• Aylward, Bobby.
• Brassil, John.
• Browne, James.
• Butler, Mary.
• Cahill, Jackie.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Casey, Pat.
• Cassells, Shane.
• Chambers, Jack.
• Chambers, Lisa.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Curran, John.
• Donnelly, Stephen S.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Lahart, John.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Kevin.
• O'Rourke, Frank.
• Scanlon, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smyth, Niamh.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Bríd Smith; Níl, Deputies Joe McHugh and Tony McLoughlin.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 72, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“Amendment of Schedule 24A to Principal Act (arrangements made by the Government with the government of any territory outside the State in relation to affording relief from double taxation and exchanging information in relation to tax)

77. Schedule 24A to the Principal Act is amended-

(a) in Part 1 by inserting the following after paragraph 21:

“21A. The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Republic of Kazakhstan) Order 2017 (S.I. No. 479 of 2017).”,

and

(b) in Part 3 by inserting the following after paragraph 8AB:

“8AC. The Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters (Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China) Order 2017 (S.I. No. 480 of 2017).”.”.

Both agreements referred to above have already been considered and approved by the Dáil Select-Sub Committee on Finance as part of the ratification process and approved by Dáil Éireann. The amendment proposed makes changes to Part 1 and Part 3 of Schedule 24A to the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The amendments to Part 1 give effect to a new double taxation agreement with the Republic of Kazakhstan. All such international agreements entered into by Ireland must be listed in Part 1 of Schedule 24A. The amendments to Part 3 give effect to new tax information exchange agreements which the State has entered into with Macao. All such agreements entered into by Ireland must be listed in Part 3 of Schedule 24A.

Double taxation agreements are widely regarded as critical pieces of fiscal infrastructure for developing substantial bilateral trading and investment opportunities by reducing tax impediments that might otherwise deter cross-border activity.

Tax information exchange agreements between Ireland and other jurisdictions allow the Revenue Commissioners to request information that is relevant to an Irish tax investigation directly from other authorities.

The addition of these agreements to Schedule 24A is the final step in the legislative and ratification procedure that will ensure that they will have the force of law. It is essential that these amendments be made in the Finance Bill, as doing so completes the Irish ratification process for these agreements, thereby fulfilling Ireland's commitment to complete ratification as soon as possible. The agreements will come into force once both parties have completed their ratification processes.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 75, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“Report of Minister for Finance

81. The Minister for Finance shall, not later than 9 months after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dail Eireann a report on the issues relating to making provision in law for a tax on vacant residential property, the administration and implementation of such a tax, the availability of reliable baseline data and the estimated annual revenue from such a tax.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 80 to 84, inclusive, not moved.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 24; Staon, 29.

Tá

• Bailey, Maria.
• Breen, Pat.
• Brophy, Colm.
• Burke, Peter.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Canney, Seán.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harris, Simon.
• Harty, Michael.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kyne, Seán.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• Madigan, Josepha.
• Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Murphy, Eoghan.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Naughton, Hildegarde.
• Neville, Tom.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connell, Kate.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• Ring, Michael.
• Rock, Noel.
• Ross, Shane.
• Stanton, David.

Níl

• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Brady, John.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Collins, Joan.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Kenny, Martin.
• Martin, Catherine.
• Mitchell, Denise.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O'Brien, Jonathan.
• O'Reilly, Louise.
• O'Sullivan, Maureen.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Bríd.
• Stanley, Brian.

Staon

• Aylward, Bobby.
• Brassil, John.
• Browne, James.
• Butler, Mary.
• Cahill, Jackie.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Casey, Pat.
• Cassells, Shane.
• Chambers, Jack.
• Chambers, Lisa.
• Collins, Niall.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Curran, John.
• Donnelly, Stephen S.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Lahart, John.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Kevin.
• O'Rourke, Frank.
• Scanlon, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smyth, Niamh.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Joe McHugh and Tony McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies Pearse Doherty and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Bill is certified as a money Bill in accordance with Article 22.2.1° of the Constitution.