Wednesday, 24 Feb 2021

Written Answers Nos. 217-238

Tax Collection

Questions (217)

David Stanton

Question:

217. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding late returns filed by businesses with the Revenue Commissioners for corporation tax; if the Revenue Commissioners are applying surcharges once again; his views on whether as businesses continue to trade during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic that they should be afforded more time to make their returns without the imposition of a surcharge; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10396/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

I am aware that Revenue has implemented a range of administrative concessions to assist taxpayers, and their tax agents, in meeting tax return filing and payment deadlines since the beginning of the pandemic, including the suspension of late filing surcharges.

Regarding Corporation Tax (CT1) returns, I am advised by Revenue that late filing surcharges in respect of the 2019 tax year have been suspended since 23 March 2020. The suspension relates to all corporation tax accounting periods from June 2019 (due to be filed in March 2020) onwards.

For the 2020 Corporation Tax return, Revenue has added an extra month’s grace period to the official return filing deadline. For example, a 2020 CT 1 return with an accounting period ending on 30 June 2020 (due to be filed by 23 March 2021) will not incur a late filing surcharge if filed on or before 23 April 2021.

Revenue has confirmed to me that it is keeping the matter of return filing deadlines under review and has advised me that any business or tax agent who is struggling to meet deadlines should contact the relevant Revenue Branch Manager (via myEnquiries) to discuss the matter.

Covid-19 Pandemic Supports

Questions (218)

David Stanton

Question:

218. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Finance if clarity will be provided in relation a query (details supplied) regarding debt warehousing and the reduced rate of interest for outstanding non-Covid-19 debts. [10398/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

The Debt Warehousing Scheme remains available to support businesses that are experiencing tax payment difficulties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The scheme applies to VAT debts, PAYE (Employer) debts, self-assessed income tax amounts (balance of 2019 Income Tax liability and 2020 preliminary tax) and Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme (TWSS) overpayments.

The scheme allows businesses to ‘park’ these debts on an interest free basis for 12 months following the resumption of trading. At the end of the 12-month interest free period, the warehoused debt may be paid in full without incurring an interest charge or paid through a phased payment arrangement at a significantly reduced interest rate of 3% per annum. This compares to the standard rate of 8% or 10% per annum that would otherwise apply to such debts.

Businesses that previously availed of the Debt Warehousing Scheme and subsequently resumed trading (for example, between September and December 2020 as mentioned in the case in question), can recommence availing of the support if their trade has again been impacted by the latest restrictions. This means that they can warehouse relevant tax debts from the beginning of the initial lockdown, including in respect of the period/s during which they were trading between lockdowns. A key requirement of the scheme is that businesses continue to file all relevant tax returns for the restricted trading period(s) even if the liability cannot be paid so that the tax debt can be quantified and warehoused.

As part of the Government’s July Jobs Stimulus Package, a similar reduced rate of interest (3%) was made available on a short-term basis to encourage businesses enter into payment arrangements to clear tax debts that could not be warehoused, such as liabilities that arose prior to the pandemic. This measure was introduced to provide liquidity support for businesses and sole traders that had historic unpaid tax debts across all tax types and was available for payment arrangements agreed on or before 31 October 2020.

While this arrangement is no longer available, Revenue has advised me that it will take a reasonable and pragmatic approach where it can be demonstrated that a business has genuine difficulty in addressing tax debts and will work to agree a mutually acceptable solution where there is meaningful engagement. Revenue has also confirmed to me that if the Deputy wishes to provide the details of the case in question, it will make direct contact to discuss the difficulties and outline the possible alternatives that are available.

Question No. 219 answered with Question No. 157.

Credit Unions

Questions (220)

Mattie McGrath

Question:

220. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he has engaged with the Central Bank regarding its decision to advise credit unions not to pay a dividend or give members a rebate on their loan interest. [10451/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

In accordance with the Credit Union Act credit unions need the approval of their members at an AGM to pay dividends. In the rules set by members, not by legislation, most credit unions cannot pay a loan interest rebate without having first approved a dividend.

I have been informed by the Central Bank, that in a circular issued to all credit unions recently they set out their expectations on the payment of dividends and rebates. This set out that, in the context of the 2020 year-end, credit unions must be cognisant of the significant risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit impacts potentially yet to be fully realised, not only to their own business models but to the wider economic environment. The importance of (1) maintaining and building adequate levels of reserves, including adequate operational risk reserves, which is key to ensuring credit union financial stability and resilience and (2) the protection which capital reserves provide against the potential macroeconomic impacts of disruptive events, including capacity of credit unions to absorb credit or other losses that may arise, were also highlighted.

More specifically on distributions for the 2020 year-end, given the current level of risk and uncertainty regarding the economic outlook, the Central Bank expects all credit unions to take a prudent approach. Credit unions are expected to give priority to the maintenance and building of their reserves over the payment of any distributions to members and accordingly, it is not expected that proposed distributions (dividend or loan interest rebate) by credit unions would feature in the 2020 financial year.

Where a credit union may be considering a proposed distribution, my understanding is that the Central Bank expected such credit unions to contact their supervisor in the Registry of Credit Unions to clearly outline the rationale for proposing such course of action.

Tax Rebates

Questions (221, 222)

Imelda Munster

Question:

221. Deputy Imelda Munster asked the Minister for Finance the amount in tax rebates that have been claimed under the stay and spend scheme; the number of persons who have made a claim; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10453/21]

Imelda Munster

Question:

222. Deputy Imelda Munster asked the Minister for Finance if he plans to close the stay and spend tax rebate on the date originally planned; if he has conducted a review into the scheme and its effectiveness; his plans for further similar initiatives in 2021; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10454/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

I propose to take Questions Nos. 221 and 222 together.

The purpose of the Stay and Spend Tax Credit scheme is to provide targeted support to businesses within the hospitality sector whose operations are likely to be most affected by continued restrictions on public health grounds. In order to claim the Stay and Spend Tax Credit, taxpayers are required to upload a copy of their receipt(s) for qualifying expenditure to the Revenue Receipts Tracker and then make a formal claim for the tax credit when submitting their annual Income Tax Return.

Under the scheme a claim may be made in relation to qualifying expenditure incurred between the period 1 October 2020 and 30 April 2021. Broadly, qualifying expenditure includes expenditure on either holiday accommodation or “eat in” food and drink, with a minimum expenditure amount of €25 per transaction being required.

Claims relating to qualifying expenditure incurred in the period from 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020 can be made when an individual is submitting his/her 2020 Income Tax Return, which is now available for submission.

As at 14 February 2021 a total of 7,799 claims have been included in 2020 Income Tax Returns. These claims relate to €2,755,230 of the qualifying expenditure recorded on the Revenue Receipts Tracker to date and the tax cost of same amounts to €551,046. However, as the filing deadline for the 2020 Income Tax Return is not until 31 October 2021, information on the total number of claims and cost for the 2020 year of assessment will not be available until after the filing date and the returns have been processed.

Subsequent to claims being made in respect of this new scheme and any other relief or deduction, verification of such reliefs and deductions forms part of Revenue’s comprehensive risk assessment programme.

The scheme itself was developed at a time when there appeared to be a steady downward trend in infection rates and there was an expectation that the re-opening of the economy could be sustained uninterrupted. Unfortunately, this has not been the case and, with the exception of some short periods, public health restrictions have had the effect of impeding the operation of the incentive as originally envisaged. A formal review has not been necessary to conclude that this has been the position.

Decisions on next steps relating to the scheme have yet to be taken and I will continue to assess matters as circumstances evolve.

It is important also to recall that Stay and Spend should not be viewed in isolation from the other measures put in place to support businesses generally and the hospitality sector in particular.

In recognition of the unprecedented challenges facing the Hospitality and Tourism sector, the VAT rate was reduced from 13.5% to 9 % from 1 November 2020. This is a temporary measure to provide support to the sector, where many businesses remain closed for now and those that are open are operating at significantly reduced capacity, and will apply from 1 November 2020 to 31 December 2021.

The Employment Wage Subsidy Scheme (EWSS) continues to be a key component of the Government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis to support viable firms and encourage employment in the hospitality and tourism sector and beyond. I have been clear that there will be no cliff-edge to the EWSS and, as the Deputy will be aware from announcements made yesterday, the scheme is being extended to the end of June 2021.

The Covid Restrictions Support Scheme (CRSS) is a targeted support for businesses significantly impacted by restrictions introduced by the Government under public health regulations to combat the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The support is available to companies, self-employed individuals and partnerships who carry on a trade or trading activities, the profits from which are chargeable to tax under Case I of Schedule D, from a business premises located in a region subject to restrictions introduced in line with the Living with COVID-19 Plan.

Businesses may also be eligible under the Debt Warehousing Scheme to ‘park’ certain VAT and PAYE (Employer) liabilities, excess payments received under the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme (TWSS), outstanding balances of self-assessed Income Tax for 2019 and Preliminary Tax for 2020.

Covid-19 Pandemic Supports

Questions (223)

Jennifer Whitmore

Question:

223. Deputy Jennifer Whitmore asked the Minister for Finance the number of early years education services that have availed of the employment wage subsidy scheme in each week since 21 December 2020, in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10459/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

The Deputy will be aware that Section 28B of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 provides for the operation of the Employment Wage Subsidy Scheme (EWSS), which is an economy-wide enterprise support for eligible businesses in respect of eligible employees. It provides a flat-rate subsidy to qualifying employers based on the numbers of paid and eligible employees on the employer’s payroll and charges a reduced rate of employer PRSI of 0.5% on wages paid which are eligible for the subsidy payment.

While the criteria for eligibility for business in general is based on a reduction in turnover as a result of the pandemic, childcare businesses registered in accordance with Section 58C of the Childcare Act 1991 are eligible for the EWSS.

I am advised by Revenue that there are 2,903 registered childcare service providers, registered for the EWSS. Of the total 2,903 EWSS registered providers, 2,767 have availed of the EWSS between 21 December and 31 January. The figures presented herein represent estimates and are reported on a cumulative basis for the scheme to-date. It was not possible to identify the number of childcare service providers who availed of the scheme in each week since 21 December due to the mix of pay frequencies evident in the scheme operations.

Departmental Expenditure

Questions (224)

Sorca Clarke

Question:

224. Deputy Sorca Clarke asked the Minister for Finance the amount his Department has expended to date regarding awareness raising campaigns of Covid-19 in national newspapers, regional newspapers, national radio, regional and local radio stations and across social media platforms; and the amount committed to expend under any current contracts or agreements with same in tabular form. [10471/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

My Department has incurred no expenditure, nor is it committed to any expenditure under current contracts or agreements, regarding awareness raising campaigns of Covid-19.

Covid-19 Pandemic Supports

Questions (225)

Bríd Smith

Question:

225. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Finance if the situation of self-employed workers who received either the pandemic unemployment payment or wage subsidy schemes in the past year and who may now face tax demands from the Revenue Commissioners will be clarified (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10504/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

The Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme provided the payment of income supports to employers in respect of eligible employees, where the employer’s business activities had experienced significant negative disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The scheme was available to all employers, irrespective of how that employer operates (i.e. limited company, sole trade, partnership etc.). However, self-employed individuals may have been eligible for the Department of Social Protection administered COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment scheme. Revenue advise me that the numbers of self-employed people in receipt of PUP are not readily available.

Payments made under the Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP) are income supports and share the characteristics of income. The PUP follows the general taxation rule for social welfare type payments and, thus, is chargeable to income tax, but exempt from the USC and PRSI charges. This will be the case whether, prior to receipt of the PUP, the recipient was a PAYE worker or a self-employed individual.

The taxation arrangements for the PUP were legislated for in Finance Act 2020 and the legislation reflects the standard approach to taxation of social welfare benefits, including jobseekers benefit for the self-employed, which is to tax the benefits on an actual basis under Schedule E. Being taxed on an actual basis means that for each tax year, recipients of the PUP are taxed on the payments that are received in the corresponding calendar year. This is the case regardless of the period for which a self-employed individual carrying on a trade or profession prepares his or her accounts for that trade or profession.

Outstanding liabilities for self-employed tax-payers are not treated in the same manner as outstanding liabilities for PAYE only tax-payers arising from receipt of the wage supports.

Self-assessed individuals, i.e. chargeable persons, who have income from non-PAYE sources are obliged to file a tax return and account for all their income including the PUP in their tax return. This is the case whether or not such individuals were in receipt of the PUP.

The 2020 tax return would be due to be filed by 31st October 2021, and any balance of tax owing would normally be due to be paid at the same time. However, there is provision in Finance Act 2020 which expands the debt warehousing scheme to include taxpayers who self-assess for income tax. The scheme is available to any self-assessed taxpayer (including a proprietary director) who expects that her/his income for 2020 will be more than 25% lower than her/his income for 2019 and as a result s/he is unable to pay the balance of income tax for 2019 and Preliminary Tax 2020. ROS filers had until 10 December to pay and file their 2019 Form 11 and to pay preliminary tax for 2020. This deadline also applied to ROS filers who wished to avail of the debt warehousing scheme.

Where a taxpayer is eligible for warehousing, collection of these liabilities may be suspended for a period of 12 months from 31 October / 10 December, as appropriate. Warehoused liabilities will be subject to no interest for this 12 month period and a reduced interest rate of c. 3% per annum thereafter until paid in full.

If income for 2021 is also more than 25% lower than income for 2019, the balance of 2020 Income Tax and Preliminary Tax for 2021 may be warehoused.

Furthermore, where a self-employed individual incurs a loss for a year of assessment, a provision is available that allows the individual to elect to have that loss offset sideways against other income of the individual, or in cases of joint assessment, against income of the individual’s spouse/civil partner. Therefore, where an individual has incurred a loss in 2020, they may utilise this loss to shelter a tax liability arising from receipt of the PUP.

Finally, tax clearance certificates are available where Returns Filing and Tax Payments are kept up to date and Payment Agreements entered into are adhered to. This includes Warehousing.

Banking Sector

Questions (226)

Pearse Doherty

Question:

226. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider the establishment of a future of Irish banking forum that would include all key stakeholders, banks, regulators, unions and external experts to consider the current state of the Irish banking market and its long-term future in view of the announced withdrawal by a bank (details supplied) from the market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10534/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

As the Deputy may be aware the Financial Services Union (FSU) has suggested the establishment of a Banking Forum to consider the future of banking.

When I met with the FSU, last December, I outlined that I did not think my Department should participate in the Forum as I was concerned that it would not represent a model of good governance to have competent authorities, such as the Department of Finance and the Central Bank of Ireland, participating in the formulation of proposals and recommendations that will then be submitted to Government for objective consideration by the same competent authorities.

However, the Programme for Government highlights the importance of social dialogue and the importance of open engagement with all sectors of society. Accordingly, I and my Department are happy to engage with the FSU and other stakeholders. In that context, I engaged with the FSU late last year on the strategic review of Ulster Bank. I also met with the FSU on Friday morning after the announcement by NatWest and I have committed to further engagement with the FSU in relation to this issue.

Banking Sector

Questions (227)

Pearse Doherty

Question:

227. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the engagement he has had with banks (details supplied), given the State shareholdings in those banks with a view to securing elements of loan books of another bank in advance of its withdrawal from the market. [10535/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

I have been briefed on certain discussions and am supportive of trying to bring about an outcome that is good for both AIB and PTSB, the banks referenced in the recent Nat West announcement, but more importantly for Ulster Bank’s customers, staff and the Irish economy generally.

The loss of Ulster Bank after so many years is deeply disappointing and will have difficult consequences for some, if not many people. The Government's focus will be on trying to ensure that the disruption associated with the bank's departure is as limited as possible and finding ways to strengthen the banking landscape in the months and years ahead. What I am absolutely certain of is that the Government should not do anything that makes the problem we face worse and that would include any suggestion that I try to direct banks to do certain things, even though I have no such power, or pass legislation that would further restrict their freedom of operation.

Banking Sector

Questions (228)

Pearse Doherty

Question:

228. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance if he has considered the establishment of a third force within the banking market to compete with banks (details supplied); his views on the ability of another bank to play that role; and the consequences that may have for the Exchequer. [10536/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

As the Deputy will be aware, the NatWest Group announced its 2020 Full Year results on Friday, 19th February. As widely expected, NatWest confirmed that it intends withdrawing from the banking sector in the Republic of Ireland and has begun the process of winding down its ROI Ulster Bank business.

As part of this process, NatWest confirmed that it is in negotiations with AIB in relation to the sale of a portfolio of performing commercial loans estimated to be worth approximately €4bn. NatWest and AIB have signed a Memorandum of Understanding in this regard. Ulster Bank staff wholly or mainly assigned to this loan book may transfer to AIB in line with the Memorandum of Understanding. NatWest also confirmed that it was in negotiation with Permanent TSB in relation to certain retail and SME assets, liabilities and operations.

If a successful proposal emerges from the negotiations between NatWest and AIB and/or NatWest and PTSB, that requires the Government’s backing as shareholder, given the likely monetary size off a transaction, and the public interest, I would anticipate that any transaction involving PTSB or AIB, would require consultation with me in line with the Relationship Frameworks. It is important to note the consultation process gives me the opportunity to express my views, but I have no right of veto.

Both sets of negotiations are at an early stage. The potential consequences for the Exchequer cannot be considered until after the negotiations have concluded. If a successful proposal emerges from these discussions which is in the best interest of the economy, consumers, SMEs and the wider banking sector, I anticipate that I will be supportive in this regard.

Mortgage Lending

Questions (229)

Neasa Hourigan

Question:

229. Deputy Neasa Hourigan asked the Minister for Finance if he plans to impose conditions on the transfer of residential mortgages; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10538/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

There is a significant consumer protection framework in place to protect residential mortgage borrowers and to deal specifically with the maintenance of these protections in the event of a loan transfer.

Where a loan is sold or transferred to another regulated entity, the consumer protections that were available to borrowers prior to the transaction continue to be in place with the new owner. Also, the legal rights and terms and conditions of a customer’s mortgage agreement remain in place following a loan sale/transfer.

Under the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2018 if a loan is transferred or sold, the holder of the legal title to the credit must be authorised by the Central Bank and must comply with Irish financial services law that applies to ‘regulated financial service providers’. This ensures that consumers whose loans are sold or transferred, maintain the same regulatory protections, including under the various Central Bank statutory Codes of Conduct, such as the Consumer Protection Code 2012 (CPC) and the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2013 (CCMA).

The Deputy may also wish to note that Provision 3.11 of the CPC requires that, where a regulated entity intends to cease operating, merge with another, or to transfer all or part of its regulated activities to another regulated entity, it must:

- notify the Central Bank immediately

- provide affected consumers with at least 2 months’ notice to enable them make alternative arrangements if they so wish,

- ensure all outstanding business is properly completed prior to any transfer, merger or cessation of operations. Alternatively in the case of a transfer or merger, inform the consumer of how continuity of service will be provided following a transfer or merger and inform the consumer that their details will be transferred to the other regulated entity, if that is the case.

Question No. 230 answered with Question No. 157.

Banking Sector

Questions (231, 232)

Brendan Smith

Question:

231. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Finance the outcome of discussions he had with a bank (details supplied) in relation to its decision to withdraw another bank from the Irish market; if he had discussions with other banks in relation to the decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10561/21]

Brendan Smith

Question:

232. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Finance if he had discussions with a union (details supplied) in relation to the need to protect the employment of staff in a bank; the measures that will be implemented to protect jobs and the consumer rights of the bank customers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10562/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

I propose to take Questions Nos. 231 and 232 together.

The NatWest Group (NatWest) announced its 2020 Full Year results on Friday, 19 February. As widely expected, NatWest confirmed that it intends withdrawing from the banking sector in the Republic of Ireland and gradually wind down its Ulster Bank business.

NatWest concluded that Ulster Bank would not be able to achieve an acceptable level of return for shareholders and have decided to begin a phased withdrawal over the coming years.

NatWest has committed to seeking solutions where:

- Customers and colleagues are well supported;

- Job losses are minimised with no new compulsory redundancy departures this year;

- Stability is maintained in the sector; and

- NatWest’s withdrawal from the Irish banking sector is achieved in an orderly manner.

The Deputy will be aware that I have engaged with Ulster Bank, its parent company, NatWest and the Financial Services Union (FSU) prior to this announcement. In all of these engagements, I strongly emphasised the importance of timely communication with customers, staff and other stakeholders in relation to strategic decisions regarding Ulster Bank. I also met with the FSU on Friday morning after the announcement and I have committed to further engagement with the FSU in relation to this issue.

At this point in time I cannot reveal any detail of discussions with AIB and Permanent TSB (PTSB) for confidentiality and stock market abuse reasons. I am supportive of trying to bring about an outcome that is good for both AIB and PTSB, but more importantly Ulster Bank’s customers, staff and the Irish economy generally.

I understand, that there are approximately 2,800 staff employed some of whom are located in Northern Ireland. Whilst the management of staff matters, including staffing levels, is entirely a matter for Ulster Bank and any counterparty who acquires its business, I would expect all stakeholders to be very sensitive in relation to the needs and rights of staff. This includes full compliance with European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (TUPE Regulations), and honouring all agreements in place between the bank and staff representative bodies. In addition, I would expect these entities to engage with staff representative bodies as appropriate.

I am advised by the Central Bank of Ireland that Ulster Bank’s withdrawal from the Irish market must be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Irish financial services legislation, including the Central Bank’s codes of conduct.

Provision 3.11 of the Consumer Protection Code 2012 requires that a regulated entity that intends to cease operating, merge with another, or to transfer all or part of its regulated activities to another regulated entity must:

- notify the Central Bank immediately;

- provide affected consumers with at least two months’ notice to enable them to make alternative arrangements if they so wish;

- ensure all outstanding business is properly completed prior to any transfer, merger or cessation of operations; or, in the case of a transfer or merger, inform customers as to how continuity of service will be provided following a transfer or merger; and

- in the case of a merger or transfer of regulated activities, inform customers that their details are being transferred to the other regulated entity, if that is the case.

In relation to loans, where they are sold or transferred to another regulated entity, the consumer protections in place for borrowers will not change and the relevant Irish and EU consumer protections continue to apply. All mortgages or loans which are sold or assigned to a new creditor will continue to be subject to the terms of the contract as entered into by the borrower. As a matter of contractual law, the new creditor will not be able to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the contract.

It is also worth noting that under the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2018, which came into effect on 21 January 2019, if a loan is transferred, the holder of the legal title to the credit must be authorised by the Central Bank as a credit servicing firm, if it is not already regulated as a credit institution or a retail credit firm. Such credit servicing firms must act in accordance with Irish financial services law that applies to ‘regulated financial service providers’. This ensures that consumers, whose loans are sold to another firm, maintain the same regulatory protections that they had prior to the sale, including under the various statutory Codes of Conduct issued by the Central Bank, such as the Consumer Protection Code 2012 (Code) and the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2013 (CCMA).

Covid-19 Pandemic Supports

Questions (233)

Willie O'Dea

Question:

233. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Finance if he will address a series of issues raised in correspondence (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10567/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

The Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme (TWSS) was introduced on 26 March 2020 to provide income support to eligible employees where the employer’s business activities were negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This scheme ended on 31 August 2020 and was replaced by the Employer Wage Subsidy Scheme (EWSS) from 1 September 2020.

The transitional phase of TWSS operated until 3 May 2020 and provided a subsidy of 70% of the average net weekly pay up to a maximum of €410 in respect of eligible employees. The operational phase of the scheme was introduced from 4 May 2020 and included increased subsidy rates up to 85%, to a maximum subsidy payment of €410. The operational phase also included a tapering mechanism that ensured the subsidy payment plus any additional payment by the employer did not exceed the employee’s ‘normal’ average weekly wage (ARNWP). This ARNWP, was calculated using the pay and tax details as reported to Revenue in the employer’s payroll submission for each pay date in January and February 2020.

Under the TWSS the employer was expected to make best efforts to maintain employees’ net income for the duration of the scheme. However, there was no legal requirement for an employer to pay an additional gross (top up) payment that fully or partially made up the difference between the amount provided by the subsidy scheme and the employee’s normal wage (ARNWP). The TWSS legislation also required employers to separately identify subsidy payments on employee payslips from any top-up payments made.

Regarding an employee’s ultimate tax liability, the TWSS payments were subject to income tax and the Universal Social Charge (USC) but were taxed at the end of the year rather than the normal (real-time) manner that operates through the PAYE system. Any top-up payments made by the employer continued to be taxed in real-time. The EWSS has re-established the practice of operating PAYE in the normal (real-time) manner and will not result in employees having tax/USC undercharges at year-end for 2021.

Revenue provided a 2020 Preliminary End of Year Statement to all employees in January 2021, including those who were in receipt of the TWSS. The preliminary statement sets out the detail of the employee’s income for the year according to the payroll submissions received from the employer and includes any TWSS payments received. The statement also provides a preliminary calculation of the income tax and USC position for 2020 and indicates whether their tax position is balanced, underpaid or overpaid for the year. The employee can then claim any additional benefits, for example, health expenses, to arrive at the final liability for 2020. Where a tax liability still exists, after all tax credits have been allocated, the amount owed can be paid as single payment or can be paid over four years from 1 January 2022 (interest free) by reducing the employee’s tax credits.

Revenue has advised me that the employer in question operated the TWSS on behalf of its employees from 3 April 2020 to 31 August 2020. Following a review of the matter, Revenue is satisfied that the business operated the scheme correctly and took account of any top-up payments made to the employees in calculating the amount of subsidy due, having regard to each employee’s ARNWP.

Insurance Industry Regulation

Questions (234)

Christopher O'Sullivan

Question:

234. Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider measures to stop insurance companies increasing premiums on long-term, incident-free customers given that it is crippling businesses and community service providers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10591/21]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

At the outset, while I have an appreciation of the specific issue the Deputy raises, neither I, nor the Central Bank of Ireland, can direct the pricing of insurance products, as this is a commercial matter. In addition, we cannot compel any insurer operating in the Irish market to provide cover to specific individuals or groups, such as businesses or community service providers. This position is reinforced by the EU Single Market framework for insurance (the Solvency II Directive) which expressly prohibits Member States from doing so.

On a general level, my understanding is that firms will use a combination of rating factors in making their individual decisions on whether to offer cover and what terms to apply. For example, factors may include the policyholder’s type of business/service; their size; their claims record; and so on. Different factors will apply to different insurance products, and the weighting of each factor could possibly vary from year to year. Insurers also price in accordance with their specific claims experience and do not use the same combination of rating factors. Accordingly, premium prices vary across the market, demonstrating why it is important for consumers to shop around on their insurance policies.

While the Government cannot direct the pricing of insurance products, it can introduce reforms to assist in bringing the cost of insurance down. The Government’s Action Plan for Insurance Reform contains a range of deliverables, including legislation where required, in a number of Government Department policy areas. Work is already under way in relation to certain areas, including:

- increasing market transparency through the National Claims Information Database (NCID), including for employer and public liability insurance;

- reviewing the duty of care legislation;

- providing for the Judicial Council’s accelerated adoption by 31 July 2021 of new personal injuries guidelines to replace the Book of Quantum;

- consideration by the Department of Justice of the Law Reform Commission’s recent Report on Capping Damages in Personal Injuries Actions; and,

- looking at how to further enhance the role of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board.

Recognising that many businesses and self-employed persons need to see the impact of these reforms as soon as possible, the Action Plan contains 66 actions, 95% of which are due to be completed by the end of 2021. The focus is clearly on completing these actions in the short to medium term. I am hopeful that key reforms around personal injury awards may start to have an impact during this year on the pricing and availability of insurance.

As mentioned previously, it is important that policyholders shop around for insurance at renewal. In that regard, I would also highlight to the Deputy that an Office to Promote Competition in the Insurance Market has now been established in my Department. This will provide for more joined-up policy response on promoting competition in this sector, as well as provide for greater information to assist consumers and businesses to assist with shopping around. Minister of State Fleming will report to the Cabinet Sub-Group on Insurance Reform on the work of the Office.

Finally, where a policyholder feels they have been treated unfairly by a particular insurance provider, they have the option of making a complaint to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO). The FSPO acts as an independent arbiter of disputes which consumers may have with their insurance company or other financial service provider. The FSPO can be contacted either by email at [e-mail] or by telephone at 01-567-7000.

Flood Prevention Measures

Questions (235)

Eoghan Murphy

Question:

235. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he has investigated the need for tidal defences in the River Liffey including the possibility of a retractable barrier. [9449/21]

Written answers

Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform

In relation to assessment of options for tidal defences in the River Liffey, including the possibility of a retractable barrier, I am advised that the Eastern CFRAM for the Liffey River Basin (referred to as Unit of Management ‘9’) assessed a range of flood risk management options for the Liffey Catchment and Dublin City.

As part of the assessment of options for managing the overall flood risk in the Liffey sub-catchment, the option of a tidal barrier in Dublin Bay was considered, but was rejected from the screening process on grounds of economic viability. Details of the respective options’ assessment process can be found in the Preliminary Options Report for UoM09 at floodinfo.ie/publications/

No further tidal options were assessed for River Liffey in the Dublin City AFA in the Eastern CFRAM Study due the presence of proposed/ongoing schemes at the time of the Study (as below), and the limited risk predicted by the modelling under the existing scenario in the areas not covered by the proposed/ongoing schemes i.e. along the Quays.

Prior to this, a pre-feasibility level of assessment of a tidal barrage for Dublin was carried out as part of the Dublin City Council’s 'Project 2030 - Integrated Water Resource Management Planning for the Dublin City/Dublin Coastal Region' (Pre-Feasibility Study, June 2009). Dublin City Council was the Client for this project. While this project examined a range of combinations of river and marine hydraulic events and demonstrated that the construction of a system of barrages could be a viable flood prevention strategy for Dublin, it also recommended that many detailed studies to address other issues would be necessary if the project progresses.

In the meantime, works on the South Campshires Flood Protection Project are substantially complete, with the OPW’s direct labour crew now finished on site. While Dublin City Council are currently addressing some final elements of the project, flood protection is currently provided. €6.3 million has been spent on this project to date.

The Spencer Dock Flood Relief Scheme is also complete, having been initiated in 2006 following major flooding in 2000, and constructed from 2007 to 2009. The scheme, which comprises the restoration of a sea lock, provides protection against a 100-Year flood (1% Annual Exceedance Probability) for 1,200 properties against flooding from the River Liffey.

The management of potential increases in future flood risk due to climate change will also be assessed under actions set out in the Climate change Sectoral Adaptation Plan for Flood Risk Management (OPW, 2019). These will include examining past schemes for adaptation requirements, and the ongoing examination of potential future flood risk in areas currently not prone to flooding, and of options for managing and mitigating this risk.

Health Services Staff

Questions (236)

Denis Naughten

Question:

236. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the options being considered further to comments during Leaders' Questions on 10 February 2021 that the Government will respond to and recognise the extraordinary efforts of front-line healthcare workers; and the engagement on the topic to date. [9287/21]

Written answers

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform

As the Deputy may be aware, the Taoiseach noted on 10 February that the Government would respond to the extraordinary efforts of front-line healthcare workers once the pandemic is behind us. Accordingly, the Government has not yet set out a precise timeframe for consideration of, and engagement on, any options to recognise front-line healthcare workers' efforts, given the current status of the pandemic.

Departmental Offices

Questions (237)

Jennifer Whitmore

Question:

237. Deputy Jennifer Whitmore asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the facilities available in his Department to facilitate breastfeeding breaks in accordance with WHO guidelines of two years for women in the workplace and as part of the National Strategy for Women and Girls 2017-2020; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9377/21]

Written answers

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform

In line with Government policy, breastfeeding employees of my Department are entitled to paid breaks of one hour per day from work, or a reduction of one hour per day working time, to facilitate breastfeeding or lactation (Circular 31/06 Implementation of the Regulations of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004). At present, breastfeeding or lactation breaks may continue until the child is two years of age. This hour can be broken into two 30 minute breaks or three 20 minute breaks if desired. Paid breaks from work or a reduction in working hours are calculated on a pro rata basis for staff members who are working a reduced work pattern.

I also wish to advise the Deputy that my Department has one room in its offices in both St. Stephen’s Green House and in Tullamore where dedicated space is provided for breastfeeding and / or expressing breast milk. My Department does not provide such dedicated spaces in its other office locations.

Public Sector Allowances

Questions (238)

Peter Burke

Question:

238. Deputy Peter Burke asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the travel distance bands for travel and subsistence rates for civil servants will be reconsidered to widen band 2 to over 5,500km and therefore not act as a deterrent for those working and travelling as part of their essential work; if a review is planned for these rates and bands; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9508/21]

Written answers

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform

The mileage rates are designed to compensate an officer for the costs incurred in using their own car on official business. The rates are based on a methodology agreed with the Staff Associations. The methodology takes account of both overhead costs (such as car purchase costs, depreciation and insurance) and also running costs (fuel costs and maintenance).

The rates are intended to reimburse an officer for the costs incurred and are not considered a source of emolument or profit. As such, these rates are not considered to be an incentive for officers to use their own cars for official travel nor a deterrent against such use.

The Deputy may wish to note that the formula underpinning the motor mileage rates is scheduled for review this year and that this review will consider all related matters including the appropriateness of the current mileage bands.