Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
89. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the number of outstanding mortgage loans that are tracker or variable rate mortgages; and if he will consider options to introduce targeted, tailored and time-bound mortgage interest relief in response to rising interest rates. [55905/22]
View answerOn 14 September, the ECB increased its interest rate by 0.5%, bringing it up to 2%. This was the third rate hike since July with further hikes expected in the coming months. This has had an immediate impact on households on tracker mortgages and could impact those on variable rate mortgages in the coming months, heaping further financial pressure on struggling households. Will the Minister and the Department consider options to introduce targeted, tailored and time-bound mortgage interest relief to support those households in the context of the sharp and sudden hikes in mortgage interest repayments?
I thank the Deputy. The Central Bank of Ireland publishes mortgage statistics on a quarterly basis. The most recent statistics indicate there were around 719,500 primary dwelling mortgage accounts at the end of June last with an outstanding balance of €98.7 billion. The Central Bank estimates that around 27% of primary dwelling mortgages with credit institutions are on a tracker interest rate and a further 20% are on a non-tracker variable rate or where the interest rate is fixed for up to one year.
Mortgage interest tax relief was phased out on a gradual basis from 2009 to 2020. The decision to abolish mortgage interest tax relief was taken in the wake of the financial crisis, with the cost of the relief being one of the influencing factors. Mortgage interest relief cost over €700 million in 2008.
In the recent budget, the Government introduced measures, including a large range of one-off measures, which will help families and households with the increasing cost of living. These measures included a tax package of over €1.1 billion. Therefore, I do not have any plans to reintroduce mortgage interest tax relief at this time.
Prior to its curtailment and eventual abolition, as was pointed out by the 2009 Commission on Taxation, in 2005 the top two income deciles accounted for close to half of the tax forgone through mortgage interest tax relief. As the European Central Bank, ECB, has changed its monetary policy since the summer, the average interest rate on new Irish mortgages has broadly held steady and the difference between here and the Eurozone average has declined.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I am fully aware that the interest hikes are yet to be felt by all mortgage holders. Hopefully the bank will continue to absorb these hikes. Time will tell, but it is likely that some of that will change. For those on trackers, there has been an immediate impact. Those with an outstanding balance of €200,000 will see their repayments increase next year by more than €2,000. That is a big jump for anybody who is already under pressure. The Central Bank has noted that 54% of the outstanding mortgage balance is in variable mortgages and says we will likely see an immediate increase in mortgage interest costs when rates rise.
There is capacity. The Minister gave a figure but there are other figures, depending on the rate at which mortgage interest relief is introduced and at whom it is targeted. In one year, for example, it cost just over €50 million. There is scope and capacity for a targeted, tailored and time-bound form of mortgage interest relief. Does the Minister not recognise that households that have seen their repayments increase by over €2,000 in six months are looking to the Government to help them deal with this shock with a tailored measure that targets mortgage interest relief?
It is important to be clear on the possible costs of this. I have outlined what the cost was in 2008. The most recent data, from the end of June, indicate there are currently 720,000 mortgage accounts with an average outstanding balance of €137,100 at an interest rate of 2.5%. Assuming mortgage interest relief was granted at a rate of 20% on the average interest payment, such a reintroduction would cost in the region of €500 million per annum.
In seeking to understand the background to the Deputy's proposal, I sought the budget proposals Sinn Féin published before budget day but they have been removed from the Sinn Féin website and are no longer available. The Sinn Féin alternative budget for 2022 is available but that for 2023 is no longer on the website. Will the Deputy explain to the House why that is the case?
The Minister talks about modelling the cost but the reality is people here face a massive increase in repayments. For people struggling with gas, electricity, food, petrol and diesel prices over the last six months, to be told they have to pay an extra €2,000 in mortgage repayments on a typical family home with an outstanding balance of €200,000 is a huge wallop. They are looking to the Government to support them.
There are ways in which it can be done. We are working with the Central Bank and the office of parliamentary costings to cost proposals. For example, we can look at the cost of the increased interest rate. The Minister is talking about the old measure brought in before the financial crash, which looked at all interest paid. What is needed is a targeted, tailored measure that deals with the shock households have faced.
The Minister can dismiss this suggestion, as his Government has done, but he has form in this regard. He dismissed a renter's tax credit; now he is forced to introduced it. He dismissed an eviction ban; yet he has been forced to introduce it. I ask him to look at this in the interests not of who is bringing it forward but of those individuals impacted by these increases.
I understand hard-pressed households are looking to the Government for help, which we provided in budget 2023 and which we want to provide to make a difference.
However, those hard-pressed households, the citizens of Ireland who are experiencing such strain, also have an expectation that any proposals that will be brought forward will be affordable, will make sense and will not create new risks for our country. The Deputy's party is now advocating that the State pay a share of increasing mortgage bills in the time ahead. His party has said it wants the State to pay each renter a month's rent. It has advocated a proposal in respect of energy price caps, which the Government in the United Kingdom is committed to ending.
Germany has just introduced such a proposal.
Many of those proposals were contained in the Sinn Féin budget proposal, which is no longer available. It has disappeared from the party's website. If I want to find out about Sinn Féin's budget proposals for 2022, they are still available. If I want to find out about its proposals for the budget we are debating, they are gone. Why are they gone? The reason they are gone is that the proposals Sinn Féin brings forward will be a source of risk and undermine our public finances. By doing so, and by the party's pretending there is money available for everything, it runs the risk of making the problems I know our country has even worse. I therefore ask the Deputy again: why are the budget proposals Sinn Féin lauded so much in the run-up to this budget gone from its website?
First, what we put forward, and the things the Minister has-----
Sorry, Deputy Doherty. We must move on to the next question.
There are other Members here.
90. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Finance if his Department or the Central Bank has undertaken, or plans to undertake, an analysis of the potential impact of rising ECB interest rates on Irish mortgage holders; his views as to whether the Central Bank will require additional regulatory powers to protect those with variable and tracker mortgages from rising rates, given the lack of competition in the banking sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55833/22]
View answerHomeowners are scared stiff of the threat of rising mortgage interest rates. Markets expect the ECB to continue raising rates until the middle of next year, with a peak of 3% anticipated. Tracker mortgage holders, as we know, have already felt the impact, and variable-rate mortgage holders are next in the firing line. Has the Minister's Department carried out any assessment at this stage of the impact of rising rates on Irish mortgages? Will the Central Bank require any more tools, in the Minister's view, to help to protect vulnerable mortgage holders in the time ahead?
I thank the Deputy for raising that point. Yes, of course we are monitoring the impact that rising interest rates are having on the cost of living and on families, households and businesses. The Central Bank has not approached me looking for additional powers or tools to deal with the consequences of that impact.
As the Deputy will be aware, the code of conduct on mortgage arrears already sets out the provisions under our consumer protection code to help borrowers in borrowing distress. We recognise the great difficulty that is there. As Deputy Nash will know, however, in February 2017 a number of increased protections for mortgage holders were brought in. Those measures were then provided for in an addendum to the consumer protection code of 2012. That brings forward measures that aim to improve the level of information provided to borrowers on variable rates annually. It also indicates the responsibilities that sit upon banks when dealing with mortgage holders who find themselves in the position of distress to which the Deputy refers.
I appreciate the seriousness of this matter. I believe that the consumer protection provision we have in place is adequate. I do not believe that bringing in new changes to our tax code is appropriate at the moment. I believe that the cost of doing so would be very high and that the measures we have in place in our protection code for consumers, for our citizens, are adequate. They will always be monitored and kept under review.
To be clear, I am not specifically requesting that the Minister introduce any change to the tax code in this regard. I have never requested that. That is not what my question seeks to do. Thankfully, the main lenders in the market have held off raising their variable mortgage interest rates to date, but I think there is a certain inevitability that those rates will rise over the coming period. Figures released by the Central Bank yesterday show that the average rate for new mortgages fell by six basis points compared with the figures in August, and that is a good thing. We are moving now towards more of a European norm in respect of variable mortgage interest rates. That said, the reality is that we will probably move back to where we were over the past few years when banks inevitably increase mortgage rates over the coming period. There are 250,000 people on trackers. After the most recent ECB hike, a couple with about €200,000 left on their mortgage could end up paying the equivalent of three weeks' wages more in mortgage repayments later this year. Loading those kinds of repayments on already stretched households could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I ask the Minister to keep a watching brief on this with the Central Bank.
Very much so. As I said, we will continue to monitor the adequacy of the consumer protection code that is in place. I believe, however, that it is robust and that the Central Bank and other authorities will take very carefully their responsibilities to ensure that borrowers who find themselves in positions of distress receive the necessary information and are made aware of the options available to them.
I appreciate the Deputy's acknowledgement of some of the changes that have taken place in our mortgage market recently. It is worth noting that the differential between the Irish and the average euro interest rate for new mortgages declined from 1.4% at the end of 2021 to 0.4% at the end of August of this year. I hope that this kind of narrowing will play a role in moderating what I know will still be considerable difficulty for many households and for businesses. We will monitor the code that is in place, but I believe it is fit for purpose to deal with the challenges that could develop.
I think it is inevitable that the main banks will pass on the likely increases in the ECB rate over the coming period. The perverse reality is that the environment we are in at the moment, as interest rates go up, means that bank profitability will go up as well. I would like the Government to send a signal, and this House should send a signal, that banks should, given the climate at the moment, absorb as many of these interest rate rises as they possibly can and avoid passing them on to variable-rate mortgage customers, especially at this really difficult time. Given the normalisation, if we can call it that, of mortgage interest rates in Ireland at this point in time, the likelihood is that we will go back to the point at which we had been, with the second highest rates in the eurozone over the last few years, when interest rate rises are passed on, and in the context of the fact that Ulster Bank and KBC are exiting the market. It is inevitable that the mortgage lenders there at present will take advantage of and exploit that and exploit their advantage in the market.
It is worthwhile acknowledging, as the Deputy has done, that we have not seen recent decisions made that have led to abrupt changes to interest rates available. I agree, however, with one of the Deputy's points, that is, that in the time ahead it will continue to be important to monitor competitive changes within our marketplace. He is correct in acknowledging that because of the move in Ireland from a five-bank model to what will become a three-bank model, there will be a reduction in the number and diversity of mortgage offerings as the number of banks in our country begins to change. For all those reasons we will continue to evaluate what happens. I go back, however, to the earlier and the important question the Deputy put to me about our consumer protection code and my belief and judgment that it is adequate.
91. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide an update on the increased soft and hard costs resulting from the defective concrete products levy on a typical semi-detached house, its impact on housing supply and the cost of remediation for homeowners affected by defective blocks. [55906/22]
View answerThe Government plans to push ahead with a flawed and counterproductive levy on concrete products, even despite all the warnings that the levy it has designed will result in higher housing and building costs for workers and families. We heard at a meeting of the finance committee from experts, including the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland and those impacted by the mica scandal, that the sum impact of the levy will lead directly to increased building costs and challenge the viability of housing projects. Those are not my words; they are what the society is saying, what the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, is saying and what those affected by mica are saying. Is there any chance of the Government reversing this decision?
I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter. As he will know, the decision on the defective concrete products levy arose from the decision of November 2021 to respond to the great harm that has been caused to so many people, including many of the Deputy's constituents, due to the presence of mica in their homes and buildings. As part of the work undertaken on the impact the levy would have on the construction sector, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage commissioned a bottom-up scientific analysis, which was carried out by an independent construction economics cost consultant, to help to identify the likely impact of the levy on construction costs.
This report was produced in September 2022 and took account of the prevailing relevant costs in the construction sector as they applied at the time they were prepared. The costs set out in the report are for the third quarter of 2022 and account for inflation up to that point. Revised figures have not been prepared since, given that it has only been a short time since the report was prepared and published.
The report was on the impact of the levy as announced in my budget 2023 speech and is a cost assessment based on a levy of 10%. As the rate of the levy published in the Finance Bill 2022 has been reduced to 5%, the costings in the analysis can be reduced by approximately 50%. These are the hard costs of between €400 and €800 for a typical three-bed semi-detached house and of between €375 and €550 per apartment for a typical six-floor apartment block with a basement carpark. When soft costs are added, the figures move ahead of those given. The percentage increases are approximately 0.2% to 0.45% for a typical semi-detached dwelling and 0.15% to 0.2% for a typical apartment for both hard and soft costs. I continue to believe this measure is appropriate.
What is clear as we see the detail of the measure and the documents that followed the publication of the Finance Bill is that the levy will have an impact. The impact is very clear; it is negative. It will be negative for those struggling to rebuild their homes in Donegal and right down the coast. It will be negative for the victims of the mica scandal. It will also be negative in respect of the viability of housing projects, as the Construction Industry Federation and Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland warned the Government. It is time to go back to the drawing board. As a result of construction costs rising, the viability of certain projects is already at risk. We know the price of concrete has already risen by 37% in the past year alone and housing projects are under threat. The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland made it clear that the cost of a semi-detached house will increase by €1,200 under the Minister's measure. This will be passed on to customers. At a time when we should be trying to drive down house prices, why does the Minister believe increasing the cost of a house by €1,200 is the appropriate measure?
The Deputy talks about documents that follow but I want to go back to the document he published before budget day. I ask him again where it is now. I am asking him this because it concerns a key point. The reason I am making a case for the levy – conscious of all the risks the Deputy referred to, because I accept they exist – is that the greater risk would be to pretend to the country that there is money to meet every vital need, including the mica need, and that no consequences or risks would flow from this. I stand with the Deputy in wanting to rebuild the homes and make a difference for those families who have been afflicted by the mica problem. I need to be honest, though, about the need for us to pay for this. I put it to the Deputy that he does not recognise in his budget proposals the choices that must be made and that is why his alternative budget is no longer available.
If the Minister googles our alternative budget, he will find it online. He should not deflect from the reality or the real issue like he did when he abandoned those who are seeing massive increases in mortgage interest and the victims of the mica scandal, who came to this House and whom I know. I have sat in their homes and have seen the cracks in the walls. I have seen the water running down into open plugs and sockets. I know these people feel abandoned by the Government. Worse, they now feel the Government is now going to make it harder for them to rebuild their own homes. The Society of Chartered Surveyors of Ireland, not Sinn Féin, said €1,200 will be the price increase on an ordinary home given what the Minister is planning. The Construction Industry Federation has told us this is wrong. Barra Roantree from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, has said this is a wrong decision. It is not just Sinn Féin that is saying it. The Minister can talk about honesty and dishonesty all he wants but he should listen to the experts, who are telling him the wrong decision has been made. The Minister asks what the alternatives are. I put it to him, and will put it to him when we deal with the banks Bill, that he should not be cutting the levy on banks, as he did last year. He has cut it by nearly €80 million, which is twice as much as he would get from actually charging homeowners to rebuild their own homes.
I did google the alternative budget on the way here. What came up was the alternative health budget. Maybe between my doing that and taking these parliamentary questions, all the Deputy's colleagues in the Balkans will be changing all the time. The alternative budget of the Deputy was not available this morning and is not available on his party's website.
I am happy that the Minister changed his proposal-----
To go back to the core point, of course I want to make money available to help all the poor families who have been affected by mica. I have met them, although I accept I have not met as many as the Deputy. Of course I want to make money available to help those who are affected by rising rents and the rising cost of living, but the money has to come from somewhere. The money has to be available.
Take it out of the pockets of the owners of homes with mica.
If you are making the case for leading the Government and being responsible for public finances, you need to explain where the money is coming from.
I have already explained.
If you do not, you are a source of risk-----
The Minister decided to push up house prices.
If you do not, you run the risk of inflicting on this economy and our jobs the kind of risk-----
But the Minister will vote against the levy on banks later on.
I will keep coming back to the question of where the Deputy's budget is. Where has it gone? What has changed in the past few days?
As entertaining as all this is, we are six minutes behind already, and somebody else-----
It is anything but entertaining.
I would like to move on to the next question.
The Minister will vote against all the measures we put forward in our budget-----
I call Deputy Shortall.
92. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Finance the reason that the vacant property tax announced in Budget 2023 was set at 0.3% tax on the value of the vacant home; the rationale for selecting this level and not implementing a higher tax which takes account of inflation in land value; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [56001/22]
View answerIn the Minister's speech on budget 2023 in September, he announced a vacant homes tax, something for which most of us have been calling for years. It was welcome that he did announce a tax, but it was impossible to understand the rationale for setting it at merely 0.3% of the value of the home. Can he explain to us the rationale for setting it at that level? On what basis did he set the figure?
I thank Deputy Shortall. I am aware that she has been raising this issue for some time. I have little doubt at all that if I wanted to have a look at her budget proposals, they would be freely and publicly available.
The vacant homes tax, VHT, is a new measure announced in budget 2023 that aims to increase the supply of homes for rent or purchase to meet demand. Further detail on this measure is set out in the Finance Bill, which was published on 20 October. As stated in my budget speech, this measure aims to increase the supply of homes for rent or purchase, rather than raise revenue. In developing a new tax, an important consideration is clarity. It is important to ensure that the tax is easy to understand and administer. This is why I chose to set it at a multiple of a property's basic local property tax, LPT, charge as the LPT system is well understood.
The purpose of the VHT is to encourage behavioural change. Accordingly, the rate should be set at a level that will influence property owners' decision-making. A tax charged at three times a property's basic LPT charge represents a considerable financial penalty to those who leave properties vacant and will incentivise property owners to bring such properties back into use.
Let me bring this to life by way of an example for the House. The rate means that, for example, the owner of a vacant residential property valued at €250,000 would face a VHT charge of €625 in addition to the annual LPT charge of €225. The owner of a property valued at €400,000 would face a VHT charge worth €1,215, in addition to his or her annual LPT charge of €405, while the owner of a house valued at €500,000 would face a VHT charge of €1,485 in addition to an annual LPT charge of €495.
The Minister may believe that but I cannot understand why. Did he take advice on the likely impact of a tax set at such a low level? Was any research done on it at all? The other side of this concerns what is happening to property prices. We are aware that in the year to last August, property prices increased by 12.2%. In the context of somebody being able to leave a property vacant for 12 months, with it increasing in value by 12%, how on earth is a tax of 0.3% going to influence what that person will do? There is no incentive. It is a perverse incentive, actually.
There is no incentive whatsoever to sell or to let that property. Could the Minister give us some idea of the supporting evidence on which he worked? This just does not make sense on any level whatsoever. We know that there are 90,000 houses available.
I call the Minister to respond.
It is a serious dereliction of duty for the Minister, and the Government, not to take action to unlock the availability of the property.
I thank the Deputy very much. In deciding what the rate was going to be, I did, of course, consult with my colleagues and my officials on it. My judgment, based on the engagement that I had with them, was that a new charge that is multiples of an existing tax, is a proportionate and sufficient charge for the harm to the common good of homes that could have somebody living in them but do not. This must be seen in combination with other measures that are being brought in, for example, the Croí Cónaithe towns fund, which will provide grants of up to €30,000 for the refurbishment of vacant properties for occupation as a principal private residence. I do not believe this is in any way a dereliction of duty in response to a serious matter. I believe that the multiple charge that is being put forward here will have the desired effect.
The Minister has not really addressed the question I asked. In the context of a situation where somebody can continue to sit on a vacant property, which will increase by, say, 10% to 12%, over a year, how will a tax of 0.3% make any difference? Could he be straight with us? What exactly is his rationale here? Has he based his belief on any evidence whatsoever?
The other point I would make in regard to this tax is that it is flawed. It does not apply the proposed tax to derelict properties. Little or no action is being taken by local authorities because of the way the derelict sites levy operates. A person can allow his or her property to become derelict and he or she will avoid the tax. There is a serious responsibility on the Minister and the Government to unlock the significant number of vacant homes that are available for use in the context of the serious housing crisis. I cannot understand why the Minister will not do the rational thing and unlock them by having a meaningful tax.
I call the Minister to respond.
The Minister referred to the budget document of the Social Democrats.
The Deputy should please allow the Minister to respond.
We called for a punitive tax of 10%, which would be meaningful.
A punitive tax of 10% would mean that the cost to such a property holder would be many thousands of euro. I look forward to hearing the Deputy make the case on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. Regarding the charge she made about the level of vacant homes in the country, as she will be aware, the recent census indicated that there are 166,752 vacant homes nationwide. This is 7.8% of the housing stock. Many other studies indicate that the appropriate level of vacancy within any kind of functioning housing market is approximately 6%. The idea that there are many tens of thousands of homes available that could be immediately brought back into use is at odds with the figures that are there. To answer the Deputy's question regarding the cost of inflation and how it will impact on the vacant property tax, that will be reflected in the valuation of the property. As Deputy Shortall well knows, as inflation goes up, the property will be revalued accordingly and then the vacant property tax will go up as well.
93. Deputy Marian Harkin asked the Minister for Finance if he will increase the percentage payment for the temporary business energy support scheme, TBESS, to SMEs that are highly energy-dependent and where their energy bills are a significant portion of their outgoings. [53732/22]
View answerWill the Minister consider increasing the percentage payment for the temporary business energy support scheme, specifically to SMEs that are highly energy-dependent and where their energy bills form a significant portion of their outgoings? I accept the Minister has moved to help businesses, but in truth, a lot of businesses are in trouble and the help is not enough. I also accept there are issues relating to EU state aid rules, but what flexibility is there and is there anything more that he can do?
I thank the Deputy very much. As she will be aware, the details of the new TBESS are set out in the Finance Bill, which will begin Committee Stage later today. The scheme will provide support to qualifying businesses in respect of energy costs relating to the period from 1 September 2022 to 28 February 2023.
The TBESS will be available to tax-compliant businesses carrying on a trade or profession, the profits of which are chargeable to tax under case I or case II of Schedule D where they meet the eligibility criteria. It will also be available to certain charities and approved bodies who, but for specific exemptions, would be chargeable to tax under case I or case II. The scheme will be operated on a self-assessment basis.
Payments will be made on the basis of 40% of the amount of the increase in eligible electricity or natural gas costs between the bill amount, which is the subject of the claim and the bill amount in the corresponding reference period in the previous year. Payments are generally subject to a monthly cap of €10,000 per trade, increasing to a maximum of €30,000 in certain circumstances. In line with the EU temporary crisis framework, there is also an overall cap on the amount that an undertaking can claim.
The scheme will be open shortly. I recognise the important point the Deputy made, which is that even though she broadly welcomes the scheme that is being introduced, she questions the adequacy of the cap and the help that the measure will provide. I believe the scale of the measures that we have brought forward will provide a real help, but I am also aware that a change in the cap in any way could have a significant impact on the overall cost of the scheme. What we should do is get the scheme up and running first, see what the cost is and how it is helping businesses.
I hear what the Minister said. He has to look after the money, as it were. We already know from many businesses that they are in trouble. The Minister knows that in his constituency, as I do in mine, businesses are closing. A very well-known butcher in Sligo closed one of its shops yesterday. They said it was because of increased electricity and operational costs. They are just one of many. We know now it is not going to be enough. I know the Minister has certain constraints around state aid rules, but is there any flexibility or anything else he can put in place to help businesses that are struggling? It is not just the huge increase in energy costs; it is the cumulative increase. We know that public liability insurance costs are still far too high. I support the increase in the minimum wage, but it adds significantly to the costs of businesses, which are cumulative.
I must be honest with the Deputy. We can help, in particular with the energy costs, but no government should give the indication to the people of Ireland and the economy that we can cover or insulate any business from all of the cost changes that are going on at the moment. I know the Deputy recognises that. While she was perhaps not calling on me to do it, she was putting the energy costs in the context of all of the other prices that are going up as well. I know the butcher's shop to which she referred. People will have been working in the shop and families will have been dependent on it who now find themselves at a tough moment. I am sure they are worrying about where the next job will come from. I fully understand that. We are trying to help. I believe we are using as much flexibility as we can under the state aid framework, but I reiterate that we should get the scheme up and running, and understand what it will cost and what impact it is having. The Government will keep this matter under review. I do not believe a change is currently merited.
What I am asking is that the Minister would keep it under review, because as I said, businesses are struggling. The Minister will be very well aware that even though he is bringing in this scheme and he decreased the VAT rate, the VAT payments on energy bills for most businesses are now greater, even at 9%, than they were a year or two ago. He has extra money. I want him to look at the reality of business and to think in terms of how flexible he can be.
I asked the Tánaiste about this a week or two ago and he indicated that if businesses are not viable, the Government can step in to support them where other businesses cannot get staff. The truth is, however, that many businesses that were viable three, six, nine months or a year ago are no longer viable because of increased energy costs, and many are small businesses. Will the Minister keep this in mind?
Yes, very much so, and I fully appreciate the reality of what the Deputy outlined. I see this in small shops and businesses in my constituency, Dublin Central, and throughout the city of Dublin. I was in Mullingar on Friday evening and met many amazing local business people who employ so many people and are confronting the very kind of pressure the Deputy referred to. Of course, we will keep the scheme under review. The Tánaiste has also brought forward many different proposals and policies to help other energy users and I expect other Ministers will do likewise to help some sectors that are not part of this scheme. We will keep it under review, but I want to be candid to the House in saying this scheme, at €1.2 billion, is the single biggest measure in the budget, and I have a duty to the Deputy and the businesses she represents to ensure that any scheme we bring forward will be one we can afford if we need to sustain some measures for longer.
