Pearse Doherty
Donegal · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad recommendation No. 2: To delete from the row dated "1 September 2026" down to and including the row dated "1 May 2030" and substitute the following: " 15 July 2026 €502.88 €502.88 €371.85 €371.85 €371.85 €0.00 €210.45 €172.14 €167.25 €79.17 €11.48 14 October 2026 €502.88 €502.88 €371.85 €371.85 €371.85 €0.…”
“Next week, this House will rise, the doors of Leinster House will be locked and Ministers will head off on their summer holidays. Their parting gift to ordinary Irish people across the State will be to have locked in fuel price increases that will hit them in their pockets.”
“That is not acceptable and it is why we in Sinn Féin have tabled this amendment to say that these price increases should not be going ahead and that prices should be properly monitored at the appropriate time.”
“This is tied to the latter amendment and I will speak further at length on that. Recommendation No. 1 deals with the diesel rebate scheme, which operates within a window that closes on 1 October.”
“Hope is what we rely on when we have no control. It is not a substitute for prudent economic planning. There is zero certainty here. There are no guarantees that the Strait of Hormuz will remain open or that global supply lines will not be choked tomorrow morning.”
“As if that were not good enough, the Government is not just hitting people with increases on petrol and diesel. On top of that, it is going to hit them with an increase in the cost of home heating oil, natural gas and a basic bag of coal.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,554 lines we hold for Pearse Doherty, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 32.
“Worse than that, the Government plans over the next five years to increase the cost of a fill of home heating oil by another €150. I have made the point that there are two ways to bring taxes in. Taxes are brought in either to raise revenue for the State to provide services that are required by its population and people or to affect behavioural change. Alternatively, they can be brought in for behavioural change, which is absolutely valid. I have agreed with it on different occasions in different areas, such as the sugar-sweetened drinks levy or the plastic bag levy. There are examples where it can work and all the rest. Increasing carbon tax on home heating oil, however, just makes homes and households poorer. That is the reality of it.”
“I move amendment No. 28: In page 91, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following: “Report on legislated increase to rates of Mineral Oil Tax 53. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the legislated increase to rates of mineral oil tax, including an analysis of the distributional impact.”. I have raised and referenced over and over again the issue of the continued increases in the carbon tax by this Government on petrol, diesel and home heating oil. This week, we see that the cost of a fill of home heating oil has gone up by €80 as a result of external factors, but that does not take away from the fact that the Government has been instrumental in pushing up the cost of a fill of home heating oil by a significant amount, €220, in terms of carbon tax so far.”
“The Government will not do it to banks, but it will put up the price for ordinary people. Motorists will have to pay more for home heating oil, petrol, diesel and the local property tax. They will have to pay more for bloody everything but when it comes to banks that are making €5 billion profit, the excuse the Minister for Finance is using to not do what I and Sinn Féin are asking is that he is protecting the public. He is not protecting the banks but, rather, the public - wink wink, nod nod. That is why he is allowing these two banks that make €5 billon profit to pay no tax. Some banks will not pay any tax for another ten years. Honest to God, Waterford Whispers News would not have a look in.”
“If I may finish, it is obvious the advice was given to the Tánaiste by bankers or somebody who is sympathetic to their situation. What does it translate to? If we ask banks to pay corporation tax on their €5 billion profit, they will increase the charges on Irish people. That is what the Tánaiste is saying. It is why the Government does not want to do anything and will allow the banks not to pay tax for another decade in some cases. That is the threat. God forbid we ask banks that are making €5 billion profit to pay the appropriate level of tax that everyone else pays. Indeed, under this measure, they would still be able to reduce their tax significantly because they would be able to carry 50% of their losses forward. It is just unbelievable that this has happened.”
“It is reverting back to what the late Brian Lenihan proposed, which was that as soon as they were profitable, they should be paying tax. It is unbelievable that there will be no tax paid. I understand how it works; if it is 50%, they will have the deferred assets for longer, but the fact is there will be no tax. We would be looking at AIB, 25 or 26 years on from the financial crisis, still not paying a cent in taxes, while making billions of euro in profits every year. It is ridiculous.”
“I intend to press this amendment. I do not dispute the history the Tánaiste outlined. The issue of capitalisation of the banks or the State having to provide additional capital, which was the excuse used at the time, does not pertain any more. The paper he referenced is a number of years old. The idea in it was about dividends to the State as a result of our shareholding and also recognising asset value. There is no asset value to be recognised now in AIB or Bank of Ireland. We do not get any dividends from them and the State is about to disengage entirely from Permanent TSB as well. This is about ensuring banks that are absolutely creaming it off the back of the Irish public and making €5 billion in profits pay a portion of tax.”
“It is likely that it will not be 2029 or the following year until Bank of Ireland is paying taxes because its losses can be carried forward. That is two decades after the crash. Permanent TSB is worse. It will be able to carry forward losses for another 12 years. It will be 2037 before Permanent TSB will have to start paying tax. I do not have the figure for AIB. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to how long he will allow AIB to not pay taxes in the State.”
“It is a wider point, but the reality is, as I mentioned, that banks in the State such as AIB and Bank of Ireland made €5 billion in profits between them last year and did not pay any tax to the State on that level of profit. That is absolutely appalling. Much of the profit being made is being made as a result of the interest rate environment and is off the back of the fact that they charge higher mortgage interest rates than our European competitors or the EU average. It is because people are being fleeced as a result of bank charges and so on. To add insult to injury, banks are not paying tax on that level of profit, which is not acceptable. I ask the Minister to provide clarity on the situation with AIB. We know Bank of Ireland will be able to carry forward losses for another three years until the end of 2028.”
“These are companies that only exist today because the taxpayer was forced to rescue them at that time and the Minister for Finance made it very clear in legislation that they should be treated differently and only allowed to carry forward 50% of their losses. In terms of what we allow in respect of carrying losses forward, we are out of kilter with competitors across the OECD. In some cases, there is a limit whereby companies can carry losses forward for ten years or cannot carry forward 100% of the losses all of the time. We do both. We allow for an undefined period of time. Companies can carry forward losses for eternity if the losses are there. We also allow them to carry forward 100% of losses.”
“As the Minister may recall, during the financial crisis, the Minister for Finance at the time, Brian Lenihan, introduced, through the NAMA Act, a measure that would ensure that banks would only be allowed to carry forward 50% of their losses, recognising, as he did at that time, that despite the fact the banks were about to incur tens of billions of euro in losses they would some day be profitable. I think it was in the Seanad he said at the time that as soon as the banks were profitable they should pay tax to the Irish taxpayer. We know that was the case for a number of years. The Fine Gael and Labour Government changed the rules to allow them to carry forward 100% of their losses. The Minister may say that is what happens with all normal companies in the State. That is fine, but these are not normal companies.”
“I move amendment No. 26: In page 86, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “Report on taxation of bailed-out banks 50. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the amount of tax revenue lost as a result of bailed-out banks facing no restriction on their ability to off-set corporation taxes using historic losses related to the crash and making specific reference to the number of years the bailed-out banks will be able to avoid tax into the future as a result of these deferred tax assets.”. This amendment relates to the fact that the banks in the State pay little or no tax as a result of a measure introduced by Fine Gael a number of years ago.”
“-----in relation to whether he believes that the 17,000 or 18,000 apartments that are being built are actually viable. If so, then why has the Government decided to provide hundreds of millions of euro into the pockets of developers for valuable apartments?”
“-----to the public that he is breaking, and the commitment he never made to developers, at least in public, that the Government was going to stuff hundreds of millions of euro into their pockets through a reduced VAT rate.”
“The Tánaiste did not address the fact that these companies are making huge profits in the first instance. I challenge the Tánaiste on this because he gave the impression in his comments that I was misrepresenting the promises he made to the electorate. In his response, will he explain? Did he not make the promise to reduce tax each year to workers? Did he not make the promise to provide a roadmap on childcare within 100 days? Did he not make the promise to reduce third level fees, which went up €500 compared with last year? Are these promises he did not make? Am I imagining things? Are the records and videos all false and AI generated?”
“I will. I will make the point, first of all, that I am not sure whether the Tánaiste withdraws the fact that it is about affordability, or does he agree with his predecessor that it is actually about so-called viability?”
“The Government broke all its public promises to renters, on childcare, and to the people who wanted the income tax relief it promised them.”
“The Government made the choice to put €390 million into the pockets of those same developers the following year for apartments that are currently under construction. Those are the wrong choice. They are the choices of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. They are the choices of a Government that does not have the backs of ordinary workers, because it has screwed them over. Again, the Government's priorities are clear. There are always winners and losers. Under Fine Gael, the winners in this case with this measure are the developers. I missed the press conference before the election where the Minister promised hundreds and hundreds of millions of euro to developers. Was that just a wee side, secret, private deal with them?”
“The Tánaiste will defend this at a time when the Government screwed over so many people in the budget, when it left people so much worse off, when it refused to deal with the cost-of-living crisis, when so many people are under pressure with their energy costs, when so many are under pressure with their petrol and diesel costs and when so many are finding it tough to put food on the table because of grocery price increases. Of course, the Tánaiste has to balance the books. Of course, he has to make sure that the Government's priorities are to the fore. Of course, there is not an endless amount of money available to the State. However, the Government made choices. It made the choice to put €250 million into the pockets of developers next year in respect of apartments that they are already building.”
“Of the €1.5 billion that this measure is going to cost for the three years that it will be in existence, however, over €600 million will go into the pockets of developers who are already building apartments. The Government has not even attempted to hide whose side it is on. I made the point earlier that these developers are making huge operational profits. The two largest companies in the State are publicly listed. Thankfully, they have to publish their accounts. We can see their operational profits of 20% and 21%, respectively. That is not somebody scrapping to get by; it is a massive transfer of wealth. The Government does that.”
“The Government is giving €640 million next year and the year after in a tax break to developers for apartments that are already being built. There are 18,000 apartments being built at present. Apartments that were sold last week benefited from this tax break. Apartments that are going to be sold next week will benefit from it. There are viable. If they were not viable, they would not be being built. The Tánaiste is talking about a measure and disclaims the fact that this is not about selective release, house prices, pushing up prices, etc. Let us pretend that is not the case for a moment. The Tánaiste is talking about a measure that is about releasing new apartments into the system.”
“We know that because apartments cannot be built in a year. It just cannot be done. On average, it takes two years to build apartments. VAT is paid, obviously, at the point of sale in arrears. Therefore, the vast majority - if not all - of any benefit that will be accrued next year or the year after will be in respect of apartments that are either under construction or about to go to construction. That is the level of deadweight involved. That is the amount of money we are talking about. I have called those in this Government serial wasters in the past. My party president has raised the issue of more waste that we have seen in terms of steps in a public park that cost more than €700,000. There are many examples of this but, by God, what we are discussing here takes the biscuit.”
“We talk about finance measures and an element of deadweight, basically, the effect of the measure and that maybe 30% or 40% of the activity that it is hoped to bring about would already happen even without the tax measure. Has there ever been a tax cut like this where 100% of the expenditure for next year, namely €250 million, is considered deadweight? Every apartment that will be the subject of reduced VAT is viable. Every one of them is currently under construction. The former Minister told me that, since it was introduced on budget day, this measure has already cost over €20 million. That is what it costs per month. It is not even just next year that the deadweight will apply. It will continue into 2027. The vast majority of the €390 million that this is going to cost in 2027 relates to apartments that are already under construction.”
“He was open, transparent and, indeed, honest. This is not about reducing the cost of apartments. It is not about affordability. The former Minister made clear that it cannot be both; it is about viability. What does viability translate as? It means that profits for developers have to be sufficient for them to decide to build out at this point. I have made the point that there is good research - this does not mean to say that it applies here - in Britain that looks at the market dominance of a number of players and how they use that dominance in terms of land hoarding, building selectively, releasing certain properties at certain times and squeezing the UK Government for more incentives. By God, did developers here squeeze the Government and get what they wanted.”
“I raised this issue earlier. We have later amendments in relation to the reduced VAT rate on apartments that have been ruled out of order. This amendment from Deputy O'Callaghan deals with the tax reliefs that have been brought in by the Government for property developers. The former Minister made the claim at the start of the debate on this Bill that this measure was designed to reduce the cost of apartments. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not about reducing the cost of apartments. I will again put on the record what the former Minister had to say only two weeks ago when he debated this issue with us at the finance committee. He stated: If we were to bring forward a measure like this, which would also be an affordability measure, logically, it could not be a viability measure at the same time. It cannot be both.”
“I want to see a report in relation to that. What assessment is going to be carried out in that regard? What early warning signals will let us know if this expansion is being exploited in a way that does not meet the objectives of the scheme? When are we likely to see some concrete data in relation to all of that?”
“When we debated this many years ago, the then Minister, Michael Noonan, said that with things like this, you bring them in, you review them, and if they are not working you get rid of them. He was making the point that you have to take a risk with some of these schemes. That is fine. I understand that you have to take a risk with schemes but you also have to ensure there are safeguards in place. The amendment is based on the scale of the reform, the expansion of eligibility for the scheme and developers being granted access to the scheme. That was an anti-avoidance measure. It was explicitly made clear that developers would not be allowed in this scheme. They are now being allowed in the scheme under the amendment included in the Finance Bill. We need to ensure that there are financial safeguards and that the objectives are met.”
“It did not really take off. Nearly every single Finance Bill was amended to expand the scope and criteria. The scheme has had an extremely low uptake. It is now being expanded again to include five other towns. From recollection, I believe that includes a town in my own county of Donegal. I have made the point that, based on the criteria, an argument could be made to allow Ballybofey, which probably has more vacancies than any other town in the county, to benefit from the initiative. The real issue here is that the scheme is being massively expanded. It is no longer just for Georgian buildings or buildings built before 1914 or whatever it was. It now applies to buildings built before 1974 or 1975. It was a date in that range. In some cases, there is no time limit whatsoever.”
“I move amendment No. 21: In page 43, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “Report on policy objectives and financial safeguards for Living Cities Initiative 30. The Minister shall, within 1 month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on policy objectives and the financial safeguards that are in place given the scale of the reform and expansion of the scheme in terms of eligibility and granting access to developers to the scheme.”. This amendment relates to the living cities initiative. This initiative has never taken off. If I am right, it was the brainchild of John Moran when he worked with the then Minister, Michael Noonan. He is now the directly elected mayor of Limerick. I could be wrong on this but I think it was focused on Limerick, inner-city Dublin and Georgian buildings.”
“It was legislated for in the Finance Bill just before the election, during the campaigning. That was a promise the Minister did not even make, but it is one he kept. He broke all of his promises to ordinary people. I will press the amendment.”
“The Minister did not have to bring forward other amendments in respect of the SFT. The Government has legislated for it to increase every year. That is why people are getting this €320,000 tax cut from Fine Gael. I must have missed that promise the Minister made. Which plinth was he standing on? During which press occasion during the general election campaign did he tell people he would provide a €320,000 tax break to people who have gold-plated pensions? I did not see anything like that in the run-up to the election.”
“I would argue there are ways, because we differentiate in the tax code in terms of the standard fund threshold and the chargeable excess already. There is already a differentiation between private workers and public sector workers and we can take that further in relation to exempting the income above the standard fund threshold for public sector workers. As such, there are a number of ways the Government could do this if it wants to genuinely deal with the issue of the very few public sector workers who are in that category of pensions in excess of €90,000 in the first instance. That is not the issue here. The issue here is that the Government has brought forward a massive tax break for wealthy people. Taxpayers' money is going into these people's pockets to supplement gold-plated pensions.”
“-----actually dealt with how we deal with public sector pensions, especially the issues with members of the Garda and fast-accruing pensions. The way he suggested doing that was to change the valuation rate for defined pensions. That is not what the Government has done, so do not be going into the box and saying this is about gardaí and all the rest and public sector pensions. If the Government wants to deal with public sector workers, de Buitléir has proposed a change to the valuation rate, which used to be a factor of 20 and is now a range of factors on a sliding scale. I raised this with the Minister's predecessor in relation to the appropriateness of that valuation factor and how many people outside the public sector have defined benefit schemes. These are questions we would need to tease out.”
“The Minister reached for public sector workers in relation to this massive tax break. A figure of €320,000 is unheard of. When you think about it, most people in the country do not earn anywhere near that and this is a tax break worth €320,000 to a really wealthy individual. It is unbelievable. The de Buitléir report, which the Minister may have had a chance to read-----”
“Financial advisers are advising people to transfer their pensions to Malta because there are tax advantages in doing so. Someone can transfer their pension to Malta if they want to. It is legal to do so but only under certain circumstances. It is illegal to do it for tax purposes. That has to be clamped down on. It is happening, just like the loophole I raised a couple of years ago. Financial advisers are telling people to do it. That is what is happening at the minute. It has been pointed out by the Department and other practitioners. This is happening. It is happening in a big way. It is people with serious wealth who are not happy with even the regime here and want more tax reductions. As I said, it is illegal to do it if you are doing it for tax purposes.”
“This is a tax break that the Government has decided to prioritise and that will only go to people who already have gold-plated pensions. It is not about somebody who is working in the local shop or a butcher or nurse. They are not benefiting from this. This involves people who have wealth and will decide where to put it. A further issue I wish to raise is one I have been raising since 2018. I put down a parliamentary question. I raised the issue of a pensions loophole and in fairness, the Government closed it last year but people with serious wealth benefited from that scheme. It took me two years to convince the Government to close it down. There is a serious amount of transfer relating to pensions that is plain to see.”
“It makes budgeting meaningless when the Government introduces a budget on budget night and says a measure like this will cost €10 million when it will cost multiples of that. Worse than that is when the Government introduces a budget and every year for the past five years, we know there will be billions more spent outside of the budget cycle. It is pathetic budgeting. We are talking about 12 months ahead. Of course we understand it in respect of things like the Covid pandemic or a flood of people fleeing war but the €2 billion on additional Estimates this year is not about any of those unforeseen things. Many of them were foreseen but were overruns or badly budgeted for or things like this. There is a wider issue about the standard fund threshold.”
“This is the nonsense we have from the Government about budgeting. I have made this point on numerous occasions. I have attended the Committee on Budgetary Oversight. Some of the stuff coming from the Government at the minute in terms of budgeting is ridiculous. I have been doing this as an Opposition spokesperson for a decade and a half. There is less transparency from the Government now than ever before. That is just fact. The budget book presented by the Government has less information that would allow us to decipher what is going on than ever before. Standstill costs always used to be there and be clear. They do not exist any more in terms of the budget book. It is worse than ever. What the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council called the Government out on is true.”
“They could have a pension of €85,000 every single year and have a tax-free lump sum in excess of €100,000 and still be under the standard fund threshold. This wee tax break that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil introduced that would benefit an individual to the tune of €320,000 is only available to people who already have pension pots in excess of €2 million. These people are already entitled to more than €85,000 of an annual return. Most people - my constituents and those of the Tánaiste - do not have a whiff of €85,000. This is not about supporting them because they are not getting to that point. This is about people with serious wealth who will now be able to avail of this tax break for only wealthy people. The Tánaiste claims it will cost €10 million. It will not cost €10 million.”
“For every euro a person puts in, for every €100, for every €10,000, the Government will give him or her 40% of that back in tax relief. That is the first thing an adviser will say. After that, they will talk to the person about investing elsewhere and so on. People with wealth will max this out. If I were in this position, had a pension of €2 million and had wealth at my disposal, of course, I would put the money in here because I would get 40% of it back, could draw down €200,000 of it tax free and €300,000 at a 20% rate and, after that, pay tax on a pension. This measure is only available to people who already have gold-plated pensions. The standard fund threshold is currently €2 million, which means that someone retiring at the age of 66 can get a pension of €85,000 and still be under the standard fund threshold.”
“It is not going to be €10 million. It will be multiples of that. When I pushed the Department on this, it told me that it was based on no behavioural change. It was based on existing claimants. Of course, there will be behavioural change. If the standard fund threshold is increased from €2 million to €2.8 million, it will be the biggest tax break for an individual that I have ever seen in a finance Bill. No tax break in my recollection benefited an individual to the tune of €320,000. That is what people will be able to gain from this measure. Of course, there will be behavioural change. Wealthy people will put more into their pensions as a result of this. If someone with spare cash goes to a financial adviser, the first thing the adviser will say is, "Have you maxxed out your pension?" because that is the best way to gain wealth.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 35, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “Report on costs of increasing standard fund threshold to €2,800,000 25. The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the costs of increasing the standard fund threshold to €2,800,000 taking account of behavioural change, clearly outlining the cost to the Exchequer, as well as the number of likely beneficiaries.”. I have raised the issue of the increase in the standard fund threshold from €2 million to €2.8 million on numerous occasions. I am sure the Tánaiste stands by the answers that have been given. He claims that the cost of this measure will be €10 million. I made the point in the finance committee that it will be laughable if this cost is €10 million.”
“I have raised this continually each year and I am going to raise it now with the Minister for the first time. That is a bygone day. That motor tax penalty comes from the days when tax discs had to be posted out and we did not even have computers or the Internet. That is how far back that goes. It is ridiculous that people are penalised because they cannot pay motor tax in one go, particularly now that motor discs are being got rid of. This needs to be got rid of as well. This is another penalty that is going to be on drivers. I do not agree with it and I will push it to a vote.”
“I hear what the Minister is saying regarding tapering, but that can be translated into different language. It means that, for individuals, they will see their tax increase in 2027, 2028 and 2029. It will continue to go up because the OMV will basically increase each of those years because the offset is being reduced. It also applies to carbon-neutral cars, which means we are going to tax individuals. I have said before to the Minister that when you look at motorists and what is happening at the minute, the Government has increased tolls. It decided not to offset those increases. The Government has increased the cost of petrol and diesel in this budget. Over and over again, we have this penalty for people who cannot pay their motor tax.”
“I understand the Government’s point that this is reverting back to the original provision in the Act. When it was tried originally, obviously, there was huge uproar at what the Government was attempting. The Minister stated that this is for environmental reasons and so on, but this applies to electric vehicles and electric, carbon-neutral vehicles as well. Will it not increase the tax liability on individuals who are driving the cars that fall into that category as well?”
“I am opposed to this section and, therefore, I have proposed these amendments to ensure that this tax increase will not be felt during these years. That is the subject of amendments Nos. 17 and 18.”
“I move amendment No. 17: In page 33, to delete lines 30 to 32, and substitute the following: ""(II) €10,000 for each of the years of assessment 2023 to 2028 (both years inclusive)",". These proposals apply to benefit-in-kind. There was an issue with a number of previous Finance Bills when the Government tried to do what it is doing here, which is reform the benefit-in-kind scheme. This will ultimately lead to a tax increase for many workers who are availing of company cars. The solution at that time was to introduce a €10,000 offset that allowed for the original market value, OMV, of the car to be reduced by €10,000. The Government now plans to phase that out from 2026 onwards, reducing it to €2,500 in 2028. The impact of this will be a tax increase. That is the impact of this. It is going to be a tax increase for employees.”
“The argument could be made that there is a reason for that but we need an overall look at the scheme with a view to getting back to the fact it is supposed to be export-orientated and supposed to be looking at new markets, but that is not a requirement or condition for application.”
“I have acknowledged that there has been a bit of tightening up in respect of issues with the scheme. However, a company does not have to be involved in exports at all to avail of it. If I set up a company in Donegal selling Irish flags but production was based in China and an employee of mine was in China looking at the production of those flags, I could avail of the scheme. That is not what it should be about. The scheme is about opening new markets and assisting companies to access those emerging markets. Further tightening up is needed. I support the scheme but did not support Russia's inclusion in it. As I said, there is a wider issue in terms of how it has expanded to take in different footprints around the globe.”
“I welcome the Tánaiste's response to this issue. In fairness to his predecessor, Paschal Donohoe acknowledged there was an issue. It was a mistake for the Government to bring forward an amendment to the Finance Bill that included Russia, as Deputies Timmins, Nash, Cian O'Callaghan and I highlighted. As the Tánaiste said, there was unanimity on this issue and it is to be welcomed that Russia is not included. There is a broader issue with the foreign earnings deduction. It has been expanded repeatedly. I have a map of the world in front of me that is nearly covered in terms of the locations to which the relief applies. There will be a need for a review of how it is working. There are changes in the Finance Bill in terms of the dates on which people must apply and so on.”
“-----is to seek a report and all of his predecessors would acknowledge that what is behind the amendment is a proposal to restrict the PRSI exemption to the Social Insurance Fund. If we put down an amendment that gave effect to that without seeking a report, it would be ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle, and that is no fault to her. They are the rules of the House. That is why it is required. My issue stands. We have campaigned on this for quite a while. It makes sense. I am frustrated by the go-slow nature of the Government. The Credit Review Bill is one example of this. I will press the amendment.”