Deputy Grealish is joined in the Public Gallery by members of Oranmore Men's Shed. They are very welcome. We are delighted to have the Minister for Finance, Deputy McGrath, with us today.
Finance (No. 2) Bill 2023: Second Stage
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I thank the Acting Chairperson and join him in extending a warm welcome to all of our guests from Oranmore Men's Shed who are with Deputy Grealish. I hope they enjoy their visit to the Oireachtas and thank them for coming.
I am pleased to be here to discuss the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2023 which will give the necessary legal basis to the decisions announced in the budget and make a number of other necessary changes to tax legislation. I understand Senators have been provided with an updated summary of the Bill which addresses the individual sections. It is a very lengthy and complex Bill this year. As such, I do not intend to go into great detail now and will focus instead on a number of key measures.
This Bill implements the measures announced in budget 2024 to provide further support to individuals, families and businesses at a time when we all know the cost of living remains high.
The Bill introduces new measures and amends existing measures specifically targeted at supporting the housing market and encouraging investment in start-up enterprises. Furthermore, it contains a number of administrative changes which primarily seek to protect and enhance the integrity of our taxation code. The Bill makes a number of changes to tax legislation to reflect recent international developments, with a large portion of the Bill dedicated to the implementation of the EU minimum effective tax rate for large groups and companies.
The Finance (No. 2) Bill 2023 implements the budget 2024 income tax package, which increases a number of income tax credits, such as the personal, employee PAYE and earned income credits. It also increases the standard rate cut-off point for a single person by €2,000, with proportionate increases in the bands applying to married couples and civil partners. I believe this will help avoid a situation whereby an individual ends up paying a higher burden of tax as his or her income rises. The changes are in line with the programme for Government and will ensure that people at all income levels benefit.
The 2% rate band ceiling for the universal social charge, USC, is increased to take account of the national minimum wage increase. Moreover, the 4.5% rate of USC is reduced to 4% This is the first USC rate reduction in five years. The Bill also extends the USC concession for those who have a medical card and earn less than €60,000 per year, such that those individuals pay a reduced rate until the end of 2025.
Other elements of the Government’s cost-of-living support package include a 12-month extension of the reduced 9% VAT rate for gas and electricity. This complements the once-off social protection measures announced on budget day as well as the three additional electricity credits. The Bill also defers the final tranche of fuel excise increases so that a phased restoration will take place in two equal instalments on 1 April 2024 and 1 August 2024.
In relation to the benefit-in-kind regime for company vehicles, the Bill extends for a further year the temporary universal relief of €10,000 on the original market value, OMV, for vans and certain categories of cars. Additionally, the tapering mechanism that provides benefit-in-kind relief for battery electric vehicles is being extended for a further two years to the end of 31 December 2027. What this means is that the current deduction of €35,000 to the original market value for battery electric vehicles will remain until 31 December 2025 and will then be reduced to €20,000 in 2026 and €10,000 in 2027.
One of the budget priorities this year was to create and maintain an environment which allows businesses to thrive. The Bill, therefore, brings a number of changes to existing tax measures to support enterprise. The research and development tax credit is being increased from 25% to 30% so as to maintain the net value of the credit for businesses subject to the EU minimum effective tax rate. In addition, the first-year payment threshold is increased from €25,000 to €50,000 to provide a cash-flow benefit, particularly for smaller research and development projects, and to encourage more businesses to engage with the research and development credit regime.
The Bill introduces a new targeted relief for angel investors which applies a reduced rate of capital gains tax to gains up to the twice the value of the initial investment. This will offer additional funding support for innovative start-up SMEs. In this same vein, the employment investment incentive scheme is enhanced by standardisation of the investment period to four years and doubling the amount of relief which an investor can claim.
Subject to EU state aid approval, the Bill provides for an increase in the project cap on qualifying expenditure for film relief. The cap is increased to €125 million for films certified after 1 January 2024 or after commencement of section 41 of the Bill, whichever is later. I am also committed to examining the potential for a scheme to develop the unscripted production sector in Ireland.
The Bill augments a number of agricultural tax reliefs which support the farming sector. For example, the accelerated capital allowances regime for farm safety equipment is extended to the end of 2026, while consanguinity relief is extended to the end of 2028. Amendments have also been made to a number of other farming reliefs to account for increased maximum thresholds in line with EU regulations.
As I announced on budget day, the Bill also restricts eligibility in respect of the existing tax exemption for certain income arising from the leasing of farmland. This will ensure that those who purchase land on or after 1 January 2024 must own the land for a period of at least seven years before they can avail of the relief.
Turning to housing, the Bill complements the important Government interventions to support availability of housing, whether for purchase or rent. With regard to supports for tenants, the Bill makes a number of changes to the rent tax credit. These changes include increasing the amount that can be claimed for 2024 and 2025 by 50% to €750, and extending eligibility for the credit to parents who pay for their student child’s tenancy in the case of rent-a-room accommodation or a “digs” arrangement. More than 250,000 claims have already been approved in respect of 2022 underlining the importance of this credit. The Bill also provides for a residential premises rental income tax relief. Subject to certain conditions, this relief can reduce the tax due on a landlord’s residential rental income by up to €600 in 2024, €800 in 2025, and €1,000 in each of 2026 and 2027. In light of the impact of rising interest rates and mortgage costs on many households, the Bill introduces a temporary one-year mortgage interest tax relief for qualifying homeowners capped at €1,250 of relief per property. To provide certainty to prospective homebuyers and to the market, the help-to-buy scheme is being extended to the end of 2025. The scheme is also being amended to facilitate access to help to buy to a greater number of purchasers also availing of the local authority affordable purchase scheme.
The Bill also includes a number of other provisions, which revise existing levies or administrative regimes or update our domestic tax legislation to align it with commitments made at international level. For instance, section 36 introduces new defensive measures applying to certain outbound payments towards jurisdictions on the EU list of non-co-operative, no-tax, and zero-tax jurisdictions. These measures are aimed at the prevention of double non-taxation to meet commitments contained in Ireland's national recovery and resilience plan.
I am conscious of the recent discourse in respect of issues with the taxation of certain general practitioner income, which arise from contractual arrangements within the GP community. As such, the Bill provides that where individual GPs enter into contracts with the HSE to provide certain medical professional services, and provide those services in the conduct of a partnership profession with other individual GPs, the income from those services can be treated for income tax purposes as that of the partnership. The Bill also provides that any professional services withholding tax credit may be claimed by the partnership under such instances.
Section 73 of the Bill provides for the revised bank levy announced on budget day. A technical inconsistency has been identified in the data, which means that it will be necessary to adjust the applicable rate to 0.122% to ensure that the full €200 million is collected in 2024, as set out on budget day. I will make this change at a future point.
As mentioned, I note that the Bill implements Pillar 2, the EU minimum 15% effective tax rate for large groups and companies. The Pillar 2 provisions apply to multinational and large-scale domestic businesses with global annual revenues of €750 million and above in at least two of the preceding four years.
The Finance (No. 2) Bill 2023 will give effect to the tax measures announced in the budget and in doing so offers valuable support and certainty to taxpayers throughout the country. As noted by the ESRI in its commentary on 13 October, “The total budgetary package is progressive and this research estimates that it will result in reductions in the at-risk-of-poverty ... rate of most groups, compared to a budget pegged to income growth.” That is something the Government collectively is proud to have delivered. I also welcome last week’s finding by the European Commission that budget 2024 is in line with the Council’s recommendations.
At a later stage, we will have the opportunity to discuss the measures we are putting in place to ensure the long-term stability of the public finances. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing the views of Members on these provisions over the coming weeks. I commend the Bill to the House.
I thank the Minister. Group spokespersons will have ten minutes.
I take the opportunity to welcome the Minister, Deputy McGrath, to the House. It is his first time visiting us as finance Minister.
I thank him for the leadership role he has provided in the party over the past while.
The fiscal landscape of budget 2024 marks a significant chapter in the annals of the financial system, defining a century-long narrative shaped by successive Governments and finance Ministers throughout an independent national story. In the promising early years of our independence, many people, doubtless both foreign and domestic, questioned the capacity of a young Irish State to forge and administer a thriving economy. Faced with global challenges that were stymying newly independent governments worldwide, Ireland emerged not only unscratched but as one of the most prosperous modern nations in the past century. When a Fianna Fáil Minister last presented a budget, it corresponded to probably the most formidable budgetary challenge in our nation's history. Our party bore a substantial political cost for the stringent measures imperative to salvaging our economy and society. Brian Lenihan, however, in an act of patriotism and transcending party lines, rose to the occasion, prioritising the needs of the people over the interests of his political party, a testament that endures through time.
The Minister, Deputy McGrath, has continued in the footsteps taken by Brian Lenihan more than a decade ago, albeit in a markedly transformed economic landscape. It is a moment of pride for the Minister, his family and all of us in Fianna Fáil as we once again ensure every Irish individual in need will benefit from our economic prosperity, while safeguarding the well-being of our people through challenging times. In budget 2024, overseen by the Minister, Fianna Fáil prioritised the needs of all Irish citizens over political interests, as is necessary in the management of a modern Irish economy, in contrast with the Opposition's focus on rhetoric and narrow electoral concerns. The evolving and enlarged economic system in a modern, outward-looking, flexible, highly educated and thriving society is one of the most successful in the OECD and has for many decades been spearheaded by Fianna Fáil finance Ministers. The Minister in budget 2024 upholds this legacy of patriotic and prudent financial management by providing sustainability through additional supports for those facing the challenges of the global cost-of-living crisis.
While acknowledging these accomplishments, it is crucial to express areas of concern that, in my view, should have received attention in budget 2024. In adherence with the tradition adopted by Fianna Fáil, I am able to critique the omission of certain measures from the budget. The Minister is aware of my genuine commitment to this matter and we have collaborated closely to advocate for the inclusion of specific measures I believe would significantly benefit working families aspiring to own their own home, a paramount objective for most families. The issue I raise relates to help-to-buy and, specifically, the loan-to-value ratio of 70%. My issue is not with the 70% but with the exclusion of the first-home equity scheme from the calculation of that 70%. Home ownership is vital for families and society, providing stability, a sense of belonging and financial security. It fosters community engagement, enhances children's well-being and contributes to neighbourhood resilience. Moreover, home ownership stimulates economic growth and strengthens the social fabric, playing a crucial role in the overall health and prosperity of individuals and communities.
Later I will identify families who are equally, if not more, deserving of the help-to-buy support but are excluded. Changing the calculation process also has the potential to mitigate the reported deadweight, given these families will not form part of that category. They have maximised their mortgage and savings, yet still require equity from the first-home scheme. The first home scheme has empowered families to realise home ownership. Without change to the help-to-buy, this dream will be unattainable, and I would like to see the integration of the first home equity into the calculation of the 70% loan-to-value ratio, although I acknowledge that the Minister made changes to that to allow local authority affordable housing schemes to qualify for it.
It is hard to put into words exactly what I am trying to explain here, so I will leave behind copies of the document I have to hand. My first example compares somebody buying the same house for €445,000 as someone else on the same salary who is not in a position to get the same mortgage.
One gets a mortgage at 79% and one gets a mortgage at 68%. They both require help from the first home scheme, one to the tune of €30,00 and one to the tune of €80,000. They both have a debt of 86%. However, the person who only got the 68% loan-to-value ratio is excluded from the help-to-buy scheme. That is one example. Therefore, that family’s debt is increased to 93%.
Another example is a house at €350,000, where the income was €57,000. They got a mortgage of €230,000, which, again, is 66%. They required €67,000 from the first home scheme, or 19%, bringing the total loan-to-value ratio to 85%. However, if you exclude the help-to-buy scheme, it increases that to 94%.
The next example is a couple I met who thought the aspiration of owning their own home had passed them by, but the introduction of the first home scheme made it possible. However, they are not in a position to get a 70% loan-to-value ratio on their house because of their age. They could only get a 64% loan-to-value ratio. They required €54,000 from the first home scheme, which was 17%, giving a total loan-to-debt ratio of 81%, but without the help-to-buy scheme, it is 90%.
A young girl could not get a mortgage because of the industry she was in. She was working in make-up in the film industry. She could not secure the mortgage, so she got a permanent job. Her salary was reduced and she now can only get a mortgage of 69% - 1% short. She required €54,000 from the help-to-buy scheme, which is 18%, giving a total loan-to-debt ratio of 83%, or 91% without the help-to-buy scheme.
My final example is a young woman trying to buy a house at €285,000. She could get a mortgage of €195,000, which was 68%. She required €50,000 from the first home scheme – 17% - giving a total debt ratio of 85%, but without the help-to-buy scheme, that is 94%.
I have gone through these with the Minister and he is aware of them. I believe it is the right thing to do. This is a cohort of people who need the help-to-buy scheme more than anyone else. They have maximised their mortgage and their savings. Without the help of the first home scheme, they would not be a position to aspire to owning their own home. We are making it much more difficult for those families to aspire to owning to their own home. I will hopefully be trying to address this again.
I wish to make a few points about the general tenor of the finance Bill this year. First, it seems that the Government has realised that some of the measures it has taken in respect of rented properties in the private rented sector have been counterproductive and have encouraged landlords to leave the sector. It seems that the Government has finally realised that something needs to be done about it. I do not believe that tax concessions to landlords will keep them in the sector for this simple reason. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, apparently last Tuesday went to Cabinet and got approval for an amendment to the landlord and tenant relationship for landlords who want to have vacant possession for the purpose of selling their house on the open market. First, to avail of the entitlement to end a tenancy, an agreement to sell is needed. Landlords must now offer the house back to the tenant at the same price the open market purchaser is willing to pay, in other words, allow the tenant the right to match the offer the landlord is proposing to sell the house at. Whereas that might seem reasonable in one respect, you have to ask how that will work in practice.
I do not own any rented property any more but I used to. If I own a property and I want to sell it, I know I have to achieve vacant possession in order to sell it at a reasonable rate. Otherwise the purchaser is taking over all the problems that I may never have dealt with, and the purchaser may actually want to buy it to live in themselves. If I own a property in those circumstances, am I to market it on the basis that whoever buys it from me sits down and agrees to purchase it at a price but then the Government may intervene to say the sale may not go through, the tenant may match that price in which case the offer becomes irrelevant? I just wondered who is thinking up these schemes. What effect would that have on a landlord? To get a decent open market price in certain respects vacant possession has to be offered because, quite clearly, a person buying it who wants to live in it themselves with their family wants vacant possession. That is fairly elementary. Are we to say to such purchasers, "By the way, even if you do buy it, the landlord is legally obliged to effectively cancel his agreement with you and offer it back to the tenant"? Who is actually thinking these things through down in the Custom House or wherever the Department of the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, is now located? Who is actually working out what effect that would have on transactions and landlords' willingness to stay in the market at the moment if that new arrangement is superimposed on them?
The reason I mention all of this is that there has been an exodus of private landlords from the private rented sector. It has not all been the Minister's responsibility. I hope Senator Gavan will not take offence when I say that Sinn Féin has added fuel to the fire and frightened landlords as well. The real issue is this. Either we do or we do not regard it as reasonable for people to let property to other people who are not in a position or do not want to purchase the house themselves. They can be people whose means do not add up to it. They can be people whose age does not permit them to get mortgages or credit lines to buy a house. They can be people who want to share a house for a period of their life such as young women and men at a stage in their career where they want to share a house. They all are people who want legitimately to be tenants and are not in a position to become a homeowner for one reason or another. If that is a legitimate market, why is everything being done to scare people out of making housing available by way of letting of residential property? Why is that being done? It does not make sense.
Sometimes I look at legislative proposals and wonder where did the idea come from. Bedsits in Dublin were eradicated by the fomer Minister, John Gormley because he got a submission from Threshold, the housing charity, suggesting to him that to improve standards, every bedsit which did not have its own private bathroom and kitchen should be made illegal to let. He did this in 2009 with effect from 2013. It is very hard to estimate exactly how many but I think between 10,000 and 12,000 dwellings in the Dublin area became unavailable as bedsits as a result. That affected people right at the bottom of the housing ladder. I recall from my time as a Dáil Deputy separated men or oldish bachelors who were quite happy to be in a bedsit in Rathmines or wherever it was and to live their lives in those circumstances.
One could say it was a very kindhearted thing to say they should have had their own bathroom as well, but the houses were not adapted for those purposes, and the consequence of all of that was that they were evicted and their houses were sold. I know this because all the houses opposite me on the road where I live in Ranelagh became trophy homes and they all have a price tag of about €2 million now, whereas they used to be in ten or 12 bedsits up to the abolition of bedsits. The people who lived in them were not wealthy but they did need accommodation of the first-step-on-the-ladder type for various reasons, be they students, temporary employees, birds of passage, people engaged and about to marry and move in with a spouse or whatever. All of those kinds of people found that their accommodation was wiped out. I am asking what the Government proposes to do to keep a thriving rented sector in existence. Although promises have been made for various tax write-offs and the like, they will not work if, at the same time, the Government makes it almost impossible to dispose of a property or to determine who the tenants are.
By way of a footnote to what I have said, the private rented dwellings legislation provides that if you do let a house to two tenants, the tenant is entitled to bring in a substitute tenant for any tenant that was there and that tenant will, in the fullness of time, have the same rights as the original parties to the lease. This means contracts of indefinite duration effectively become a permanent lease to people who one never contracted with in the first place. People can bring in their nephew, niece or whoever it is to come and live with them if their spouse dies and the thing just goes on and on. The landlord has to show good reason that the nephew or niece should not be considered a tenant. The onus is on the landlord to prevent that from happening and there is no good reason in most cases that one can establish to the satisfaction of a court. The Government, through its finance legislation, is posing as doing something for private landlords to keep them in the market but the Custom House, as opposed to Merrion Street, is determined to drive them out.
The Minister is welcome. I congratulate him on his first budget. I will not get as historical as Senator Casey, who almost brought a tear to my eye. I am not sure if it was the launch of a European campaign. We will wait and see. It was meat to the grassroots anyway. The Minister listened to enough Fine Gael budgets in his time as spokesperson for his party, so I acknowledge that it was a proud day for him and his family.
I have been saying in recent years on all Stages of debate on finance Bills that things are done because they are necessary and also because we are in a position to do them. I talk about the supports that are provided to assist families, individuals and businesses with the cost of living. We are able to do those things because the economy is strong enough to allow us to do them and now it is because they are necessary and the right thing to do. I have been saying in recent years that, as the economy has improved after a number of difficult years, we can provide the supports that people deserve and require.
I welcome the cutting of income tax and USC to reward people, allow them to keep more of their hard-earned wages and put money back in their pockets. That will help with the cost of living, given the high energy costs, higher payments for carers for older persons and the most vulnerable and also the investment there has been in additional services such as more gardaí, which are evidently needed, investment in community safety partnerships, ensuring the best start for every child by cutting childcare costs, as well as providing more free schoolbooks and widening access to services, in addition to helping businesses with measures to deal with the higher energy costs.
Those are absolutely vital and necessary.
The changes to the universal social charge, USC, in section 2 raises the threshold for the 2% USC rate. This ensures that people on the minimum wage do not lose the value of the increases through tax, as the threshold rises by €2,840 to €25,760. The measure also benefits everyone at work with a higher income than this. This section also reduces the 4.5% rate to 4% and we also see the cumulative effects since 2014 in USC over successive Governments, including with my own party, so that the amount paid in USC by a worker on a gross salary of €40,000 has halved.
Sections 3 and 4 provide tax exemptions for student nurses for clinical placements. These are exempt from tax, USC and PRSI. In addition there is maternity leave for councillors, provision for which was also passed in these Houses a number of years ago.
Section 6 extends the help-to-buy scheme which was introduced in 2017 by my party in government. Despite opposition from some it was extended and enhanced by the current Government in late summer of 2020. To date some 43,170 - and growing - claims have been made and the majority of those have been approved. This section of the finance Bill extends the help-to-buy scheme to 31 December 2025.
Section 9 puts more money back in people's pockets by increasing the standard cut-off point by €2,000 up to €42,000 for a single person with proportionate increases for married and one-income families. It is important because if this was not done yearly people on the lowest income would eventually start paying tax at higher rates. It is important that as wages grow the higher rate of tax continues to grow. For comparison, in 2015 the standard rate was €32,800. The three income tax credits of personal, PAYE and earned income increased by €100 to €1,875 each. That is important as well. The home carer tax credit is increased to €1,800.
Section 11 increases the renters' tax credit, which I certainly welcome. Section 13 introduces mortgage interest relief. This is only available on one's principal private residence where the outstanding mortgage balance is between €80,000 and €500,000. The relief is available on the standard rate of tax and is calculated on the increase in the interest paid between 2022 and 2023. The maximum relief payable is €1,250. It is set against that person's 2022-2023 tax bill.
I met a constituent recently whose mortgage loan was sold to what are called the "vulture funds" about which there has been so much talk. He is paying 9.25%. Will the Minister say if there is anything that can be done or is there anything in the pipeline that can be considered to put some sort of smacht on these? The individual I met was quite vociferous about the impact this is having on him. He is paying it but he is renting rooms out and doing all he can to raise money to pay this. My colleague, Deputy Brendan Griffin has also raised this on the floor of the Dáil in relation to an individual in his 80s who is being chased by a vulture fund for a loan that he thought was cleared back in the Celtic Tiger days. The property was sold and raised some €2 million of the €2.5 million and he is being chased for the half million euro and seeing punitive interest rates now on that. This man is aged 80 and is in bad health. This whole area is fraught and probably needs to be further regulated. What plans might the Minister have for that?
Section 21 designs a support for small landlords to maintain or increase the supply of homes. I take on board the commentary from Senator McDowell as well. I equally would have concerns about the pipeline of supply. I must put on the record of the House that my wife rents out her family home. I put this on the record in case it comes back; it is declared and so on. I have a concern about where this is going to end up in the context of the flight of landlords that we have seen due to those concerns.
We need all types of houses. We cannot have tenants without landlords or landlords with tenants. It is two-way traffic. We support tenants via the tax credit. It is important that we support the accidental or small landlords in particular, who provide much needed accommodation.
I welcome the Minister's commentary on the changes he has made in relation to the treatment of GMS patients. We have received communication about this from practices that were concerned it would force them to retire their GMS list. I welcome that the Minister has taken these changes on board.
Section 91 deals with residential zoned land. I acknowledge there has been a recent change made in relation to farmland. For actively farmed lands, the tax will not fall due until 1 January 2025. There is still some concern and confusion as to how it will apply. Where land has been actively farmed, it was understood by farmers that they would not fall due for this tax. Is that still how Revenue will be assessing this? I know the appeals process exists and has been extended until January 2024. I am referring to actively farmed land, not land that has been hoarded or land that has clearly not been farmed. That is quite evident when one looks around, one can see land that has been abandoned but one can also see land that has been farmed by individuals who may be close to a town. Will that land will be taxed or not under the scheme? I welcome the decision to give that bit of space. A lot of people would have fallen due to pay that tax who might not have been aware of it.
I also welcome a number of other sections of the Bill. These include: the extensions for various types of research and development, R and D, and the film and TV production sector; the reduced VAT rate on audio books and e-books; the reduced VAT on solar panels for schools and the revised capital acquisitions tax arrangements on inheritance and gifts received by a person who cared for a person under a formal or informal fostering agreement. There are many very worthy tax changes in this finance Bill. Of course, there are also the one-off payments announced on budget day, which will be coming through before Christmas and in the new year and the tax changes that come through in the new year.
I commend the Minister on his first budget and wish him well as he prepares for his second one later next year.
I welcome our visitors to the Public Gallery; they are guests of Deputies Jim O'Callaghan and Mattie McGrath.
I welcome the Minister. The finance Bill gives effect to the tax changes announced in budget 2024, in addition to a number of other important provisions and changes to the tax code. The budget announced last month needed to deal with a number of shocks Ireland has had to face in recent years, especially energy prices and a sharp rise in inflation. Higher prices have hit lower and middle incomes households hardest and research has indicated that the incomes of these two groups have either fallen or stagnated in recent years.
Workers and families have been feeling the pain of the cost of living crisis for well over a year now, with incomes and household budgets being stretched to the maximum. Even though the rate of annual inflation has fallen from its peak of last year, it still remains high. While the Department of Finance expects this rate to moderate to 2.9% next year, it is important to note that prices are not expected to fall. The increase in prices is here to stay. The tax code can play an important part in supporting workers and households, especially with the cost of living crisis. The tax package needed to be fair, making sure that those on the highest incomes did not benefit disproportionately compared with those who need it most. For a long time, Sinn Féin has argued that the fairest way to reduce tax is through cuts to the universal social charge. We proposed a tax package focused on cutting the bottom rates of USC and increasing the entry point to the third rate, beginning the journey of removing the first €30,000 workers earn from liability to USC. In this finance Bill, the Government decided to introduce measures which mean that someone earning €35,000 a year will benefit by less than €310, while someone earning €200,000 a year will benefit by more than €860.
How is that fair?
In terms of energy, the price of petrol, diesel, electricity, gas and home heating oil have all been spiralling upwards since 2022. Section 56 of the Bill extends the reduced 9% rate of VAT applying to electricity and gas, which we were glad to see because it is a measure Sinn Féin has called for repeatedly. However, the price of petrol and diesel at the pump continues to increase. It is very disappointing that the Government pushed ahead with more carbon tax hikes last month, further increasing fuel prices. It plans further carbon tax hikes in May and October next year but without access to affordable public transport, commuters and householders are taking the hit, with no alternatives being provided. As we have said previously in relation to carbon tax, there is too much stick and too little carrot. There is nothing here to help those using home heating oil. One third of households in the State, and two thirds of household in the north west, rely on home heating oil as their main fuel source but there is no measure to reduce its price. In fact, it will go up again in May. Sinn Féin proposed slashing the rate of excise duty to reduce the cost of a tank fill by €64.
Businesses also face into the continuation of what is effectively a cost-of-doing-business crisis. With the exception of a small few measures, the tax packages announced in budget 2024 will not deliver in a manner which matches the scale of the crisis faced by workers, families and businesses. Only this week I spoke to a small business owner where I live who is being stitched up by Flogas which is charging him 65 cent per kW when the going rate is actually 31 cent per kW. He is being asked to pay €3,500 to get out of his contract, even though there are fewer than 11 months left on his two year contract. That is just pure extortion and we need to see much greater intervention by the Government in terms of making sure these types of practices are not allowed to happen.
As we know, the rate of inflation is set to ease but the fact remains that prices will remain high and the cost-of-living crisis will persist. The impact of price and cost-of-living increases is most evident in the housing sector. We have a worsening housing crisis which is deeply affecting the living standards of so many of our citizens. It is also, embarrassingly, now affecting the competitiveness of our economy. Section 21 of this Bill is unbelievable. It provides a tax break of €600, rising to €1,000, for landlords. Professor Barra Roantree, formerly of the ESRI, has described this tax break as perhaps "the stupidest tax relief of recent times, against stiff competition.". The reality is that it will not keep landlords in the market but will just give more money to those who have already decided to stay in the market. This Government is giving more money to landlords than it is giving to struggling renters. These are the kinds of decisions being taken by this Government, against the backdrop of record high rents and record levels of homelessness. In Limerick city rents have gone up by 16% and in Limerick county they have gone up by 21% in one year. There will be 4,000 children in homeless accommodation this Christmas, a new record. There are 13,000 people in total in homelessness, which is also a new record. The figures have been going only one way under this Government, and that is the wrong way. The numbers just keep going up and yet the Government continues to ignore the calls to reintroduce a no-fault eviction ban. How high do rents have to go? How many people have to be homeless before the Government will listen, put its hands up and finally admit that it does not know how to solve this housing crisis? Every year we hear the Government's housing plans and targets but every single year since 2020 the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has missed his social and affordable housing targets, resulting in millions of euro in capital funding for social and affordable housing going unspent. To the end of 2022, the housing Minister missed those targets by 8,537 homes. That is just inexcusable. The quarter 3 progress report gave no information about social and affordable housing targets for this year. We can only assume that is because there is nothing to report. Let us look at the last available figures, up to the end of June. We know the target for the year was 9,100 new-build social homes but up to the end of June, the Government had managed to deliver just 1,400.
When the Minister had a press conference last week, he refused to answer any questions in terms of exactly where those targets are at now. The target was for 3,500 affordable homes to be delivered this year. By the end of June, the Government managed to deliver 123. These are not just failures. They are the most chronic failures in terms of targets that are now acknowledged as not even being high enough in the first place.
I want to talk about the health crisis in the last couple of minutes because, again, that is a key part of this budget. I cannot go on without mentioning how this budget was a disaster for the ever-worsening health crisis. The Government took a deliberate decision to underfund the health system thereby posing a serious risk to patients and healthcare staff. It is difficult to comprehend the logic of a recruitment freeze at a time when trolley numbers are also reaching record highs. University Hospital Limerick, UHL, has been in crisis mode for so long that crisis mode has been normalised.
As it stands, UHL has a 13% higher attendance rate than any other hospital in the country. It has the highest number of over-75-year-olds than any other hospital in the country. However, it has a 30% lower bed base than any other model 4 hospital in the country. UHL deserves to have the same capacity as other hospitals in the country. The recruitment freeze will undoubtedly impact the hospital and is the most dangerous decision this Government could have made. Lives are literally at risk. Indeed, I met the staff of UHL three weeks ago and they are literally in despair now with this recruitment freeze. They expect their hospital to be effectively turned into a nursing home because there is nowhere for patients to go. There are 6,000 people on the home help waiting list as it stands and there is a freeze on hiring new home help workers. Again, it is a litany of failures.
The Finance Bill contains 98 sections in total and, obviously, in the speaking time we have, it is not possible to comment on every one of them. We will be going through them on Committee Stage, however. Sinn Féin proposed many amendments in the Dáil. We proposed a better way in our alternative budget. We cannot support tax measures that exacerbate the housing crisis and the cost-of-living crisis.
In the minute that is left to me, I want to echo a point that was raised by Senator Kyne with regard to the role of vulture funds. In terms of history, the Minister of State will know that it was the then Minister, Michael Noonan, who opened up the country to vulture funds in order to de-stress the banks. That was the phrase. They have certainly done that. They have done that by stitching up small businesses.
I quoted an example of a hotel in County Cork in this Chamber two weeks ago that was completely stitched up. This was a business that paid its loans month after month. It was late for two payments and that enabled the bank to sell the loan to a vulture fund. What those people have put up with since are absolute horrors in terms of charges, intimidation and the worst of practices. What we need the Government to do is intervene on this to end these practices. The Government's adherence to the free market at all costs seems to suggest that it is just not willing to do that. There is so much more I could say but I am pretty much out of time. I look forward to Committee Stage, but I clearly will be opposing this Bill today.
I thank the Senator. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, to the House to replace the Minister, Deputy McGrath.
That concludes the round of lead spokespeople. Our next contributor is Senator Lombard. He has five minutes.
I welcome the Minister of State. I acknowledge that the budget has been a very popular one. It has gone down well with the general public and I want to acknowledge the package that has been put in place. I will mention a few things within the budget. In particular, I want to talk about the residential zone tax.
We realise the residential zone tax was put in place because there was an issue out there with land hoarding in some locations. However, the farming community who have been actively farming this land for generations need to be taken into consideration when we look at this tax. I know of many farming families who have third and fourth generation landholdings around towns who are now in a scenario where they are going to be asked to pay tax in 2025. It is not appropriate, in many ways, when we look at our food industry and agricultural industry, that we are now going to be looking for these sections of society to relocate from landholdings they have been on for hundreds of years. I have no problem with putting a tax on a developer who buys a piece of land. However, the issue of the normal run-of-the-mill family farm that is going to be literally relocated without any consultation needs to be looked at. There is still time. We need to step back, in particular for the people and cohort of society I am talking about who need some assistance regarding this really important issue.
The second issue has to do with the regional filming tax incentive. Senator McDowell is looking at me like I have two heads but what I am on about here is a tax incentive that was put in place for films. Funnily enough, west Cork is excluded. Do not ask me why. Kerry and Limerick are included but we have decided that west Cork should not be part of this regional tax incentive. I suggest that we look at the map again and logically say that places like Schull, Baltimore and Mizen - I could stay here talking about locations all day - should be considered for inclusion in the scheme. I do not know why parts of Kerry are eligible. I will not get into that parochial issue. I will step away from it for a moment. However, I honestly believe there is scope to look at the logic of excluding places like Mizen from the incentive. It is an anomaly and a mapping issue within the tax incentive put in place in 2018 and I hope the Department will look at it. Logic needs to be followed with regard to this issue.
The third issue has to do with the vulture funds. Another Senator mentioned how vulture funds affected a hotel in Clonakilty that I was in yesterday. I honestly believe we need to look at how these funds are regulated. It is a significant issue that a profitable hotel that does really good business and that could probably pay down the loan in one go cannot get the figure from the vulture fund. These funds are unregulated in how they have managed this case and others. A hotel in Clonakilty is affected, as are farmlands in other parts of west Cork. Decent hard-working farmers who ran into issues had their loans moved into vulture funds. Without doubt, they are rich in capital assets but they need a bottom line so they can remortgage the entity itself. They cannot get the exact figure they owe. That is the issue. If they had the figure, they could pay it. They could restructure and so on. However, there is no communication between the vulture funds and these people, who are trying to make a living in really tough times.
Those are my three asks. One is about the film industry, one is about the land tax and one is about the vulture funds. I thank the Minister of State very much indeed.
I thank the Minister of State for being here. I should start by saying that I am delighted to see that the Naval Service seagoing allowance has been retained. That is one of the good things in the budget. An awful lot more work needs to be done with respect to our soldiers, sailors and airmen. The Minister of State might consider whether the duty allowance should be made tax-free. That would make a great difference to members of the forces.
In 2008 and 2009, this country was in dire straits. There is no doubt that things had to be done to get the country back on its feet. However, there is absolutely no case for retaining the USC now. The USC should have been scrapped in this budget. There is no need for it. FEMPI should be totally unwound. There is no need for it. How it applies in this particular place is rather peculiar. Legislation was brought in and this brings me to the difficulty ordinary citizens have with legislation brought in during the financial crisis. If we want to change it, we have to go to the High Court because the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform and the Department of Finance will do nothing to resolve some of these issues unless they are dragged kicking and screaming to do so.
I will mention some of the things that come under that. Pension abatement was brought in during the financial emergency to stop highly paid civil servants taking their lump sum, retiring and coming straight back to work in the public service. However, there is no justification for pension abatement for a private soldier who has a pension of €20,000 a year and who wants to work for the State. A former soldier could bring valuable experience in the area of security to parts of the State but is caught by the single pension Act or by the abatement.
There is no reason for having that.
One of the things there has been a lot of discussion on this afternoon is the housing crisis, the vulture funds and the landlords, etc. I was doing a bit of research on this in recent days. The average income in Romania is under €15,000 but the average rate of homeownership there is 96.1%. Where have we gone wrong? How are we getting it so wrong in this country? There are 500 housing agencies in the country. Local authority housing is all over the place. How come we have got it so wrong? It is very hard to understand. We are pumping money into private industry and private concerns to build houses in order that they can be rented to the State. Recently, in my area, a development that started out as luxury apartments has been bought by a housing agency. Are we paying twice for these units? I am just wondering about where things are going wrong.
I know the Department of public expenditure and reform is soon to go into negotiations with the public service unions. I am afraid the days of one size fitting all no longer work. For example, the terms and conditions of employment of the Garda and the Defence Forces, particularly their pension schemes, are driving their members out the gate in droves. Young officers who we have spent a lot of money training are leaving at the rank of captain because there is no incentive to stay and because the pension scheme is lousy. I know this is slightly in the other half, that is, in the area of public expenditure and reform, but it is rare that we get an opportunity to have a go at a Minister for Finance and lay out the issues on the ground that are seriously affecting people.
One of the areas close to my heart is the deplorable state of cybersecurity and cybersecurity awareness in the country. I wonder if there is a possibility to bring in some sort of tax incentive, particularly for companies, to skill up their employees in this area. We pride ourselves at being a country for foreign direct investment. If we do not get our act together in the cyber space, we will no longer be a country that people will want to come to and invest in.
Those are a few points I wanted to get off my chest. We should undo the FEMPI legislation and repay the public servants for what they did to save this country. We should get rid of the USC. We were promised when it came in that it would not be kept forever. We keep sneaking in these 1% charges and they never go away. We should get rid of these charges and give the public servants back what they contributed. God knows, so many of them, including members of my trade union when I was president of the Teachers Union of Ireland, had engaged in and undertaken large mortgages and suddenly found themselves in a situation where they were on the breadline. Maybe it is time to give them back a little bit of what they invested in the country.
I will be brief. Having the benefit of sitting in the Chair for the last hour I will not rehash some of the things that have been said. Having said that, I will contradict myself and say that the one point I will make has been made by two previous speakers. It is something I have worked on and have had a lot of communication on with the Minister, Deputy McGrath. It is the area of the residential zoned land tax.
While I welcome the commitment in the budget to suspend this tax for a year to the beginning of 2025 to allow for remapping and, presumably, further opportunity for people for whom it is applicable to appeal, I plead with the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy McGrath, to open channels of communication with the Department of housing and local government. My experience of the issue in the year gone by is that there was a big breakdown in communication as to who this tax applies to and who it does not apply to. Active farmers who are farming land which is not serviced were not to be included. Yet, when this was highlighted to certain county councils it was not accepted. That is where communication is needed on how the changes are enacted. In one conversation on this issue in the year gone by, a council official told me his interpretation was that if it was serviceable it was to be included.
His interpretation to me was around whether it was serviceable, and as I said to him on the day, Rockall is serviceable if we put our minds to it. That the lands were serviceable was never meant to be, in my opinion, the interpretation. While they were not serviced, they were serviceable.
I welcome the change and the suspension until 2025 but with the best will in the world, if the local authorities do not get the planning and the terms and conditions as to who this tax is applicable to or not, then nothing is going to change, other than that the years will elapse. I welcome the tax, with the land that is being hoarded in mind. It is evident already that there are developments in the pipeline that may well not have proceeded if there had not been the threat of the tax. I am not opposed to the tax but as somebody who is elected to the agricultural panel and my party's Seanad spokesperson on agriculture, I am representing active farmers. I know there are farmers whose land is due to be developed and will be developed. They will move on, but we cannot tax somebody who is farming where there is absolutely no potential for their land to be developed, even if they wanted to develop it in the morning. A lot of councils have gap filling policies where some of the farmland is a field or plot of land set apart from the development. If the owner of such land were to say they wanted to develop their site, the council would tell them they could not do so until the land between their site and the settlement had been developed. On the one hand, councils are telling people they cannot develop this land and, on the other hand, they are saying they are liable for this tax.
I know this is a Revenue issue and that this is the Minister of State's brief in the Department. If, however, we do not get this right as regards mapping and the terms and conditions the Minister has laid down regarding who this tax applies to at local authority level, we will be back here making representations to the Minister of State and the Minister next year on behalf of people who are going to be taxed and who, genuinely and through no fault of their own, cannot avoid same.
As no other Senators are indicating, I call on the Minister of State to reply.
If I may, I will take 30 seconds to put the pages back in order, as I have been asked loads of questions during Senators' contributions, and I want to try and keep the right order. Forgive me but this is a genuine effort to respond to what Senators have said.
I thank those Senators who made a contribution. I have taken a note of their points and I will try to respond specifically and directly to the points they have raised. Senator Casey raised the issue of loan-to-value in the first home scheme. The first home scheme special purpose vehicle, which is jointly funded by the State and participating mortgage lenders, offers equity to first-time purchasers. The maximum equity stake is 30%, unless the purchaser is availing of the help-to-buy scheme, in which case, under the terms of the first home scheme, it is 20%.
Under the Central Bank's macroprudential rules, equity funding is not classified as a loan. I note that the first home scheme and the local authority affordable purchase schemes operate differently. The first home scheme already has a built-in mechanism that allows it to work in tandem with help-to-buy by reducing the equity stake available to purchasers to 20% in cases where help-to-buy is claimed. In other words, the maximum one can receive under the first home scheme, or the first home scheme and help-to-buy, is 30%. I know that is a matter that the Senator has raised separately, and we have discussed that. I will provide the Senator with a more detailed note on that, if that is okay.
As I said, the schemes operate differently. The latter, the affordable purchase scheme, is a statutory scheme, whereas the first home scheme is a joint venture with private sector mortgage lenders. The issue with the local authority affordable purchase scheme is that it allows buyers to purchase houses at a discounted price and in some cases buyers who avail of the local authority affordable purchase scheme can receive equity finance as high as 40% of the original market value. That leaves them ineligible for the help-to-buy due to the 70% loan-to-value ratio requirement. The Department of Finance will continue to monitor the scheme. I am sure we will have the opportunity to speak about it again. As I said, I will get the Senator any more detailed information that I can provide.
On income tax, I know that Senator Kyne and others have voiced their support for the personal income tax package. As we know, on budget day, the Minister for Finance announced a personal income tax package to the value of €1.3 billion in 2024, and €1.5 billion in a full year. As incomes rise, it is vital that adjustments are made to our personal tax system. This is essential from competitiveness and cost-of-living perspectives, as people make decisions about returning to the workforce or not, and it is particularly essential in as tight a labour market as we face. I certainly have constituents, particularly women, who have raised families and are making decisions about whether to return to the workforce, and some of those decisions are predicated on the marginal balance of tax and how they will be impacted by that.
There really are very broad and good reasons for continuing to look at the tax system and how it operates vis-à-vis incomes.
As incomes rise, it is particularly important that adjustments are made to the personal tax system. In the absence of this, workers and pensioners would experience an increasing burden of tax in real terms, resulting in a drop in living standards. It is a key cost of living measure and I would highlight that to any person or party who chooses to vote against this Bill and comes into this House or the other House articulating a need for further cost of living supports. This is a cost of living support. This particular budget tax package is built around three key pillars, namely, changes to tax credits, the standard rate band and to USC, and the Government has sought to use each of these levers to spread the benefit of the available package as effectively as possible.
I want to make a particular point in regard to USC, which has been highlighted. We have a highly progressive income tax system, and it is one of the most progressive of EU or OECD countries. Of course, that means the burden of taxation falls most heavily on those with a higher ability to pay, and that is the system that we want to continue. For example, it is estimated that in 2024, the top 5% of income earners, that is, those earning over €140,000, will pay almost half of the projected income tax and USC receipts, while the lower 80% of income earners, that is, those earning less than €69,500, will pay only one fifth of the projected income tax and USC receipts. The position is that in budget 2024, personal income tax changes were designed to ensure that the monetary gain was capped at €70,044 per annum. Anyone earning in excess of this amount does not receive any additional benefit from the personal tax package. Furthermore, the gain as a percentage of net income is actually greater and more progressive for many taxpayers earning below this income level. To take Senator Gavan’s example of an individual earning €35,000 per annum, that person will see a 1.1% change in net income whereas an individual earning €200,000 will see a much lower 0.8% change in net income. We cannot just look at cash as an example and we also have to look at percentages to show that it is proportionate.
It is inaccurate and unfair to only look at tax measures as a response in this budget and we have to look at the entirety of this budget, as many Senators have said. Senator Craughwell said it is important to look at the budget in the round and the suite of measures provided. The tax measures and the expenditure measures are a part of this, as are the one-off measures, for example, energy credits, increases to social welfare payments, increases in rent tax credit, retention of the 9% VAT rate on gas and electricity and the postponing of excise duty restoration. Again, voting against this Bill strikes a blow against those cost of living measures in the round.
On mortgage interest tax relief, I thank Senators Kyne and Casey for their contributions and I know they have raised this issue before. I assure the Senators that the Government is acutely conscious of the impact of rising interest rates and mortgage costs on many taxpayers. It is for that reason that the Minister introduced a temporary, one-year targeted form of mortgage interest relief as part of budget 2024. I should say that this measure is deliberately targeted so we are not benefiting better-off earners or people with much larger mortgages. There is a reason that it is capped at €500,000 and it is designed to try to help those people who are most under pressure. Similarly, people with mortgages of less than €80,000 are likely - I say “likely” - to be less under pressure than those with more. The Government has attempted to target this as best it can because we know this measure typically and statistically benefits higher earners, which is not what we want to do. Again, I urge Senators to reflect on that in terms of their contributions for the future.
On film relief, I thank Senator Lombard for raising this issue. I will look into the question of geographic distribution more broadly. I assume that excellent films are made in Cork South-West and that it should not necessarily be excluded. I will look into that for him and I thank him for raising the point. I thank Senators more broadly for their comments in regard to the increase in expenditure under the section 481 tax credit. It is a change that has long been supported by the sector. The increase is something that we should think about as we look at the continued development and, even more so, the resilience of the creative film sector. We want Ireland to remain an attractive location for this sector. We want to produce high-quality films and we want to be known for that. However, we also want to develop a stream of talent that can work within Ireland in a predictable secure way, which is already the case in most cases, but who can travel internationally and come back and develop a resilience in this sector.
One of the things we have managed to do very well is develop resilience in our economy by having pharma, medtech, financial services and technology. The film sector is one that can add real resilience and reduce the single points of failure so if a downturn comes, not everybody is impacted by it. This a sector where we can do well and there is more we can do on it.
The residential premises rental income relief was raised by Senators McDowell and Gavan. I note Senator McDowell’s concerns in respect of tenant rights and the new refusal measure. It is a policy matter for the Minister for housing, which the Senator will appreciate, so I might not step across the Minister, Deputy O’Brien, in that respect. However, landlords are an essential feature of a functioning housing market. Rising rents are driven by a shortage of supply, so stabilising and increasing the supply of rental properties is essential in trying to ease the upward pressure on rental prices, as is of course new supply and the cost rental scheme being developed by the Land Development Agency. You cannot have a tenant without a landlord, which is why the relief has been introduced. It is a very small relief, but is some measure to try to encourage them to remain in the rental market and provide certainty and stability for them. It is such a small credit.
What has been more damaging for landlords than the financial piece – because income is income and must be taxed appropriately – and helped so many of them leave, is the dialogue around landlords in this State, which Senator Gavan’s party has contributed to in large part. Between quarter 1 of 2023 and quarter 3 of 2023 we have had 15,000 notices of termination issued to tenants and of those, 9,000 were because the landlord intends to sell the property. For the past year notices of termination were received 14,500 were stated as the landlord selling the property, so 60% in general is because landlords are selling the property. Up and down my constituency I hear landlords have been demonised. Most landlords are owners of one or two properties. They have been demonised. They feel they cannot say publicly they are a landlord. I do not understand how we have got in this State to a point where somebody who has one or two properties and has been renting that for a very long period, in many cases, to a family is demonised in that way and why we have enabled people to leave the market to the extent that we have the rental crisis we do. It is very difficult to hear that this is a crisis - and it is of course increasing homelessness and especially lone parent homelessness, so it is essential for the protection of lone parents and their children that we retain as many landlords as landlords as possible - but the dialogue and the terrorising, really, in language, of landlords and their position in this State has helped move landlords away from this and to sell properties. That is not so in all cases, but it is certainly something Senators will have heard again and again.
I have listened to Senator Gavan and to what he said on housing. He is actively opposing this tax break for landlords but his rhetoric is a much bigger problem. He has suggested nothing that increases the supply of private tenancies, which are an essential part of the housing system. There is nothing to increase the building of new homes and nothing for anybody who is looking to buy a home or have homeownership. Pursuing Sinn Féin’s budget proposals instead of the measures in this Bill would make housing in this State less affordable and make homeownership less, rather than more, likely. That party is looking to abolish help to buy. I hope the 42,000 first-time buyers who have used the scheme hear that loud and clear. Sinn Féin would abolish it for the future. The party is going to double stamp duty and abolish the first home scheme we discussed earlier, which has helped make it more affordable to buy homes where the gap has been too great by means of an equity share. Some 600 people have been helped. That is 600 families, or 600 home-buying units, to the extent we can use such a cold phrase. A further 2,500 more are approved. I hope every single one of those 3,100 households hears Sinn Féin’s opposition to the scheme that is helping them buy their first home, among other challenges to the housing system. The Senator can criticise all he likes, but there is nothing-----
It gets worse every year under the Minister of State's Government.
The Minister of State without interruption, please.
There is nothing Sinn Féin does-----
It is a homelessness record.
There is nothing Sinn Féin does to contribute to the building of a single private home or to the creation of a single private tenancy. It wants public homes-----
The Government lifted the ban on evictions.
-----on public land, but it talks to everybody-----
Absolutely shameful.
The Minister of State without interruption, please.
-----as though it would solve their problems but it will not solve a single tenant's problem, because it will push more and more landlords out.
The Government is pushing tenants out.
The Senator's party will not serve a single person who wants to buy a home in this State, nor will it create a private home or a private-----
The Minister of State is giving lectures on housing-----
I, and others, therefore, will vote for this legislation-----
Look at the record.
The Minister of State without interruption, please.
-----and for this very small tax credit, but the real problem is how landlords have been demonised and the Senator's party is, in large part, responsible for this situation.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Chambers, Lisa.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- McGahon, John.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Moynihan, Rebecca.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly; Níl, Senators Paul Gavan and Lynn Boylan.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Alice-Mary Higgins has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 19th June to 19th December, 2023, and the Whip of the Fianna Fáil Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fianna Fáil Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Higgins for the duration of her maternity leave.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 5 December 2023.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 4.49 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 5.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 4.49 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.