Vol. 1054 No. 4
61. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to outline his views on the success of the mortgage interest tax credit; and if he will consider amending its design to ensure that all mortgage holders who have seen a significant increase in the mortgage costs they are facing will receive adequate support. [23004/24]
In the past two years, mortgage interest costs have soared for households. They have increased by 71% over the past two years. As the Minister knows, some mortgage holders are being charged more than 7%. These are loans that were sold, in particular to vulture funds, as a result of the policy of two of the parties in government. As the Minister knows, Sinn Féin has called for mortgage interest relief to be applied at source for well over a year. The Government finally acquiesced to a mortgage interest credit, which kicked in in January.
Given the soaring mortgage costs so many households face amid a wider cost-of-living crisis, how does the Minister assess the performance of the Government-styled mortgage interest tax credit, given the low uptake?
I thank the Deputy for the question. Mortgage interest tax relief, in the form of the mortgage interest tax credit, introduced in the most recent budget, is a one-year temporary relief available to homeowners with an outstanding mortgage balance on their principal private residence of between €80,000 and €500,000 on 31 December 2022. It is available at the standard rate of income tax and is based on the increase in the interest paid in 2023 over interest paid in 2022. The value of the relief is equal to the lesser of 20% of this excess interest amount or a maximum of €1,250.
In order to avail of the relief, taxpayers must file a 2023 income tax return and upload their certificate of mortgage interest for 2022 and 2023 and confirmation of their mortgage balance at 31 December 2022. Furthermore, taxpayers must be compliant with local property tax requirements and must have paid income tax in 2023.
The relief operates by way of a credit offset against a taxpayer’s income tax liability for 2023. I am advised by Revenue that, as of 15 May, 21,181 taxpayer units made a claim for this relief on their 2023 PAYE income tax return and 18,803 claimants received a refund of tax, totalling over €17.8 million. Of these, 243 claimants paid less in tax than the full credit they claimed. Revenue notes that other credits and reliefs claimed, such as those relating to health expenses and tuition fees, may also have contributed to the overall amount of refunds issued. A further 2,119 claimants are either in a balanced position or had an underpayment reduced by the mortgage interest tax relief being applied to their record. An additional 259 claimants are not in a position to benefit as they did not pay any income tax in 2023. Information is not yet available for self-assessed taxpayers as these taxpayers have until the end of October this year to submit their 2023 income tax return. Data is not available in respect of the number of people who may be entitled to claim the tax credit but who have not yet filed a return and made a claim. It should be noted that taxpayers have four years to submit claims for tax credits and tax reliefs. As I have said on many occasions, I encourage all those who are eligible for this credit or any other credit or tax relief to make a claim. I will come back to the Deputy with further information in a moment.
From the figures the Minister has put on the record today, it is patently obvious that he has taken a very good idea from Sinn Féin, although he and his Government resisted it for quite a while. However, when he finally gave in, he made a mess of the design of it. The fact that despite there being 700,000 mortgage holders across the State, only 18,000 households have received the full benefit of the mortgage interest tax credit at this point speaks volumes. Some €125 million was allocated for this tax credit yet only €15 million or €16 million has been claimed so far. As we pointed out during the debate on the legislation, one of the problems is that applicants are required to submit an income tax return and certificate of mortgage interest for 2022 and 2023. I warned the Minister that this would act as a disincentive. That is why Sinn Féin and I argued that it should be a deduction at source, which is how tax relief used to apply. However, because the Minister took so long to perform his U-turn and acknowledge the good idea put forward by Sinn Féin, Revenue was not given sufficient time to build capacity to implement this deduction at source, leaving us with this flawed scenario. Does the Minister accept that, given the level of uptake, this credit is failing?
I do not accept the Deputy's assertion in that regard. I point to the fact that almost 22,000 taxpayer units, some of whom may be couples given the way they are counted by the Revenue Commissioners, made a claim for this relief as part of their 2023 PAYE income tax return. I expect that many more will do so over the eligibility period. Although it was an estimate, the figure provided to me at the time was that approximately 208,000 eligible accounts, predominantly tracker and variable mortgages, representing approximately 165,000 properties would be eligible for the relief. That means that many thousands of people who have paid significantly increased sums in interest as a result of the monetary policy of the ECB are entitled to claim this mortgage interest tax credit. I encourage them to do so. The process is relatively straightforward. Many thousands have successfully done so already.
The Minister has made a mess of the design of it, as we pointed out at the time, because he took too long to acknowledge what Sinn Féin had spent a year arguing for. It is not just that; he has locked out countless homeowners, tens of thousands, who have seen their mortgage interest rates increase. For example, by requiring that claimants have a balance of over €80,000, he has locked 138,000 mortgage holders who have seen their interest costs rise out of the scheme. Worst of all, his tax credit discriminates against those with low incomes. I raised the case of a single mother whose mortgage interest has gone up by - listen to this - €5,000. She is denied and locked out of the Minister's scheme. Why? It is because of the flawed design and because her income is too low. When the Ministers, Deputies Humphreys and Donohoe, announced this, they said there would be another scheme under the Department of Social Protection. It does not exist. Just like the Government's affordable homes, it does not exist. People are being told to send a unique email to a place only to then be told to go to MABS. Let me tell the Minister about another person. She is also a mother. Her annual interest has risen by €8,000. She is denied the Minister's tax credit. Why? It is because she claims the incapacitated child tax credit and the home carer's tax credit. Her income is too low. Her interest has gone through the roof and the Minister's scheme locks her out. He has made a mess of mortgage interest relief. He should acknowledge that and change it now in order that these families will no longer be locked out of the scheme.
I do not accept that at all. This is a non-refundable tax credit. There was engagement with the Revenue Commissioners for many months in the lead-up to the budget last October. They were very clear with me and my officials that it was not possible to put in place the necessary IT infrastructure to-----
That is because the Minister took so long to make this decision.
No, not at all.
It is.
There was very early engagement with the Revenue Commissioners on that issue.
We had deduction at source for years.
The Deputy raised the cases of specific individuals. From what he has said, I assume they do not have an income tax liability and are therefore not able to avail of a non-refundable tax credit. I am following up on that issue with Revenue and the Department of Social Protection. There is a need for information sharing between the two but a commitment was given that people who do not have a tax liability would not be denied access to the support we announced on budget day and that commitment will be honoured. Work is under way in that regard.
62. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Finance if he is considering further taxation measures to address the issues of long-term vacancy, dereliction, land hoarding and property speculation in light of the severe housing crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23005/24]
One of the most obscene aspects of the absolutely dire housing and homelessness situation we face in this country is the phenomenon of people being homeless, being crammed into overcrowded conditions and being hopeless about the possibility of ever owning their own home or getting a social house while you can see vacant property, derelict sites and speculators sitting on land or property to make money out of it anywhere you walk. Is the Minister going to take any further measures in the forthcoming budget to deal with the scandal of vacant and derelict property and speculation?
The Government is acutely aware of the difficulties in the housing market and the challenges this continues to present for many people and families as they seek a new home, often their first.
With regard to vacant properties, the need to address vacancy and to ensure all viable housing stock is being used is a priority for the Government. In Housing for All, the Government has set out a suite of incentives to address vacancy and the efficient use of existing stock. A vacant homes tax was announced in budget 2023 and legislated for in the Finance Act 2022. This tax is now set at five times the property’s existing base local property tax rate. The vacant homes action plan outlines the significant progress that has been made in addressing vacancy along with the actions that are being pursued to return as many vacant properties as possible to use. A range of schemes and supports have been implemented by the Government to address vacancy and bring properties back into use. These include the vacant property refurbishment grant, the repair and leasing scheme, the buy and renew scheme, the urban regeneration development fund and the compulsory purchase orders activation programme. All local authorities now have a dedicated vacant homes officer, funded by the Department of housing, ensuring a dedicated focus on tackling vacancy.
With regards to dereliction, I understand the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage continues to liaise with local authorities on the implementation of the Derelict Sites Act 1990 with a view to improving its effectiveness.
In respect of land hoarding and property speculation, there are already a number of tax measures in place that are designed to discourage such activities. These include: the vacant homes tax, which I have already outlined; the residential zoned land tax; the 10% stamp duty on the bulk acquisition of houses; and the residential development stamp duty refund scheme.
Any proposals for potential tax measures in the forthcoming budget must be assessed carefully and need to be targeted and clear in their policy intent. My Department continues to monitor all aspects of the property market and I will continue to work with my colleagues in government to ensure that any further interventions in the housing market are appropriately calibrated, represent the best use of scarce public resources and boost the supply of much-needed housing in the State.
The vacant homes tax is a failure. We learned at the beginning of this year that only €2 million was raised from it and it applied to less than 3,500 properties. That is against a background where the census showed 160,000 vacant residential dwellings, 48,000 of which were vacant in both the 2016 census and the 2022 census. We then have about 20,000 derelict properties and one just has to walk around this city to see many of them. Does it not outrage the Minister, because it certainly outrages me, to walk past empty, vacant and derelict properties or sites which could be used for housing? How can this be when there are 13,500 people homeless and tens of thousands of people crammed into overcrowded conditions? How can it possibly be that we can have apartment blocks in this category? One in front of my office in Dún Laoghaire, with perfectly refurbished units, has been sitting empty for four years.
I thank the Deputy for his contribution. As he will know, I increased the vacant homes tax rate in the last budget. Just to give him the numbers, the Revenue has confirmed that as of 2 April this year, over 6,000 properties have been declared as vacant with exemptions being declared in respect of approximately 2,500 of these properties. Approximately 3,500 properties have a liability to the vacant homes tax, amounting to approximately €2 million.
Yes, there are exemptions. I am not sure which of those exemptions the Deputy would remove. Would he remove the exemption where the owner has died, where a grant of representation has been issued, where the property is actively marketed for sale or for rent, where it is the subject of a court order, where it has undergone structural works, or where it is unoccupied due to the illness of an owner?
The census provides us with some data, but it is not the only source of data in respect of this issue. The Revenue Commissioners also have access to the local property tax returns, which are a rich source of information for them when it comes to the property portfolio around the country.
The Minister has just confirmed how much of a failure the vacant homes tax is in the context of tens and tens of thousands of vacant properties. Of course, I am for being fair to people where there is a good reason but there should be an imperative to say that by hook or by crook, this house will be brought back into use. It is obscene for that not to be the case. Yes, if somebody has a reason for leaving it empty, we should buy it off them for a fair price. If somebody is sitting on it for speculative reasons, we should tax them to the hilt and take it off them for speculating on property. The same should be done with residential zoned land, planning permissions or any of these things where speculative profiteering is taking place on the back of vacant and derelict property.
I say to the Minister that we must have a can-do attitude. We are not going to allow the scandal of vacant or derelict property, or people speculating on zoned land when we are in the teeth of an absolutely obscene housing crisis. If we have a can-do attitude, we can be fair to people but can also get the result, which is to bring back into use those vacant and derelict properties and sites which can be used for housing.
The vacant homes tax, as the Deputy knows, is targeting habitable properties. The Deputy is raising a number of other issues which are important and relevant when it comes to properties which are vacant but which in many instances are also derelict.
My colleague, the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, published the Vacant Homes Action Plan 2023-2026 and last month the progress report from April 2024. To be fair, it sets out the progress which is being made in achieving the objectives. If one takes the vacant property refurbishment grant, over 7,500 applications have been received and almost 60% of them have been approved to date. Some €150 million has been made available to local authorities under call 3 of the new Urban Regeneration and Development Fund, URDF, to tackle vacancy and dereliction by acquiring properties for reuse or sale across towns and cities. Over 900 properties have been approved for funding under this call and 11 new towns have been added to the URDF programme and can avail of funding under call 3.
63. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance if he will cancel the increases in excise duty on petrol and diesel scheduled for August and October of this year, given the cost-of-living pressures facing households and their impact on trade for businesses in the Border region; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22786/24]
Last month, the Minister increased the price of petrol and diesel and we see that now at the pumps across the State. The Minister is set to increase the tax further in just over 70 days and then again two months later. This will push the price of petrol up by another 6 cent and diesel by another 5 cent. This is happening at a time when workers and families continue to face a cost-of-living crisis. Businesses and forecourts, particularly in the Border region, are scratching their heads and asking how the Minister for Finance thinks they will survive when petrol will be 20 cent cheaper on the other side of the Border. Does the Minister accept that now is the time not to pursue the increases which he plans to make in 70 days?
I thank Deputy Doherty for his question. The Government is conscious of the implications of fuel costs for all sectors of society. This is reflected in the fact that in 2022, in light of the acute impact rising prices were having on households and businesses, the Government provided for temporary cuts in excise rates which, inclusive of VAT, amounted to 21 cents, 16 cents and 5.4 cents per litre on petrol, auto-diesel and marked gas oil, MGO, respectively.
These temporary cuts to excise rates were initially due to end on 31 August 2022, but following review and monitoring of fuel prices, were extended until February 2023, with a phased restoration of rates occurring in June and September of last year. A final restoration of excise rates was due to take place on 31 October 2023 but the budget provided for a further extension until the end of March this year with phased restoration occurring in April and August of this year. The first of these restorations took place on 1 April 2024, adding 4 cent per litre to petrol, 3 cent to auto-diesel and 1.7 cent to MGO.
Carbon tax rate increases on petrol and auto-diesel are legislated to occur on 9 October 2024, when the rate of carbon tax will increase from €56 to €63.50 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. This will add 2.1 cent per litre of petrol and 2.5 cent per litre of auto-diesel, VAT inclusive. Carbon tax increases are implemented annually under the ten-year carbon tax trajectory that was introduced in the Finance Act 2020. The programme for Government committed to increasing the amount that is charged per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions from fuels to €100 by the end of this decade, and the ten-year trajectory of carbon tax increases delivers on that commitment. The commitment also features as one of the nine reform measures in Ireland’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan.
While I recognise that households and business continue to face significant challenges, the Government must strike the appropriate balance between providing support and avoiding fuelling cyclical inflationary trends. The Government has provided relief to consumers and businesses since 2022 through a number of support measures, including temporary reductions in excise. These measures were introduced as temporary support measures and involve an ongoing cost to the Exchequer while they are retained.
Finally, as I have said to the Deputy and to others in the House on a number of occasions, I will continue to monitor and review the position in the coming weeks in the context of the final phase of excise rate restorations due to take place on 1 August this year.
This morning, Social Justice Ireland pointed out that the Minister's budget would widen the gap between the rich and the poor. If he has not noticed, low and middle-income families the length and breadth of this State are still struggling with high costs. Yet, what the Minister has planned are more price hikes for them. The Minister increased the price of petrol and diesel last month and he plans to do more in 70 days, and more again two months later. Who is affected mostly? All of the research shows that those in rural areas, those who are socially deprived and those who have the greatest dependence on car ownership will carry the burden of the Minister's continuous tax increases on petrol and diesel.
We can all admit that fuel prices have increased significantly since the start of the year and the Minister's Government is planning to heap more pressure on top of that. We have said very clearly right throughout this year that fuel prices have to be kept under review. It is clear that the trend is going in the wrong direction and it is likely that if the Government continues to increase the price of petrol and diesel, we will be charged €2 per litre at the forecourt within a very short period of time. Now is the time, I say to the Minister, to show flexibility. These taxes are not required at this point in time to buffer the coffers of the State. We have the resources available. At a time when families are really struggling with the cost of living, which is at crisis level for many of them, the Minister is planning to put more pressure on them by putting another 6 cent on petrol and another 4 cent on diesel, and it is absolutely the wrong thing to do at this time.
As I said earlier, and I am happy to repeat it, I will keep the situation under review in advance of the final restoration which is due on 1 August. There is considerable volatility when it comes to fuel prices, not least because of the movement in the cost of a barrel of oil which is only one input cost. It increased in recent weeks.
It fell back again but it is moving in both directions. I keep a close eye on that and on future markets as well. As the Deputy will be aware, foreign exchange rates also have an impact, along with refining costs, distribution costs, and so on. All of that will be taken into account.
The other part of the Deputy's question relates to the carbon tax. We set out every year how the additional revenue collected from the tax will be spent. In budget 2024, almost €800 million was allocated to climate action measures and sustainable farming, and to ensure the most vulnerable are protected from the unintended increases in the tax. This represents an increase in budget 2024 of €165 million in the amount funded from the carbon tax increases in 2023. That is going on additional retrofitting of homes to ensure we can make progress, working with farmers on sustainable farm practices and to tackle fuel poverty.
The Minister does not get this. He proceeded with one increase last month, which was the wrong thing to do at the wrong time again. Now he s planning for and has legislated for this increase in 70 days and legislated for a further increase two months later. It is not just those people who are struggling. It is not just the people who have to fill their tanks. Every time they put a litre of petrol into their car €1 goes to the State. This is the tax on petrol at this point in time. It is just about those people, however. I asked numerous times about the businesses in my community. There are more than 300 Border businesses and forecourts. Many of them are family businesses and they support countless families in the community. Kids are being sent to college because they are working in these businesses, either on the petrol forecourts or in the adjoining shops. These people tell me very clearly that if this increase goes ahead and if the Minister continues to do what he did last month, they do not see their forecourt businesses surviving because a couple of miles down the road someone can buy a litre of petrol for 20 cent cheaper. Perhaps the Minister would have the detail as to when was the last time we had a price difference as big as we have now? At the minute it is 15 cent. There are people who are not coming to these stores because of the price of petrol. The finance minister in Britain decided to extend their reduction for a year. I call on the Minister to do what we have asked him to do from day one, which is to keep it under review. The prices are going in the wrong direction, families are struggling, businesses are worried whether they will be able to survive and he has legislated for not one but two increases, yet he will still not give a commitment here that he will not go ahead with it. Instead he says the same thing that every Minister for Finance says, which is " We will keep all taxes under review".
The Deputy will be aware that we are having this debate because the Government cut excise duty back in 2022. That was the right decision at the time. The restoration that has taken place since has been on a phased basis and one final phase of that restoration was due. I have given a commitment to the House on a number of occasions that this will be kept under review. Luckily I did not take the Deputy's advice in the budget last year, which would have involved putting up petrol prices by 8 cent per litre last month, diesel by 6 cent and marked gas oil by 3.4 cent. I did not take his advice and that was the right decision. The Government is acutely conscious of that cross-Border dynamic he mentioned. At different points in our history it has happened in different directions. Clearly on this occasion, for now, it is the case that fuel and particularly petrol is more expensive south of the Border than it is north of the Border. I am very much aware of that.
A vote for Fianna Fáil is a vote for higher petrol and diesel prices.
As I said, it is just as well I did not take the Deputy's advice-----
The Minister's advice was to keep it under review. He knows that well. He should be brutally honest please; a vote for Fianna Fáil is a vote for an increase in petrol prices.
-----or we would have seen an 8 cent per litre increase last month.
And if it is not, and if a vote for Fianna Fáil is not to increase petrol and diesel prices maybe the Minister will clarify that. I will give him the floor.
It is just as well I did not take the advice or we would have seen an 8 cent per litre increase last month----------
A vote for Fianna Fáil is a vote for higher petrol and diesel prices.
No, please-----
Sinn Féin advocated for an 8 cent increase in petrol last month. It is just as well I did not take the Deputy's advice.
That question is over. We are moving on.
64. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Finance to provide details of his engagement with the NTMA with regard to ensuring that the NTMA divest from all ISIF global portfolio investments in companies on the UN Human Rights Council database of business enterprises; the expected timeline for this divestment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22730/24]
My question relates to what engagement the Minister for Finance has had with the NTMA around ensuring the agency divests from all Ireland Strategic Investment Fund global portfolio investments in companies on the UN Human Rights Council database of enterprises. What is the expected timeline for the total divestment? I ask this in the context of the resolution that was passed more than eight years ago by the UN council.
I thank the Deputy for the question. The Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, which is a business unit of the NTMA, is statutorily independent and is subject to oversight by its investment committee and the NTMA's board. My officials are in contact with the NTMA on an ongoing basis across a range of issues, including those arising from the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023. On 20 March this year the director of the ISIF attended the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, for a meeting on pre-Committee Stage scrutiny of the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023. At that committee meeting the ISIF director outlined that as at 31 December last year the fund's direct investments in companies on the UN database totalled approximately €4.2 million in 11 companies. He also outlined that the ISIF's indirect investments include eight companies totalling approximately €9.4 million.
ISIF has since taken an investment decision to divest from six of these companies, with a total value of approximately €2.95 million, involving a number of Israeli banks and an Israeli retail chain. I understand that the divestment process has nearly been completed following the recent divestment on the basis of the risk presented. ISIF will continue to keep under review the alignment of relevant investments within its investment parameters and commercial objectives. In practice, this means that if any other investments have or are later found to have the same risk characteristics as those six companies those other investments then fall for consideration for divestment also.
The Deputy will be aware the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023 is currently before the Oireachtas. The Government does not oppose that Bill and the only formal decision on it to date was to propose a nine-month timed amendment on Second Stage in the Dáil in May of last year. This was to allow for the consideration of the issues raised by that Bill including alternative, non-legislative based approaches, or a combination of legislative and non-legislative based approaches that could achieve a similar outcome.
Finally, following the expiry of the timed amendment, pre-Committee Stage scrutiny of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach is ongoing and I await the outcome of that process, which I expect very shortly.
I thank the Minister for the update on that. The background to this is the UN council and the particular committee, which set out 112 businesses. That was published in February 2020 and since then it has been reduced to 97. With regard to Ireland and the ISIF, the amount is relatively small given the overall investment internationally by ISIF.
I am aware it is independent, and I know there are experts and their role is to get value for money and invest, but is that done within a policy of human rights? What engagement has the Department had with NTMA on this? I welcome that there has been divestment from six companies. Will the Minister explain whether this involved direct investment, indirect investment or pooled investment? Why were those six picked as opposed to the total figure there? How was that done? Has the removal of the investment been completed on those six companies?
Perhaps I could write to the Deputy with detail of the investments that have been divested. The majority of what was announced has been completed at this stage. She will acknowledge that difficult and harrowing as the issue is with the occupied West Bank and the conflict and the terrible events happening in Gaza because of the excessive use of force by the Israel Defense Forces, it is not the only environment, social, or governance issue that will need to be addressed by the NTMA in the context of the management of this fund, but also other funds. There are a number of conflicts and ongoing violations of human rights and abuses, which are likely to have to be addressed in this fund and the other funds. It is important that the commercial mandate and fundamentally the independence of ISIF is respected so that its officials are allowed to make their own investment decisions in line with the mandate, and that they retain primary responsibility for decision-making.
In addition, when it comes to the question of legislating, we have examined, and continue to examine, this issue closely.
There are quite substantive and important reasons as to why enshrining the UN database in primary legislation as a reference point and anchor for divestment is not a good idea. I am happy to go into them in more detail.
I understand that. The Minister has taken the trouble to read the reports. I understand the difficulties. Suggestions have been made by the Department of Finance to establish our own database. What progress has been made on that?
Let me come back to the decision, which I welcome. Obviously, those concerned are operating in a policy vacuum. It has come from Dáil questions and pressure. I would have believed there would have been a proactive approach to taking the responsibility seriously. This happened previously with regard to Deputy Pringle's legislation, the Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill. The question of where our money is being divested is really serious. Regarding companies located in territories occupied by Israel, which is before the International Court of Justice for genocide, we must be seen to take action regarding where we invest public money, while acknowledging the independence of the NTMA and ISIF. What is the policy? Who is the fund reporting to? Who is monitoring what it is doing? Asking questions like this is part of it but there needs to be proactive monitoring to ensure we do not invest in companies that are part of a genocide or associated with the weapons that ensure that genocide.
The factual position is that ISIF is statutorily independent and subject to oversight by its investment committee and the NTMA's board. Under statute, I, as Minister for Finance, do not have a role in ISIF's implementation of its investment strategy. The investment strategy does operate within an ESG framework, which the Deputy has correctly highlighted. This is not the only ESG issue it has to consider. It is important that I continue to respect ISIF's independence and commercial mandate.
The Deputy mentioned the issue of fossil fuel divestment. As she knows, the House has previously legislated in respect of fossil fuel divestment, and that is reflected in the ESG parameters within which ISIF operates and is fully respected by it. However, I will write to the Deputy and give further detail on all this.
